Lords Sitting of 15 March 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in reference to Wolverhampton Corporation Bill I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FINANCIAL EMERGENCY ENACTMENTS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
VETERINARY SURGEONS (IRISH FREE STATE AGREEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; arid (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should not have troubled the House with the consideration of this Bill if I had not been assured that it had the approval of the Board of Trade and of His Majesty's Government. It is true that it is not in the Government programme, but I am assured that they will support it, and if it is passed by your Lordships' House assist, if there is any opportunity, in passing it through the House of Commons. I hope I shall not have to take up very much time in explaining it. The object of the Bill is to enable gas companies to co-operate with each other or with other companies doing similar work, and the most important feature of it is that it will enable them to dispose of their by-products more easily, more advantageously and more economically than they can under the Statutes under which they now work.
Under the Gas Statutes by which they are governed to-day smaller companies, although they are enjoined to put their by-products to the best possible use, are compelled to work them up on their own scheduled land and are not able to do so anywhere else. The provisions in

867
these Acts were not perhaps very far-sighted. They did not foresee the advantages of co-operation in the future. The object of this Bill is to enable any company, by taking shares in the operations of another company, to allow, say, their coke or their tar to be marketed by some other company already engaged in that business, or to enable two or three companies to combine together either in producing or in marketing their residuals. It is obvious that it would be a great convenience if there are three or four small companies not far apart, one of which wants to undertake one piece of work of this sort and another another, and so on, that their interests should be combined by taking shares, which is, I think, the most practical method of working together. The amount they can invest in another company is limited to one-tenth and there is a proviso on the second page of the Bill which means that it in no way interferes with any powers other undertakers may have which may be, perhaps, more advantageous than those the gas companies get.
We hear a great deal in these days about rationalisation. It is a convenient word which may mean a great deal or nothing, and when any one wants to talk about other people's business and explain what should be done, one generally says it ought to be rationalised. It used to be called correlation. What I personally believe it means is that arrangements to prevent over-lapping are brought about in an industry and I think this is a very good example of rationalisation. There are other forms we have known—forms which are sometimes imposed from without and are not always, in the opinion of some of us, successful; but this is a form of rationalisation suggested by those doing the business themselves, who understand the conditions under which they work and how those conditions could be improved. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree in thinking that the measure deserves our support, that we ought to enable companies to free themselves from obsolete restrictions, and that. the Bill should be to the advantage of both consumer and producer. I therefore beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Bridgeman.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, is not this a Private Bill which will have to go upstairs?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I think not.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think that question ought to be looked into. I have always understood that a Bill which dealt with private rights and not with the rights of the country as a whole was a Private Bill and had to go upstairs.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, after the very full statement of my noble friend it will not be necessary for me to detain you long, but I rise to intervene for a few moments on behalf of His Majesty's Government to say that they welcome the Bill and consider that, although it is doubtful whether the extended powers obtained by certain undertakers should be given to gas undertakers in general, it appears necessary that if the industry—pace Lord Banbury—rationalises itself, it should have the powers sought in the present Bill. I therefore hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and that it may be passed into law.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE EASTER ACT.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH asked His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to put in force the Easter Act of 18 & 19 Geo. V., 1928. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of putting His Majesty's Government to any embarrassment, but in the hope of getting encouragement and, I may also say, advice. With regard to the Easter Act passed on August 3, 1928, there are one or two points to which I think I might draw attention in explaining the object of my Question. After reciting the Acts which are repealed the operative provision states that there shall be substituted for words which are deleted from the Calendar (New Style) Act, 1750, words

869
to the effect that Easter" is always the first Sunday after the second Saturday is April." As I was a good deal responsible for this Act I might say in a few words why that date was chosen. It has nothing to do with the weather. Easter extends to every latitude and clime and the weather in England has nothing to do with fixing any date for Easter. This particular Sunday was chosen because it is now pretty well agreed that the greatest event in the world's history, the Crucifixion, took place on April 7 and the Sunday following would be April 9. This Act, therefore, might just as well read that Easter Sunday should always be on April 9 if that was a Sunday, and if not, the Sunday following.
This would be a very great and, I venture to think, a very beneficent change if it could be brought about. As we all know, Easter wanders about over a very large number of days—no less than thirty-five, or five weeks. It does so in accordance with the tables drawn up by Clavius for Pope Gregory XIII when the calendar was reformed. The great difficulty in this matter is that it is an impossibility to reconcile the solar and lunar calendars, but the moon adopted by Clavius for the purposes of his complicated and ingenious tables is not the real moon of the heavens, but a fictitious moon established for the purposes of the tables, and Professor Morgan has pointed that out in trenchant language., when he says this moon is a fictitious imitation put wrong on purpose partly to keep Easter out of the way of the Passover and partly for the convenience of calculations. The old controversies over the dates of Easter have long since died down, and Catholic authorities of the highest eminence have long supported a fixed date for the celebration of Easter. Christmas Day, commemorating the birth of our Lord, is fixed in the solar calendar for December 25, but Easter wanders about with a moon which is not really the real moon of the heavens, and I think it is obvious that the celebration of the death and resurrection of our Lord should not wander about for thirty-five days, unless there be some very convincing reason.
In this particular year Easter, as we all know, is very early. Good Friday falls on March 25. That also is Lady Day, and there is an old rhyme that:
"When our Lord falls in our Lady's lap, There will be a great mishap."
870
I only hope that that will not come true in this particular year. But besides the variations in the dates of Easter being very inconvenient to almost every single citizen of this country, it is also extremely inconvenient to the Church. There are many who celebrate Lady Day, which in old days used to be the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, and which this year falls on Good Friday. One ecclesiastic told me when it happened before that he would have to postpone the celebration to April 5. If Easter fell on a fixed date, as proposed in the Act, it would not only be a convenience to all the laity but would also divide the Christian year equally, and make the celebration of the various feasts and festivals very much more simple than at present.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships. You have been good enough to listen to me very often on this subject, and I only want to say a few words in asking my Question. I have here a table of the fluctuating Easters up to the year 1958. I see that in the year 1940 Easter will be almost as early as it can be according to the tables. It will be celebrated on March 24. In 1943 it will be on the very latest possible date—namely, April 25. Easter cannot come later than that and in 1943, which hope we shall all live to see, it will be on the latest possible date. I need hardly point out the great inconvenience that is caused in respect of schools, Universities, law terms, and, more especially, the great holidays of the people. I have received letters representing many thousands of cotton operatives who are very much put out by the variations of the Whitsuntide holidays. Also the great commercial concerns, the drapery trades, and even the shoemaking trades, are all unanimous in wishing that Easter and the Easter holidays should be fixed. I hope that the representative of the Government will give me some encouragement, and also some advice as to how to proceed.
There is one point in the Act which I hope can be made plain, and that is this. The Act—it is an Act for this country—fixes Easter for the first Sunday after the, second Saturday in April, and there are, some provisos. One of the provisos is that Resolutions must be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament. It is provided also that

871
"before making such draft order, regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body."
I do not know whether my noble friend can give me the exact meaning of "regard being had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body." I would like to know whether that means that any Church or other Christian body, by expressing an adverse opinion, can stop this reform, or whether, as I thought when the Bill was being drafted, it merely meant that Churches and other Christian bodies should be consulted before the Bill was actually put into operation.
I hope it may be possible to clear up that point. I ask this Question in the hope that we may get some encouragement. There are two things which I personally fear. The first is that impatience in this matter may reach such a point that this Act may be put into operation for this Empire alone. I should deprecate that personally. I would like to see this step taken for the whole of Christendom. Secondly, I hope that I may be given some advice as to how to approach the Holy See. This matter has been before the League of Nations. They addressed questions to all the representatives of the various religions, who said that so far as dogma was concerned there was absolutely no bar to the Act being passed. They also consulted the great industries of the whole of Europe, and I believe the response was absolutely in favour of a fixed date. With these few words I beg to ask the Question which I have put upon the Paper.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord who represents the Government replies, I think I ought to say something about this matter, which is one of very great importance. My noble friend Lord Desborough is always entitled to our congratulations, because I think he is the only member of the House who has really mastered the intricacies of the present methods of deciding the date of Easter, and I congratulate him on his monopoly of that distinction. I think also he is very much entitled to our sympathy. Year after year he has brought the matter forward. In 1928 he seemed to be within sight of the attainment of his long-desired object, and yet there is this delay. I
872
think the delay is the more regrettable because on three points there is very general agreement. There is general agreement upon the convenience of stabilising the date of Easter. There is almost unanimity on the part of the representatives of industrial, commercial, educational and judicial interests. There is general agreement among ecclesiastical authorities that there is no objection to the proposals of this Act on the grounds of dogma or of essential principles. The objections which are felt, and often very acutely felt, are sentimental, and I use the word "sentimental" in the best sense. They are based upon adherence to deeply rooted convictions and traditions. There is also general agreement as to the choice of the date proposed for this stabilised Easter. But in spite of this general agreement there remains the conviction, which certainly the Church of England strongly holds, that no action can be taken until the consent of all the leading Christian communities has been obtained; and that I suppose is the reason of the delay. The noble Lord has called your Lordships' attention to the provisions of the Act of 1928, particularly the one that provides that before any draft Order in Council is laid before the two Houses of Parliament regard should be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body. I think it right to call your Lordships' attention to the position in which we now stand with regard to these consents.
As you have heard, the matter has been taken up for some years now by the League of Nations. It has been dealt with by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee—which sounds an odd one to be considering questions of religious festivals—the Committee on Communications and Transit. That sub-committee issued a report in which it clearly said that the stabilisation of Easter is a reform on which the Christian religious communities would have to pronounce before anything decisive can be done. Accordingly great efforts were made to obtain the views of these religious communities and a conference was held in 1923 at which, by invitation, representatives of the Holy See, of the Œcumenical Patriarch and of the Archbishop of Canterbury were present, and that conference drew up a report in which, while making it plain that it was most desirable that this reform should be carried out, it also

