Sitting of 2 May 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Exeter, in the room of the Right Hon. Henry Edward Duke, K.C., a Lord Justice of Appeal—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
DUTCH SHIPS (REQUISITIONING) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 11, 1918).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Netherlands Government respecting the Requisitioning of Dutch Ships by the Associated Governments [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Growing Grain Crops Order, 1918, Meat Rationing Order, 1918, Directions relating to the amount of the Ration and use of Cards and Coupons, Potato (Restriction) Order, 1918, Potatoes (Growers' Returns) Order, 1918, Freshwater Fish Order, 1918, Bacon, Ham, and Lard (Provisional Prices) Order, 1917, Amendment Order, 1918, and Butter (Maximum Prices) (Ireland) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MUNITIONS (HEALTH OF MUNITION WORKERS).
Copy presented of Memorandum, No. 21 (Investigation of the Factors concerned in the causation of Industrial Accidents), by
1674
the Health of Munition Workers' Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd April, 1918, made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Corn Production Act, 1917, with respect to the Tenure of Office and Procedure of District Wages Committees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd April, 1918, made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Corn Production Act, 1917, with respect to the Tenure of Office and Procedure of the Central Agricultural Wages Committee for Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court under Section 1 (5) of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918, dated 30th April, 1918 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to the state of affairs in Petrograd?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Mr. Leverton Harris): My right hon. Friend desires me to express his regret that he cannot be present this afternoon, and asks me to reply to his questions.
    If the hon. Member refers—as I suppose he does—to the report in the Press that a counter-revolution has broken out in Petrograd, the Secretary of State has received no official confirmation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we have got any representative at all in Petrograd?
    Mr. HARRIS: That question had better be put to my right hon. Friend.

    EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the letter from the Emperor of Austria making suggestions for a peace settlement in March, 1917, and the correspondence which followed were submitted to the Prime Minister; whether the Prime Minister informed his colleagues; whether all information as to the negotiations which were being carried on with Austria was withheld from the Governments of Russia, Belgium, and the United States; whether an investigation into these secret negotiations is now being conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Chamber; and what opportunity will be afforded to this House to elicit the facts?
    Mr. HARRIS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned on this subject to the hon. Member for Hanley on 15th April, and to that which the Secretary of State gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Hexham Division, to which, I am afraid, I can add nothing.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in addition to the declaration of the French Chamber, which he informed the House yesterday would be communicated to this House, he would also give a report of the action of His Majesty's Government towards the negotiations initiated by the Emperor Karl, all of which were communicated to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. HARRIS: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to adhere to the reply to the hon. Member for Hanley, that he will make no statement on this subject, in view of the fact that the letter of the Emperor Charles is only the latest indication that a year ago the Government had the basis of a just and an honourable peace, and that millions of men are dying?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Prime Minister settled the matter of peace or war without reference to him, at the cost of a million of lives?

    SOUTHERN SLAVS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that at the request of the Austrian Government the Vatican has instructed the Papal Nuncio to open a disciplinary inquiry into the case of the Prince Archbishop of Laibach on the charge of favouring the movement for unification and emancipation of the Southern Slav peoples?
    Mr. HARRIS: The Secretary of State has seen a report to this effect in the Press, and is making inquiries about it.

    CEMENT EXPORTS TO HOLLAND.
    General CROFTasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee which has recently reported on the exports of cement to Holland took any steps to send an expert from this country to Holland to trace the ultimate destination of the cement on its delivery in Holland?
    Mr. HARRIS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to paragraph 8 of the Report of the Committee, which appears to answer this question.

    HUNGER STRIKERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who have gone on hunger strike and or have been too ill to continue their imprisonment, respectively, have been released under the Temporary Discharge Act in order to return later to complete their sentences during the first four months of 1918; how many during the corresponding period of 1917; and how many of those released were conscientious objectors to military service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): Six prisoners have been released under the Act in question during the first four months of this year. Five of them claimed to be conscientious objectors. There were no cases during the corresponding period of last year.

    BAYSWATER (RICHMOND ROAD) POST OFFICE.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether Heiss is still in charge of the post and telegraph office at Richmond Road, Bayswater; is he a German baker; and when was he naturalised?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I have been asked to reply to this question. The office was closed last October. The sub-postmaster was British born, and his father was naturalised.

    KEIGHLEY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Home Secretary whether two men, calling themselves Eckroyd and Neighbour, both wearing silver badges and posing as theatrical agents, are employed at York centre as secret agents; whether these men in the recent by-election at Keighley stayed at the Waverley Hotel, Low Street, and endeavoured by means of provocative questions to entrap visitors into conversation, the one talking and the other, under pretence of writing letters, taking down a report of the conversation; and whether these men wove furnished with papers giving them access to public or private buildings at any hour, and also giving them, in certain circumstances, the power of arrest?
    Sir G. CAVE: I had heard nothing of this matter before notice was given of this question. I have made such inquiries as time permitted, and the result negatives the suggestions that these two men, whatever their business may have been, were acting as agents of any Government Department, or that they were furnished with papers of the nature referred to in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that these men were wearing these silver badges legitimately?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have given the result of my inquiries, which I think answers the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that a great many men are wearing these badges, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries and ascertain, apart from this question, whether those men were wearing silver badges legitimately?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will have inquiries made.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RAILWAY SERVANTS (EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service whether the exemptions from military service granted by railway companies to railway servants in their head office and administration departments are given simply on the recommendations of the general managers or other officials, or whether any tribunals hear and decide on the merits in each case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): All railwaymen are protected from military service under arrangements originally made between the War Office and the Railway Executive Committee and continued by the Ministry of National Service. The release of railway servants for military service is carried out under the instructions of the Railway Executive Committee, and in agreement with the men's representatives. By this agreement, men are released in order of medical grade, age, marital condition, and number of children. Any man considering himself to be released out of his turn has the right of appeal to an independent Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, presided over by Mr. Courthope Munro, K.C., and accepted by the Railway Executive Committee and the men's unions. Railwaymen have the same rights of appeal to tribunals on other than occupational grounds as are enjoyed by other men.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the head offices, and those especially under the control of general managers, there is a feeling of dissatisfaction because of the alleged favouritism which goes on?
    Mr. BECK: I am not aware of that, but I think my answer sets out the machinery which ought to prevent such favouritism.

    BRADFORD TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that, in consequence of the issue of a Proclamation by virtue of the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, the Bradford local military service tribunal has been unable to grant total exemption from military service to Frank Cockroft, 23, Old Road, Great Horton, Bradford, aged nineteen, Group A, the only son left at home of parents who, at the beginning of the War,

    1679
    had five sons, two of their other sons having been killed in action, one being now a prisoner of war in, Germany, and another being on active service in France; if, having regard to the fact that the parents of the young man in question have already lost two sons and one son-in-law in the War and have one son and a son-in-law on active service in France and one son who is a prisoner of war, he will take steps to have the Proclamation; amended so as to allow total exemption in this and other similar cases; and if, in the meantime, he will ratify the decision of the Bradford local military service tribunal to grant exemption to Frank Cockroft until 1st December next?
    Mr. BECK: I was not aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. The conditions of the Proclamation were very carefully considered by the Government, and it was decided that, in view of the urgent necessity of the present time, the exceptions must be limited to the extent provided in the Proclamation.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service how many discharged soldiers and sailors have up to the present been put to learn the trade of brush making?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. Only two discharged disabled men who have been trained in brush making at the expense of the Ministry of Pensions. Nine others are at present in training. I may perhaps remind the hon. Member that the Ministry of Pensions can only provide training for men who are prevented by their disablement from resuming their former occupations, and that consequently there may be other discharged men now learning the trade of brush making who are not on the books of my Department.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my hon. and gallant Friend include the blind men at St. Dunstan's?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, they are not included; they are not on the books of the Department.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why are the men employed at St. Dunstan's not on the books of the Department?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Because their training at St. Dunstan's is conducted privately.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, it is not!

    ARMY RESERVE MUNITION WORKERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service what is now the position of men enrolled as A.R.V.W. in relation to the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. BECK: The position of Army Reserve munition workers in relation to the Military Service Acts is that they cannot be called up except with the consent of the Ministry of Munitions.

    MEDICAL STUDENTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service what is the present position, in relation to military service, of medical students of the various years of training; and whether all medical students taken into the Army are put into the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Mr. BECK: The present position of medical students in relation to military service is determined by National Service Instruction 35 of 1918, and Army Council Instruction 153 of 1918. Under the former, fit men who were at the date of the Instruction (5th March, 1918) full-time medical students at a recognised medical school, and who either had already passed the whole of the first professional examination in chemistry, physics and biology (or botany and zoology), or who are certified as being able to pass the whole of that examination on or before 31st July, 1918, are exempted from military service under certain conditions, firstly as to the efficient prosecution of their studies and, secondly, as to training in an officers' training corps. On completing their second examination, such students, if physically fit, are required to serve as surgeon probations in the Navy.
    Students in Grade III., subject to similar provisions as to work and training, are not to be called up without reference to the Ministry of National Service as long as they remain full-time students.
    Under Army Council Instruction 153 of 1918, men serving with the Colours, who had immediately prior to enlistment been whole-time medical students at a recognised medical school for at least six months and had passed the whole of the first professional examination, may on

    1681
    application be released from the Colours in order to resume their medical studies. Medical students who do not fulfil the conditions of exemption are posted to the Army in the ordinary way, and not necessarily to the R.A.M.C.

    BLACKBURN WEAVERS' AND PROTECTION SOCIETY.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he will give special consideration to the case of T. Duckworth, the national insurance clerk to the Blackburn Weavers' and Protection Society, who has been called up for military service, seeing that this man is the only official acquainted with and competent to discharge the insurance work of this society with a large membership, as all efforts to secure a substitute for him have failed?
    Mr. BECK: The case of Mr. T. Duckworth was considered by the Central Tribunal, who decided to refuse exemption. The whole of the circumstances were before the Central Tribunal, who are understood to have taken into account the fact that the National Health Insurance Commissioners were not prepared to state that it was in the national interest that Duckworth should be retained in civil employment. Special consideration has been given to this case, but in view of the circumstances which I have detailed, it is not proposed to interfere with the decision of the Central Tribunal.

    VOLUNTARY RED CROSS WORKERS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Minister of National Service whether men holding Army Form C 337 engaged regularly in the conveyance of wounded soldiers from railway stations to hospitals and in a lower category than Grade 2 are to be allowed to continue in this voluntary work; and will he state their position under the new Military Service Act?
    Mr. BECK: Army Form C337 is understood to be a certificate of identity issued by the War Office to civilians wearing Red Cross brassards. It confers no exemption or protection from military service. Men certified as full time workers by the British Red Cross Society whose engagement has been sanctioned by the Director of National Service in the region are, however, not called to the Colours under present instructions if placed in Grade 3. It is intended that men now liable for Military Service by
    1682
    reason of the raising of the military age by the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, should be afforded this protection if they fulfil the above conditions.

    EXEMPTIONS (RENEWAL).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if it is necessary for a man who holds an exemption on business grounds to put in an appeal on conscientious grounds before his exemption is cancelled, or will it be in order if he does so when the exemption is withdrawn; and, in view of the fact that there are a number of men within the old military service ages who originally put in claims both on business grounds and on the ground of conscientious objection whose claims on the latter ground have been held over so long as the exemption on business grounds was in force, if he will say whether such men can now have their claim on conscientious grounds heard and determined?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. The provision that an application for the renewal of an exemption may be made only on one or more of the grounds on which the exemption was granted applies only to certificates granted on applications made on or after to-day. The man, therefore, who holds an exemption on business grounds granted on an application made before to-day may later apply for a renewal on other grounds.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman has not given a reply to the last part of my question as to claims for exemption on other grounds which have been held in abeyance. Am I to understand, therefore, that in such a case a man can renew his application?
    Mr. WALSH: I have specially answered the point of the hon. Gentleman. A person who had his exemption granted on business grounds may now have his application determined on the grounds that remained in abeyance.

    LEGAL ASSISTANCE (TRIBUNALS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether men between forty-one and fifty-one are to be denied the rights hitherto accorded to men below forty-one when appearing before a tribunal of having, if they so desire, legal assistance; and, if so, why are they thus penalised?
    Mr. WALSH: The point raised by my hon. Friend will doubtless be discussed in the course of this afternoon's Debate. It will be remembered that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board stated that he was very desirous of ascertaining the opinion of the House, and I think it will be best not to anticipate that discussion.

    MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether special consideration will be given to the cases of men engaged in important public work as members of county or borough councils, or boards of guardians, education committees, etc., who are under fifty-one years of age; and what instructions will be issued to tribunals in regard to such men?
    Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend does not contemplate issuing any instructions to tribunals on this subject. Many members of local authorities are, he is aware, doing valuable work, but it does not seem to him that ordinarily a member of a local authority could claim exemption because of his membership.

    CENTRAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board, concerning the decision of the Central Tribunal not to grant exemption from military service to J. W. Muff, 57, Sandbeds, Cullingworth, Yorks, the only son of two blind parents aged sixty-seven and seventy-three respectively, a decision which appears to have been based partially on the fact that the two aged blind people have a married daughter who resides in London, whether he will call the attention of the Central Tribunal to the fact that the daughter in question, whose husband is away at sea, is obliged to go out to work to maintain herself and her child, and when last heard of was residing with her husband's mother, presumably to secure care and attention for her child which she could not herself give during working hours; and if he will ask the Central Tribunal to reconsider their decision?
    Mr. WALSH: The Local Government Board has no power to compel any tribunal to reconsider a decision, and as the Central Tribunal is a body appointed under the law any action savouring of
    1684
    interference with their authority is to be deprecated, but I am forwarding a copy of the question and of my answer to the Central Tribunal.

    ALIENS IN IRELAND.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling amongst our own people that aliens living here and in Ireland are not doing their fair share of work for the War, he can say when aliens up to fifty-one years of age will be compelled either to serve in the Navy or Army or find work of national importance, or go back to their own country?
    Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. No alien is liable for military service unless he is a subject of one of the countries with which a Convention as to service has been concluded. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate the extreme difficulty of imposing compulsory industrial obligations upon the subjects of Allied and neutral countries.
    Major HUNT: Is it not quite time, if they will not do anything to help the War, that they were sent back to their own country, or are we going to keep them here merely to please the Government of their own country?
    Mr. BECK: There are difficulties in returning them to their own country.

    VOLUNTEER FORCE.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will consider the possibility of raising battalions recruited entirely from Section A of the Volunteer Force who are prepared to volunteer at once for full-time service, such battalions being provided with officers drawn, as far as possible, horn Volunteer corps; and whether he is aware that a very large number of men in Volunteer corps are anxious to serve together, and will be willing to make considerable sacrifices if some such arrangements can be made?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I presume my hon. Friend is referring to men in Section A of the Volunteer Force, who are liable for military service owing to the extension of the age limit under the recent Act. My hon. Friend's proposal has been very

    1685
    carefully considered, but I regret that it is not practicable to organise special battalions for Volunteers, as suggested.
    General COLVINasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at as to the position of efficient officers of the Volunteer Force between the ages of forty-two and fifty-one; and whether they will be permitted to retain their present position in that force unless required for commissioned service in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Devonport.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (RUSSIAN AND ITALIAN).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Russian and Italian conscientious objectors to military service respectively who have been conscripted in this country; how many have received exmption from non-combatant service; and how many have been court-martialled and sentenced to terms of imprisonment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The first two parts of my hon. Friend's question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service. As regards the last part of his question, the information is not available, and could only be obtained by a considerable expenditure of time and labour, which, in present circumstances, I should not feel justified in incurring.

    INVALID OFFICER (MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. C. S. Mordaunt, late lieutenant in the 8th Reserve Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery, who was invalided out of the service on 22nd February, 1918, as being permanently unfit for further service by two medical boards at Oxford and Bulford, has now been ordered to attend another medical board on 7th May for re-examination; whether he was awarded a pension which was afterwards cancelled; and, if so, having regard to the provisions of the last Act, will he state what steps he will take in this case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This officer was medically boarded on 28th January last
    1686
    and found permanently unfit for any service. As it was a neurasthenic case, another board was held on 14th February, which found him unfit general service permanently, but fit C 1. Before this medical board proceeding was received he was gazetted out on the former board, but on receipt of the later board this gazette was cancelled. On reference to the medical authorities, another board was arranged for the 6th instant, as this officer objected to joining.

    MEN OVER FIFTY.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men above fifty years of age medically fit for military service are now allowed to enlist in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Men above the age of fifty will be accepted for the Army and posted to the corps of their choice, provided they are not below the physical and technical standards required for the particular corps they wish to join.

    DECERTIFIED MEN (APPEALS).
    Mr. ROWNTREE(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of National Service whether he has been made aware of the strong feeling existing in many parts of the country against the procedure whereby a man who disputes the validity of his decertification has to prove his case before a magistrate in a, civil Police Court; whether it is correct that such men should be arrested and taken to the Police Court as absentees; whether he has received the resolution passed unanimously by the York Tribunal protesting against men having to go for a Police Court to argue their appeal against alleged wrongful decertification, and whether it is not possible immediately to amend the procedure so that men who may be the victim of some Departmental error may be saved the indignity of appearing at a Police Court as either absentees or deserters?
    Mr. BECK: Instructions have already been issued to the National Service regions and areas relating to men decertified by the withdrawal Order of the 9th April made under the Military Service Act, 1918. National Service officials have been told that if there is a bona fide doubt whether a man is included in one of the occupations described in the Order, the question is to be considered by the Director of National Service of the region,

    1687
    with the assistance of his Departmental advisers, and may be referred, if necessary, to the headquarters of the Ministry.
    In any case, therefore, where a man who is called up notifies the area office of the Ministry of National Service that he claims not to come within the scope of the Order, his calling-up notice will be suspended, if necessary, until the ruling of the Department has been obtained; and specific instructions have been given that no man is to be treated as an absentee until notice of the decision of the Department has been given to him and he has failed to comply with such ruling. If a man still wishes to challenge the ruling of the Department, the case must necessarily be determined in the usual way by a Court of summary jurisdiction.
    I am calling for an immediate report on the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, in which it appears from the facts as stated in the Press that legal proceedings were wrongly instituted.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Would it not be better to refer it to the local tribunals?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Member say whether, in view of the urgency of this matter, he has taken or will take immediate steps, and will intimate the effect of his answer to the York local tribunals, who are greatly interested?
    Mr. BECK: As I promised my hon. and learned Friend last night, my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service has sent a telegram embodying this answer in a short form to the Lord Mayor of York this morning.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would it not be better if the National Service officials read their own Regulations?
    Mr. BECK: Yes; that would be desirable.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced in seeking work of national importance by discharged men who have not served over seas, and that in certain cases employers prefer to engage women wherever possible, as women can in no case be called up again for military service; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BECK: I am not aware of the particular difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. I may mention that special arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Labour whereby that Ministry has undertaken that disabled men who have not served overseas and have been discharged in this country are, if they desire it, assisted by the Employment Department to obtain work of national importance. The men are given one month in which to obtain such work, and the local advisory committees, which have been formed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with the Employment Exchanges, are empowered to advise the local recruiting authorities as to whether a further opportunity of obtaining work of national importance, after the expiration of the month, should be given to the men. In administrative practice instructions have been given by the Ministry of National Service that these men are not to be recalled to the Colours until the fullest inquiries have been made as to the efforts made by each man to obtain work of national importance.
  Mr. HOGGE: Supposing a man is unable through the Labour Exchange to get work of national importance, will the National Service Department offer him the alternative of that work before they recall him?
  Mr. BECK: As I say, in practice, if we are satisfied that any man has made genuine endeavours to obtain work of national importance, he will not be called up.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But will the Department of National Service see that it is not made conditional upon these men that they shall remain in the employment of the particular employer with whom they first engage?
  Mr. BECK: I think I must have notice of that question, please.

  MUNITIONS.

    NITROGEN FROM AIR.
    Sir W. BEALEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Haber process for obtaining nitrogen from the air was well known in this country before or soon after the outbreak of the War; whether it was protected by a British patent; whether the modifications referred to by him are

    1689
    also so protected; whether there are about thirty, or what other number, of such patents; whether any of them have been obtained by persons who are, or were, members of the staff of the Comptroller of Munitions Inventions; whether any of such persons are Germans; and to what extent have the process and modifications so protected been used by British manufacturers under the control of the Ministry of Munitions for actual production as distinguished from laboratory investigation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Haber process for fixing nitrogen in the form of ammonia was well known by repute all over the world before the outbreak of war
    (b) It was protected by British patents, which, as in the case of other patents communicated by German firms, are vague as to the fundamental factors necessary for the successful commercial operation of the process.
    The exact knowledge existing in this country was entirely insufficient to justify commencing the erection of a manufacturing plant without extensive research.

    (c)The modifications referred to are protected by Departmental patents.

    (d)There are about twelve such Departmental patents.

    (e) All of the Departmental patents are in the names of members of the Research staff of the Controller of Munitions Inventions, and are assigned to the Secretary of State for War.

    (f) The members of the Research staff are all British subjects.

    (g) The process and modifications so protected have not yet been used by British manufacturers for actual production as distinguished from laboratory investigations, since the research work, which has been conducted unremittently since July, 1916, has only within the last month or two reached a stage at which it was considered possible to proceed from the laboratory scale to the manufacturing scale.

    Sir W. BEALEasked whether the production of nitrogen and nitrogen products by the Haber process, or modifications thereof, is applicable for producing agricultural fertilisers; whether any and what steps have been taken to make known any beneficial modification of the process which has been made by members of the staff of the Comptroller of Muni-
    1690
    tions Inventions, or has come to the knowledge of his Department, to manufacturers of fertilisers and nitrogen compounds and to encourage the use thereof during the War or thereafter free from obstructive patent rights; and if he will cause due publicity to be given to all such processes and improvements which may come to the knowledge of his Department and be useful to the agricultural industry?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Haber process for the production of synthetic ammonia is applicable for producing an agricultural fertiliser, namely, ammonium sulphate.
    (b) In view of the importance attached to the modifications made in the process and to the probable utility to the enemy of information upon these modifications, the results of the research work of the staff of the Controller of Munitions Inventions have not been made public, since such information is only of value to those desiring to erect a large Haber plant. This information could be communicated confidentially if proposals for the erection of a plant were put forward, and the financial arrangements approved by the Treasury.
    Use is being made of the knowledge for war purposes as is indicated by the fact that the Explosives Department is now engaged in translating the research work into large-scale operations.
    (c) Conferences are being held between the Ministry, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and other Departments with a view to determining how far and in what manner the results of the general research work of the Munitions Inventions Department can be placed at the disposal of the manufacturers of this country for the benefit of the nation as a whole. In the meanwhile all information possible will be given.
    Sir W. BEALEasked whether, seeing that the Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik is said to have quadrupled their plant for the production of nitrogen and nitrogen compounds by the Haber process and modifications thereof since the outbreak of the War, and that these processes have been long known in this country, the fact that he was unable to announce the existence in the country of definite works and plant engaged in such production on any large scale is due to the reluctance of controlled or other manufacturers to establish such works and plant; and what encouragement has been offered to manufacturers to establish such works and plant

    1691
    for providing materials used in explosive munitions, and for producing fertilisers for agriculture?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The fundamental factors of the Haber process and the details essential for its successful commercial operation have never been known outside Germany, and the erection of definite works in this country was, therefore, impossible until these factors and improvements had been thoroughly established as the result of two years of unremitting research under the direction of the Munitions Inventions Department.
    (b) With regard to other processes for the fixing of nitrogen, of which details are known, various proposals have been submitted by manufacturers and have been considered in detail by the Nitrogen Products Committee of the Munitions Inventions Department.
    These schemes were either withdrawn by those who put them forward tentatively or were found to be unsound from the point of view of having to face foreign competition after the War. In the case of the cyanamide scheme, recommended by the Committee itself, the plant required was of a nature that it could not be supplied within reasonable time without crippling important war services.
    (c) The whole complex problem of nitrogen fixation in its relation to the needs of this country and to parts of the Empire has been investigated in great detail during the last two years by the above-mentioned Committee, and the Final Report of the Committee is now in course of preparation.
    Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government is going to give British manufacturers any help against the foreign competition of which he spoke?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope the hon. Member will give me notice of the question.
    Sir W. BEALEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether at the time when the supply of imported nitrates for agricultural fertilisers became seriously restricted by reason of the War, the Board was aware of the utility of the Haber process for obtaining nitrogen from the air for the production of such fertilisers; whether any, and, if so, what,
    1692
    steps have been taken by the Board to utilise the same; whether the Board has been kept informed of the modifications of that process made or recommended by Mr. Quinan or other experts advising the Ministry of Munitions; and whether the Board of Agriculture has taken or will take measures to enable and encourage manufacturers of fertilisers to use these processes during and after the War free from obstructive patent rights?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The Board were, at the time named by my hon. Friend, aware of the value of the Haber process for the production of ammonia from the nitrogen of the air, and they are represented on the Committee of the Ministry of Munitions which deals with the subject. In reply to the remainder of the question, I can only say at present that all matters bearing on the future development of the process are receiving most careful consideration by the Committee and the Departments concerned, and that the Board will certainly do their best to encourage the full utilisation of the process for the benefit of agriculture.

    FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether, when Mr. Perry, manager of the Ford Motor Company in England, was purchasing Ewell Place, a scheme was put forward for cultivating the land and utilising existing buildings for food production and permission given to use skilled labour for that purpose; what progress has been made in that respect up to the present; (2) whether at Ewell Place, the property of Mr. Perry, manager of the Ford Motor Works, between 2nd February and 9th March, 1918, five skilled gardeners and a boy were employed in laying out herbaceous borders and other decorative gardening, and about thirty men from the works at Hammersmith driven over in motor lorries daily for the same purpose; and whether that is held to be war work?
    Mr. BECK: I have no information on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am having inquiries made and the result will be communicated to him.

    CANADIAN OVERSEAS MECHANICS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service what is the present status of the Canadian overseas mechanics who are under a written agreement with the British Armament Commission to serve upon munition work in this country so long as they are required on munition work; and whether their position is in any way affected by the latest Military Service Act?
    Mr. BECK: All Canadians "ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions abroad" come within the protection contained in the first Schedule of the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918. The men referred to in the question are thus not as a body affected by the above Act. It is possible, however, that a very small num

    SECRETARIAT GROUP.

    Name of Department.

    Head of Department.

    Demobilisation and Reconstruction

    Assistant Secretary

    Mr. H. H. Piggott, C.B.E.

    Parliamentary and General

    Assistant Secretary

    Mr. R. V. Vernon.

    Establishment

    Assistant Secretary

    Mr. J. W. Dulanty.

    American

    Assistant Secretary

    Mr. P. Hanson, C.B.

    Requirements and Statistics

    Assistant Secretary

    Mr. W. M. Page.

    Statistical and Progress

    Controller

    Major M. B. U. Dewar

    Priority…

    Controller

    Sir Edgar Jones, K.B.E., M.P.

    FINANCE GROUP.

    Munitions Finance and Accounting Officer

    Controller

    Mr. S. Dannreuther, C.B.

    Aircraft and Explosives Finance

    Controller

    Sir Philip Henriques, K.B.E.

    Munitions Finance

    Director

    Mr. O. T. Barrow, C.S.I., C.B.E;

    Munitions Accounts

    Joint Controllers

    Mr. Gr. F. Garnsey.

    Mr. J. H. Guy.

    Factory Audit

    Controller

    Mr. M. Webster Jenkinson.

    Munitions Contracts

    Controller

    Sir John Mann, K.B.E.

    Salvage and Stores

    Controller

    Mr. Alexander Walker.

    DESIGN GROUP.

    Munitions Design

    Controller

    Brig-Gen. A. C. Currie, C.M.G.

    Munitions Inspection

    Controller

    Mr. A. H. Collinson, C.B.E.

    Trench Warfare

    Controller

    Brig-Gen. Arthur M. Asquith.

    Munitions Inventions

    Controller

    Vice-Admiral Sir Reginald H. S

    Bacon, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., D.S.O

    STEEL GROUP.

    Iron and Steel Production

    Controller

    Col. W. Charles Wright, C.B.

    Factory Construction

    Director

    Mr. W. B. Shaw.

    Forgings, Castings and Stampings

    Controller

    Mr. D. M. Anderson.

    MATERIALS GROUP.

    Raw Materials (Non-Ferrous)

    Controller

    Sir L. W. Llewelyn, K.B.E.

    Railway Materials

    Director

    Mr. E. J. Aller, C.B.E.

    Optical Munitions, Glassware and
    Potash Productions

    Controller

    Mr. A. S. Esslemont, C.B.E.

    Overseas Transport

    Director

    Mr. Burton Chadwick.

    Forwarding

    Director

    Mr. W. T. Potts.

    Inland Transport

    Director

    Mr. Howard Williams, C.B.E.

    Mineral Resources Development

    Controller

    Sir Lionel Phillips, Bart.

    ber of these men were not domiciled in Canada before coming to this country, but, in view of the value of their work and the circumstances under which they were engaged, it is not proposed to make any distinction in their case.

    PRINCIPAL MUNITIONS DEPARTMENTS.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions if he can furnish particulars of the seventy Departments of the Ministry of Munitions and the name of the chief official in charge of each?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have arranged for my hon. Friend to be furnished with a list of the principal Departments of the Ministry and the names of the officials in charge.
    The following is the list referred to:

    1695

    EXPLOSIVES GROUP.

    Name of Department.

    Head of Department.

    Explosives Supply

    Director-General

    Right Hon. Lord Moulton, C.B.E., K.C.B.

    Controller

    Major A. Corbett.

    Mineral Oil

    Controller

    Sir Arthur C Churchman, Bart.

    Chemical Warfare

    Controller

    Major-General H. F. Thuillier C. B., C. M. G.

    ORDNANCE GROUP.

    Gun Ammunition Manufacture

    Controller

    Mr. C. H. Stevens, C.B.E.

    Gun Ammunition Filling

    Controller

    Brig-Gen. L. C. P. Milman, C.M.G.

    Trench Warfare Supply

    Controller

    Mr. E. V. Haigh, C.B.E.

    Timber Supplies

    Controller

    Mr. D. Bain, C.B.E.

    Area Organisation

    Director

    Hon. H. D. McLaren, C.B.E., M.P.

    Small Arms Ammunition

    Controller

    Mr. Lewis Gordon, C.B.E.

    Gauges

    Director

    Mr. M. F. Ryan.

    Engineering

    Controller

    Mr. J. B. Maclean, C.B.E.

    Gun Manufacture

    Controller

    Mr. V. B. Stewart, C.B.E.

    Small Arms and Machine Gun

    Controller

    Lieut-Col. S. C Halse, C.M.G

    AIR GROUP.

    Aircraft Production

    Director-General

    Vacant—consequent upon the appointment of Sir William Weir as Air Minister.

    Assistant Director- General

    Sir Henry Fowler, K.B.E.

    Supply (Aircraft Production)

    Controller

    Brig.-Gen. W. Alexander, D.S.O.

    Technical (Aircraft Production)

    Controller

    Lieut.-Col. J. G. Weir, C.M.G.

    Inspection (Aircraft Production)

    Director

    Lieut.-Col. R. K. Baguall-Wild.

    American Assembly (Aircraft production)

    Controller

    Mr. Alexander Duckham.

    ENGINES GROUP

    Mechanical Warfare

    Controller

    Vice-Admiral Sir A. G. H. W. Moore, K.C.B., C.V.O.

    Mechanical Warfare (Overseas and Allies

    Commissioner

    Lieut.-Col. A. G. Stern, C.M.G.

    Agricultural Machinery

    Director

    Mr. H. C. B. Underdown.

    Machine Tools

    Controller

    Mr. E. M. Iliffe.

    Mechanical Transport

    Director

    Lieut.-Col. C. V. Holbrook.

    Electric Power Supply

    Labour Group

    Mr. A. Gridley.

    Labour Regulation

    Controller (ranking as Assistant Secretary)

    Mr. H. Wolfe, C.B.E.

    Labour Supply (Civil)

    Director

    Mr. T. M. Taylor, C.B.E.

    Labour Supply (Military)

    Director

    Mr. J. A. Barlow, C.B.E.

    Labour

    Adviser

    Sir Thomas Munro, K.B.E.

    Lands (for War Office and Ministry of Munitions)

    Director-General

    Sir Howard Frank, F.S.I.

    Munitions Works Board

    Chairman

    Mr. J. Carmichael, J.P.

  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING.

    PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the time lost in shipyards, particularly by riveters, during the months of February and March, 1918; and whether he will draft into the Army those men of military age who persistently keep bad time?
    Mr. BECK: My attention has been called to the matter referred to by the
    1696
    hon. Member. Men of military age who persistently keep bad time are liable, after being afforded an opportunity for explanation, to have their protection certificates withdrawn.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is this practice bring adopted? Arc the men who are wilfully keeping bad time now being called to the Colours?
    Mr. BECK: I think I have nothing to add to my answer. If these men systematically keep bad time, after they have been afforded an opportunity of laying their

    1697
    case before the Committee, they go back to civil life. They are liable to military service, and may be called up.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask for an assurance, so far as the Department of the hon. Gentleman is concerned, that such men will be called up?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform all employers of labour of the opportunity of coercion given by him?
    Mr. BECK: I think the hon. Member must know that that is an entirely misleading statement. There is the most elaborate machinery to safeguard these men in every particular. It has been fully agreed to by all the persons concerned.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask for an assurance that the men who are wilfully keeping bad time will be called up?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman also endeavour to secure some test whereby we can arrive at what is wilfulness?
    Mr. BECK: There is such a test.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask for an answer to my question?

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  Major HUNTasked the Pensions Minister whether there were about 9,000 applicants for the post of superintending inspector under the Pensions Ministry; whether the successful candidate, Mr. Wells Taylor, is of military age; and has he been in the Army or Navy?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Mr. Wells Taylor was one of thirty-eight successful candidates for the inspectorship appointments recently offered to the public. For these appointments, approximately 9,000 applications were received. Mr. Taylor, who has been appointed Superintending Inspector for the London area, is thirty-nine years of age and has not served in the Army and Navy. When medically examined by the Ministry of National Service in February last he was placed in Grade III.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to secure a permanent site for a Ministry of Pensions; whether it is intended to proceed with building works in connection
  1698
  with the erection of a permanent Ministry of Pensions during the War; and whether an opportunity will be given for debate before the country is to be committed to any expenditure for this purpose?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ministry of Pensions could be housed in its present building if the Government would get rid of the Imperial Tobacco Company, which occupies a part of it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of it; and, in any case, the question should be addressed to the First Commissioner of Works.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the building was in the first instance requisitioned by the Ministry of Pensions, but, owing to private representations, that decision was altered in the interests of this private company?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know nothing about that matter, and I entirely decline to accept my hon. Friend's representation of the facts.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries, because there is abundant room there if he gets rid of the Imperial Tobacco Company?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think that it is reasonable to expect me, because an hon. Member chooses to put a question to me, to look into every detail.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Pensions Minister whether, in the event of birth certificates being required by the Ministry, such certificates are to be obtained from the registrar free of charge?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Upon application to the Registrar-General at Somerset House a Verification Statement, containing all the particulars required by the Pensions Ministry in certification of birth, will be supplied free of charge. The Registrar-General has no authority to compel local registrars to

  1699
  forego their fees, but I understand that in many cases the registrars have, of their own accord, offered concessions to applicants of whom certificates are required for pension purposes.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. and gallant Member make arrangements whereby the local registrars can supply them in the same way as Somerset House?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is really a matter of fact. These are statutory charges which they are entitled to make, and we have no power.
  Major DAVIESasked how many inspectors, sub-inspectors, or representatives of the Ministry of Pensions have been appointed in different parts of the country; what salaries are attached to these posts; and whether he can state how many of these appointments have been given to discharged and disabled soldiers?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There are 55 officers on the outdoor staff, 16 being superintending inspectors and 39 inspectors. The pay of the former is £400 to £500 a year, and of the latter £300 to £400. Of the 38 appointments recently made 28 are held by men who have been discharged from the Army or Navy after service in the present War. The 17 remaining officers, of whom two have served in the War, were transferred to the Ministry from the Statutory Committee.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are those permanent appointments, or for what period of service are they appointed?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: They were appointed on probation for six months, and then for three years if approved.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then the appointments will be reviewed?
  Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why these appointments should not be entirely confined to ex-Service men?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes. The reason was simply this: It was absolutely necessary to have some who have had previous pensions experience, and it was very difficult to find such men who had served in the Army and the Navy. Therefore, we were obliged to take a certain number of men who had had previous
  1700
  experience as clerks to pensions committees and men of that sort, otherwise the administration could not have been satisfactorily carried out.
  Captain ALBERT SMITH: Are any of these men Class A?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think any one of them is, and of those transferred from the Statutory Committee nearly everyone is over military age, and I think the men are Grade III. or something like that.
  Major DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of decentralising the work of the Special Grants Committee and give power to the local war pensions committee to make provision for the medical treatment of the widows, wives, and children of soldiers; and whether he is prepared to issue the necessary Regulations to ensure this being done.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the sickness Grants which can be made under the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee, because I have already informed him that no other provision for medical treatment is at present in contemplation. With regard to these Grants, the local committees are already empowered to act on their own responsibility to the extent of awarding Grants up to 5s. a week for a maximum period of thirteen weeks. The Special Grants Committee consider it advisable to retain in their own hands the control of Grants of larger amount or extending over a longer period.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the mother of Gunner W. Blackburn, No. 258,221, No. 16 Hut, C Battalion, Bettisfield Park, has not been paid any separation allowance on account of her son, notwithstanding that evidence has been produced from the soldier's employer that he was earning 25s. a week before enlistment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am informed that this allowance has now been paid with effect from the date on which the soldier joined the Colours in February last.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why attention

  1701
  has not been given to the letter from the dependant of Private R. Thompson, No. 3966, 4th East Lancashire Regiment, asking for the payment of arrears of separation allowance for the period between the 6th July, 1915, and the 21st September, 1915, and which communication was acknowledged by the Secretary to the War Office, St. Martin's Place, on the 12th July, 1917; and if immediate attention will be given to the matter?
  Mr. FORSTER: The case was duly investigated on receipt of the dependant's complaint. It was ascertained that no arrears were due, the soldier having claimed separation allowance on 2nd September, 1915, from which date the allowance was correctly issued. I regret that the clerk dealing with the case, who has since left the office, omitted to communicate with the dependant.

  BOTULISM.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to several deaths from a disease called botulism, which is reputed to be caused by eating tinned foods; and whether, in view of the quantity of this class of food which is now consumed by the public, the proposes to issue any special orders or instructions to medical officers of health on the matter?
  Mr. WALSH: There have been a few deaths from an obscure disease presenting nerve symptoms which resemble those of the very rare food disease hitherto unknown in this country called botulism. The disease is under investigation by my Department, in collaboration with the Medical Research Committee. The inquiries which have been made up to the present have failed to associate the illness with the consumption of any particular article of food, and no special Orders regarding food are at present contemplated.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.
  Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, as Rule 32 of Schedule I. of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, imposes upon registration officers a statutory
  1702
  obligation to supply forms of claims and notices of objection without fee, the printing of such forms by political, associations is now to be deprecated, having regard also to the need of economy both in paper and printing at the present time; and whether he can say when the official forms described in R. P. 4 will be available, and through what channels the public will be able to procure them?
  Mr. WALSH: It is proposed that the Stationery Office shall print the forms referred to and furnish a supply to registration officers in order that persons requiring the forms may obtain them locally on application. Form A, requiring the information from householder and occupier, has been very extensively circulated, and forms of claim and objection will be issued at an early date. All unnecessary use of paper at the present time is to be deprecated.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Advisory Committee appointed to advise on administration of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, has reported; and, if so, when he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has received the Report, which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    EXTRA RATIONS (WASTING DISEASES).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the recent further reduction in the meat rations, the Food Controller will consider the claim to an extra allowance of butter or meat of persons suffering from wasting diseases and diseases of the digestive organs which cannot be scheduled as either tuberculosis or diabetes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Food Control Committees are being informed that they may forward, for consideration by the medical advisers of the

    1703
    Ministry of Food, any exceptional cases of disease in which they are of opinion that the special allowance of butter or meat should be granted.

    CLERICAL WORKERS (MILITARY).
    Mr. COCHRANEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any officers, non-commissioned officers, or men in uniform who are engaged on clerical work in this country are entitled to draw meat rations in excess of those allowed to civilians engaged on similar work; and, if so, what is the justification for this difference in treatment?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I can add nothing to the answer given on Monday by the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

    TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the High Court has reversed the conviction obtained by his Department on a charge of hoarding tea; why this case was not defended; how many such convictions on the same lines have been wrongfully obtained; whether the amount of the fines recovered in the Lower Court and the costs in each case will now be repaid to the defendants; what he estimates as the total amount of these charges; and what steps he means to take to regularise the action of his Department with regard to tea and other drinks?
    Mr. CLYNES: A Divisional Court has reversed a conviction on a charge of hoarding tea, in which the proceedings were initiated by a local food committee. The case was not defended, because it was thought that the point was open to doubt and that it would be preferable to amend the Food Hoarding Order. The Order has, in fact, been amended so as expressly to include tea, coffee, and cocoa within its provisions. The Food Controller has no power to remit any penalties that have been inflicted by Courts of competent jurisdiction. The number of cases in which people have been fined for hoarding tea alone is negligible.

    TRACTOR PLOUGHS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of t he Board of Agriculture what is the average charge per acre made by his Depart-
    1704
    ment to farmers for ploughing their land with tractors; and what he estimates to be the average cost to the Department of carrying out the operation, including all charges for depreciation, material used, wages, and supervision?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The charges to farmers, for ploughing by the Government tractors are made on a sliding scale from 20s. to 30s. per acre. In each case the Agricultural Executive Committee decides the rate at which the work is to be undertaken, according to the character of the land and other conditions. As I have stated, in reply to a previous question, the average cost of operating tractors, so far as it has been ascertained, is about 28s. per acre.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does that 28s. cover the cost of the machines and all the other charges connected with them?
    Mr. PROTHERO: It covers all the charges.