873
said that" in the opinion of all, no reform of the calendar, and in particular no decision regarding the fixing of Easter—a question which is essentially a religious one—was practicable without an agreement between the various high religous authorities concerned".
Let me explain to your Lordships the position of the Church of England in this matter. It is twelve years, I think, since the noble Lord, Lord Desborongh, moved in this House that the Government should be invited to undertake a conference among religious authorities as well as public bodies, and my predecessor, Archbishop Davidson, said we should expect concurrence on the part of the Roman Catholic authorities and, failing that concurrence, we should have to consider our position; but, given this concurrence, so far as the Church of England is concerned, both at home and overseas, he was convinced that no objection would be made, and he said that after consulting the 250 Bishops from all parts of the world belonging to the Anglican communion, who were assembled for the Lambeth Conference of 1920. Again, in 1921, when the noble Lord moved the Second Reading of the parent of this Act of 1928, Archbishop Davidson moved an Amendment that steps should first be taken by His Majesty's Government to ascertain the views of Christian Churches in Europe, together with those of the civil authorities, and that the Bill should not be proceeded with till such information had been procured. I think that that Amendment was carried; at any rate, it had the effect of no proceedings being taken at the moment.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The debate was adjourned.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The debate was adjourned and, apparently, never renewed.
LORD DESBOROUGH: No.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Since then, in 1925, both Houses of Convocation of Canterbury dealt with this matter, and they resolved that there was no dogmatic reason why the Church should oppose a fixed date for Easter, but the Church of England could not consent to the proposed change unless it was accepted by the other Christian communions. Again, in 1929, after the passing of the Easter Act of
874
1928, each House of the Convocation of Canterbury passed the following resolution:
"In the event of general ecclesiastical concurrence with the object of the Easter Act, 1928, this House is of opinion that the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April should be adopted as Easter Day."
The Upper House of York Convocation adopted that resolution, but apparently the Lower House took no action. But your Lordships will see that that resolution is confined to the acceptance of the choice of the date, and stresses again the need of general ecclesiastical concurrence.
In 1930 I took advantage of the presence of the Metropolitans And the 300 Bishops who were present at the Lambeth Conference of that year, and they were unanimously of opinion—unanimously—speaking, many of them, for the great Dominions, that they were cordially in favour of the principle of stabilising Easter. They recognised the general convenience which would thus be met, but they were also unanimous that they could not contemplate consenting to it unless it had the concurrence of the great religious communions of the world. Last year the League of Nations had a conference on the matter, and invited me to send a representative, which I did, and he laid the attitude of the Church of England before the Committee of the League. And so the matter stands.
With regard to other Churches,, the Orthodox Church has always been, in general terms, in favour of the principle of stabilising Easter. That is a very great concession on their part, because your Lordships will remember that from time immemorial the Orthodox Church has clung to its own observance of Easter, which is different from that of the whole Church of the West; but it is now willing to consider the general reform of its calendar, and in particular the date of Easter. In 1924 the Œcumenical Patriarch communicated his view to the League of Nations that, subject to a common agreement being reached among the Christian Churches, the Orthodox Church would be prepared to pronounce in favour of the fixing of the date of Easter. The League has already received, so far as the Protestant Churches are concerned, intimation from eighty-two Churches or federations in all parts

875
of the world cordially favouring the principle of the stabilising of Easter.
Now comes the question of the attitude of the Holy See, and that is where the real difficulty at present stands in the way of the Act of 1928 being carried out. In 1921 Archbishop Davidson was able to read to your Lordships a letter from Cardinal Vaughan, in which he said, without speaking in any way officially:
"I have reason to believe that the attitude of the Holy See is one of willingness to sanction the proposed change provided there be a practically unanimous request to that effect from the principal Governments of the world. I do not think there is any likelihood of the Holy See taking any initiative in the matter."
It appears that since then there has been some stiffening of the hesitation on the part of the Holy See because, so far as the League of Nations is concerned, it was intimated to its Committee by the Apostolic Nuncio at Berne, that the Holy See did not consider there was sufficient reason for changing what has been the perpetual usage of the Church handed down by immemorial tradition and sanctioned by councils from early times. Even therefore if it was shown that some change in these conditions were demanded by the general good, the Holy See would not be prepared to consider the question except on the advice of an Œcumenical Council.
That is the present position and it is obvious therefore that the key of the position is in the hands of the Holy See. It is the largest and most widespread of all the Christian communions and it seems to me that its consent is essential to this matter being carried through. The existing divisions of Christendom are bad enough and we ought not needlessly to add to them. At present, excepting the Churches which pay allegiance to the Orthodox Church, the whole world observes one Easter Day. I stress the importance of there being that one day on which all Christians of whatever kind who care in any way for the observance of these stated times, should unite in observing the great fact upon which the Christian faith rests. Certainly, without the concurrence of the Holy See, I do not see how the condition which I have tried to show has always been stressed by the Church of England, could be satisfied, and it would be impossible, I think, so far as I can speak for the Church which
876
I represent, for it to give its consent. If any draft Order were proposed and laid before the Houses of Parliament I should feel bound to express that view very strongly.
So far as this country is concerned, I think we should all agree that while Parliament may settle for public convenience the question at what date the public holiday should be celebrated, it is not for Parliament to determine the question which day the Churches shall authorise for the religious observance of Easter. It might conceivably happen that the State should take the matter into its hands and prescribe that for the purposes of the customary holiday Easter should be regarded as falling on such and such a day, and, conceivably, that the Church would have to decide that for religious purposes Easter Day should be on some other day. That, I think, would be in many ways most unfortunate, but so far as I can see no essential question of principle would be involved.
I ought to add that there are other difficult questions which would have to be considered before this Act came into operation and which, I think, were not duly considered when it passed your Lordships' House. For example, I do not see how a change can be made in the calendar with the various consequent. changes in the Prayer Book without concurrent legislation on the part of the Church. But these are matters it is not necessary to consider now. I hope I have made it clear, and that the noble Lord who has asked this Question will not be in any doubt, that I have no sort of opposition to the principle of the Act. On the contrary, I am cordially in favour of it. I am only compelled to insist upon this matter of general ecclesiastical concurrence. I would very respectfully express the hope that the Holy See may be willing to give its approval to a proposal which is so widely supported, and that a reform which is ardently desired by the representatives of so many public interests and accepted as desirable by so many religions communities may be carried into effect.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, before a reply is made on behalf of the Government, I think it is important for your Lordships to see that this is not the simple question it appears

877
to be. In the first instance the proposal so often and so ably made by the noble Lord who introduced the discussion this afternoon was made for public convenience. On other occasions he has argued more fully to make it, quite plain that it is to the public advantage, in schools, in colleges, commercially, in Parliament and generally speaking in public life, that Easter should fall evenly in the time between January and August. Then comes the ecclesiastical question which is really so far different that the most rev. Primate has made it plain to us that it is possible for the Church to hold its Easter at one time and that the spring recess should take place at another time.
Then we come back again to the question of public convenience. It would he quite against the public advantage and altogether against public sentiment if the Easter holiday was going on at one time and the Church commemorated Good Friday, Easter Even, and Easter Day at another time. It would always be inevitable that at least those three days should be observed as specially holy and exceptional days in the community at large quite apart from any ecclesiastical propensities. I think it would be quite intolerable if the Roman Catholic Church or any other large body of Christians proposed to celebrate the ecclesiastical festival at a different time from the festival in the Church of England and at a different time from the spring holiday. What would happen if those who owe allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church found themselves bound to be away from their offices and their work, to observe the ecclesiastical festival, while all the time those who belong to the Church of England and other communities who had accepted the new Easter were working away as usual?
Therefore, the question is not quite as simple as it seems. It is primarily a question of convenience; but the public convenience of the holiday cannot be dissociated from the ecclesiastical occasion, which must be borne in mind. It is not only a Church point of view that shrinks from the thought that we in England or in the British Empire should be celebrating Easter at a different time from the Roman Catholic Church. It would in the end be a great public inconvenience if Easter was not cele-
878
brated simultaneously all over the Western world and if it did not coincide with the public holiday.
I have always had the fear on this subject, and I have heard a great many debates in your Lordships' House, that in the end it would be necessary, if all other difficulties were cleared away, to explain very carefully even to the people of England what has been happening. The most rev. Primate spoke of sentiment in the highest sense. I believe it would be found that there were a great many people not specially ecclesiastically minded, who had a very strong instinct that it was a mistake to alter Easter and to dissociate it from what we call the movements of the Paschal full moon. It would not be such a simple thing as dealing with Christmas Day. Christmas Day stands on a different footing. It does not profess at all accurately to represent the time of Our Lord's birth. I suppose it was instituted largely because there was at that time a festival in Rome and the Christians were wise enough to fix one of their celebrations to correspond with that festival. Anyone who has read the classics will know that a great many of the small details of our Christmas festivities—the giving of presents, the lighting of candles and so on—were taken over from the old festival. Christmas seems to me a simpler matter than Easter, and I fear when the time comes, though personally I am in favour of the proposal, we shall find that the sentiment of the people is against what we are proposing to do.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has returned to the charge, and brought up the question of a fixed Easter, the Act concerning which, we all remember, he was largely instrumental in putting on the Statute Book. I am afraid I cannot follow him into the astronomical part of what he said, although it was most interesting. I had never heard of the false moon and other matters about Easter to which he referred, but I can assure him that the Home Office have always been in favour of this measure, that steps have been taken, and that this matter is going forward, although perhaps it does not advance so quickly as he and I would wish. The most rev. Primate and the right rev. the Bishop of Norwich have

879
also spoken upon this subject, and the most rev. Primate has really given most of the information that I was intending to give to your Lordships; therefore my task in replying will not be a very long one. I shall not go into many of the questions that have been raised, because I only wish to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, who asked this Question.
I can only remind him that. when the Bill was discussed a definite pledge was given by the Home Secretary in the Second Reading debate that the Government would consult the Churches on the ecclesiastical aspects of the question, and communicate with other European Governments with a view to uniform action if possible. His Majesty's Government was informed that the Fourth General Conference on Communications and Transit of the League of Nations was about to meet for the purpose of discussing among other things the stabilisation of Easter and calendar reform. It was therefore decided to await the proceedings of this Conference in the hope that the full discussion of the matter there might lead to some general agreement among the European nations; and His Majesty's representative at the Conference was instructed to do all in his power to forward a general agreement upon the principle of a fixed Easter. The Conference was held in October last, and it adopted a resolution declaring, firstly, that certain Governments consider, from the economic and social standpoint, that the common good calls for the stabilisation of movable feasts; secondly, that most of the Governments whose representatives have expressed any opinion on the matter consider the most suitable date for Easter would be the Sunday following the second Saturday in April; thirdly, that the Council of the League of Nations be asked to bring the Act to the notice of the religious authorities concerned, with the hope that they would consider it in a favourable spirit; and, further, to notify Governments before April 30, 1933, of any views expressed by the religious authorities on the Act and on the action which they may propose to take upon it.
At its meeting last January the Council decided, as desired by the Conference, to bring the Act to the notice of the religious bodies after May 1, and it is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Govern-
880
ment that this communication to be made by the League of Nations to the religious authorities will meet with a favourable response. It will be noted that the Council has been asked to notify Governments before April 30, 1933, of the views expressed by the religious authorities, and the action which they propose to take. While there can be no question of an indefinite postponement, of the decision to be taken by the Government in regard to the application of the Easter Act, it seems obviously desirable to await the result of the communications to be made by the League to the religious authorities. I do not think there is any further information that I can give my noble friend, but I do assure him that, the Government are very anxious that this Easter Act should be put into force.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend and also to the most rev. Primate for their kindly encouragement.

WALLASEY HOUSING SCHEME.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had the following Notice on the Paper—To draw attention to the proposed sale of certain land acquired by the Wallasey Borough Council for the specific purpose of a rehousing scheme; to ask His Majesty's Government if it is their policy to permit land acquired for a specific purpose by a public body to be disposed of by them for another purpose, and if not, what steps they propose to take to prevent such dealings; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as long ago as the 14th October, 1924, the Wallasey Borough Council obtained an order from the Ministry of Health sanctioning a slum clearance scheme known as the Mersey Street Improvement Scheme, 1924. I am advised that an improvement scheme must be carried out by the local authority and not by anybody else. Having obtained this order from the Ministry of Health, the Wallasey Borough Council, pursuant to the order, took over the lands and houses comprised in that area, in the meantime not forgetting to draw rents from what was described as a disgrace. Only a few weeks ago was the last house pulled down. I have just been informed that the Liverpool Corporation at this very moment are pressing for the conveyance

881
of land in an unhealthy area, although they admit it is some years before they can use it all. In the meantime they propose to collect the rents.
A short résumé of the history of this particular slum clearance scheme in Wallasey is given in the Liverpool Daily Post, which says:
"A comprehensive scheme for demolishing the insanitary dwellings and rehousing the people on the site, with a neutral open space, was prepared in 1925, but the Ministry of Health decided that the site was too valuable for this purpose, and must be sold for development purposes."
That was within a year of a local inquiry which was held by the Minister, who allowed this order to be obtained for rehousing of the working classes, and within one year of that the Ministry says this land is too valuable for them. So it appears that in face of the well-known case ex-parte Davies, the King versus the Minister of Health, where it was laid down that the Minister has no power to vary an order changing the purposes for which land is acquired by a public body for the specific purpose of a rehousing scheme, the Minister is nevertheless conniving at the illegal attempt of the Wallasey Council to sell land acquired at a knock-out price for quite another purpose instead of rehousing or an open space. In short, the Borough Council supported by the Ministry is seeking to make a profit where they have no right so to do.
When I put this Question on the Paper I hoped, and indeed I assumed, that the Ministry would disapprove of a profit being made out of land acquired for the purpose of rehousing the working classes, tout if the history of the affair given by the Liverpool Daily Post is correct they not only do not disapprove but are a willing accessory to what amounts almost to a robbery. Surely it is only just in such circumstances that if the use to which land is to be put is altered as I have described, that the former owners should be compensated at a higher rate than mere site value less the old reduction factor. In this particular area, I believe, shortly before the scheme was sanctioned some of the land was valued for probate at about £580—roughly that is the figure. Taxation was paid on that amount. When the land was acquired by this local authority all the wretched owner got was £380. I suppose there
882
was no rebate from the Treasury. I do ask His Majesty's Government not to encourage local bodies to obtain land under improvement schemes and permit them to make a profit on it by resale. I hog to put the Question which is in my name, and to move for Papers.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I do not know anything about this particular Wallasey scheme, but I think we must all feel indebted to my noble friend for bringing this matter before the notice of your Lordships' House. It may be, of course, that when the order was made the Ministry made a mistake, and if they did make a mistake at the time it is quite within their province, it seems to me, to permit the land to be resold. We know that the Ministry very rightly does not allow too much land to be taken for housing purposes. If they did permit that it might entail great hardship upon the ratepayers. We must thank the noble Viscount for bringing this matter to the notice of the House because this is the only way in which questions of this kind can be brought up. As your Lordships are aware, there are no Provisional Orders now. The Ministry of Health can make an order and the only chance the individual has is that six weeks after the order has been made he can appeal. I hope therefore that my noble friend who will reply on behalf of the Government will make quite clear the merits of this ease. I am glad that the matter has been brought forward because it is one of considerable interest and public importance.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, like my noble friend I have no knowledge of this particular matter, but I gather from the speeches to which we have just listened that what has taken place is this: the local authority having bought land at a particular price because it was intended to rehouse the poor, now find that the land is worth more for other purposes. Having acquired it at a low price because it was intended for rehousing, they propose to resell it and put the difference in price into their own pockets and not to use the land for the purpose for which they obtained it. It may be, as my noble friend says, that the Ministry were quite right in saying that it is not in the interests of the ratepayers to buy land, say in the City of London, and house people on it, but on the other hand it is not right for a local