    WHEAT AND FEEDING MIXTURES.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the disparity between the price of wheat and the price of poultry mixtures, inferior oats, and damaged corn, etc.; and whether, in view of that disparity, farmers are expected to sell wheat relatively cheap and purchase feeding mixtures relatively dear?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am aware of some disparity in this respect. The whole question is being considered by the Poultry Advisory Committee and the Departments concerned. I hope it will be found possible for the Ministry of Food and the Wheat Commission to take such steps as will put the prices of these materials on a different basis.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or can he inform me, whether the present disparity is something like £12 to £13 a ton?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am afraid I could not answer offhand. I should think that was rather an exaggerated calculation.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Is not the present price of wheat about £18 a ton, and are not these foods being freely advertised, sold, and bought at about £31 a ton?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    SOLDIERS' BUFFETS (RAILWAY STATIONS).
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now state what steps are proposed to be taken to put restrictions upon the free distribution of food to soldiers at railway stations and other centres?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is proposed to issue an Order compelling free buffets and similar feeding centres to obtain licences from the Food Controller, who will there upon impose such restrictions as will prevent any abuse of this most desirable form of hospitality.

    SACCHARINE (BRITISH-MADE).
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what progress has been made in obtaining a larger supply of saccharine; and whether it is proposed to fix a maximum price for this article?
    Mr. CLYNES: The progress which is being made with the manufacture of saccharine in this country is as satisfactory as can be expected, having regard to the technical difficulties surrounding a new manufacture of this character. The prices of tablets made from British-made saccharine have been fixed by arrangement with the trade, and it is hoped that in the near future it will be possible entirely to dispense with the supplies of higher-priced imported saccharine.

    CHEESE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the shortage in the supply of cheese in certain districts of London; and if it is possible for his Department to release more stock from storage in order to relieve this scarcity?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the present scarcity of cheese, and am taking all possible steps to provide increased supplies. Arrangements have been made to provide considerable quantities of imported cheese, and it is hoped that these will soon be available for distribution to the civilian population, after Army requirements have been satisfied.

    DOGS (INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether
    1706
    it is proposed to place any restrictions upon the feeding of unnecessary dogs, and to make any provision for the adequate feeding of dogs essential in agriculture and for the taking of game and the killing of vermin or food not suitable for human consumption; and whether sheep's paunches can be included in this category?
    Mr. CLYNES: This matter is now under consideration, and an Inter-Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider the whole position with regard to dogs. I may point out that some classes of tripe are made from sheep's paunches, and that the latter, therefore, cannot be regarded as unfit for human food.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman man say what Departments are going to be concerned in this Inter-Departmental inquiry?
    Mr. CLYNES: I could not say without notice.

    FOOD MANUFACTORY OFFICIALS.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the key men of the largest animal food products manufactory in Scotland are being called up; whether these men include the works manager, the foremen of every department, all the slaughterers and skinners, as well as the head bookkeeper, and every skilled man in the place; whether the business must close down if these men are taken; why, having regard to the national interest, this food manufactory should be closed at this time; whether a local investigation was promised, but no inquiry has yet been made of the proprietors as to the character, nature, and extent of the business; and whether the Ministry of Food proposed to ask the National Service Ministry to suspend the calling up of these men until such investigation has been made?
    Mr. CLYNES: A careful investigation has been made into all the circumstances of this case, and it is thought that there is no necessity for action on the part of this Ministry.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Have the managers of the business in question been consulted in any way or afforded an opportunity of showing what the nature of their business is?
    Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say whether the managers personally have been consulted, but all the necessary information has been

    1707
    obtained for reaching the opinion that it is not a case in which the Food Ministry-need interfere
    Mr. MOLTENO: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the Report of their Committee on the Treatment by the Enemy of British Prisoners of War; whether they are satisfied that British prisoners are no longer kept at work immediately behind the German lines; and, if not, what steps they are taking, or propose to take, to prevent a continuance of the cruelty to our men mentioned in such Report?
  Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether British prisoners of war are now compelled to work within the battle zone in France, contrary to the stipulations of the military convention of January, 1917; whether the terms of the convention have been violated; and, if so, whether the Government is prepared immediately to exert pressure by means of retaliation?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. This matter involves many important questions, which are at present under consideration.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not a fact that the question has been upon the paper a fortnight and has been postponed until this day? Surely my hon. Friend could have investigated the matter.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We are investigating it daily.
  Mr. PRINGLE: How long will it take?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say. It is a most important question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would you like me to put it down to-day fortnight? I will put it down again to-day fortnight.

  ALIENS (BRITISH BUSINESSES).
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in cases where un-naturalised enemy aliens, naturalised
  1708
  people of enemy origin, and aliens of neutral countries have taken the businesses, shops, or employment of our own men serving in the War, these businesses, shops, and employment will be given back to our own men on their return after the War; and, if not, will he bring in legislation which will have this effect?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to answer this question. The Minister of Labour is most anxious that all men serving in His Majesty's Forces should, wherever possible, be able to return to their old employment after the War, and this is one of the questions upon which he proposes to consult the Labour Resettlement Committee. There are obvious difficulties in the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member; but if he will furnish us with any practical proposals in the matter I shall be happy to lay them before the Labour Resettlement Committee.
  Major HUNT: Is it not the business of the Government to look after these men and see that they do not do more than can possibly be avoided in the way of taking men for the Army while aliens take on their business?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is what the Government wish to do. We thought that the hon. and gallant Member might help us with some suggestion.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the names of this Committee, seeing that it is one of many Committees?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will see if they can be published.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the urgency of this business, will my hon. Friend urge this Committee to come to a speedy decision, expressing the views of the Government as to how these abuses can be avoided?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes; we will do our best to expedite matters.
  Major HUNT: Have not the Government any suggestion of their own?

  SERVICE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

    ARMY REGULATIONS.
    Brigadier - General McCALMONTasked the Prime Minister whether his

    1709
    attention has been called to paragraph 443 of His Majesty's Regulations for the Army under which deliberations or discussions by officers or soldiers with the object of conveying praise, censure, or any marks of approbation towards their superiors, or any others in His Majesty's Service, are prohibited; whether he will cause such instructions to be issued by the Board of Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council as will make it clear, in the interests both of Members of Parliament and of the Services, that Members of Parliament while serving on the active list of any of the three Services are in an exactly similar position as regards such Regulations as are other members of His Majesty's Forces; and whether such instructions need be taken as precluding Service members from putting questions, taking part in Debates, or voting in the House on questions of administration in which the conduct of their Service superiors or of other individual officers is not concerned?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present make any statement on the subject, but the whole question is being considered by the Government.

  COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if the Government have adopted the recommendations of the Report of the Lord Balfour of Burleigh Committee; and what steps they propose to take to give effect to the same?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government has not yet found it possible to give the necessary time to the consideration of this Report.
  Mr. TERRELL: When will it be considered, and is there any possibility of the Government coming to any decision upon it at an early date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We certainly are not likely to consider it in the immediate future. We have many other important things to occupy our time, as has been the case lately.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if it is intended to have a Whitsuntide Recess this year; when will the
  1710
  Education Bill be brought before the House; and does he intend to give facilities for the passage of this measure through all its stages before the House rises for the autumn?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement,

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    GENERAL SIR HUGH TRENCHARD.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister if he will say what position in the Air Service is to be occupied by Sir Hugh Trenchard; and what are the duties of that position?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend is giving this matter his closest attention, but he is not yet in a position to authorise me to make a definite statement on this subject. He is engaged in reviewing the whole position of the Air Force, with the object of deciding what post will give the best scope for the utilisation of General Tranchard's great qualities. My hon. Friend will easily appreciate that a decision of this importance ought not to be rushed.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May we take that as an assurance that this case will not be put off as the case of Viscount Jellicoe?
    Major BAIRD: I really think it is not a very fair thing to say about my right hon. Friend who has just taken office that the answer that I have given is not absolutely correct. He has only just taken over the office of this brand new force, and he must make himself conversant with it before he can be called upon to give a decision.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister, as recently as Monday, stated that the new Minister had already considered a proposal which was acceptable to General Trenchard?
    Major BAIRD: If my hon. Friend will refer to the speech, he will find that was not the expression which was used. The facts are exactly as I have stated them. There is every intention to make use of General Trenchard's services.
    Major HUNT: Has any position been found for Sir David Henderson in view of

    1711
    the fact that he was so very much liked by all the men and officers in the Air Force?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that it will be necessary to invent or create some new position for General Trenchard?
    Major BAIRD: No, decidedly not! Neither the Secretary of State nor General Trenchard would consent to any course of that kind.

  VISCOUNT JELLICOE.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether, four months after the Government's announcement that on retiring from the Admiralty Lord Jellicoe was to be employed in special service, Lord Jellicoe is still unemployed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was officially stated in the Admiralty announcement on 27th December last, that it was hoped to make use of Lord Jellicoe's services and experience in an important appointment. That is still our hope and desire, but, obviously, it is not easy, having regard to Lord Jellicoe's high rank, to find a post which it would be possible for him to accept.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I ask whether in this case "hope deferred" is having its usual effect?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not. Perhaps my hon. Friend knows that it is the fact that an important post was offered to Viscount Jellicoe, which, for reasons wholly creditable to him, I regret to say he was not able to accept.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS AND CARETAKERS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has been furnished with information showing the amounts granted to teachers in respect to war advances and war bonuses on their salaries by education authorities; and if he will ask to be supplied with similar information relating to school caretakers employed by education authorities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have recently asked local education autho-
  1712
  ritie for a Return of the annual salaries of teachers in public elementary schools on the 1st April, 1918, but it will be some time before the information will be available for tabulation. I do not think there is sufficient reason for placing on local education authorities the burden of making a similar Return of the salaries of school caretakers.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (PARCELS).
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the transmission of parcels for British prisoners of war in Germany, Austria, and Holland has now been resumed?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Practically the whole of the recent accumulation of parcels for prisoners of war in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Holland has now been forwarded, and the acceptance of such parcels from prisoners of war associations is being resumed to-day.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    CHEQUE TAX.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated revenue received from the Id. stamp on cheques during the last financial year; whether he has obtained an estimate of the number in stock of cheques printed, stamped, and distributed in books by the various banks throughout the United Kingdom on a given date; and, if so, what it is?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The estimated revenue derived from the duty of ld. was, in the last financial year, £1,340,000. As regards the last part of the question, the available information is not complete, but I am disposed to think that the normal stock does not, on the average, exceed three months' supply.
    Mr. FRANCE: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that, if these firms are paying Excess Profits Duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay four-fifths of this tax himself?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will make the necessary arrangements in order to prevent the suspension of old age pension in the case of a woman whose husband has received a war bonus to meet the increased cost of living, thereby bringing his aggregate wage above the amount of joint income at which the pension at present ceases to be payable?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I am unable to accede to the hon. Member's proposal.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MATERNITY BENEFIT).
  Mr. H. JONESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the unmarried wife of a soldier is entitled to maternity benefit under the National Insurance Act?
  The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The insurance Act gives a woman no claim upon the funds of a man's approved society unless she is married to him. If the woman referred to in the question is herself insured, the benefit would be payable from the funds of her society.

  TIMBER FELLING.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if the men engaged in felling timber to Government order are in the habit of burning all the tops and branches of felled trees, thus wasting large quantities of wood that would be valuable as fuel; and if he will give instructions to put an end to this systematic waste by having this wood carefully preserved and sold?
  Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is sometimes necessary to burn this material to prevent the spread of pine weevil, but wherever practicable it is given away or sold cheaply for firewood, or allowed to be removed free of charge.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that it is the habit all over the country to burn this wood in large quantities, and that complaints are made from many parts of the country of the waste so occasioned?
  Mr. WARDLE: There are difficulties in the matter. In many cases the purchase contract contains stipulations, and in other cases the shortage of labour is a. difficulty.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the extent to which this practice is going on, and take steps to see that the waste shall be minimised as much as possible, having in the meantime satisfied himself that it is going on to a much larger extent than he imagines?
  Mr. WARDLE: If my hon. Friend has any information, I shall be obliged to him if he will give it to me. We are anxious to minimise waste as much as possible.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY STAFFS).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government propose to take in view of the interim Report of Sir John Bradbury's Committee on the methods of recruitment of temporary staffs; and whether the Report is of such a nature as to make it advisable for the Government to impose on all Departments regulations as to the method of recruiting additional staffs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This Report is now under the consideration of the Government, and, pending their decision, I am unable to make a statement.

  CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, BIRCHINGTON-ON-SEA.
  Colonel STAVELEY-HILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that convalescent officers have been obliged to purchase their meals outside the convalescent hospital at Birchington-on-Sea, in which they were placed, owing to the shortage of food supplied to the commandant; and, seeing that the Voluntary Aid Detachment sisters have experienced the same difficulty in this hospital, will he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hospital referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has been closed.

  HOME LEAVE (YOUNG SOLDIERS).
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a graduating battalion of young soldiers of eighteen and a half years of age stationed at Norwich was at the end of March told to prepare for draft leave home, and were within three days sent over to France without getting such leave; if so, was there any intention of giving them home leave; and will these boys, under these circumstances, be given such before they are sent into the firing line, even if they have not then been the stipulated time of nine months in France, in view of the facts of their youth and that they have not had the opportunity of seeing their friends before going out?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on the 16th April to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division.

  DISCHARGE PAPERS (PRIVATE C. H. FOWLER).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under Secretary of State for War why Private C. H. Fowler, No. 202941, B Company, 3rd Wilts Regiment, stationed at Sittingbourne, recommended for discharge by the Ministry of National Service, whose discharge papers have been prepared for some weeks, is still being detained in the Army?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions for the release of this man were issued on the 28th March last. I am inquiring as to the cause of the delay in releasing him, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  MEDICAL SERVICE (FRANCE).
  Major DAVIESasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increased demands upon the medical man-power of the country, he will take immediate steps to present to the House the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Medical Service in France; and if he can inform the House when a decision will be arrived at by the Army Council?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: In the opinion of the recognised heads of the civil medical profession there is nothing in the Report on which action is likely to be taken affecting the medical man-power of this country. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 23rd April, consideration of the Report has had to be suspended during the present emergency. It is not proposed to publish the Report.

  CHAPLAINS KILLED.
  Major HENRY TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many chaplains have been killed in the War, and to which denominations do they belong?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The figures required are as follow:

  —

  Church of England

  Roman Catholic

  Presbyterian.

  Wesleyan.

  United Board.

  Total

  Killed in action.

  38

  10

  3

  3

  3

  57

  Died of wounds received in action

  12

  6

  1

  —

  —

  19

  Died of disease contracted on active service

  7

  3

  —

  —

  —

  10

  57

  19

  4

  3

  3

  86

  These figures do not include Colonial chaplains or chaplains of the Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment not holding Imperial commissions.
  Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Could not the hon. Gentleman give the total figure of chaplains employed, so as to make rather a fairer return?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not asked that, but I am quite willing to do it.

  RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  Major TERRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in view of the fact that, under paragraph 496 of the

  1717
  Pay Warrant, officers who are in receipt of retired pay and are re-employed during a time of national emergency are entitled to draw such retired pay concurrently with service pay, and that under Army Council Instruction 1,131, of 1917, men in receipt of disablement pensions who voluntarily re-enlist continue to draw such disablement pensions, and have the right to have their cases resurveyed at the end of the period for which the pension is granted, are young temporary officers who have been retired on account of disability contracted during the present War and have been granted conditional retired pay, and who have again volunteered and been re-employed although still suffering from such disability, entitled to their retired pay and the pay attributable to their re-employment?
  Colonel GIBBS: The question is now under consideration, and I will inform the hon. and gallant Member in due course of the decision.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Nitrate Railways Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE BILL
Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

TREASURY.

Recommendations.

Action Taken.

Second Report (Session 1917), paragraph 15 (1).—Strengthening of Treasury Staff.

In addition to the three business men who were mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Debate on the 29th January last, the Treasury has now secured the services of four men with similar qualifications. The subordinate staff has also been strengthened.

POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL,—"to alter the statutory limits of postal rates," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to
Amendments to—
Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the Leader of the House make any statement as to the course of future business?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we propose to take the Defence of the Realm (Beans, Peas, and Pulse Orders) Bill as first Order, the Post Office Bill next, and the further stages of some other Bills.
  On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Education Bill.
  On Thursday, Supply, which I shall have to announce later.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: When will the Home Rule Bill be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that I cannot give an answer.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: What course does my right hon. Friend propose to take with regard to the Report of the Commission on Proportional Representation, which has been presented to-day, and what sort of interval does he propose to allow before it is discussed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question. I have not had time to discuss that with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of the promise he made to a wearied House of Commons of a four weeks Recess at Whitsuntide?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was to a wearied Government, too. I am afraid that hope will not be realised.
  Mr. FRANCE: Will a day be given before Whitsuntide for the Navy Shipbuilding Vote, if asked for?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That must depend on what Vote is asked for by my right hon. Friend opposite.
  General McCALMONT: Is there any method by which the House can discuss the matter of postage to the troops?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it can be discussed, of course, on the Second Reading, and, if the House should think there ought to be an opportunity of revision, which I hope will not be the case, that can be
  1730
  arrived at by putting down a reasoned Amendment in favour of that course to the Second Reading.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Bill has no connection whatever with the increased letter post, and that by the Act of 1908 the Postmaster-General has authority by Warrant to increase the rate of letter post?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In spite of that, I am informed the course is possible.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be very inconvenient to have the decision of the House challenged on a reasoned Amendment which, if carried, would mean the rejection of the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be inconvenient, but, of course, any Division is inconvenient to the Government if it goes against them. I hope, however, the House will be satisfied with the discussion and its result.
  Mr. WHYTE: Will the Foreign Office Vote be taken before Whitsuntide, seeing that it was the first Vote in Supply put down before the Easter Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The custom is that the Votes are chosen not by the Government, but by the Opposition. We are in the hands of the House.

  SUPPLY.— [TENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  SUPPLY.— [TENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS
      ESTIMATES, 1918–19.— [Progress]
      [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    WORK OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.

      STATEMENT BY MR. HAYES FISHER.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £543,980, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board." [NOTE: £250,000 has been voted on account.]
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): This Vote has been put down at the request of a group of Mem-

      1731
      bers who are to a very large extent experts in the work of the tribunals that have been set up in connection with the Military Service Acts. They are desirous of discussing the new code of Regulations which have been framed by the Local Government Board and are specially anxious to discuss two or three of those Regulations. I think there will be an opportunity in the course of the evening for a separate Debate on that particular matter which appertains to the Local Government Board Vote. The Local Government Board Vote has not been discussed in this House for two years, and this is the only opportunity which is afforded to the Committee of surveying the whole administrative policy of that great Department. In the Press lately fault has been found with me on the ground that I have not given the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing such matters as the housing policy which has been initiated by the Department over which I have the honour to preside. That Department has launched in connection with the local authorities a housing policy which I admit is both extensive and expensive. I am well aware that many hon. Members are intensely interested in the question of housing and they would welcome some opportunity of discussing the policy which has been adumbrated in the circulars of the Local Government Board. I am conscious also that there are other questions connected with the Local Government Board which are of immense interest to all those who look forward to a policy of reconstruction after the War. The whole policy of health, for instance, is a matter which has excited a very great deal of public attention not only as to what is being done at the present moment, but what is possible to be done when the House of Commons has time to give attention to the subject. I informed the House yesterday that so far as regards certain of the new Regulations I should be guided to a very large extent by the opinion expressed in the House of Commons, and I think it would be fitting to reserve anything I have to say on the question of the new Regulations as affecting the tribunals and those who have been called up under the new Military Service Acts until I have heard the expressions of opinion of those who are entitled to take a special interest in this question and who hold very distinct and pronounced views on the question.
      1732
      I will commence my speech by saying something on the question of housing. The Local Government Board is the central Government Department for dealing with questions relating to housing. The whole housing problem very naturally occupies a large portion of the attention of any President of the Local Government Board. Both my predecessors took a deep interest, in the question. My immediate predecessor, Lord Rhondda, set up an Advisory Committee to study the problem of housing after the War, and that Committee has been very active in probing and searching the whole of this very difficult problem. What is the situation with which we shall be confronted after the War? As everyone knows, at this moment there is an immense shortage of houses: there was an immense shortage before the War. During the War it has been almost impossible to build houses for anybody, especially for the working: classes. Very few houses have been built. A few groups of houses have been built in various munition areas, but speaking generally the whole work of building working men's dwellings has been suspended, with the result that whatever shortage there was before the War there is a still greater shortage now. That shortage has been increased every year. It has been impossible to do anything in the way of building during the War. Materials, as we all know, are exceedingly difficult to get and labour is also a very difficult matter. But while it is extraordinarily difficult to add to our houses during the War we must all acknowledge that we ought to be making preparations at the present time for starting housing operations immediately after the War. Unless we do make those preparations in time and make them in detail we shall arrive at a period after the War when no agency will be prepared to build houses for the working classes. There are three possible alternatives. There is the alternative of waiting to see whether private enterprise will build these houses for the working classes. It is common knowledge that something like 95 per cent. of the houses of the working classes have been built by private enterprise.
      4.0 P.M.
      What will be the position so far as private enterprise is concerned Private enterprise very naturally builds for profit. What will be the cost of building houses after the War? We do not know exactly, but it will be, I believe,