883
authority, having bought land for a given purpose at a given price, to turn round afterwards and resell it at a much higher price, without, as my noble friend behind me says, compensating the unfortunate owner. I hope that at any rate in this House the rights of owners of property will be given some attention. At the present moment, unfortunately, there seems to be a general idea that the holding of property is a wrong thing and that if you can rob a man who has got property so much the better. I do not hold that idea and I do not believe that that idea, should it grow, would be in the interests of the country. I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will give us some satisfactory explanation. I am sure that he is not on the side of people who want to take advantage of a legal quibble to put money into their own pockets.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I hope I may be excused from entering into a general debate on land nationalisation. I have been asked a specific Question, which I quite agree does arise, and must confine myself to answering that particular Question. The Question as put by my noble friend Viscount Bertie seems to me rather to imply that the Wallasey Corporation acquired this Mersey-street property for the specific purpose of a rehousing scheme. I do not quite follow the grounds on which he bases that contention. The specific object for which the land was acquired was for the purpose of clearing a slum area. I think it is quite true that the Corporation suggested in the first place that rehousing should take place on the same site, but the Ministry objected to that and decided that it might be better if the inhabitants were rehoused elsewhere. Accordingly the order gave the Corporation power to acquire the land and to demolish the buildings, and laid down that 530 persons of the working class should be rehoused according to plans which should be approved by the Minister. It certainly did not specify-that the site for rehousing should be the same as that which was being cleared.
In regard to the land to which my noble friend refers, Clause 5 of the Schedule to the order lays down very clearly the conditions under which it should be disposed of. It says:
884
"The Council may, with the consent of the Minister, sell or lease any of the land in the area or exchange any of that land for any other land within the area with or without payment for equality of exchange or appropriate any of that laud to any purpose for which they have power to hold land."
The Ministry cannot agree that the Wallasey Corporation have in any way gone beyond the bounds of that order. They have acquired the land, they have paid the proper compensation as laid down in the Act of Parliament and they have demolished the buildings. They have, on another site, rehoused the inhabitants, and I understand from the noble Viscount that they are now proposing to dispose of this land. Actually the Ministry have had no proposals regarding the sale of this land. The Ministry's policy in general regarding land acquired and found to be unnecessary is to approve of the sale of it at the best possible price, unless there is some very special reason to the contrary. In many cases the Minister has no discretion in the matter of land acquired under the Public Health Acts from 1875 onwards.
I think everybody will agree that it is undesirable for local authorities to acquire more land than they need, but it may be in the interests of the owner that they should acquire land. The owner may reasonably say if a local authority intends to buy a particular property that they should buy the whole of it and not leave him with oddments. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied that in this particular case the Minister has not misused his power. Actually the Department has no reason whatever to suppose that the Wallasey Corporation have acted ultra vires. If they have done so the correct procedure would be to raise the matter in the Courts. As to the contents of the order and the validity of the order, I would point out that it was made eight years ago and I think this is the first time that the contents of that order have been called in question. The noble Viscount quoted the Davies case. I am informed that that case is not really comparable to the Wallasey Corporation Order because in that case an injunction was obtained restraining or prohibiting the Minister from making an order at all. This order has been made and has been in existence

885
eight years. It gives the Corporation all the powers which they are exercising at this moment and really I fail to see how any question of the misuse of powers or any question of Ministerial policy can arise. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with this explanation.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, far from being satisfied I am rather shocked that the Ministry should not have looked on these deals as immoral. It is true that under Section 5 of the Schedule power was given to sell this land, but under the Davies case that was an illegal thing to do. The noble Viscount says let them get rid of little oddments, but this is a whole area and the Ministry of Health, having held a, local inquiry, gave permission for a scheme on this site and within one year said in effect: "No, that is too valuable, you must make some, other use of it."
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the order always specified that this land should be used for a demolition scheme. It never flowed for the land being used for a rehousing scheme.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not follow the grievance of Lord Bertie of Thame. It seems to me that the two interests concerned in this question are the owners of the slum area and the inhabitants of that area. The owners have received the appropriate compensation laid down by law for the area taken from them and the houses which have been demolished.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Site value only.
LOED MOUNT TEMPLE: They have received the compensation laid down by law. The inhabitants who are living in this slum area are to be removed or are being removed and will receive decent housing accommodation. It seems to me there can be no grievance. The slum owners are receiving appropriate compensation and the people who live in this horrible area are being rehoused.
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.

TRADE STATISTICS.
LOUD MARLEY LOUD MARLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to improve the statistical in-
886
formation upon which the calculation of the annual balance of trade of the United Kingdom is based; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few days ago we carried through a measure of the most far reaching importance, the Import Duties Act, and the principal reason given by Government spokesmen for its passage was that it was for the purpose of correcting the adverse balance of trade. From the Government Benches the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal pointed out that the figures under discussion were largely conjectural and were, in fact, a fallacy. My object in putting down this Question was to attempt to draw attention to the errors contained in those figures and to secure from the Government a statement that they were really going into the question of making the figures more accurate, so that if further legislation is based on them we may be sure it is based on something accurate and not something which is conjectural and a fallacy.
I desire to ask upon what information the figures are based. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House—we are sorry to understand that the noble and learned Viscount is away because he is not well and the House will wish him an early return to health—said rather complacently in the course of the debate on the Import Duties Act:
"The Board of Trade figures are compiled with the greatest impartiality by people who have made a lifelong study of the problem and who at least are more likely to be right than anyone else we can invite to form an estimate."
Nobody would question the impartiality of those who advise the Board of Trade but the Board of Trade themselves admit that their figures are inaccurate. They themselves constantly invite others outside the Board of Trade and the Civil Service to advise them, and constantly use the advice of private persons outside for correcting their figures. In the Board of Trade Journal for February 18 we are told that the Board went to Sir Robert Kindersley, who is a director of the Bank of England, and used his calculations for the purpose of effecting heavy alterations in the estimates the Board of Trade had previously put forward. Similarly, Sir Robert Kindersley and the Board of Trade used calculations published in the Economist and in another publication,

887
the Economic Journal, so that the Board of Trade do not apparently agree with the Leader of the House that they have within their own ranks the best possible advice. In point of fact there are no fewer than eight bodies or individuals who are advising the Board of Trade or whose advice might well be sought by the Board of Trade for the purpose of ensuring accuracy.
I have noted the publication of the figures in the Board of Trade Journal. The statistical tables of British and foreign trade in another Government publication disagree with the figures in the Board of Trade Journal. The Macmillan Committee again found differing figures, and then the various banks have gone into the matter themselves and criticised severely the figures used by the Board of Trade and suggested alternative plans for ensuring greater accuracy. There are fifty members of your Lordships' House who are directors of the great banks and they no doubt will support the banks in their criticism.
I venture to stress one item in the balance of payment figures which illustrates the inaccuracy to which I am drawing attention. I refer to the question of income from oversea investments. The Board of Trade in 1926, 1927 and 1928 estimated the income from oversea investments at £270,000,000. In 1929, owing to Sir Robert Kindersley's examination of the figures, they increased that to £285,000,000 for each of the previous three years, and they also put down £285,000,000 as the figure they estimated for 1929. In 1930, however, Sir Robert Kindersley again examined these figures and came to a different conclusion. In that year the Board of Trade put all the figures back again to £270,000,000. It is trying when you go from £270,000,000 to £285,000,000, and then two, three or four years later go back to £270,000,000. But that was not all, because in 1931 Sir Robert Kindersley, assisted by the Economist and the Economic Journal, again altered his figures to £250,000,000, and again the Board of Trade followed suit and put the figures back to £250,000,000 for the four previous years. That is an error of £35,000,000, upon which we are basing legislation of the most far-reaching and fundamental importance to the country. The element of flux in the Board of Trade figures is really
888
serious, and I do suggest that there might be an attempt at far greater accuracy, by using means which in fact are available.
In 1931 the Board of Trade estimate was £165,000,000 for this item of income from oversea investments. Let me point out the effect of this error, which is only one error in one item of nine or ten items included in the calculations, all of which are susceptible to errors of similar magnitude. The effect of these changes was that an estimated favourable trade balance in 1926 of £9,000,000 was turned into an estimated adverse trade balance of £26,000,000. In 1927 a favourable balance of £114,000,000 becomes a favourable balance of only £79,000,000. In 1928 a favourable balance of £152,000,000 becomes a favourable balance of only £117,000,000, and in 1930 a favourable balance of £40,000,000, we are now (old, may be a favourable balance of only £25,000,000. Heaven knows what the balance is going to be this year if the error is of the same magnitude. In 1926 there was no anxiety in the country and no call for tariffs because we had an un-favourable and adverse balance of £26,000,000. There was no panic, because we were not told by the Board of Trade anything about it. We seemed to go on quite well without worrying about an adverse balance, which we are now told was £26,000,000.
With regard to 1931, I would remind the House that even between the issue of the figures by the Board of Trade on February 18, and the date when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made his speech on February 29, an error had already crept in of £38,000,000, because the noble Viscount told us that the adverse balance was £113,000,000, whereas the Board of Trade figures on February 18 gave the adverse balance as £75,000,000. All this requires some explanation of how these enormous variations of figures come about. The Board of Trade of course admits that its figures are liable to error, and in the Board of Trade Journal for February 18 they say: "Doubtless the figures for 1931 will be revised in due course," as was done in previous years. That is really not good enough, because if we can have more accurate figures it is no good sitting back and saying that the figures will doubtless be revised. If they are going to be used