      1733
      prohibitive, and no profit can be derived from building, looking to the rents which the working classes are likely to be able or willing to pay. What the price of money will be, nobody knows, but it must be very high. The difficulty of obtaining materials will be very great. Labour will not be willing, I think, to take a lower wage than that which labour obtained, at all events, before the War, and I see nothing to entice the private builder on to the ground which he has already left. I have discussed this question with groups of private builders, and I have received no encouragement whatever from them to suppose that the private builder is going to build any dwellings for the working classes after the War unless they obtain that substantial financial assistance which the Government has now promised the local authorities. There is the second alternative that the State should do what the State has done at Woolwich and what the State has done, to a certain extent, at one or two other places—that the State should be the builder. I, for one, cannot recommend the State to undertake for the first time in its history the obligation of housing the working classes, or, indeed, of housing the community. I think the State is a very expensive builder, and, while the State can, of course, here and there, successfully put up houses in connection with munition works, shipyards and so forth, I say the State has not got the machinery, and I do not think it can devise the machinery, by which it can turn itself into the general builder for the working classes, and still less for the community.
      If it were to attempt to do so it would at once have to enter into negotiations with all the local authorities, because obviously you cannot have a house, or you cannot have a row of houses anyhow, without thinking of water supply and drainage, of tramways and locomotion generally, of schools and matters of that kind, and therefore, if any Government should at any time be induced to take upon itself the general obligation of housing the working classes, it must be prepared to set up machinery by which it can enter into a kind of partnership with the local authorities in all matters regarding the drainage, water supply, schools, locomotion, etc. Therefore the Government, having well considered this question, came to the conclusion that, so far as starting housing after the War was
      1734
      concerned, so far as setting the machinery in motion was concerned, there was no other course open to it except to enter into partnership with the local authorities. That policy was embodied in two circulars which I issued from the Local Government Board. There was the circular of the 18th July, 3917. That circular invited the local authorities to answer a certain number of questions, the most important of which was to inform the Local Government Board what number of working-class dwellings were required now and what number would probably be required after the War, and as to whether they would be willing, if substantial financial assistance were afforded them, to enter immediately after the War upon a plan for building houses for the working classes.
      Mr. WATT: Was that done in Scotland?
      Mr. FISHER: A similar circular was issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. That circular led to replies from the local authorities, in which they stated what they were prepared to do for housing. The replies indicated the probable need of some 300,000 houses, of which some 900 local authorities indicated their willingness to provide some 150,000, and informed us that something, but not much, must be expected from private enterprise.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: What percentage of local authorities replied?
      Mr. FISHER: Bather more than two-thirds replied. I have not got the exact figures, but in replying a little later I will give them.
      Sir CHARLES HENRY: They replied in that sense?
      Mr. FISHER: In that sense. That was a very favourable reply, because recollect all the local authorities got in that circular was a promise of substantial financial assistance. Well, substantial financial assistance may have a great latitude of meaning. That circular was followed up by a circular of the 18th of March, which was issued, I need hardly say, with the authority of the War Cabinet. It explained to the local authorities exactly what the partnership means, and this is what it does mean. The main terms offered by the State to local authorities are these that the local authority should select its land. It need

      1735
      not necessarily secure that land at the present moment; it can obtain option to purchase over the land. It should then frame an estimate of what the probable cost of erecting houses on that land will be and an estimate of what the probable rent will be which they might expect to derive from those houses over a course, say of seven years. The Treasury, that is the Government, then agree to find 75 per cent. of the estimated deficit on the annual balance-sheet of these houses. At the end of seven years that the houses are to be valued, and so far as there is an excess—in all probability there would be excess—of the debt remaining outstanding for loan purposes after the valuation, the Government would find 75 per cent. of that excess, leaving 25 per cent. of the deficit on the estimated balance-sheet for seven years, and 25 per cent. of the deficit resulting from the valuation of the house at the end of the seven-years' period, to be borne by the ratepayers. It was indicated to the local authorities that the 25 per cent. would not in the main cost them more than a Id. rate, but it was pointed out that that 25 per cent. might in some cases cost more than a Id. rate, and a further concession was then made by the Treasury that where it was, perhaps, an agricultural area, very heavily rated, or where there were special circumstances of poverty in connection with that area, if the 25 per cent. amounted to more than the product of a Id. rate, then the Local Government Board might, if they thought fit, increase the Exchequer contribution so as to reduce the charge on the local authority to the equivalent of a 1d. rate.
      I have taken a great interest in this matter. I do not think there is any subject that I care more for. I do think this is an exceedingly generous and tempting offer to the local authority. No such offer anyway has ever been made before, and I cannot help thinking that any local authority that looks at it and regards it from the point of view that it may get some hundreds of thousands of houses put up for the districts where it is notorious that overcrowding is almost inhuman at present, that local authority will say, We are more than justified in embarking upon this adventure if it will not cost more than a 1d. rate. Why, look what the local authority is going to get! How important it is to the industries of that local area that there should be reasonably decent houses for all those who help
      1736
      to turn its industries into profitable industries, and that their land will, after all, be covered with houses on which they will be able to put a rate. What indirect advantages to the community may not be derived from the fact that when peace and contentment reign, they largely do reign because of the excellence of the housing of the working classes! These things ought to have weight with the local authorities, and I believe are going to have weight with the local authorities. At any rate there is every reason to be encouraged at present by the way local authorities have met this offer. Now, supposing a local authority puts forward a plan, how far is that plan to be scrutinised by the Government, which finds so much of the money for erecting the houses, or is going to find so much of the money? The plan will be scrutinised by the Local Government Board from the point of view of the whole lay-out of these houses, and we have indicated to the local authorities that in any plans which maybe formulated we shall expect, if it is an urban district, not more than twelve houses shall be put to the acre; and if it is a rural district, not more than eight houses to the acre, and we shall have our own inspectors, who will inspect the plans and general lay-out of the houses. We are giving a very great deal of trouble to this matter. We have brought into this scheme the Royal Institute of British Architects, who are offering valuable prizes for designs all over the country for workmen's dwellings.
      We have set up a variety of committees. I have set them up in conjunction sometimes with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Reconstruction to go into every phase of this housing question. There is a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Sir Tudor Walters), which is very soon going to give us a Report on the erection of houses from the point of view of economy and dispatch in building. He and his Committee are examining very carefully the whole question of standardising materials. Then my right hon. Friend the Minister for Reconstruction has a Committee sitting also on materials, but from a rather wider point of view. Then there is a Committee sitting under the presidency of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board for examining bow far present by-laws are an obstacle in the way of building working men's dwellings,

      1737
      and generally to advise as to by-laws. There is also a very important Committee which is going to be set up to deal with the question of housing banks, and that leads me to another portion of this subject. A good many ask, "What are you going to do for the private builders? You have entered into a partnership with the local authorities, are you going to drive the private builders right out of the field?" That question was very carefully examined by the Committee of which I am myself the chairman.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are the public utility socicties to be driven out of the field?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not think that they are likely to be driven out of the field; but that question has also been very carefully considered by a Committee on which public utility societies are strongly represented. Whether, however, it be public utility societies or private builders, let us ask ourselves this question, Can they expect to have the same favourable terms as those promised to the local authorities? What is the whole basis of the policy of this partnership between the Government and the local authorities? It is the expectation of a certain loss on the basis of the partnership. Could we go into any partnership of that kind with public utility societies or croups of private builders, or with single private builders, with the expectation of a certain loss? Some of the private builders ask, "Why do you not give us the same substantial financial assistance which you offer to the local authorities?" My reply was, "Those local authorities are not going to make any profit, that there must be a loss, and that they share that with the Government. Are you a group of private builders, or is any private builder, going to enter into an enterprise with the prospect of a certain loss?" Of course they are not. Therefore, while I am very far from saying that no assistance can be given to public utility societies, or groups of private builders, or single private builders, I think any such assistance must be in a very different form from that which is given to the local authorities.
      Sir C. HENRY: What are the conditions attaching to the assistance given?
      Mr. FISHER: I may indicate one or two forms which it will take. After all, it is useless to propose any practical scheme unless that practical scheme is accepted by
      1738
      the House of Commons. If it is really to be a substantial financial Grant to the private builder in order to erect houses at a profit by using that Grant, I have yet to learn that this House of Commons, or any House of Commons, is likely to look upon that with any favour. Still, short of that, and apart from it, money will be very difficult to procure after the War. It may be consonant with the desire of the House of Commons that the public utility societies should get money at the current rate at which the Treasury can borrow, and at which it is lent to the local authorities. The Treasury is not disposed to lend money to the local authorities at a lower rate than at which the Treasury itself borrows. I do not express approval or disapproval, but it is a possible proposition that there could be facilities given to private builders in the country or towns that is, to reputable builders who are willing to submit their lay-out to the supervision of the Government Department—in order that it may be seen that they are likely to put up houses of good quality at reasonable rents with money borrowed at the rate of interest on which money is lent to the local authorities. But here, again, there is going to be extraordinary difficulty after the War as regards materials for the erection of housing accommodation, particularly as regards timber. There, again, I express neither approval nor disapproval; but, after all, there must be priority after the War in all these matters, and it is quite possible that the House of Commons might be willing to give the same priority to the utility societies and to groups of builders that they propose to give to the local authorities. As regards standardised materials, for my own part I have long thought that standardised materials, where we are going to put up, we hope, 300,000 houses within twelve months or a little more, could possibly be turned out by large factories, which at that time would not be used for shell making. Those standard materials would be turned out more cheaply, and might be placed at the disposal of public utility societies or private builders, or others, which would help towards the solution of this extremely difficult problem.
      I think I have indicated to hon. Members, in what I have said, that I have given some thought to this question. Apart from the question of money, and its being lent at the rate at which the Treasury can borrow it, the actual making of a free

      1739
      grant to any builder, either in the country or town, is a point which I think the House will admit is one of extraordinary difficulty and one that will have to be very carefully examined. As regards the private builder, I can only say that I invite the House to give that matter very serious attention in connection with the whole of this housing problem. I am convinced that if we are to put up hundreds and thousands of houses, in two or three years after the War, sufficient and ample for the working classes, we must use not only the local authorities, but also the services of public utility societies, and the services of private builders. I think I have said enough to show that every phase of this problem is being deeply examined by people who are much concerned for the future as regards housing, and I myself earnestly desire to place before the House of Commons practical proposals for the solution of this extraordinarily difficult but, at the same time, interesting problem.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the response from the local authorities since the letter was sent? Do the replies indicate that they are satisfied with the proposals put before them?
      Mr. FISHER: The first circular merely said that there would be substantial assistance; and, in regard to the circular of the 18th March, although replies to it have arrived, I have not yet examined them at all closely. All I can say is that, considering the first circular, which mentioned substantial financial assistance, met with an extremely favourable response, I cannot but think that the circular of the 18th March is also likely to be met with favourable replies.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the reply from Bradford?
      Mr. FISHER: I have seen that reply, and that is the one authority that does not think 75 per cent. at all enough, and wants the whole of the money.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: That is not the only ground which is mentioned.
      Mr. FISHER: I think that was the one substantial ground on which they found fault. Though there were many other grounds, I think the substantial ground on which Bradford found fault was that
      1740
      the Government was not finding the whole of the money for something like 10,000 houses.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There is nothing about that in the reply.
      Sir C. HENRY: Who is to have control of the rentals—the local authority or will the Treasury have control?
      Mr. FISHER: The local authorities make out a balance-sheet, which, on one side, contains an estimate of what rentals can be obtained for the houses, and that will be made by the local authority in consultation with the Local Government Board. I am also asked how they arrive at the estimate. In regard to that it is necessary, I think, in fixing the rent, that they should look to what rents are or can be obtained for similar houses in the locality that are occupied by people similar to those for whom these new houses are intended. The houses taken for comparison are houses in first-class condition, and that is the best standard by which to fix rents.
      Sir C. HENRY: Will regard be had to the wages paid in the district?
      Mr. FISHER: Certainly; the wages paid in the district will be taken into consideration, and the rent will be fixed at a figure which prospective occupants can reasonably be expected to pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does that apply to Ireland and Scotland?"] I do not deal with Ireland or Scotland. I am speaking as representing the Local Government Board for England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland no doubt will have something to say about Scotland, and I believe he has sent out a similar circular dealing with the same problem. I know that there will be local authorities who will be imbued with the idea that this, scheme is not sufficiently generous from the financial point of view. I hold the opposite opinion. I think this scheme is one of very remarkable generosity, one which no Government before has proposed, or either this Treasury or the Treasury of any Government in the world.
      Sir C. HENRY: What is going to be the cost?
      Mr. FISHER: It is difficult to say what will be the cost of a scheme under which we are erecting houses to be let at an economic rent. It should be recollected

      1741
      that we will be building these houses after the War, when the cost of materials will be very much greater than was the case before the War, and the sum is going to be a substantial one.
      Sir J. BOYTON: Do you really intend to provide housing accommodation for the poorer working classes, or for the superior artisans, clerks, and other classes?
      Mr. FISHER: We intend to provide a house which contains living room, scullery, parlour, and three bedrooms. That is the best kind of house we intend to supply. It is intended to provide houses which are well-built and laid out, and which will be regarded as moderate and suitable for working men's dwellings.
      Sir W. BEALE: Are there any special provisions as to the acquisition of land?
      Mr. FISHER: That is one of the questions that we addressed to the local authorities, and the replies indicate that they thought there would be no difficulty as regards acquisition of land. I have been a little surprised at the answer to that question. Very few of them have indicated that they are likely to have any difficulty as regards acquiring land, but I may say that again has been under the consideration of a Committee, and if the powers under the Act are not sufficient to obtain land at a reasonable rate, other powers will have to be given.
      Sir W. COLLINS: Do these proposals relate to rehousing in the case of clearance schemes and old buildings, or only to new housing schemes?
      Mr. FISHER: These proposals are made only with reference to new dwellings, but I hope that the work of remodelling dwellings and the work generally known as clearing slum areas will be actively renewed when the War is over, and when money can be obtained for it. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we should like to make a good many demolition orders now which we dare not make, because there is no place where people we might turn out could lay their heads at the present moment.
      I pass from the question of housing to the kindred subject of health, although I think the House will agree with me that housing is the most important branch of this whole subject. We are all aware that there has been for some time a movement for bringing all these health activities of the various Departments under one Department and under one Minister. For
      1742
      myself, I am strongly in favour of that proposal, so long as it is acknowledged that you cannot divorce health and health policy from the whole policy of housing and sanitation, and that you cannot deprive local elected bodies of the public health activities which are growing day by day under the pressure of public opinion. I freely acknowledge that when we come to address ourselves to this great question of the public health activities for which various State Departments are responsible, it is not sufficient merely to amalgamate certain Departments that now deal with various sides of the health question. We shall have to look to the local areas, we shall have to consider whether in some cases these local areas are not too small, and whether in some cases the functions ought not to be spread over larger areas and larger units instead of the present small areas and small units. All these questions will have to be considered at the proper time, but while we are considering this future policy of public health as a matter really for which the Government must some day find time—it clearly cannot do so at the present critical time and under the present congested state of things—do not let it be supposed that there is any stagnation even at the present time in health activities either on the part of the local authorities or the Local Government Board.
      There is a progressive evolution going on in all health questions, even during the troublous times through which the country is passing, and with the depleted staffs which are left to deal with them; witness all that has been done in connection with maternity and child welfare, venereal disease, tuberculosis, the medical care of the poor, and the care of the blind. A few figures might be interesting to the House in connection with maternity and infant welfare. Health visitors were first started in 1890. In 1914 there were only 600 health visitors, but in 1918 there are more than 2,000 health visitors. The majority of them give the whole of their time to that work. Of course, many more will be needed when this War is over, and I am convinced that one of the best channels into which the many splendid women now doing such magnificent work in connection with our soldiers and our sailors can flow when the War is over will be this channel of doing the same thing for the civil population that they have been doing for the military and naval population. Of maternity and infant welfare centres, the

      1743
      first of which was started in 1906, there are now more than 1,100, rather more than half of which are conducted by the local authorities and rather less than half by voluntary societies.
      Then as to midwifery. I am sure that the House will agree with me that there is nothing more important than to extend the midwifery service, but owing to many causes we are short of midwives in the country at the present time, and for my own part I think we can hardly expect largely to increase the number of mid-wives until we raise their status and raise the wretched salaries with which they have to support life at the present moment, notwithstanding the delicate and trying duties they have to perform. I should like to see this reform accomplished, and the object we have in our mind is to have midwifery services everywhere. I would like to see the time when a competent midwife is available for every woman who needs her help, for one of the great things we are all thinking about is the reconstruction period after the War, when we shall have to replace the terrible losses we are suffering on the battlefield. But the result of our work under war conditions is shown in the fact that in 1910 midwives attended half the births of the country, while now, in 1918, midwives attend three-quarters of the births of the country. The work of the whole of our maternity services is shown in these figures, that whereas the death rate among infants was 150 per 1,000 up to 1900, the death rate among infants is now 100 per 1,000, which is a distinct improvement.
      There are other important figures I would like to give the House relating to midwives and births, despite the difficulty of securing an adequate number of mid-wives. In the ten years from 1897 to 1906 one mother died in childbirth for every 228 births; in the last ten years one mother has died in childbirth for every 260 births, so that there is a distinct improvement in these figures. I have been very anxious since I have been President of the Local Government Board to extend our powers as regards the whole of this work, which is annually growing, as will be seen by the figures of expenditure. The expenditure incurred on this work in the last three years by local authorities has been £96,000, £169,000, and £279,000 respectively, while the expenditure of voluntary agencies during the last
      1744
      three years has been £40,000, £50,000, and £70,000 respectively. Those are approximate figures.
      Sir HOWELL DAVIES: Having regard to present money values, does it represent the same amount of work?
      Mr. FISHER: I think I see my hon. Friend's point. What he really asks, as I understand it, is whether that expenditure indicates the same amount of work, having regard to the decreased purchasing value of the sovereign. I am afraid that is a question which requires some care in answering it. I should say it does not represent the full value of the money spent as compared with normal conditions, but what is the exact proportion of loss that we have had to suffer owing to the fall in value of the sovereign is a matter for careful inquiry, and I will consider that point. But the Treasury have extended quite lately the objects on which Grant can be paid, and the Grant is now available for lying-in homes, crèches, day nurseries, and the provision of food and milk for expectant and nursing mothers and young children, as well as convalescent homes for nursing mothers and young children, and other objects. The money is available for all these things, now chiefly carried out by voluntary associations, because unfortunately the local authorities have not the legal power to do many things they ought and want to do, and the Government cannot find time for certain little Bills to be introduced into this House. I know we have the Maternity and Infant Welfare Bill giving to the local authorities powers for spending money on the lying-in-homes, Crèches, etc. I am well aware that there is an expectation that there should be a still larger Bill dealing with the Ministry of Health, but if we have not time even for small measures, it would seem that there may not be time for larger measures.
      If I may take another subject and take it very shortly, I would like to deal with venereal disease. The House will recollect that under the Regulations of 1916 all county councils and county boroughs councils were required to submit free schemes for diagnosis and treatment of venereal disease. They responded admirably to that requirement notwithstanding the extraordinary difficulty in which the hospitals are placed at the present time. Schemes submitted by 121 local authorities out of 145 have been approved by the Board covering a population of 32,500,000,

      1745
      and 181 treatment centres are already at work serving a population which amounts approximately to 30,000,000. In London treatment centres were opened on the 1st of January, 1917, and there were during the first year 16,020 cases treated at those centres. Altogether there is evidence that these treatment centres are being resorted to, as it is the desire they should be resorted to—that treatment of the most modern kind is being offered and is being very gratefully accepted by those who unfortunately have contracted this disease. It is too soon to ask whether we are satisfied with the results, and I have alluded to the extraordinary difficulties in which the hospitals are placed owing to the shortage of doctors, while in addition there is a shortage of Salvarsan and things of that kind. But I say that the general way in which response has been made by the local authorities to these Regulations is most encouraging, and I believe that the House is pursuing the right policy in offering men and women this sure form of treatment, administered in every way with the utmost confidential securities, so that people have no excuse for not going to get themselves cured, or for going to those who do not cure, but to whom they are often driven by the fear of publicity. The Grant paid by the Board during the financial year 1917–18 amounted to £84,483, and for the current year it is expected to amount to £250,000. That represents, of course, only 75 per cent. of the expenditure, as the State provides that percentage of the expenditure to which the local authorities commit themselves.
      I must, before I leave the domain of public health, say one word on a subject which is very dear to my heart, and, I am sure, to the hearts of all of us, and that is, the question of the blind. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in 1914 set up a Committee to inquire into the condition and welfare of the blind, and he very kindly asked me to undertake the chairman ship of that Committee. That Committee, in due course, reported, and I was able to hand the Report to myself, having in the interval become President of the Local Government Board. Naturally, I take a very great interest in the subject. Now, for the first time, the State is going to do for the blind what it should have done many years ago. It is going to make special provision for them. It is going to see that there is some supervision of their general education and general mainten-
      1746
      ance. I set up a special Departmental Committee in the Local Government Board, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Walsh) very kindly undertook the chairmanship of it. That Committee has already done some most useful and practical work. The first thing was to establish a complete register of all the blind in this country, a thing that should have been done long ago. Of course, we cannot do much as regards workshops—which is the crux of the whole position—during the War, but we can at least see that under the now Education Bill everything possible is done for the blind in regard to education. I want this country to be the country to which everybody will come in order to study the best methods of treating the blind. Of course, philanthropical effort, much as it has done and is continuing to do, cannot do everything, and I am quite certain that what is wanted is supervision over all the great agencies that exist for the blind. Co-operation, too, is needed. It is necessary to fill up the gaps. We want to establish workshops for the blind, to help them to sell their goods at a profit in what I admit is a limited market, and for those who cannot work, even when you have trained them, it is necessary to provide an adequate pension. That is all in process of being done.
      Much work has been thrown on my Department in connection with the Representation of the People Act. The registration of electors in this country is now to be thrown on public officials, and the registration will have to be supervised by the Local Government Board. Already, I need hardly say, we are face to face with many difficulties. I understand that several questions are going to be raised in this House on this subject. The House must really be patient. The difficulties are tremendous. There are difficulties in connection with the supply of paper, with printing, with labour, and in obtaining skilled canvassers, and these difficulties have been enormously increased by the last Military Service Act. I had hoped that we should be able to produce the register by the 1st October, but my hopes are fading day by day. There are very many difficulties in the way, and unless some miracle is performed I see very little prospect of the register being completed with anything approaching accuracy, and in such a way that the desire of everyone that our soldiers and sailors shall not only have a vote, but shall also have an opportunity of voting