889
for legislation of the type introduced by the Government in the last few weeks, we are justified in asking whether the figures can be improved, and I would remind the House that outside critics of the figures, such as the great banks, are definitely of opinion that an immense measure of opinion is possible and easily ootainable.
Lloyds Bank Review for March, 1932, in an article not subject to any statement of non-responsibility on behalf of the bank—in other words an article for which the bank accepts full responsibility—reminds us that the adverse balance of trade "provided the occasion for the introduction of the tariff," and points out the difficulties of balance calculations. By an ingenious examination of the figures it pointed out that part at least of the revenue from tariffs would in effect be provided by British exporters. That surely requires examination and answer by the Board of Trade, because if it is accurate it is a most serious defect in the measure which has been put on the Statute Book based on the figures of the balance of trade. The Review goes on to say that this fact will prevent the help expected to our trade balance, and then uses these words:
"it is therefore incumbent upon the Government and its advisers to keep a keen and continual watch on the trend of our oversea trade with the specific object of seeing if the tariff is on balance proving a help or a hindrance to the rectification of the adverse trade balance."
Thus, after passing this legislation we have Lloyds Bank asking whether this is going to be a help or a hindrance to our adverse trade balance.
LOED BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We shall know in about two years time.
LORD MARLEY: If we have to wait two years before we know that it is not good enough. We should have the figures before then on which to base our legislation and modify our legislation, because the Tariff Commission is going to modify this tariff in order to put right an adverse balance the amount of which they are quite incapable of calculating. Again, in February, Lloyds Bank pointed out that "the situation is eminently unsatisfactory in its uncertainty." That is what must be so worrying to those who have the good of the country at heart and who desire that legislation
890
should be of a type to improve matters and not make them worse.
The Bank Review uses these words:
"The figures show the need for frank and whole-hearted co-operation by all the persons possessing the required information so that the public and the Government may be put in possession of the data necessary to show us where we stand and to guide us to a sound policy."
That is what every member of this House must desire for the purpose of securing adequate legislation.
Similarly, the Midland Bank, one of the most broadminded of all banks, the Chairman of which is Mr. McKenna, points out, that even the gold and merchandise statistics are liable to hopeless inaccuracy. I entirely agree with an observation which I heard fall from Lord Banbury, that we ought to nationalise the banks, and I hope that he will come and sit on this side of the House as soon as possible. The Midland Bank goes on to use these words:
" We mention these points"—
the inaccuracy of the figures—
"not because they, among others of a similar kind, can readily be taken into account—they cannot—but to suggest the error of accepting import and export statistics as final in this matter."
And they go on to say:
"It is clear on this point alone that arguments based upon tens of millions in our balance of payments are very insecurely founded."
That is what we want an answer upon—how is it that the Government is founding its legislation on such insecure foundations? The Midland Bank finally says that the point demonstrates "how important it is to avoid any argument or action based upon the superficial exactitude of the figures" of the balance of payments.
If I alone were expressing this opinion it would, of course, be perfectly worthless, but I am fortified by the Report of the Macmillan Committee on this subject. That Committee has pointed out, after months of examination of the whole question of the balance of payments, that the figures are inexact, and have been frequently heavily revised after publication. They go on to say:
"It is evident that there is so much guesswork in these figures as to render them liable to an unduly wide margin of inevitable error. It is only a matter of taking sufficient pains"—

891
and I emphasise this point in the Report—
"to make the figures reasonably accurate, and it is thoroughly worth while to make them accurate."
The Macmillan Committee then go on to explain how they can be made accurate. They suggest, for example, the collection of figures of foreign bills and balances, the collection of figures with regard to sinking funds, foreign loans, and other matters. I hesitate to mention the word "Russia" because noble Lords opposite usually lose all sense of proportion when Russia is mentioned, and talk about slave labour or nationalisation of women, or world plots, or the crushing out of religion, or matters of that kind. Nevertheless, if we have anything to learn from Russia we would surely be well advised to learn it, and Russia has established a system of balance of payments, based, I know, on rigid control of exports and imports, which at least might provide us with lessons either of what to copy or, as many noble Lords opposite would say, what to avoid. Certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, would benefit by an examination of facts and figures. I noticed in a letter to The Times that he claimed that we had had an adverse balance for many years of £100,000,000 a year.
I have attempted to show that the figures in the past have been inaccurate and unreliable. I have tried to support my demand for better figures by the statements of the great banks and by statements in the findings of the Macmillan Committee. I have tried to point out that greater accuracy is possible, and I very much hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will entirely agree with me in this matter, and will be able to assure your Lordships' House that the Government is going to put in order that department of the Board of Trade which deals with these matters, and secure that it has the fullest possible information available. I beg to move.
LOED TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it falls to me as representing the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House to reply to the very interesting but somewhat intricate question raised by the noble Lord opposite. I should have wished on this occasion—and the view will be shared by
892
your Lordships' House—that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary could have been a member of this House, because they would have been able, with their direct contact with these matters and their experience in the world of trade and business, to answer this Question, which is no easy one, far better than, I am afraid, I can hope to do. However, I need not say that I have been supplied, as is usual, by the very competent officials of the Board of Trade with what I consider a very complete answer to the noble Lord's Question, and if I should at all fail in answering his Question he must put it down, to my exposition and not to any shortcomings of theirs.
I must thank the noble Lord for sending me a note in which he mentioned the points which he was going to raise. This afternoon he brought forward many figures which he said were inaccurate, which had been produced during the last six or seven years. I must ask him to excuse me from dealing with them because I really am not prepared to do so. I propose to confine myself to the matters to which I thought he would confine his own remarks, and to the terms of his Notice, namely,
"To ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to improve the statistical information upon which the calculation of the annual balance of trade of the United Kingdom is based; and to move for Papers."
In preparing what has now become an annual estimate of the balance of credits and debits in transactions between the United Kingdom and other countries the Board of Trade has for many years made use of results reached by private investigators, in addition to relevant official data—namely, visible trade returns and Government transactions. One of the difficulties of this annual estimate—and it is the same whatever Government is in power—is that, even though at a later date important information regarding debits and credits may be made available, the material actually available at the moment always relates to years other than the most recent of those regarding which an estimate is to be made. For instance, if you wished to make an estimate for 1932, probably the nearest year upon which you could do so is either 1928 or 1929. It has therefore been neces-

893
sary to revise the figures of previous estimates prior to making a new estimate for the latest year.
The annual articles in the Board of Trade Journal, in which these estimates appear have for some time contained definite indications that the material available as a basis for the estimates was insufficient and somewhat untrustworthy. The necessity for new investigations has been stressed on numerous occasions, and the Board of Trade has been glad to welcome investigations made by competent persons and organisations. I should like to name three such investigations. First of all, a certain number of years ago the Chamber of Shipping undertook an important inquiry providing valuable material to test the soundness of estimates of the gross revenue derived from abroad from the services of the British mercantile marine, and I understand that, in response to an invitation, the, Chamber has invited certain of its members to supply some more information from the records of their personal experience. Secondly, we have investigations by the gentleman who was mentioned by my noble friend. I rather gather that he in some way found fault with the Board of Trade for consulting him—I do not think he really meant that—I mean, Sir Robert Kindersley. He investigated the question of the very important revenues derived from investment abroad of capital owned by British residents. The results were made public by him in a series of articles in the Economist, and I dare say some of your Lordships read them. The last article I think appeared in September, 1931. They have been very useful to the Board to effect adjustments of the estimates which were made before the results were available. I am glad to say that it is understood that Sir Robert Kindersley is engaged in still more of these researches and investigations, and the Board hope very much that he will continue to publish these articles, which are of the very greatest service. Thirdly, the Board have heard—this, I think, may be news to the noble Lord—with much satisfaction that the Bank of England proposes to conduct investigations into a most important group of payments—namely, commissions for various services, largely financial, together with short interest and cognate payments.
894
I mention these instances to show that the Board of Trade welcome help from persons and organisations in order that they may be assisted in framing as accurate estimates as possible. I should like to add that I am informed that since the crisis of last August the co-operation and liaison between the Board and business organisations in the City of London and elsewhere has been exceedingly close, and my right hon. friend the President hopes that this co-operation may be very largely extended and continued in future to the mutual advantage of both parties. My noble friend referred to the Macmillan Report. He said in his note to me, if he will not mind my quoting a private note, that he was going to ask me a question which he did not ask—whether the proposals of the Macmillan Committee for greater accuracy were going to be carried out. He probably intended to ask me that?
LORD MARLEY: Yes.
LOED TEMPLEMORE: Frankly, my Lords, while paying tribute to the value of this; Report, His Majesty's Government takes the view that some of the recommendations in the paragraphs to which I think the noble Lord referred, on pages 178 to 180, would be very difficult to enforce. The noble Lord read one extract from this Report; and I should like to read another. It says on page 180:
"In particular the amount of the receipts in respect of sinking funds on existing foreign loans …. should be regularly and precisely ascertained from the banks and issuing houses concerned. Foreign holdings in British companies, as to which the Economist has made some most interesting sample inquiries, should be ascertained in detail … ."
and so on. "Should be ascertained"—exactly. We should like them to be; but there is no compulsion about it. You must depend on their good will. We ask these houses and businesses to furnish the information. A great many of them do but some do not. No doubt in the well-ordered Socialist State, to which I dare say the noble Lord looks forward in, I hope, the distant future, when we are regulated from birth to death, these things will be compulsory and all will be for the best in the best of all Socialist worlds. But I must confess that I think that date is rather far off, and until that time we must depend to a considerable

895
extent on the good will of banks and other houses and the willingness of firms to help us.
I may add that the possibility of instituting inquiries, which, without imposing serious inconvenience on any of those concerned, may provide information more reliable than at present, is under consideration in the Department. It is a question of trying to help trade and we, at all events, consider that at a time when directors and boards and secretaries of companies are engaged in trying in many cases just to keep their concerns above water, it would be a fatal policy to worry them unnecessarily by asking for long and, perhaps, intricate reports to a Government Department. It is impossible to obtain an exact statement of the balance of payment in any year considering how many important items have to be estimated. The attempts to go into these matters in much greater detail are hampered of course by the need to avoid undue interference with the freedom of business operations and excessive demands for detailed returns in regard to the extent of those operations. The Board of Trade are only too glad to take advantage of useful ideas suggested by their critics. The noble Lord made out that this branch of the operations of the Board of Trade was, I think, exceedingly faulty in its work. On behalf of His Majesty's Government I cannot agree with that opinion and I think that, in view of the many improvements systematically introduced into the framing of these estimates, the Board of Trade may fairly claim that they can now provide figures as reliable as can reasonably be expected by practical people for practical purposes.
The noble Lord asked for Papers. The only Papers I have are the estimates of the balance of trade in the Board of Trade Journals which are available in the library and can be sent to any noble Lord who requires to have them. I am afraid I have no other Papers that I could lay. I have attempted to answer the noble Lord's questions as far as I can. Finally, I would say, as the House knows and I think no one will deny, that this Government came into being to take urgent and early action in the direction of two important matters—to reduce the really appalling figures of unemployment and to correct the serious
896
adverse balance of trade. I think I may claim on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we have not been idle at all events during the four and a half months that we have been in office. But we are only at the beginning. Other measures must be taken. Adjustments and alterations will no doubt be necessary in the tariff which we have imposed. For all that we must have the best and most accurate information available and I know that my right hon. friend and the Board will welcome any suggestions from the noble Lord, from any member of your Lordships' House or from anybody who likes to send them in order that the great object which we have in view may be carried out—namely, putting the unemployed men back to work and the trade and commerce of this country back into the position which it ought to hold.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who replied for the Government made the very best of an extraordinarily bad case. He has not attempted to deal with the claim I put forward that the Government had been legislating on admittedly inaccurate and unreliable figures. It appears that while the Board of Trade is to be given certain additional facilities and advice after the event by Sir Robert Kindersley, and advice on certain figures selected by the Bank of England, again after the event, no steps have been taken to provide that these advisers shall be actually consulting with the Board of Trade during the compilation of the figures.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: If the noble Lord will excuse me, I said that the Board of Trade were willing and anxious to consult with anybody. The whole idea is that these individuals and institutions shall be consulted more and more. I thought I made it clear that consultation was very close and would be closer.
LORD MARLEY: I understood the noble Lord to say that he hoped Sir Robert Kindersley would continue to publish his figures in the Economist and that the Board of Trade would then take them into account. My point was that these figures should be taken into account long before they are published in the Economist, and Sir Robert Kindersley should not merely examine such figures as he chooses but he should be definitely en-

897
gaged with the Board of Trade in examining the figures that the Government required. As the noble Lord pointed out, these are all private organisations, and they cannot be coerced.
The noble Lord asks for suggestions. I venture to suggest that the public ownership and control of the banks would ensure that the banks provided the information which they alone are capable of collecting, and that that information should then be available for the Government for the use of the new legislation which the noble Lord has foreshadowed. It seems to me that if we are only to have the alterations suggested by the noble Lord in providing new information for the Board of Trade, we shall continue to have inaccurate figures upon which to lay the foundations of new legislation, and the result of that of course must be serious errors in the legislative proposals of the Government. The effect will be that which we have already seen in four arid a half months of National Government—namely, an increase in unemployment figures, and a worsening of the alleged adverse balance of trade. It appears that the problem before the noble Lord is whether he will have Socialism or muddle, and he has suggested that he wants muddle. Well, I do not think it is good enough, and I believe that an increasing number of people are going to realise that it is only by national planning, by the national collection of information required for the national good—in other words, by the application of Socialism in our great public affairs—that we can secure that there is an adequate supply of accurate information.
I want to correct a statement which the noble Lord, no doubt unwittingly, made, that I was blaming the Board of Trade. I am not. I know that the officials of the Board of Trade are doing the very best they can with the inadequate help that the Government is giving. It is the Government I blame for not providing for the Board of Trade additional advice in various directions in order that their figures may be accurate. The noble Lord made no reply to the question I put with regard to the figures furnished by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House (Viscount Hailsham)—figures showing an enormous variation in the course of a few days, a variation from £113,000,000 alleged adverse balance of
898
trade on the 18th February to £75,000,000 a few days later, or vice versa. We know the explanation was that the noble and learned Viscount had misread the figures supplied by the Board of Trade, and had made, in addition to that, an error of £2,000,000 in his actual reading. It is serious that these inaccurate calculations should be relied upon by the Government, and I personally do not feel it is at all satisfactory that no further steps are being taken. I do not propose to press my Motion for Papers, because I realise that the noble Lord has no Papers he can lay, and that is one of the reasons why I am complaining against the Government.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT asked His Majesty's Government—

1, What is the cost of the International Labour Office at Geneva?

2, What is the salary of the Director of that office? What entertainment allowance is granted and whether there are any other emoluments connected with his office?

3, What is the salary of the Deputy Director, and what entertainment allowances are granted?

4, What portion of the general entertainment fund is allotted to the Director and Deputy Director of the Labour Office?

5, On how many days has the Director been absent from his duties in Geneva during the last seven years, and on how many days have the Director and Deputy Director been away at the same time during the last four years?

6, What work of advantage to Greater Britain has been done by the Inter national Labour Office since its creation?