      1747
      may be realised. I feel there is very little chance of that happening by the 1st October. But the fact that I take a somewhat doleful view of it will not prevent me from stimulating the registration authorities to do their level best—and the printers as well. We have done one good thing. We have got the Stationery Office to come to our aid. It is going to make the contracts for the registration officers. It is going to ascertain what amount of printing and material will be required, and it will give any assistance that it can in order to speed up the process of completing the register. Questions, I understand, are to be asked on this matter in the course of the Debate, and I will, therefore, say nothing more now upon it.
      I have only one other subject to deal with, and it is my own Department, the staff of which has been sadly depleted since the commencement of the War. I claim for the existing staff that, while an enormous amount of extra work has been imposed upon them, that work has been done to the satisfaction of the House of Commons and of the country. In 1914 there were 510 men of military age in the Department. Now there are only 167, and 65 of these have been either rejected or discharged. Of the remaining 102 only two are in Grade 1 and only nine in Grade 2.
      Mr. BRUNNER: Which military age is the right hon. Gentleman taking?
      Mr. FISHER: Up to forty-one. Those who have joined up—and they joined up willingly—have done splendid service for their country. Thirty-three have been killed or wounded, and almost as many of them have obtained military honours on one field or another. I claim for the Department over which I preside that it has shown as great a spirit of patriotism and self-denial in this respect as any other section of the community, and that those who have remained behind have discharged their responsible and increased duties in the most admirable manner. This great Department of State has neither slumbered nor slept. It has not only performed its normal functions, but it has raised into activity many of the latent powers of our local authorities, and it has directed those latent powers into channels which have been of immense advantage to the State. I think I may make one further claim, and say that we
      1748
      are endeavouring to lay a solid foundation for those great works of reconstruction to which so much importance will attach after the War, and that when the time comes we shall bend our energies to the task, not of taking life, but of providing that security and that progress so necessary for our national existence.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      I wish to invite the attention of the Committee for a short time to the Regulations issued in the last few days by the Local Government Board under the Military Service Act. I make no apology for doing so, because they affect the rights and liberties of thousands of our fellow citizens in two vital respects. They deprive men up to fifty years of age of the rights which were given to their sons and to all who came before the tribunals under preceding Military Service Acts; and, further, they violate a pledge given by the Government on the strength of which certain Amendments were withdrawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton in the discussions on the Military Service Act recently passed by this House. The two important matters I complain of are these: In the first case, the applicant is deprived of his full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunal, and, in the second place, is deprived of any sort of professional assistance in taking his case before the tribunal, while the Crown reserves to itself the right of being represented by fully qualified legal gentlemen who are sent down by the War Office to assist the National Service representative. I should like to justify what I have said with regard to the failure of the Government to fulfil the undertaking given by the Home Secretary. May I recall to the mind of this Committee what occurred on 15th April? Clause I was being discussed. That was the Clause of the Bill which, as originally drafted, enabled the Government by Regulation to sweep away every ground of exemption. We put down an Amendment for the purpose of restricting that very wide power, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, with that candour which he always displays, in order to satisfy the Committee, said they were not going to exercise these powers to their fullest extent. Perhaps I had better read you his words:
      "It is not the intention of the Government to allow the applicants a right of appeal from the

      1749
      local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal, except by leave of the local tribunal, while at the same time the Minister of National Service will retain the right of appeal from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal."
      After a very long discussion, in which the view was unanimously expressed by everyone who spoke that this was most unfair and without any precedent in the whole history of the administration of our law, the Home Secretary got up and gave this pledge on behalf of the Government. He said:
      "The only object of the proposal to limit the right of appeal was to diminish delay. I feel, however, the force of the argument used in favour of giving a right of appeal as much to one side as to the other. As a lawyer, and I am afraid rather an old lawyer now, I have a prejudice in favour of that view.… I propose, with the consent of my colleagues, to extend it to both sides."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th April, col. 104.]
      The Committee understood, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board understood, that that was a pledge to give the full right of appeal to both sides which up to that time was enjoyed by the National Service representative, and in reply to a question I put down two days ago, in which I complained that that full right of appeal had not been preserved in these Regulations, my right hon. Friend said:
      "I cannot admit that the new Regulations deprive applicants of the full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunals."
      Then in answer to a supplementary question, he said:
      "I still think my view is correct that the full rights of appeal are embodied in the Regulations. That, however, will be a matter for debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1918, cols. 1393–94]
      There can be no controversy as to the meaning of that. I inquired whether the pledge had been fulfilled by the Regulations which have been circulated. This question of the right of appeal involves a consideration of four paragraphs in the Regulations. The first of these is 38 (2), which limits the period of exemption given by the tribunal to six months—that is the maximum period. Then Regulation 27—and this is a new one—says that
      "An application by or on behalf of a man for the renewal or variation of a certificate shall not be entertained, unless leave to apply has been granted by the tribunal which decided the application on which the certificate was granted."
      5.0 P.M.
      The two paragraphs that follow arc not material, but it goes on:
      "The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under these Regulations shall be final."
      1750
      Then if you look at 24 (1), that describes the method of applying for a renewal. Application must be made in the prescribed form, and when it is granted it must be treated as the application for renewal. Paragraph 44 is an important paragraph which deal with the right of appeal:
      "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the local tribunal and the National Service representative …may, as hereinafter provided, appeal against the decision of the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal for the area, or such other Appeal Tribunal as may in any particular case or class of cases be prescribed."
      The notice of appeal must be given within two days. The local tribunal is deprived of the power it had before of extending the time if there was some sufficient cause accepted by the National Service representative. Then paragraph (3) says:
      "The decisions in respect of which an appeal may be made shall not include any decision of the local tribunal, which in these Regulations is expressed to be final."
      Inasmuch as the light to apply for renewal is to be final, if the application is refused it follows that no appeal lies from the refusal. I think the most convenient form in which I can lay before the Committee what I suggest is the result of these Regulations to which I have referred is to give three concrete examples. The first case is that of a man who applies for exemption, and the chairman says, "Three months exemption." If he is an intelligent man—and we will take the intelligent men first—who has read these Regulations, he will ask, "Have I leave to appeal for renewal?" The chairman will reply, "I cannot say that. You must apply on the prescribed form." The man goes and gets the form, and by the time the appeal is heard the two days he had under the original application are gone, and he is shut out from appeal. His only course is to lodge his application in any case, not knowing whether it will be renewed, within the two days. In the case of another man who comes before the tribunal perhaps his only knowledge is from the unfortunate experiences of his sons. He may have three months' exemption, and may think that he has the right of renewal unless it is otherwise provided by an Order. I can give a case of men who have come out believing that the three months' exemption carried with it a right to apply for renewal, that right not having been prohibited by any Order. The man is in this position, that no plea

      1751
      of ignorance of the Regulations or of having been misled by statements into the belief that he had a full right to appeal would help him, because the local tribunal have no jurisdiction to extend it by a single day, however great may be the inadvertence in the particular case.
      There is a still stronger case which I think shows more clearly still that the pledge to give a full right of appeal has not been carried out by these Regulations. Take the case of a tribunal that gives six months' exemption. That is the maximum they can give. In that case a man has no right to appeal at all, even within a few days. He only has a right to appeal from a decision if he is aggrieved. He cannot say he is aggrieved by a decision which is the maximum period that the tribunal can grant. His grievance is that he is not allowed to apply for a renewal, but on that there is no appeal; he is debarred. I could give a case where a man has six months and is debarred in terms from making any application to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal. I have put the Committee in possession of that point, and I hope they will note it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Most unfair!"] It is true he has under the Regulations an appeal for the six months, but the answer is that he is not aggrieved by it. The third instance, which is a little astonishing, is that in Regulation 27, which only applies to an application for renewal by the man. The National Service representative may apply for certificates to be curtailed in period without leave at all, but the man must get leave. There is no right of appeal if leave is refused to the man, but if the Military Service representative fails in his effort to curtail the period he has a full right to appeal to the tribunal. That is placing him in the position which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place him in in the original suggestion he made, but which was afterwards withdrawn. I would sum up my criticisms on this point on the right of appeal by saying that the right of appeal where exemption is granted for six months is abolished, and in the second place the right of the man is taken away while the full right of the National Service representative is preserved in regard to varying the period of exemption. All I can say is that if the Government really declare that they are advised that I am wrong in my construction of these Regulations and that they really do give the right of appeal the man
      1752
      had before, I do beg them to make that clear in the Regulations. I would like to read an extract from a case that was reported quite recently while the last Military Service Acts were before the House in which a comment was made by Mr. Justice Darling, who has had unrivalled experience in these cases. I think he has dealt with nearly every case in the Divisional Courts. He said in regard to the language of that statute—that is the Military Service Acts—that
      "he hoped that the Man-power Bill which was now before Parliament would be couched in terms less embarrassing to the Courts and to the public, who had the right to understand what they were being subjected to."
      I think that expression of opinion as to the difficulty in construing the Acts that have already been passed should make us a little careful that these Acts are in terms not only clear to lawyers and the courts of law but intelligible to the man in the street, who will have to construe them under the new Regulations without the professional assistance which he at the present time receives. Apart, however, from the undertaking which was given I would base my appeal to the Government on the ground of expediency. I have sat for more than two years as chairman of one of the divisions of the London Appeal Tribunal in this matter, and I speak from my own experience. Looking at the figures, I find that in 50 per cent. of the cases that have come before us we have varied or reversed the order of the tribunal in favour of the man. It is not, therefore, a mere formality to have this right of appeal. It is a right which strikes at the very root of the statutory right provided under the first Military Service Act for the men who became subject to compulsory service. What I do suggest is that the easiest way of dealing with the matter is to preserve the previous system which everyone understands, and with which every local tribunal in the country is familiar. It is understood by the men themselves, and it will avoid the great difficulties which will be constantly recurring if these Regulations are persisted in. If the Government cannot go as far as that— [HON. MEMBERS: "They will!"] —I would invite them to give every man the right of coming before the Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal, even if it is only a written application, so that the man shall not be shut out from coming before the Appeal Tribunal, which can very well decide whether the appeal is a frivolous one. To leave that to be decided

      1753
      by the local tribunal in the way I have described is not carrying out the views of the House, nor is it in accord with public opinion.
      I turn for a few moments to the other Regulation which I think is a mistake. It stands on a different ground because there was nothing said about it during the discussions in Committee, and I make no criticism of the Government for not having fulfilled an undertaking. It is depriving the man of professional assistance, and is to be found in Regulation 12 (2):
      "A party to an application shall not be professionally represented before the tribunal, but the tribunal may, in their discretion, if they are of opinion that the applicant is unable adequately to present his case, permit him to be represented by a relative, or other person—"
      mark the words "other person"—
      "not being a professional representative."
      The justification of this is delay. It is said that legal assistance delays an application, and that it is highly important at the present stage, with the imperative necessity for getting men for the Army, that no delay should ensue. I have no reason to suppose that the experience of other chairmen varies from my own. My colleagues in London quite agree with the view that legal assistance, so far from delaying proceedings, has expedited them. It has been of the very greatest assistance to us in the Appeal Tribunals. We could not have done our work in the time with the thoroughness, and giving the satisfaction which I think the tribunals have given on the whole, without it. Coming down to details, you get a man unrepresented, without, a solicitor or counsel, who has not got his case up, and does not know what the tribunal wants to hear. He has, perhaps, left at home all the documents relevant to the particular matters likely to arise in the course of the the proceeding, the witnesses are not there, and the real points of the case are not brought out. Such a man usually deals with a number of matters wholly irrelevant to the inquiry, and in such cases as that the chairman of the tribunal becomes his counsel. I always try to put myself in the position of the counsel of the man, and try to devote myself with the same vigilance to protecting him as I should show if I were his counsel. But that is not a burden you can put on every chairman sixty times a day in sixty different places. They could
      1754
      not do it. It is all very well when it arises occasionally. The practised solicitors who appear before us, far from delaying proceedings, are so busy that they are anxious to get through the cases. In many cases they open by saying, "There is nothing in these considerations which have been put in; the whole point lies here," and in two or three minutes the whole point is laid before the tribunal.
      I desire to pay my tribute not only to my own professional Bar, but also to the solicitors who practise before us in London. They have been of the greatest assistance to us, and we owe a large measure of success in the tribunal to the loyalty with which, not only to their clients but to the State, they have conducted the work with which they have been entrusted. One of the odd parts of this Regulation—I think the oddest—is that, while it says that it delays proceedings to employ counsel, yet is says it does not delay proceeding to employ another person. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your grandmother!"] So that to employ a solicitor who has been struck off the rolls is not to delay proceedings, but to employ a reputable solicitor is. By what process of thought that conclusion was reached I cannot understand, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will enlighten the Committee. The sort of advocate that would be got before a tribunal would be the ex solicitor, the paid lecturer for the No-Conscription Fellowship, who will always be most anxious to assist the applicant—for nothing, of course! There will be no evidence that any consideration passes, and he will do it for love of his fellow-man, and you may be sure he will not give very much assistance to the smooth working of the tribunals, his whole object being to destroy and defeat them as far as possible. I do not see why under this Regulation that class should not get a very large practice.
      I would point out again that the hardship, and, I think, the main injustice, of such a Regulation as this is that the State, through the National Service Department, has the right of being represented by a fully-qualified lawyer. If all the National Service representatives who attend tribunals were of the order of the National Service representative that we have had the good fortune to have during the last two years—because he has been, not only fair to the Department he represents, but most fair to the man who is before him, and most anxious that every

      1755
      fact in the man's favour should be brought out—if you could guarantee such a National Service representative as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockton, I should be quite content that the applicant should not be represented. But we know that is not the case, and, therefore, it is highly essential in the interests of justice that this Regulation should be amended in the sense I have advocated.
      There is another aspect of this matter to which I would also invite the attention of the Government. I know of no other instance, with the exception of one, in the whole administration of our law from the earliest times in which a man, whose liberty is in peril, has been deprived of the right of being represented by counsel before the tribunal that has to decide his case. The one exception was the old barbarous rule of the Common Law, which deprived a man indicted for felony of the right of counsel, except on points of law. It was on that system in one assize that there were probably more judicial murders committed than ever since that law has been repealed. It was under that system that Jeffreys and Scroggs flourished. Without such a system such judges could not have sat on the bench or maintained their position for a single week, and it was clear that the Crown in those days was not concerned in getting the truth but in getting a conviction, and that without delay. In the more humane and enlightened age that followed the Revolution that great stain upon the spirit of British justice and upon the administration of our law was removed, and men are now entitled in every Court to be represented by counsel. I-put it to the Committee, having given by Statute the right to the humblest criminal charged with crime to be represented by his chosen advocate in a Court of law, are we to deprive the man who goes, not into a criminal Court, but before a civil tribunal, to assert a right conferred upon him by Statute, of the same right? Because it is a right, rather than a privilege. I think very little consideration will show that that could not be done without inflicting an injustice against which public opinion revolts. Not only does every man in every other Court have that right, but a man's own son had that right when he came before the tribunal under the early Military Service Acts.
      1756
      I would impress upon my right hon. Friend that he should review his consideration of that Regulation. I do not think he does, but some people seem to suppose that a man who goes before a tribunal is doing something he ought not to do. That is an entirely wrong impression. It is as much a right for a man to apply under the Act of Parliament for exemption as it is the right of the Crown to compel him to serve as a soldier. The two rights are given by the same Statute, and but for this right the Bill would never have passed this House. It is a part of the law, and, therefore, ought to be as much respected, and one which the Regulations should give the same assistance in carrying out. The matter is urgent. The Regulations are already in force, and I would beg my right hon. Friend not to delay revising them. I can assure him I make these suggestions with no desire whatever to embarrass the Government, and certainly not with any desire to embarrass him. I most frankly and gratefully acknowledge the constant sympathy and assistance which the President of the Local Government Board has given to tribunals. He and his able staff under him have had to compose what amounts practically to a new code of law, applying the new conditions—conditions unparalleled in our history. That they should have avoided mistakes under such circumstances was impossible, and that those mistakes have been so few is, I think, in itself a high tribute to those responsible. It is in that spirit that I invite my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government to accept the suggestion I have made, and to bring these Regulations in accord with public opinion, and in accord with the pledge given by the Home Secretary when this Bill was in Committee, and thus make them acceptable to public opinion and to the thousands of citizens of this country whose liberty they have taken, and whose right they also have taken in a manner which no other Act of Parliament has done.
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN (Chairman, House of Commons Appeal Tribunal): I think I may say, on behalf of the Committee as a whole, that we are all very much indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for a lucid explanation of a very complicated situation, and for the moderation with which he expressed the strong view he holds. I think at the outset I should like to claim

      1757
      for myself, and for my colleagues who may speak in this Debate on the same lines as myself, that we are at least as anxious as any member of the Government, the head of the Local Government Board, or the Minister of National Service, to get fit men as speedily as we possibly can. I think that will be admitted, and therefore anything we say here, that being granted, will be only judged from the point of view that we are sincerely anxious to help the country and to get the right men as quickly as possible. The next thing to which I would like to get the assent of everybody is this: That in the Regulations which are issued, strong as was the case under the first Regulations for their being lucid, simple, and easily understood, there is an overwhelming case under present conditions for the new Regulations being, if possible, so simple that ho who runs may read, because they are based on the assumption that no man at any of these tribunals shall have the benefit of professional assistance. Therefore it follows that if ever there were any real necessity for pellucid clearness, if that can be got in such a document of this kind, here it is.
      I do not hesitate to say that while these Regulations in some respects are useful, they are more difficult to understand than any Regulations I have ever read under the Military Service Acts. We are dealing with a new class of men—a class up to fifty-one. Of the existing class, from eighteen to forty-one years, you can say with truth that substantially all the cases —there being some exceptions, of course—are hard cases by reason of personal claims, domestic responsibilities, and physical fitness. That being the state of affairs, the greatest possible care should have been taken in framing these new Regulations. After the reluctant manner —I do not think I am putting it too high—with which, after the arguments that were raised before the House, the House parted with that Bill, any promises or undertakings should have been implemented to the full, and one of the most important of them all was the question of the right of appeal from the local to the Appeal Tribunal. The way in which my hon. and learned Friend dealt with that absolves me from going into any details, and I think it would be very much better if I simply gave some concrete instances of how the thing works. The panel of the tribunal over which I have the honour to preside sat this morning in Committee
      1758
      Room 9, and we had at once before us these Regulations to deal with them as well as we could. Under the old Regulations in the case of a man, say, John Smith, coming before a local tribunal, on the ground which he lays before that body, let us suppose he gets an exemption for three months. In. the old practice he would have the right of appeal. What is the position of John Smith, who has appeared before the local tribunal to-day—and I suppose hundreds of cases have been heard this morning all over the country? No local or Appeal Tribunal can now give anything, except in the case of a certified occupation, other than a final decision in form. It is true that John Smith has two days, and, if he be a wise man, he will run no risk, but put in at once his notice of appeal. Should he not do that, what is his position? Fourteen days before the end of the three months he must apply to the local tribunal for leave to renew his application, and if the local tribunal refuse him, there is no appeal from it. I will assume that the man has taken the advice tendered to him, and has at once lodged his notice of appeal. The case subsequently comes before the Appeal Tribunal. What, then, is our position? The man lays before us the ground upon which he asks us to reverse the decision of the local tribunal. The local tribunal have given him three months' exemption. I say to the man, "This appears to be a perfectly proper order; there is nothing wrong with it; you have had three months' exemption; what now are your grounds for asking anything further?" The man, perhaps, replies, "Oh, yes, it is a very fair order." Then I will say, "Is there anything more than that you have to put before us?" The reply will probably be, "I do not trust the local tribunal as to what is going to happen fourteen days before the end of the three months, and I should like to put in a notice now." What is my answer? It is, "I do not think that is a ground in which I can exercise my discretion in your favour. I cannot take from you the statement that you ask for an alteration, simply because you do not trust the local tribunal. You must apply to me on some grounds which are relevant. Your application must be based upon clearer grounds which are set forth by Statute, and in the Statute there is nothing stated about having no trust in the local tribunal. "The man may continue," Well, I do not know what ultimately the local

      1759
      tribunal may or may not say in my favour. There may be a change of personnel, or all sorts of things may happen." Things do change, as we all know. As everybody knows, in London there is no guarantee if a man make an application before a committee that he will come again before the same body of men. Still, that is a ground which, as I tell the man, I cannot entertain.
      What happens to that man? He is deprived of his right of going before the Appeal Tribunal on the merits of the case. I say to both of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, they know as well as I do that this House would never have passed the Bill had they not believed that the appellant was going to have substantially the same right of appeal as before from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal. It may be that my right hon. Friend will get up and point out to me and to the rest of the hon. Members here that technically the same rights of appeal are there, save that the appeal has to be put in at once. You may say that, and with the best will in the world, but the man does not know. He has not been through it. Neither has my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service. He does not know how the tribunals work. Some of us do. We are steeped in it, and have been for over two years, and we are very tired of it. At any rate, we do know the job. We understand how these things are going to work. I say this deliberately, that while, technically, you are giving to the appellant from the local tribunal the full right of appeal in two days, substantially you are vitally affecting his right of appeal.
      Again, with regard to re-hearing, what have we been used to do? We made our final order for two or three months. It might be that often a man or his wife was seriously ill, or there were many other domestic conditions into which I need not go in detail. Everybody understands who knows what human life is, because it Is that we are dealing with here. I often wonder whether permanent officials realise that in this matter. In a case of this kind we say to the man: "Yes, that is the final order, but if the circumstances vitally change, you can apply for a rehearing." Of course, I admit at once there has been a certain amount of abuse. Such always happens; but substantially these rights have been well and reasonably exercised. Now the man has
      1760
      no chance of a re-hearing at all, unless he gets the consent—of whom?—the Director General of National Service.
      An HON. MEMBER: The local representative.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: No, no; he has to go to the Director-General of Recruiting for it. Another thing has been taken out of our hands, and it is serious, and really serious, for it will give a blow to the system, and will not, as is supposed, help you to get your men quicker. You will not get a man a day earlier, that is certain. I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not true to say that you will not get a man a day earlier owing to this Regulation, and you will enormously increase the work of the tribunals, clerical and otherwise. I desire to make a suggestion. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will receive it with that open mind and sympathy which has distinguished not only himself, but his predecessor in office; and I would like to join most heartily in what was said by my hon. Friend in praise of the Local Government Board, whose sympathetic consideration, I doubt not, we shall have in the problem that is now before us. My suggestion is concerning Regulation 27. I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party present. He has one of the clearest minds probably that ever entered public life. I might read out Regulation 27, to which I invite him to look. It is one of the most complicated Regulations ever issued.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I cannot understand it at all.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: There is Regulation 44, which seems to give the right perfectly clearly. It says,
      "Any person aggrieved by the decision can appeal,"
      and so on. The real intention of somebody —I do not know who—but I do not believe it is the intention of my right hon. Friend here—somebody's intention is embodied in Regulation 27, to clog, and, consequently affect, the right of appeal. Let me say another thing about that. If those concerned feel certain that this two days spoken of in which the man can make his appeal should be present to the minds of everybody, why is it not so stated? That two days you have to arrive at by a process of laborious deduction. It is nowhere so stated.

      1761
      That brings me to the question of the right of appellants to professional assistance. Let me repeat—let the Committee thoroughly understand—I hope I am not wearying hon. Members, but I am going to say it over and over again until it is driven in—as to the class of case with which you are dealing. You are dealing with men from forty-one to fifty-one years of age. They have borne the burden and heat of the civil side of this struggle up till now. I have no particular sympathy with one class above another, but the least we can do is to acknowledge that they deserve well of their country for the way they have fulfilled their duties up till now. If, under the circumstances, any man or body of men deserve any reasonable assistance, it is these in laying their cases before the tribunals in the national interest—because it is against the national interest to send unfit men into the Army, and it is also against the national interest to send men into the Army who are better retained in civil life. To deprive them of the right of professional representation is wrong. I myself am a lawyer, although I have not been doing very much at it lately.
      I rather distrust people who do not like lawyers. The other day I was reading Lord Morley's "Reminiscences." In one of his reflections the question is put: "Why is it that the great executive officers do not like lawyers?" The reply by Lord Morley, in his own wise way, is: "I think perhaps because they do not like law." I will at once admit that in some tribunals, in some districts of the country, it is quite likely that the right of professional assistance has been abused. I am not saying that this has not happened. I have certain evidence that it has, but in any system of this kind you may have abuses. We must take the balance of things. I can only speak from my own personal experience in London, and here I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that while there have been some—very few—instances of legal gentlemen not acting in the proper spirit, and abusing the right of professional assistance, these cases have practically died out. We got to know those concerned, and they had a rather chilly time when they appeared before us. For the rest, solicitors and barristers alike have played their part well. They have discharged a very difficult duty with a high sense of their national responsibility. Many and many a time I have seen a lawyer turn down his
      1762
      brief, knowing that the application of his client could not reasonably be proceeded with.
      There is another useful function performed by the legal representatives. They have been very useful—if I may use the term—as watch-dogs, in helping the tribunals to an interpretation of the Regulations and of the proper exercise of their power. There is a regular Bar which thoroughly understands the Regulations, and which has a very large experience of the practice of various tribunals. This has been a very useful safeguard for the public with regard to the exercise of tribunal powers. If my right hon. Friend will turn to page 5, paragraph 3, he will see what is required. Appellants have to
      "confine themselves to the presentation of evidence and the elucidation of facts strictly relevant to the grounds on which the application is made."
      I will put a concrete case of a man of forty-five or forty-six with three or four children. He sits in the Court for some time watching each case, and waiting his turn. When his case comes on that man's mental condition is not at all conducive to the "elucidation of the facts strictly relevant." He often comes before a tired tribunal. By one o'clock to-day I was very tired, and it is only by the strongest exercise of patience that I was able to give a decently fair hearing to the last ten cases before the tribunal. I think that alone shows the astonishing lack of knowledge of human nature exhibited by this proposal to take away from that class of man this useful power of representation in laying the facts of the case before the tribunal.
      There is another point, and it may seem a rather small one, but the strain placed upon the chairman of doing the appellant's work for him is very great. Perhaps I may be forgiven for relating a little personal experience which occurred only this morning. We had a list of forty-two cases to deal with between 10.30 and 1.30. At the beginning of the proceedings, in view of the Debate to take place to-day, we announced that we would not hoar any professional representatives, and we adjourned those cases for a week, in order to see what happened here. All those cases were taken out, and we had then a list of twenty-four cases to deal with. Any County Court judge or judge in the High Court would be horrified at having to deal with the lives and fortunes

      1763
      of some twenty-four people between 10.45 and 1.30, and they were really cases of very great importance. What happens at a normal sitting? Some cases would have been heard with professional representatives, and immediately a case comes up where a man is not represented you say to yourself, "I will look after that fellow, and see that he has a fair run." There are many reasons perhaps why such a man is not legally represented. Possibly one is that he cannot afford it. If hon. Members saw the human problems that I do who cannot afford legal assistance, they would understand what it means for a chairman to have a mind fresh to deal with such a case. Under this Regulation all that is gone, and you are left with this very great strain. The consequence is that the cases do not get the careful consideration which they should have. On all these grounds I most strongly urge my right hon. Friend not to be led away by the mere technical position with regard to the right of appeal, but if he will charge his mind with the fact that the House intended that a substantial and not merely technical right of appeal should be granted, he will suspend Regulation 27, and I am certain that, after what has been said, he will be ready to grant once again the right of professional representation.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I am sure there is only one desire in the Committee with regard to this matter, and it is that the right of appeal which the House and the Government wisely accepted should be adequately safeguarded not only in the letter, but in the spirit. I have not the knowledge of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down on this subject, nor his experience; but I confess that upon giving such attention as I have been able to devote to the terms of these Regulations I find it very difficult to reconcile the 27th Regulation with the 44th, or to say what is their conjoint effect. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be well advised if he would consider the possibility of clearing up the matter, and making it perfectly plain to the House and the persons concerned that the right of appeal which was intended to be granted in its fullest and largest sense is not indirectly cut down and curtailed by the provisions of the 27th Regulation.
      1764
      The point upon which I want to say a word or two has reference rather to the 12th of these Regulations, which provides, among other things, that a party to an application shall not be professionally represented before the tribunal. I think my right hon. "Friend opposite has already said that he has an open mind on that subject, and is prepared to defer to any general expression of the opinions of the House. The matter is made a little more serious by the third Sub-section, to which my right hon. Friend has just referred, which is one of the most stringent I have ever seen in any Act of Parliament, or any Regulation of a public Department. It is in these terms:
      "All parties to an application, and their representatives, if any, who are allowed to appear, shall confine themselves to the presentation of evidence and the elucidation of facts strictly relevant to the grounds on which the application is made."
      That is a counsel of perfection to which, so far as I am aware, no tribunal has ever even attempted to conform. You are setting up a standard which a Court of law, with trained judges on the bench and accomplished counsel at the Bar, assisted by still more accomplished solicitors in the well to instruct them, as far as my knowledge goes have rarely been able to attain. I do not want to press that too far. If we are to have this ideal system of justice administered by these tribunals, surely you should fortify them by every possible means, to prevent them falling short of securing the attainment of both the truth and the justice of the case! I am not speaking here in the interests of the profession to which I once belonged, but I am speaking entirely in the interests of the persons concerned and of the State. Our history in this respect is a very peculiar one. By the common law of this country, in the old days, persons concerned as parties in a case were not allowed to give evidence at all. It was supposed that they had such a bias in their own interests that they could not be trusted to tell the truth, and it required the centuries of experience to make accused people who best know the facts of the case competent to give evidence before the Court.
      In my own experience, I remember quite well, when I was a young man at the Bar, that a prisoner in a criminal case was not allowed to give evidence, because he was supposed to be so tainted that, whether innocent or guilty, it would be dangerous to receive his evidence. It

      1765
      is exactly twenty years ago since a Bill was passed through this House to enable prisoners to be witnesses. Some of the most eminent lawyers of the time opposed it hotly and strongly, on the ground that it would be a perilous and fatal departure from a rule which the wisdom of our ancestors and the experience of their successors had devised. Does anyone say that the result is not satisfactory? It is true that it has stopped one argument on behalf of the criminal— that his mouth was closed. We all know that in three cases out of four the prisoner is a guilty person, and in his interest that his mouth should be closed. I merely mention that as an illustration to show how our ideas with regard to these matters have been modified, and wisely and judiciously modified, by Statute.
      6.0 P.M.
      If it is true that you ought to give the parties concerned power to state their own case, still more is it true, and all experience shows that it is so in a highly technical matter of this kind—which affects vitally the interests, not only of individuals, but of families—they should be allowed such professional assistance as they can obtain? It is not only in their interest, but In the interest of the tribunal. My right hon. Friend opposite has just drawn a pathetic picture of the mental lassitude to which he was reduced as lately as this morning, after sitting for three hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has recovered."] Yes; he has re-covered quickly and thoroughly. However, I am speaking quite seriously, and it is a crippling of the efficiency of the tribunals that they should be deprived of professional assistance. They can do their work much more quickly, as nay right hon. Friend has truly said. The advocates, whether they be solicitors or counsel, in a matter of this kind, owing to their high professional traditions, may be relied upon to assist the tribunals, and not obstruct them, particularly in a sphere where the highest interests of the State and the safety of the State are concerned. I venture very strongly to appeal to my right hon. Friend to make a large and liberal concession in this matter. He will not delay the object that he has in view, but will facilitate it. He will give to the persons concerned the assurance that they have had full justice done to them, and he will substantially aid the tribunals in the discharge of a most difficult
      1766
      and most invidious task. I hope that he will see his way to withdraw that Subsection, which prevents the employment of professional assistance.
      Mr. FISHER: I gladly acknowledge that everyone who has spoken has shown all through this struggle a desire to give every possible assistance, either by sitting on these tribunals for long and weary hours, or, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has done, by assisting in many matters the progress of the War, and doing every single thing that they possibly can to procure the men who are absolutely necessary at the front at the present time I am a little bit in the position of those who have to carry out very grave and serious Acts of Parliament, like the Military Service Acts. All those Acts, and especially the last Military Service Act, if they are to be of real value, must have quick operation, and there was very little time to frame this very difficult and complicated code of rules. My right hon. Friend, who was responsible more than any other man for the Military Service Act, the Minister for National Service (Sir A. Geddes), was very naturally pressing the Local Government Board to frame these Regulations and to issue them as soon as possible. It is perfectly obvious to anybody reading the instructions which accompany those Regulations that our desire was to accelerate the proceedings of the tribunals without doing any injustice to the applicants, in order that there might be a constant flow of men to aid those gallant fellows who stand between us and destruction. Perhaps we had not sufficient time to take evidence on all those points on which we had to come to a rapid decision. I quite agree, if we had had more time, that I should have liked to have consulted several of my hon. Friends who have sat as chairmen of these tribunals, but do not let the Committee run away with the idea that we have no evidence. I can assure the Committee that a good deal of evidence has reached us on the question of employing professional assistants. It was not by any means all on one side. I have a large batch of correspondence on this question from chairmen of appeal tribunals, chairmen of local tribunals, and from men who have worked very hard on those tribunals, and who have acquired an immense amount of experience during the last two years in working them. The evidence that came to my knowledge was

      1767
      very varied. I am myself a member of the Bar, and come of a family connected with the Bar.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House of Lords having come with a Message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—
  Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £543,880 be granted for the said service."
  Mr. FISHER(resuming): When we were interrupted I was building up this argument; that these rules were undoubtedly framed in a very hurried way, that there was too little time to take consultation with many of those whose advice I should like to have had, that it was essential from the very nature of the case that we should get the Military Service Act, 1918, into operation quickly, but that, at the same time, a large amount of evidence was put at my disposal as regards the right of the applicant and the need for the applicant and the need for the tribunal of professional advice in the conduct of the cases. I was submitting that that evidence was of a very varied character. So far as my prejudices as a member of the Bar are concerned, I have a prejudice rather in favour of professional assistance than against it. I cannot say that everybody who is a member of the Bar and even a distinguished member of the Bar has spoken with quite the same appreciation of the members of their profession as I have heard to-day from two or three members of the Bar here. There is no doubt that counsel and solicitors elucidate the cases in which they are engaged, but
  1768
  my correspondence shows that there are those who think that they rather entangle than elucidate the cases in which they appear. Undoubtedly in the earlier proceedings before the tribunals there was a good deal of complaint which reached us as to the manner in which certain solicitors conducted their cases, particularly in the country, which members of the tribunals thought was more calculated to enhance the reputation of the solicitor for a love of protracted fighting than for elucidating the case. There arc undoubtedly members of tribunals, and very worthy members of tribunals, who think that the less they see of counsel and solicitors the better it is for the elucidation of the case. When, we decided, as we did decide, to take away from the applicants under the new Act the right to be professionally assisted by counsel or solicitors, we provided that they would be able to employ a relative or other person to present their case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: A grandmother!
  Mr. FISHER: I have known a grandmother who was a very powerful advocate. I think it is desirable that we should argue the question in a fair way. I am trying to put the side of the case that is put to me. I do not say at the moment which side I am going to take. I told the House yesterday that I would be guided by the opinions expressed by hon. Members. After all, we do leave the power to every applicant to have legal advice in drawing up his case. That is not to be despised.
  Colonel Sir C. SEELY: You could not stop that.
  Mr. FISHER: I am trying to show the Committee what the applicant has. I am trying to put a side of the case which is certainly very strongly represented to me, not merely by correspondents, but by some Members of this House—namely, that the applicant has the power now to-employ professional assistance to draw up his case. He can put his written case, drawn up by a solicitor or counsel who can be employed for that purpose, before the tribunal. The right of having a professional representative was taken away from him, but so far as trade unionists, for instance, are concerned, undoubtedly under the present rule they would have power to take their secretary before the tribunal to argue their case. Employers

  1769
  would appear to argue their case, and an accountant could appear in difficult cases to argue their case. We undoubtedly took away the right to be professionally represented before the tribunal by a barrister or solicitor why did we do that? We did it in the honest belief that we were accelerating the procedure without taking away any of the protection which a man might legitimately demand and which he ought to have in order to bring his case before the tribunal. It was a matter that had to be decided in a hurry. I remember having to go through these Regulations— there are sixty of them—and to see how far they would, first of all, carry out the Military Service Acts, and next how they would meet all claims consistent with getting men for the Army.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I hope my hon. Friend had legal assistance.
  Mr. FISHER: I had what my right hon. Friend has often had—administrative assistance. I am quite sure that he would say, from his long public career, that administrative assistance is quite as good as legal assistance. There are sixty of these Regulations. I looked through them with a view to seeing if they carried out the Act and that they adequately protected the applicants who came before the tribunals. The real point is, which system would work most smoothly and most swiftly from the point of view of getting men, and which would work without doing any injustice to the applicant. That is a matter upon which my correspondence shows that there is a great variety of opinion. I said yesterday that I was ready to listen to the opinions of hon. Members. I want to be guided by the House in all these things. The speeches which have been made to-day by hon. Members like the Deputy-Chairman of Committees and by my hon. Friend (Mr. Albion Richardson), who have done such splendid work in connection with the Appeal Tribunals, are bound to carry weight. If they needed to be reinforced, they have been reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). It is impossible for me not to be influenced by speeches of that kind coming from those who are really experts in this matter. What is the effect of what they say? It is this, "You think that by depriving the applicants of professional assistance you are accelerating the proceedings before the tribunals. You are doing nothing of the kind. You are really
  1770
  taking away from us, particularly the Appeal Tribunals, the very assistance which enables us most quickly and most justly to arrive at our decisions." I have had a number of letters, especially from those who preside over Appeal Tribunals, who take that view.
  I may say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has written to me saying that he hopes we will restore the rights of the applicants to have professional assistance. He, of course, is looking after those in whom he is specially interested, namely, those engaged in agriculture. I have to weigh the evidence on behalf of the Government. Unless I hear evidence very much to the contrary of what I have heard, I am prepared to bow to the opinion of the Committee. I am very much influenced by what has just been said by the late Prime Minister. Unless I hear many opinions to the contrary to those which have been expressed, I am prepared to rescind this Regulation and to restore to those who come before the tribunals the right enjoyed by those who came before the old tribunals when they were called up under the former Military Service Act, the full right which they had to retain professional assistance. I have carefully gone into this matter. I have considered whether the right should only be given by leave of a tribunal, and I came to the conclusion that it would only waste time, because there would be two trials, first the trial whether or not leave should be given, and then a trial when, probably in most oases, leave had been given. I have also considered the matter from the point of view whether professional assistance should only be allowed in connection with Appeal Tribunals. There are many people who have told me that in their opinion that would suffice, but, after all, that would only enormously multiply the appeals. A man would say, "I cannot have professional assistance before the local tribunal, therefore I shall appeal in order that I may have professional advice." I admit quite frankly a complete surrender to the views of the Committee, if they be the views of the Committee, as I think they are. I have listened to the preponderating evidence and I would say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, who is, perhaps, more interested in this matter than I am, because I am only the handmaid of the Minister for National Service—I say to him that I think he

  1771
  should restore the rights which were formerly enjoyed by the applicants before the old tribunal and give the fullest right to professional assistance to those who appear under the Military Service Act, 1918, before the tribunals. That is my considered opinion, and I need hardly say that I express the opinion of the Government in this matter.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that part of the question, may I ask what he proposes to do in regard to those cases which have to-day been decided and which have been refused legal assistance? As he has so freely met us, will he issue an Order that those cases shall be reheard?
  Mr. FISHER: I will deal with that. I come now to the question which has been raised whether or not the undertaking of the Government which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been fulfilled. I gather that undertaking was that the applicant should have the same full right of appeal which was enjoyed by the representative of the Ministry of National Service. That was how I understood it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: The Home Secretary's words were:
  "The only object of the proposal to limit the right of appeal was to diminish that delay. I feel, however, that the force of the argument is in favour of giving the right of appeal as much to one side as the other."
  After the remark about paying a lawyer, he says:
  "At the same times I must tell the Committee that we must limit the time allowed both for giving notice of an appeal and for hearing the appeal."
  That would surely indicate that in every other respect it was to be bilateral.
  Mr. FISHER: That is how I understood the pledge, and whatever may be contained in the Regulations, I am very anxious that they should conform entirely to that pledge. I think anyone who has listened to the Debate and to the extremely interesting speeches of those who preside over tribunals will agree that the whole of this matter is extraordinarily complex and difficult to understand. Even the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), with all his legal acumen, said he was unable to understand it. I have tried to follow the Debate, and I think I understand a large portion of it. The right hon.
  1772
  Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) said, "I cannot expect the President of the Local Government Board to understand these things. I have been saturated with this business for two years, but I could not expect him to understand." I do not pretend to have the knowledge that my right hon. Friend has, but as he and the hon. Member (Mr. Richardson) developed their arguments into concrete cases, one, two, and three, I, at last, became aware that possibly these Regulations did not carry out to the full the pledge given by the Home Secretary, but I can assure the House that those who framed these Regulations certainly thought they did. They have not the faintest wish or desire to subtract one iota from the full rights which were recorded in accordance with the promise made to the House that the right of the applicant as regards appeal should be the same as the rights of the representative of the Ministry of National Service. The Regulations were drawn with that intention, and they were certainly passed and signed by me in the belief that they fully carried out that intention. I will not argue it in detail, but I think the principal objection would be met by this concession, which I am prepared to make, that we will allow a right of appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for renewal, and we will so alter our Regulations that it snail be made perfectly plain and clear that we allow a right of appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for renewal. The hon. Member (Mr. Richardson) said that would substantially meet the case.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: That fully and fairly meets the objections we have taken, and fulfils the pleadge as many of us understood it.
  Mr. FISHER: I think I have crystallised our action in that respect. It would be possible for me to argue in detail the many concrete cases which have been given and elaborated by those who understand them much better than I do, but I have made a concession to my hon. Friends which they think will meet those concrete cases. I have every possible desire, and have had all along, that these Military Service Acts, unpopular and unpalatable as they must be, but necessary as they are in the condition of things in which we find ourselves, should be worked with the greatest spirit of harmony and justice to all those who come before the tribunals. I have listened to the Debate. I will review the Regula-