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I ask the Questions which stand in my name, which I propose to do in a very few words, I would like, with your permission, to define my position in regard to them. I do so because on the last occasion I asked a question upon the subject of the League of Nations I received a considerable number of communications, some of them abusive and therefore harmless, and others congratulatory and therefore embarrassing

899
—congratulatory in the sense that it is imagined that I am tilting against the principle of the League of Nations itself. I am doing no such thing. The definition of my views on the subject of the League of Nations interests myself and perhaps not any of your Lordships, and I shall not, therefore, give it, but I think any one must, whatever his individual views may be upon the subject of the League of Nations, admit that there are many greater possibilities of conflagration in Europe than there ever were in any previous time that we can remember, and that some form of fire insurance or fire prevention is necessary. As such the League of Nations, whether or not it is able to deal with a major conflagration, does serve a very definite purpose.
My point in the series of Questions I am asking is not in any way to attack the principle of the League of Nations, but to attack the idea that because you have got a fire organisation you should therefore waste your money upon it, just as it might be said the ratepayers' money should be wasted to give an excessive allowance to a Lord Mayor or to his wife because there is a Lord Mayor, or an excessive allowance to the person who might be responsible for putting out a fire when it exists. I think there is very grave and serious waste, and that it is the duty of any one who happens to have information on the subject to place it before His Majesty's Government.
The first Question I ask is the cost of the International Labour Office at Geneva. We are spending an increasing sum of money upon that. No doubt the noble Earl who is to reply will tell us the exact figure. It is well over 8,000,000 francs or, say, £400,000 at the present time. Then the Director of that Office receives a salary of no less than 90,000 Swiss francs, which corresponds to nearly £6,000 of our money. Moreover, he receives an entertainment allowance of some 30,000 francs, which is just under £2,000. And that is not, as the noble Lord I am sure will tell us later, for his whole time service. It is really only a partial service that the Director gives in the course of a year. The salary of the Deputy Director, at a time when salaries have been reduced, I imagine, all over Europe, has been raised from
900
the sufficient sum of 65,000 to 75,000 Swiss francs, or £4,000 a year, with an entertainment allowance of very nearly £1,000. One would have thought that would have been sufficient for entertainment, but not at all. If you turn to the third Question your Lordships will see I am asking what portion of the general entertainment fund is allotted to the Director and Deputy Director of the Labour Office. I am informed, and I believe the information is correct—if I am pressed I am prepared to produce it—that a very considerable proportion of the entertainment fund allowance is used for the Labour Office also. Such sums as these are important, and we must ask what results do we get for them.
I do not wish to hear particularly about the statistical and informatory work which is being done. I am quite aware that a very large number of statistics have been collected and are being collected, but I am informed by those who use them that the chief characteristic of those statistics is that they are out of date before they are produced. With the Director of the department not spending the whole of the year at his office, with a Deputy who goes for long voyages away from the office, it is only natural that statistical and informatory matter is not kept up to date. The fact is, it is bad that we are spending so much money as £400,000—I mean the world is spending £400,000; our share is very much smaller, something between £50,000 and £60,000. It is bad that we are spending so much money on work of this sort, and it is serious that these expenses are continually going up at a time when every nation is doing its best to cut salaries and reduce expenditure. Whether it is in the ordinary expenses or whether in the provision of housing and offices, the tendency of the expenditure is to rise continually.
The estimates for the whole of our expenditure in connection with the League of Nations only amounted to £117,000 two years ago. The estimates now are £138,000, and with the fall in the value of the pound that means that we are called upon to subscribe just over £180,000 a year. I think that at the present time those who wish well to the League of Nations in carrying out its work and those who are doubtful about its utility should both take steps to see

901
that inquiry be made as to how the expenditure of the League can be kept down to the minimum. Unless we can be satisfied that this particular part of the League organisation, the International Labour Office, is doing really useful work which cannot be carried out by a small staff of statistical officers, its cost should be cut down to the very barest minimum compatible with the treaties we have entered into. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in rising to speak on this Question I must ask the indulgence of the House for one who is addressing it for the first time. I wish very sincerely that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, were here to put forward the case which should be put forward in favour of the International Labour Office and of course indirectly in favour of the League of Nations of which it is part. It was very pleasant indeed to hear that the noble Lord who has just spoken was in complete agreement with the general principles on which the League of Nations is founded, the most important of which is obviously the furtherance and maintenance of world peace. At the same time it is a truism of logic that to will the end is to will also the means. How can anyone desire earnestly to support the League in its work in the promotion of peace if, at the same time, the financial assistance on which this work absolutely depends is to be, if not entirely withdrawn, at any rate to a very considerable extent curtailed?
In case your Lordships' House is not aware of the extraordinarily valuable and important work which the International Labour Office has done since its inception shortly after the War, I should like to sketch very briefly some of its more important activities and achievements. The first and the most important of these activities is the amelioration of the conditions of work of the working classes in the different civilised industrial countries in the world. At the annual conference at the International Labour Office at Geneva measures are brought forward and discussed by representatives of the Governments, the employers and the employees of these different nations, and if passed they are sent to the various individual Governments for ratification. That is to say, the draft Convention which has no sovereign authority is sent
902
for approval to the individual Governments who, if they consider it to be in the real interests of the working classes in their country and in other countries, give their assent. In these two years much work has been done in improving the conditions and hours of work in different industrial countries. In these few years, my Lords—that is to say, giving the organisation a very short time to show its efficiency.
There is yet another aspect of this humanitarian work of the International Labour Office which has been of very great significance. Your Lordships are aware, no doubt, that since the break-up of the various Empires in Eastern and Central Europe after the War the new Nation States have started industrial organisation on the lines of the great industrial countries of the West. In order to start industry and commerce, not from the level at which industry and commerce started at the beginning of our industrial revolution but from the level that has been reached by civilised countries, these countries sent representatives to the International Labour Office to find out the conditions of work, the hours of work, the rate of wages, and so on, which exist in France and England and the United States and other industrial countries that have reached a high degree of development. This has exerted enormous influence on the interests of the working populations of those countries in which industry began quite recently.
But apart from the humanitarian work of the International Labour Office there is another side of its activities which is of the very greatest importance to ourselves and other nations. It is a unique source of information for students of political economy and for political economists, because every year it publishes volumes—large, heavy volumes, very indigestible for such humble students as myself—on problems such as unemployment, the level of wages, conditions of work and hours of work. I would suggest that this is not of purely academic interest, that it is not a purely abstract and intellectual motive that makes us desire to see that the political economist should have as much material as he needs for his work on the problems of industry, commerce and finance. It is quite clear that if only we can find the causes and conditions of terrible events in the civilised world such as unemploy-

903
ment, such as trade depression, then it is within the scope of the human will to alter those causes and conditions—that is to say, to establish prosperity. It is not possible for us to know the manifold and intricate causes that lie behind these great problems on which the welfare of mankind depends unless we have the information and unless the student can obtain the information which comes straight from the sources themselves.
On these two grounds I suggest that the International Labour Office has done work in the past of the greatest importance and value to ourselves and to other nations, and I would urge that any withdrawal of support, however slight, on the part of the British Government would involve a certain suspicion on the part of other Governments and other peoples that the British Government was not as favourable as in the past to the work of the League of Nations. Clearly, if once people are suspicious of the sincerity of the British Government in support of the League of Nations the cause of world peace is threatened by a very, very serious blow. To diminish by however small an extent our support of the International Labour Office is to imperil the cause of world peace by creating a state of public opinion in which the British Government is regarded as only half-hearted in the work it does for the League and in the principles which it professes.
Finally, my Lords, let me suggest that the very few thousands of pounds we spend annually on the International Labour Office and even on the League of Nations—the total amounts, I believe, to very little more than £100,000 per annum—is a very small sum. It is not going to create any vast difference in our Budget as a whole, which amounts, if I aim not mistaken, to something like £700,000,000 per annum. I suggest that it is in the interests of peace and the progress of humanity that we should continue to give all the support we have given in the past to both the International Labour Office and the League of Nations.
LOKD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has told us that £100,000 is a very small sum. I am sorry that I do not agree with the noble Earl. I think it is a very large sum and at present we ought
904
to consider whether or not it is advisable to go on spending it. The noble Earl has not really answered the question which Lord Lovat raised. The last question he raised was as to what work of advantage to Greater Britain has been done by the International Labour Office since its creation. The noble Lord opposite tells us that foreign countries have gained. I do not care about foreign countries. I am mainly thinking about my own country. I want to know what advantage anybody in England has gained by spending £100,000 a year on giving certain gentlemen, as I understand it, £6,000 a year to entertain. Whom do they entertain? Is it the noble Lord opposite when he goes abroad to find out statistics for the student? I do not want statistics for the student. I want to see our country returning to the prosperity it had a few years ago. All these wonderful things and all these statistics that are issued will only result in putting off that good day and in encouraging absurd ideas which are unfortunately held by a certain number of people in this country.
I do not gather that Lord Lovat said anything about the original reasons for the establishment of the League of Nations. I have always had one idea about the League of Nations. I have never hesitated to express it, but I do not think it would be in order to do so now, as I do not see that this has anything to do with the object for which the League of Nations was originally established—that is, to maintain the peace of the world. This merely deals with the payments to two gentlemen who are apparently collecting statistics as to the rate of wages and the hours of labour in foreign countries. I do not know that that information is of a very useful sort for the trade unions to learn. Unless I am much mistaken, in every country except America the wages are lower and the hours longer than in this country, and the only result therefore, as far as I can see, of getting this information would be to make the trade unions think that the best thing they can do is to work harder—which I think is the right thing to do—and to take a little less for doing it. I should like to thank Lord Lovat for bringing this matter forward. We are all too much afraid of taking a strong line upon a question for fear of what somebody may say and lest we are interfering with the peace of the world.