  1773
  tions in. the light of the Debate, and I will see, as far as I possibly can by any emendation of the Regulations, that the pledge of the Home Secretary is fully carried out in the amended form of the Regulations. As regards the pertinent point put by my hon. Friend just now, I will to-night put my pen to an Order rescinding the Regulation as regards professional assistance. This Debate will circulate in the Press, and the facts of it, and the decision of the Government, will be known to-morrow to all the chairmen of tribunals, whose ears are already listening to what is taking place in this House. I will proceed with the utmost expedition to inform the tribunals of the changes which are now taking place, and I will carry into execution, as far and as rapidly as I can, these concessions which have been made in deference to the opinion which has been expressed by those who are experts in this matter.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of the whole Committee, to express our sense of the fair-mindedness and candour with which the right hon. Gentleman has met us. It is not, I think, a case of surrender—I hardly even like to use the word "concession"—but a case in which we see the advantage of free and full discussion, conducted with a view to secure facility in the working of the Acts, without inflicting injustice.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I am sure everyone will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his decision. I want to ask him a question on one point which was not covered by his speech—namely, that under the new Regulations, where a tribunal: has a written application for a case to be reheard on the ground of new facts, it is proposed that the tribunal shall not be able to grant that without the leave of the Director of National Service? When the Appeal Tribunal of which I am a member has read to it these applications for rehearing, we always have a representative of the Ministry of National Service present. We have his point of view put to us, and we have the views of his office before us before we come to a decision. Is not the true line to maintain that still and to allow the Civil authority to decide, after hearing the Ministry's representative? The moment a man is in the Army, nothing but the Army authority could possibly send him out of the Army, temporarily or altogether. I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has done as
  1774
  regards appeals. I ask him to include that, because it really gives what is a true scientific dividing line—the Civil authority responsible before the man is in the Army, and the military authority wholly responsible the moment he joins it.
  Sir H. NIELD: As I understood the concluding words of my right hon. Friend in explaining the position he proposed to take up, it was conditional upon the voice of the House. I understood him to say that the revocation of No. 12 was conditional upon his being bombarded with requests to withdraw it, and that he should not have a corresponding amount of artillery from the other side which would enable him to say, "I think opinion is divided; honours are easy, and we will leave things as they are." I come to join in the bombardment to ensure that this obnoxious proposal is withdrawn.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It is!
  Sir H. NIELD: I am grateful to my Noble Friend, but still my right hon. Friend gave us the opportunity of expressing our views, showing that up to that time he had not entirely made up his mind. If there is anything which will persuade him it is the fact that his last Regulation is numbered 185. I grant they are not all living, but there are a good many of them living, and a substantial portion of them have to be regarded by the tribunals, apart from Statute and the decisions of the Central Tribunal, which are binding. So that if ever there was a case when men ought to have the opportunity of legal assistance it is in these proceedings. I think, however, it would have been far better if my right hon. Friend had entirely, revoked No. 27 instead of putting it upon the applicant to go to the local tribunal to ask for leave to appeal to be refused, and then to have to go to an Appeal Tribunal, and restored the old simple procedure and let them go straight away if so advised, and from my experience they would get in a shorter time the decision in the cases that they will get even by the proposal which is now put forward. The tribunal with which I am associated made it a practice, when about to make an order which ought to be treated as a final order, to put a reference to the Section on it and make it a final order. But as time went on and applications came up for leave to get rid of that finality, the cases proved to be so desperately hard that in

  1775
  eight out of every ten that leave had to be granted upon the facts then put forward, and so embarrassing was that to the work of the committee, which was done in panel before they say in public, that it was resolved among us that we would not put the Section on in future unless the case was one in which we had absolutely made up our minds that the circumstances were not likely to change and an extension be granted. They have been driven to reverse their procedure in order to save their time and to make matters run smoothly, as they have done now for some months since the alteration was made. I thank my right hon. Friend for the position he has taken up, because it has removed a source of very great grievance, but he would have been well advised if he had simply cancelled No. 27 and let the old procedure take its course.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: In view of the very fair manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us, for which I desire to thank him, I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I should like to join with others in thanking the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to urge upon him the matters which have been addressed to him by my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. I would like to know what are the rights of applicants before tribunals in reference to medical certificates under existing conditions. A case has been put to me which seems to me a very hard one, and I would like to be in a position to explain in this case, and for the benefit of others similarly situated, what are the rights of applicants. The applicant in this case had been graded in a somewhat low grade, and he was subsequently graded by a medical board as Grade 1. His own medical man, who happened to be associated with that board, but not on that particular panel, was personally strongly of the view that the grade was wrong. The man tried to get a certificate from some other independent medical man, but that independent medical man felt himself held back by the Regulations which are now in existence from giving the certificate. I want to know what course should be adopted. I understand that a man making an application can have the right, through his own medical man, of presenting to the tribunals a
  1776
  certificate indicating what his position really is, so that the tribunal may be assisted by the medical man who has a real knowledge of what has taken place. Otherwise it is quite clear that the tribunal deciding the case has not the benefit of the experience and knowledge of the medical man who has had consideration of this man's case previously. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give me some explanation, I shall be much obliged.
  Mr. FISHER: I understand from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that the man concerned in the case he mentioned desires to bring forward for consideration a certificate from his own medical man. I presume he is going to argue that he has been put into the wrong grade. I have no doubt that if such a case came before the tribunal they would send him before a medical board to see whether or not he had been properly graded. That I understand is the procedure. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of this case I will inquire whether the answer I have given is correct—I think it is—and I will give him the full law on the subject.
  Mr. KILEY: I should like to raise the question of applications made which arc out of date. A new application for rehearing must be lodged in a certain number of days. If it is lodged out of date the tribunal has no power to consider that case except with the sanction and approval of the National Service representative. If that sanction is withheld the tribunal has no rights at all. Therefore, I suggest that that is refusing the rights which an appellant had under the 1916–17 Acts, and a man at the present time is not receiving the same consideration that his son may have received during the earlier stages. The clerk of a tribunal must forward to the Appeal Court appeals within one day. It happens very frequently that the National Service representative is appealing against a decision given in favour of a man by the local tribunal. The clerk is, therefore, called upon to state the reason why the tribunal gave the exemption. One can understand a number of these being lodged in one day, possibly on the day when the tribunal itself is sitting. Therefore, any applications which have to be sent forward that day would invariably go forward without the reasons in the man's favour which were considered by the tribunal sufficient grounds for exemption. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider

  1777
  whether that very short time could not be lengthened to three days or five days, so as to enable a proper account to be given. It would also assist the Appeal Court, because they would have the reasons which influenced the local tribunal in coming to their decision.
  I notice in the Instructions sent forth from time to time that many of them have been against the appellant, but I have not noticed that any of them have been to restrict the rights exercised by the National Service representative. I suggest that there may be a considerable amount of time saved if the right hon. Gentleman could impose some restriction upon the National Service representative's unlimited right of constant appeals. Some time ago I called attention to one case which had come under my notice where the local tribunal gave a man three months' exemption. The National Service representative took that to the Appeal Court. The man came back at the end of his time and he got a second term. It went to the Appeal Court again. The same process was repeated and the case went to the Appeal Court the third and fourth times. The man came up last year before the local tribunal for the fifth time, and the National Service representative, having failed on four consecutive times to get the man, said "I must have this man somehow. Therefore I will agree to the man having exemption from the local tribunal providing he forsakes his own business and enters service of national importance." The tribunal refused to alter their decision as the man was devoting two days per week to local hospital work, the V.A.D., and they felt that he was well occupied in looking after his own business, of which he was the head. The result was that the National Service representative lodged a fifth appeal against that man. If the new Regulations are intended to speed up the work of the tribunals, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider that case. There are many others I could mention. We had thirteen men all in C Class, mostly heads of businesses, to whom the tribunals granted time, and in every case the National Service representative demanded that these men should forsake their occupations as heads of businesses or skilled operators and go into other work. A great amount of time is wasted in the local tribunals and in the Appeal Tribunals in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman
  1778
  would look into this matter, he would save a considerable amount of time and help to speed up the work of the tribunals.
  Sir W. BARTON: The point I wish to raise is not of such general interest as some of the others which have been raised, but it is one of real importance. I had an Amendment down in the Committee stage to the effect that we should have technical assessors for special trades in special area. That Amendment really came from the Employers' Federation and the Operatives' Union concerned in the cotton trade. They desired their representative in Parliament to give general support to the Bill with this reservation: They felt, and their representatives feel, that when you deal with men from forty-one to fifty-one years of age you of necessity come upon a considerable number of men who may be said to be key men, and on whose labour the labour of very many others depends. In a highly technical industry it would be clearly an advantage to the tribunal to be assisted by technical assessors. The idea is not to preserve men from the Army, but to reserve the right men for industry. This question cannot be called purely a trade question. Practically the whole of our industries now are concerned with work which is as much war work as anything short of the actual fighting line. Our factories are engaged in work for the clothing of our own people, for the Army and Navy and our Allies, and our former export trade has practically gone. It is of real importance, when you are taking men away, that the men who are spared should be the men who are actually necessary to successfully carry on the general operations of trade. We have had a galaxy of legal talent to-day dealing with the professional service on the tribunals. I have never listened to such an illuminating Debate. It had this advantage, that apart from the concessions obtained from the President of the Local Government Board, it put him into a yielding frame of mind, and I hope he will continue in that and will grant the concession for which we are asking, because I can assure him that we are asking for it to enable us to carry on operations of the utmost difficulty and complexity and in the sincere desire to help him in his sincere desire that the progress of the tribunals shall be as speedy as possible. We believe that the progress will be made more speedy and more successful if he grants this concession.
  Mr. GULLAND: I desire to raise several points connected with one Department which the right hon. Gentleman has to administer in regard to the registration arising out of the Representation of the People Act. That is a very difficult and complicated piece of work which the right hon. Gentleman has to perform, and it has to be done, as he said this afternoon, at a time which is peculiarly difficult, because of the shortage in material and men. I am sure the whole Committee is very sympathetic with the right hon. Gentleman in having to do this work and to supervise it at a time when his hands are so full with other matters. I wish to make a few observations entirely in a friendly way and with a desire to help the right hon. Gentleman. It is better to bring these matters up this afternoon rather than to have a large number of oral questions on the Paper. My anxiety in this matter is to secure that as many people as possible get on the register, especially that every man and woman who is entitled to get on shall do so. What I am saying now applies to the party which I represent, and I know it applies in an equal degree to every other party in the House and in the country. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is getting on with Form A. This is usually called the Pink Form, but in the North and other parts of the country it is the Khaki Form.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is not easy for the ordinary householder to fill up Form A. I think there are some Members of Parliament who find it difficult, and to-day a very eminent K.C. asked me on a point on which he said he had had a variety of answers from everybody he had asked, and it seems to me if Members of Parliament and K.C.'s have difficulty the ordinary householder cannot be expected to find it easy, because the form assumes a knowledge of the Act which the ordinary man cannot possibly have. It is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; it is the fault of the House probably for having made such a complicated Act. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, is doing his best in these forms to put the matter in as simple a manner as possible. Personally, I confess, I prefer the Scottish form, which is more general, and does not put the same conundrums to the householder, but enables him to put the names down and leave it to the registration officer to put the names under the heads of franchise which he, a more
  1780
  skilled person, thinks they ought to have. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, if all the forms are out? I think many cases exist which have not received the forms. I should like to ask him are the forms coming back, and are they being properly filled up?
  There are one or two points that my Reports show which I should like to put before the right hon. Gentleman. I find that in many tenement houses only one form is left, and therefore only one form is returned. This applies especially to half-houses where one family lives on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. One family, therefore, sends a return and the other has not the opportunity, and it looks at present as if the name of the one family will appear on the register, whereas the other family will hot appear at all. Then in many cases the householder fills up the form in regard to the Parliamentary franchise, and then he is so bewildered, or thinks he has done all that is necessary, that he does not fill up the part of the form dealing with the local government franchise. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the registration officers in such cases will regard it as their duty, if the man seems to be all right, that he should also have the local government franchise. Then in regard to women. The point arises on which I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman some time ago, that there is no distinction in Form A between married women or widows and spinsters, no distinction between Mrs. and Miss. Of course, in the case of wives it is all right, because they will be Mrs., but in other cases there is no distinction. I think it is desirable the register should be clear, so that the candidates addressing a woman should know if they are addressing Mrs. Smith or Miss Smith, and also for purposes of identification, when that particular woman comes to vote. There are many cases of mothers and daughters living together with the same name, and there should be identification, such as Mrs. or Miss, so that the returning officer, when that woman comes, should know whether she is the actual person whose name is on the register.
  These points appear to me to show quite conclusively, and there are many more with which I shall not trouble the Committee, that a house-to-house canvass is absolutely necessary. I do not think you can make up a proper register unless you have a house-to-house canvass. The right

  1781
  hon. Gentleman has often said he thinks it is necessary, but I should like to ask him, Has he definitely instructed that there shall be a house-to-house canvass, because unless he does that I fear in many cases it will not be done? I know, and I sympathise with, the difficulty of getting a staff enough to do it. But there is no use in making a register unless it is a complete register, and you will not get a complete register without a house-to-house canvass. The right hon. Gentleman has said to-day that it may be necessary to delay the date on which the register will come into operation. I think the country at large would prefer to have the date extended for a complete register rather than try to rush an incomplete register. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way specifically to require each registration officer to carry through a house-to-house canvass. If Form A is posted back to the registration officer it is no surety that it has been filled up correctly, and, short of an interview between canvasser and householder, I do not think you can have the form filled up properly or a satisfactory register made up.
  In regard to naval and military voters, on Form A, where the householder fills up for them, if proper inquiry is made as to whether the names put in there are really correct, then these names ought to go on the register. Some registration officers are in doubt as to whether they are entitled to put these names on, and they are rather taking the line that they will go by the cards that come back from the men themselves, which are issued by the naval and military authorities. There may be all sorts of difficulties arising from these cards coming back from the front. The ship on which the mail is carried may be torpedoed, and the man would lose his vote, not knowing he was losing it. There may be a hundred different accidents in these days to prevent that post-card being returned, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to state clearly to the registration officers that if they are satisfied that this man is entitled to get on as a naval or military voter he shall be put on from the information given by the householder. There is a Regulation that if there is a variation between these two returns the registration officer may make inquiries and decide in regard to the man's ship or number of his rating or difficulties of that sort. The registration officer is entitled to inquire, and it is within his
  1782
  right, but I want also, now that the House has given these men a vote, to see that the men are on the register.
  I was very glad this afternoon to have a reply from the hon. Member on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman that his desire was that in cases of claims and objections, and so on, official forms should be used. I think it is infinitely better than that the different political parties or organisations should use unofficial forms. The House desires, and I think the country desires, that this matter of registration should be a public service, and nothing probably will help more towards that than that official forms, and official forms only, should be used in these eases of claims and objections. Of course, that involves that these forms shall be available at convenient places, so that everybody who needs to fill one up shall be able to get it. With regard to proxy votes, the right hon. Gentleman, the other day, in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders), said that proxy papers from Mesopotamia would take roughly six months from the time they left here to the time they came back. That is rather an important point, because I think the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that proxy does not begin until the draft register is published. That is 15th June, and therefore it is not possible on that basis to get the card from Mesopotamia before the 15th December, while the register on the present dates is supposed to come into operation on 1st October. That obviously raises a difficulty, and what I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether he could not at once in the case of these distant areas make Regulations that they shall be proxy areas. There are a number of such cases, India is one, Palestine is another, which must be proxy areas. They are pressing eases which should be dealt with at once. The other nearer areas may be for after consideration, but it is, obvious, if this matter is to take six months, these places should at once be delimited as proxy areas, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he could not arrange that in anticipation of their names appearing on the register, he might make arrangements for proxy papers to go to soldiers and sailors in these areas at once. If it is found that the man is not entitled to be put on the register, the proxy paper will fall. If, as in 99 per cent. of the cases, he is entitled to be put on, the paper will be valid. This, again, is only carrying out

  1783
  the intention of the House that these men shall have the vote which the House has agreed to give.
  I should like to conclude by saying that in this matter of registration all the party agents and all the people who are interested in the question, as we all are, desire to help him in every way. We party organisations are depleted of men just as his staff is, and I can assure him that if in any way we can help we shall be only too glad to do so.
  Colonel SANDERS: I am entirely in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the opinion he has expressed on this subject. I feel personal sympathy with him, because he has been more trusting and guileless than I have. Perhaps he has not seen the leaflet issued by the Ocean Association, in winch they inform the Service that every man over twenty-one years of age is to have the vote, and that he will not have to make a claim or fill in any form. I am afraid that will come as a terrible shock to the President of the Local Government Board. For myself, I have never felt that this was going to be a simple affair, and I took the opportunity several times when the Bill was in progress to say that I thought the first register would be an exceedingly difficult and complicated matter to arrange, and that to look after the register would be a great deal more difficult than it ever was before. It is not a simple thing at all, and really I do not think that this pink form has made it any easier. Indeed, the pink form has got a reputation almost rivalling that of the old Form IV. in its claim to be a part of political history. I am quite sure that it was sent out with the very best intentions, but I think it must have been drawn by someone who knew so much about the subject himself that he did not perceive how difficult it was for people without expert knowledge. Another thing about these forms is that they have been left at houses without the address being put on. But the form has a place on the front page where the address is to be put in. I myself have heard of several instances— and there must be an enormous number of others—in which the householder, in the various houses where these forms have been left, has not filled in the address on page 1. The householder fills in the form itself, where there is no place to put his address. He gives his name, Thomas
  1784
  Brown, or whatever it may be, but with no address on it at all. Of course, that makes it difficult for the overseers, whose difficulties are not small at any time, and now they will be greater than they were before. Another thing happens: In a great many cases these forms are left at the houses and not returned at all.
  Then to turn to the wording of the form itself. As I said, whoever drafted this form really gave those who have to fill it in credit for more knowledge than they can be expected to possess. There is no doubt a subtle distinction between the word "resident" and the word "occupier," but it is one of those distinctions which the ordinary lay mind cannot at all readily grasp. It is one that takes a good deal of explanation; yet here the term "resident," as the word used in Section 1 of the Instructions is "occupier," is used, and in Section 4, again, the term is used. It has been pointed out to me that the consequence of that is that lodgers do not get put down in this form, although they are residents, because of the Instruction in Section 4, that lodgers are only to be treated as occupiers when the lodgings are let to them unfurnished. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will give that point his attention, because it is causing a great deal of trouble. When a man reads this form he thinks, "I have got a lodger here; I cannot put him down as an occupier," and he does not realise that he may put him down as a resident. It is a distinction evident to the right hon. Gentleman himself, perhaps, but it is not evident to the ordinary lay mind. These are not points which I am making; they are points which come to me from various places. Another point is that a man is not to be put on for business premises. Although on the first page "land and premises" are spoken of together, and in Section 2 the "occupier is a person who pays rent in respect of premises or land, where premises or land are let," yet when we come to the actual form that has to be filled up, premises are mentioned but land is not. That has created a good deal of confusion, and the farmer who lives in one parish while his land is in another parish, and who is therefore liable to be put on for both parishes under the Bill, is not put on for the second parish under this form.
  A further point that has been brought to my notice is that the form has been sent round to householders only, and con-