905
This has nothing to do with the peace of the world. All it has to do with is—is it worth while to spend £100,000 on collecting statistics which, when we have had them, have been of no use whatever?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, my noble friend will not expect me to go into the whole question of the League of Nations at this hour or to discuss at length what the International Labour Office has to do with the preservation of peace. But I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his new recruit. Many of us regret seriously that the Party which the noble Lord leads is so small. We feel it is very difficult to get a debate because, while the noble Lord and his one or two supporters do their best to heckle us, to extract information and to make criticism, it comes from few sources. We are therefore particularly glad when we find another recruit who is obviously going to be of great value to the noble Lord in future debates. We hope we shall often hear him and from a long experience in this House—I am afraid my maiden speech was delivered more than twenty years ago—I will tell him that there is no Chamber and no place where he will get as fair a hearing and as much assistance as from the members of this House. Whether they agree with his views or not, and he will find he will have every opportunity of putting forward his views fully and frankly. All this House desires is that a man shall say what he thinks and not try to make a case because he thinks it may be popular.
If I may come to the Questions on the Paper the net total expenditure of the International Labour Office in 1930, the last year for which figures are available, was 8,243,415 Swiss francs. If you take the par rate of exchange that works out at £326,860. The net total budget for the current year, 1932, is 8,792,290 Swiss francs, and so the noble Lord will see that it has gone up slightly. The contribution paid by this country towards the cost of the International Labour Office is 10.5 per cent. of the whole, which in 1932 will amount to 923,652 Swiss francs, and the amount provided in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour to meet this charge is £54,000, after making allowance for the fall in the rate of exchange. Lord
906
Banbury will see that £54,000 is at any rate better than £100,000. The proportion of the whole cost of the International Labour Office to be borne by the respective countries is fixed by the Assembly of the League of Nations. It is this body also which approves its budget, and my noble friend will therefore see that although our representative may make his remarks heard he at any rate is only one amongst those present at the meetings, and he cannot lay down exactly what the International Labour Office will spend. I disagree with the noble Earl who spoke opposite because it by no means follows that if you reduce the amount of money spent you necessarily reduce efficiency. I think it is often found that even if you reduce expenditure you none the less get better value for your money.
Turning now to the second Question on the Paper, the salary of the Director is 90,000 Swiss francs per annum. Perhaps it is hardly fair to take the exchange at the lowest rate, but at the par rate of exchange it works out at £3,600. He also receives an additional entertainment allowance of 30,000 Swiss francs, but no other emoluments. The salary of the Deputy Director is 75,000 Swiss francs per annum. This salary has recently been raised to its present figure from that of 65,000 Swiss francs, on the recommendation of a recent Committee of Inquiry into the staffing and organisation of the League. The reason for the increase was to put the Deputy Director upon an equality with the Under Secretaries General of the League Secretariat. The Assembly of the League adopted the Committee's recommendation. Hence the Deputy Director received a further 10,000 Swiss francs a year. In addition he receives an entertainment allowance of 12,500 Swiss francs per annum.
With regard to the fourth Question on the Paper, the general entertainment fund was formed in 1921 by the surrender on the part of the Director, Deputy Director and Chairman of the Governing Body of half their previous entertainment allowances. These, in the cases of the Director and Deputy Director, formed part of the emoluments specified in their contracts. The amount of this fund is now 30,000 Swiss francs per annum. Information as to the officials who have drawn upon the fund, and the

907
amounts that they have drawn, is given to the Finance Committee of the Governing Body in the strictest confidence, and I am therefore afraid that His Majesty's Government is not in a position to tell my noble friend how this pooled fund for entertainment is expended by the various officials. All we can tell him is that apparently practically the whole of it is spent each year. The position is the same with regard to the next Question. Detailed information of the journeys undertaken each year by the Director, Deputy Director and senior officials are circulated confidentially to the Finance Committee, and the reply on this point therefore will be the same. I am afraid the Government is not in a position to give the information asked for.
As regards the last Question on the Paper, I could, of course, give my noble friend a long list of the number of questions which have been placed before the Labour Office, and the very large number of agreements which have been come to. There is a large form in front of me which shows that there have been some thirty-two Conventions, of which a very large number have been ratified, but probably my noble friend agrees with me that ratification is not the whole story, because it depends very much how far a nation brings into operation the Conventions it adopts. There are, of course, often very different standards as between one nation and another. I can say this, that each year there is an assembly of the nations attending the Labour Office, and they compare notes as to what has happened in each country. As your Lordships will agree, social legislation and the general standard of living are certainly higher in this country and in our Dominions than in any other country, except possibly the United States. The result is that when we bring information before the Labour Office as to what we are doing, it encourages other nations to try and follow our example, and as they succeed in raising the standard in other countries so it becomes less difficult for us to export our goods to other countries. I think the noble Lord cannot deny that it is very much to our advantage to raise the standard of living in other countries, so that the goods which they sell are quite as highly priced as ours.
908
My noble friend Lord Banbury is, I know, a pessimist, but I am an optimist. There has been an amount of legislation on social subjects which indicates progress towards better conditions, and although it is impossible to say how far it is due to the International Labour Office, I think that Office can claim to have forced these various subjects upon the attention of Governments through its annual conference. I must apologise for not having been able to answer the questions more fully, but, as my noble friend knows, the International Labour Office is not part of the work which I have to do at the War Office, and therefore I had to speak to a brief which, good as it is, is not the same thing as if I were speaking on a subject with which I am daily familiar.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I cannot say that I am in the least degree satisfied with the answer. I think it is most regrettable that the facts should be concealed as to how the money for this lavish entertainment is spent, and it is still more regrettable that we are unable to be informed how much of the time of the Director and of the Deputy Director is spent in the work of their offices. I am not criticising our representative, who I have no doubt earns his salary, but I think it is regrettable that at a time when we are all making economies we should spend £54,000 a year in doing something which confers absolutely no benefit, so far as we have heard to-night from the noble Earl opposite, whom I congratulate upon his maiden speech, or from the Government Front Bench. If one comes to think of it, some of the things that really might be done which are not done because the Government are cutting down at the present time, are of the highest value. They are cutting off the whole of the organisation which we have for sending our nationals abroad for settlement overseas. While we are cutting down every single item of expenditure in that direction, we are throwing 54,000 good English sovereigns into the sea and accomplishing practically nothing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl moves the adjournment of the House perhaps he can tell us what

909
will be the course of business between now and the rising of the House for the Easter Recess.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that, but I can give information regarding the rest of this week. As the noble Lord knows, there is a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, about Liberia to-morrow, and I was about to give notice that on Thursday the Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill is due to come kef ore us on Second Heading and to pass through all its stages. It has been read a first time to-day. I think there is nothing else on the Paper for that day except the Committee stage of the Gas Undertakings Bill, and then there is nothing else for this week.
LORD MARLEY: Do I understand that we are again going to have legislation rushed by taking this Bill through all its stages, including the Royal Assent, on Thursday?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
LORD MARLEY: Is there any business for Tuesday of next week?
EARL STANHOPE: I believe that Lord Lovat has a Motion down, I should add that I understand that the Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill is required to pass through at once in order to get the Royal Assent so as to continue legislation which is necessary.
910
I believe it is a very short Bill of only one clause, so that I hope that your Lordships, who have discussed the whole question already, will be prepared to give it a quick passage. That being the case, I beg to give Notice now that a Motion will be put down for the Second Reading of this Bill, and for the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order to pass it through all its stages on Thursday next, as it is desired that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent on that day.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to enter an emphatic protest against this rushing of legislation. It has been the persistent practice of the present Government during the last four and a half months. It surely would have been possible to have foreseen this pressure of legislation, and to have introduced the Bill into the House of Commons at an earlier date. I trust that the noble Earl will convey that emphatic protest to the proper quarter.
EARL STANHOPE: I will certainly convey the noble Lord's protest, but I am sure that if the noble Lord lives long enough to sit again on this Bench, he will find himself in precisely the position I am now in, and that legislation will still be coming up when there is not adequate time for its discussion in this House. It has happened ever since I have been in Parliament.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.