  1785
  sequently it does not get filled up in respect of the business premises qualification. The registration overseer has been instructed to send the list of householders only, and it is only for the residence qualification that the form is getting filled up. Then under Section 4 (b) of the form I am told that trouble arises in regard to the wives of soldiers who are serving. The woman is to enter herself as entitled to vote if she is a married woman over thirty years of age, living with her husband at the premises. But the soldier is abroad. He is not living with his wife at the premises, so although undoubtedly, under the Act, the wife is entitled to vote in respect of these premises, yet on the face of the form she would not enter her name there. These are some of the difficulties that have been pointed out to me in connection with this form, and I thought it only right to bring them to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is in no spirit of hostility that I do it. I know that he wants to get this register as perfect as he can, and undoubtedly things are not going very straight about it at present. I have had one letter from a certain part of the country, from which I will read a few extracts. The writer says:
  "A more complete muddle in the Registration than there is it is difficult to conceive. The confirmation of the appointments of Divisional Registration Officers has not, I hear, been received, and the Overseers have had no instructions beyond the white pamphlet which they don't understand. All the forms were to be completed by 30th April—half of them have not been distributed. At one place the Overseer had 8,000 forms to deliver and collect in a fortnight, and he says he would rather go to prison than attempt it! At another the Overseer refuses to deliver the forms, and is collecting the information in a note-book and filling them up himself! At a third the Overseers are advertising for someone to tender to do the work, and not a form has been distributed.…Many labourers won't put their names to anything."
  That letter came to me only two or three days ago, so that in the districts to which it refers I am afraid the register will not be completed very soon. I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that in country villages many labourers will not put their name to anything. I think it has been a tolerably common experience, when these forms have been sent round, that they are not filled up. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that if this thing is to be done, and done properly, it must be done by a house-to-house canvass. If that is so, and I am convinced it is so, the time will really have to be extended. I know that we all want to get
  1786
  this thing done properly, and if it is not possible to get it done by the 15th June, then I think that the time ought to be extended beyond that date. I do not think you will get anything like a decent register by the 15th June. I also think you will have to extend the date for claims. I do not think the objections matter so much, for there is now not so much chance of people getting on the register who have not the right to be on it. I think that the time between the 15th June and the 5th July is not long enough for claims to be sent in. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite may say that a body with which I am connected have sent out forms in respect of special claims, but we desire to have as good a register as we can possibly obtain. The Act is not quite clear. It says that the registration officer shall, on the application of any person, supply forms of claims and notices of objection, but we have been led to understand that they have not been supplied. After all, these things have got to be done by a political agent or someone else. If the individual has to go and make his own claim in the prescribed form, and if he has to go and get the form, or write for that form, it means that in the majority of cases you will not get it done. If you want to get this done you must have your forms of claim in an office where they can be supplied. You must have them in bulk.
  If the Local Government Board would supply the forms of claims, and not political agents, then there is an end of it. If they will not do that, it would be better that the agents should supply them themselves, and I think it would be rather stretching a point too far to say that such a form, if sent in, should not be valid. After all you do not want to be too minute about forms in this case. All we want is to get on the register every man who ought to be put on. You have got the help of the political agent in this matter, and really I think if you are going to get this register in anything like ship-shape, the political agent is your only chance. As things are now, in several parts of the country, the matter of registration is absolute chaos. It seems to me that the best chance of getting a decent register is to extend the time between the dates which are put down—15th June and 5th July—in which claims may be lodged. I take it that you will get about 24,000 voters in an ordinary constituency. I have consulted men likely to know, and they

  1787
  tell me that 1,000 claims in such a constituency would not be a large percentage, and that they would not think it at all unlikely that there would be 1,000 or more claims in a constituency of 24,000 voters. In the time between a fortnight and three weeks you will find it very difficult, if there are that number of claims which ought to be made, to get them made, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the question of extending the time in that respect. I do not think too much stress can be laid on the importance of getting a good register to start with. The registration work afterwards will be comparatively easy if you start with a good register. House-to-house canvassers are necessary, I think. But to get your house-to-house canvassers to do the work is, after all, a matter of time, and unless the time is extended you cannot do it.
  The reason, no doubt, for expediting the time is to enable a General Election to come on. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee, from all the information I get—and it is my misfortune to get a good deal on the subject —that to hold a General Election in time of war would be almost a physical impossibility. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough, the other day, to answer a question which I asked him about proxies. It would take six months to get proxies back from Mesopotamia, and there are other parts of the world to which proxy forms would have to go, where it would take almost as long. Then you would get other difficulties, and you would get a scarcity of everything that is wanted for electioneering. There would be scarcity of paper, and an election is an enormous consumer of paper. You would get scarcity of timber for polling booths, ballot boxes, and all that sort of thing. It all mounts up, and it is very hard to get. You would get scarcity of petrol, which is one of the most potent factors in an election, and, above all, you would get scarcity of man-power. I really do not know how, if an election were to take place while the War were still going on, you would get it conducted even with that modicum of safety to himself that a candidate generally assumes he will have. You would not get enough men who had even the most elementary knowledge of election work to ensure the safety of the candidate in the election from corrupt practices afterward. You would not be able, also,
  1788
  to get the, perhaps less necessary, help of canvassers, who, after all, are needed if you are going to get anything like a full poll. You might hold an election next October or November, and no doubt you might get a 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. poll, but if you got that you could not call it a proper expression of the opinion of the country. It would be a very much better thing that an election should take place a little later on, and that you should then get a satisfactory election, rather than that it should take place a little earlier and you should get an election which would really be no test of public opinion at all. For that reason, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not unduly hustle the register. I would put it even more strongly than that; I would say that he should be particularly considerate about the time for the register. I hope he will make every reasonable concession as to time, in order to try and get a really good register for the first time, rather than a slipshod one. I would like to say again, what I think cannot be too often rubbed in, that this first register is the cardinal point of the whole thing. If you get a good register to start with, your work will go easily afterwards, but if you get a bad register to start with, you will have perpetual difficulty in every registration court for years and years.
  Mr. FISHER: I think the Debate has been conducted, by those who have taken part in it, with one single desire, and that is to get the fullest possible register, and the fullest possible number of voters put on the register who have the right to be put there by the Representation of the People Act. That, I think, is a spirit that animates us all. We want as many people as possible to get on the next register. We say, let' em all come, even if we all go. I do not know one of us who is sufficiently a correct prophet to know how the majority of those who do come are going to order as to those who will go. Nowadays, we are so accustomed to go to bed at night as Unionists and to wake up next morning as Home Rulers; to go to bed Free Traders and wake up Tariff Reformers; or again, to go to bed as Voluntarists and wake up as Conscriptionists, that nobody does really know what is going to happen either to himself, to his Constituency, to the Government, or anybody else, within the next six months. Therefore, there was never more a time when we ought to make every effort to scrap the old system of registration,

  1789
  when people endeavoured to keep everyone off the register if they did not know whether they were on their side or not; and when one ought to make an effort to get as many people on the register as are entitled to vote under the Representation of the People Act. My right hon. Friend opposite, who is an expert on this question, was followed by another expert, the hon. and gallant Member for the Bridgwater Division, and I will endeavour to answer the different questions which they put to me. Complaint was made, I think by both Members, that the pink form had many imperfections. They seemed to recollect a previous one, which it required professional assistance to fill up. I quite admit that the pink form is a form rather for experts. It was drawn up by them; but, after all, if it is really complicated, it is not because of any desire on the part of experts to show their knowledge, or any other reason of that kind, but because the Act of Parliament, which abolished the old franchise, created a new franchise which for the War period at least is a singularly complicated sot of franchises to set out in a single form. To those who say "that form is very difficult, and you might have given us something simpler," I would ask them if they have ever put forward a rival form to the pink one. For my part I stand on the Pink 'Un.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Take the Scottish one.
  Mr. FISHER: Nothing Scottish is ever understood in England, not even the language. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whisky!"] I do not express my opinion as an Englishman—I think I had better not—but I do hold still that our pink form is really as good a form as could possibly be evolved under all the difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said, "How are you getting on with it? Has it been filled up to a large extent, and returned to a large extent?" There, I can only give him a very general answer, like the sort of answer which is given when you knock at the door of a house, and they tell you that things are as satisfactory as can be expected. That is the answer I must give him. We have not tested it, but these forms we believe are being returned—at all events they are being returned by post—and I think it is a fairly satisfactory return, but I join with him, and with my hon. and gallant Friend, in saying this, "You are going to have the most unsatisfactory register if you rely on
  1790
  the people to fill up these forms, and if you do not give them every possible assistance in filling them up." There is not the slightest doubt about that. If you want to get a proper register, you must have a house-to-house canvass. By that I do not mean a perfunctory calling at the house, and leaving a form; and a perfunctory calling at the house, and picking it up again. If you are really going to have a satisfactory register, you ought to have a body of canvassers, capable of going to a house and advising why and wherefore the form is not filled up in certain particulars, and capable of being able to a large extent to help people to fill it up. That is the critical point, the pith of the whole matter. Are you going to get that body of experts, and where are you going to get them?
  I say boldly that if this House is going to stick to it that it wants this new register by 1st October, and is going to force the Government to bring out this new register by 1st October, then it is going to have an uncommonly incomplete register. Things were bad enough before the Military Service Act of 1916, but after the Military Service Act of 1918 the registration officer may rely on this, that the very men on whom they rely for this house-to-house canvass may be called up for other work of national importance. I have made some little effort to put in a plea that some of these men who are giving assistance in registration—which, after all, is work of national importance —should be left to do this work of national importance. I have even put in a plea that some of those who have been taken should be returned. I do not know whether that plea will be listened to, but of this I am certain, if we do not succeed in getting that body of men—and we are not succeeding at the present time in many cases—and if we insist on having the register by 1st October, we are going to have a very incomplete register, because the form is difficult to fill up. I quite admit it is difficult. It is only an expert adviser who can help the ordinary elector to fill it up. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgwater Division mentioned several cases. The question of the lodger, who really might be put on if only his landlord knew how to get him on; the question of the occupier; the question of the wife of the soldier—all these people could be put on, and ought to be put on, if only those who fill up the forms really had a little

  1791
  advice when they filled them up or soon after they filled them up. But they cannot get the advice just from any ordinary boy messenger who goes round to collect pink forms. It cannot be done. People say to me sometimes, "Why don't you make more use of women?" How on earth can you use a woman to go round to the crowded and congested parts of large towns? They must go by night. The only time when they would ever get any information out of the voter is between seven o'clock and half-past nine or ten at night. You really cannot ask women to go round and canvass in that sort of way. They will not do it; it is not a task which is suitable for them. We are, therefore, largely debarred from using women in big towns for canvassing purposes. Men tell the "missus" not to give information on any account; that is very often the case, and the only person who can extract information is one accustomed to dealing with the working classes under these circumstances. I have no sympathy with the labourer who takes up the line that, under no circumstances, will he put his hand to any paper; very likely he will not put his foot inside the polling booth, and, therefore, we need not trouble much about him. But I am seriously concerned at the position of the registration officers, who have extraordinary difficulties to face, inasmuch as they cannot get expert canvassers to make a proper and adequate and not merely a perfunctory house-to-house visitation.
  If I were asked my opinion I should say the House cannot expect to get the register completed before December. We have been told how registration officers, when they see the pile of complicatd forms requiring to be filled up and the immense amount of information to be obtained are almost appalled by it. What, for instance, are you going to do about the naval and military voters? Are you going to trust to the postcard? That is another difficulty which has to be faced. As I have already said, we are most anxious at the Local Government Board that all naval and military voters should be put on the register. There will probably be considerable delay in the matter of these cards—in getting them filled in. We have impressed on the registration officer the importance of obtaining the fullest local information as to all naval and military voters. They are to get their numbers and description of service and so on, and all
  1792
  this information, having been ascertained, is to be entered in a separate list. We hope that that will be done, but who are going to do it? Has the registration officer the staff to do it? It comes back to this, Can you give us more time? That is the point. The Committee cannot expect me, as a member of the Government, to offer my opinion about it; all I can say is that you will get a most incomplete register if you force us to have it by the 1st October.
  Mr. GULLAND: The right hon. Gentleman should tell that to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. FISHER: I know, that is quite true, but opinion has been expressed throughout this Debate that it should have been possible to get all this information, and I am pointing out the difficulties in the way. It is, after all, very largely a question of the prolongation of the life of Parliament. You cannot deal with this subject in a fragmentary way, the question of the register to a large extent depends on the length of the life of Parliament, and this is a matter which must be brought under the attention of the Government when it is considering the proposal to prolong that life. They will have to consider it from the point of view also whether or not it is possible to hold an election during the War. If I were asked the question, "When is an election not an election on a representative basis?" I should say it is not an election on a representative basis when it is held during a period of war. But as I have already said, we will do our best to obtain a house-to-house canvass; we will do our beet to provide assistance for those who do not know how to fill in their forms, and we will do our best to get all the information possible for the registration officer in regard to naval and military voters. I think we have shown that that is our intention in the form we sent out on the 10th April. With regard to the multiplicity of forms, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be far better to have but one set of forms for claims and objections, and that these should be supplied by the registration officer. I do not think the party organisers should have rival forms of their own, but I have no power to enforce my own desire in that regard.
  As regards proxy votes, I have been asked whether we cannot issue an Order in Council appointing the area in which

  1793
  voters may exercise the right of proxy voting. I think the time has arrived when it would be possible to issue au Order in Council of that kind. But that does not really help the question very much, because even if you issue such an Order and fix the area in which the proxy can be used, the registration officer will still be unable to send out the proxy forms unless he knows that the particular soldier or sailor is on the register for that particular area. It may be suggested that the registration officer might send out the forms on the chance of the voter being on the register, but that would be a real waste of effort, it certainly would not be of much assistance.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: What waste other than postage?
  Mr. FISHER: It would embarrass the registration officer, who surely is sufficiently embarrassed already.
  Mr. GULLAND: As at present proposed the proxies are to be sent out by the registration officer as soon as it has been determined that the voter's name shall be included in the register. Does that mean not until an opportunity has been given for objection, or is it only on the 1st October?
  Mr. FISHER: I have not gone into that point, but I will consider it. May 1 point out that a great many of these soldiers and sailors are in distant parts of the world, and it may take months to get at them. But we will do our best. There are enormous difficulties in the way of getting these men on the register in time if you are going to have an election during the War. Once the register is formed, then, of course, the voter can always get his proxy vote carried from one register to another. I hope I have covered all the ground opened up by the various speakers. Let me conclude by saying that we are most anxious at the Local Government Board to carry out the behests of this House and to give the fullest possible force to the Representation of the People Act. I, for my part, am proud of the part I had in putting it on the Statute Book. In every way we are most anxious to facilitate the work of the registration officers, but I believe the Government may well consider now whether or not it is wise to press for the completion of the register by the 1st October. The right hon. Gentleman who last held the post of Prime Minister has, of
  1794
  course, a special right to be consulted on the question whether it is wise to hurry up the register or whether it would not be the better course, with a view to making the register complete in every way, to postpone the date from 1st October until some later date, when we shall have at all events a much better chance of obtaining a full register of all those to whom we gave the franchise when we passed the Representation of the People Act.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: Recognising, as we all do, that the right hon. Gentleman is most anxious to do everything in his power to obtain a really complete register for the next election, whenever it may come, I think that only with the view to helping him to achieve that object is it desirable to say anything on this occasion. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware—at any rate that is the information which I have received—that the difficulty of filling in the pink forms is very great indeed, and in some parts of London it has been found already that such of the forms as have been sent in are almost useless. One of the oldest and most respected Members of this House actually asked me how to fill up his form, and I was able to help him, but this incident is really indicative of the difficulty which is generally experienced, and I am afraid there is no doubt that a great proportion of the forms, when they are sent in, will be found to be not only of no use but may even have a damaging effect on the register. It is absolutely essential that the pink form should be used, as we intended it to be used, merely as a basis on which the register is framed. It all depends on how the registration officer sets to work. I quite realise that these officers are faced with very great difficulty at the present moment in getting the necessary staff to carry out the work properly. There are undoubtedly cases where the work is not being well done, while in other boroughs in London it is being thoroughly done. It all depends on the ability to tackle the work of the particular officer in charge, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot take steps to ascertain, before it is too late, how the work is being done in various places. There is a tendency on the part of certain registration officers to make too much use of information which other people are supposed to supply. An example of that is the Army card. I am

  1795
  told that there are registration officers who take the view that it is not their duty to put a naval or military voter on the register until they have got the information which the Array and Navy are supposed to supply. I venture to submit that that is a totally erroneous view of their duty. The intention of the Act was that the information which the Army can supply should be an assistance to the registration officer, but not in any way absolve him from the duty of going round the district to find out the names of men who habitually live in the district, and therefore have a right to be on the register. That is a point which I think the Local Government Board would do well to press upon the registration officers. I am glad to know it has been already done.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not know whether R.P. 12 carries out the right hon. Gentleman's desire or my desire in that respect.
  Sir W. DICKINSON: I do not carry that in my mind, but I am perfectly certain from what I hear that there are registration officers who are taking that view. There is another point, and that is the position of wives. A great many householders have not realised that their own wives, or the wives of the other tenants, are entitled to be on that paper Although women's suffrage has been passed by this House there are a great many people in this country who do not know it has been carried. I have been told of cases where registration officers state that they are going to accept only the returns from the household. In order to give women the full rights of voting it is necessary to make a house-to-house canvass, and to make a point of ascertaining what married women there are in the various houses. With regard to the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has made as to extending the time, I suppose we have nothing to say to that in this House, but personally I should strongly urge that if it is impossible—and I recognise it is difficult—to get a proper register before the 1st October, a month's extension or so would be well worth having, and I should hope that the Government might consider that rather than accept the position that the register cannot be made perfect without such a change. I therefore hope the suggestion he has thrown out that the date shall be to a certain extent enlarged may meet with the approval of the Govern-
  1796
  ment, and I am pretty well certain that it will meet the approval of this House rather than that we should have a register that is incomplete.
  Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has told us in a very convincing and disquieting manner of the difficulties of forming the new register under the new Act of Parliament. It is, of course, a very much more technical business than it has ever been before, especially for the first register. There is one body of men in this country better equipped to deal with that difficult question than any other, namely, the recognised political agents of all parties. I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman—I do not suppose he can answer the question, but perhaps he can express some opinion on it—if he thinks it would be well that a recommendation should be made that temporary military exemption should be granted to this body of men to enable them to carry out what is really a public duty, and by carrying out which they will render a service to every man and every woman qualified for the Parliamentary, and even for the local government, vote?
  Mr. GILBERT: I wish to join with the other Members who have spoken first in complaining about the pink form which has already been referred to. I know it is difficult for the Local Government Board to have issued a form under the new Act, because that Act alters all previous registration laws, but I do venture to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that this form which has been issued is very bad, and that it is very confusing to the people who will have to fill it up. There are one or two points which have not been mentioned, and to which I would specially like to draw the attention of the Local Government Board, if they are going to issue any further form. One is that in this particular form there is not room enough for people to enter their names or the details upon it. In paragraph 1, where the Parliamentary franchise for men is supposed to be put down, you simply leave a small space of one-five-eights of an inch depth. The ordinary household in London for men voters will probably consist of a father and one, two, or three sons, and I suggest to the Local Government Board that even if a person is able to write well and concisely there is hardly room in this particular space to put down the names of

  1797
  three people with their full Christian and surnames. If you go further on, to the second page, where it is a question of the local government franchise for men, the difficulty is far greater, because the line that is given to fill up the names of the males in the house who are local government electors is half an inch in depth, and it only leaves room to fill up one name. Many people, particularly in working-class districts, write very large, and probably not concisely as a finished writer might do, and it will be quite impossible for anybody to get a second name in that particular column. The same thing applies to women, and on the question of the local government vote there is only room for one name. If there happens to be a mother and one or two daughters qualified, I do not think it is possible for the ordinary person who is used to filling in forms to fill in more than one name. On paragraph 5, which is for the registration of naval or military voters and where it is required to fill up in full the names of the men over nineteen who are serving and the women over thirty who are serving various military or war services, there is allowed a column of 1 in. in depth. I suggest to the Local Government Board that you might take the average family, at any rate in London, in very many cases as a father and at least two sons, and probably one daughter, who are engaged on war work of some kind or another in the Army, the Navy, or some of the other services, and it is quite impossible to fill up on that form the names of the people who are so serving.
  Other hon. Members have dealt with the complicated wording of the form, and I would like to join with them in saying that I think the Local Government Board might have issued a very much simpler form than the one which has been issued. Some questions have been asked in this House as to forms being issued by certain political associations, and I was one of those who were very anxious that there should be only one kind of form, and that other forms should not be accepted by the registration officer. I do venture to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that if he had seen some of these forms about which questions were asked in the House he would agree that they are a great deal simpler than the form issued by the Local Government Board. Other hon. Members have mentioned that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting these forma filled up. I
  1798
  know of my own knowledge that in some-parts of London the authorities have had up to now less than one-fifth of the forms delivered returned to the registration officers, and of that one-fifth a great many of them are absolutely useless because they contain no information at all. Written across them are such phrases as "Get on with the War," "Mind your own business," and "We are not going to give you any information at all." That is probably explained by the fact that these forms have been delivered almost simultaneously with the passing of the Military Service Act, and, speaking as I can from the London point of view, I can say that people have got into their minds that the filling up of this form has probably something to do with the Military Service Act. They are going to take every opportunity, I am afraid in many cases, to see that they do not fill up a form of this kind or give any information at all. That is quite understandable in London, because up to now on the present form of register of the householder or occupier votes—at any rate the very, very great majority of them—people have been put on the register without having to fill up any form at all in order to get there. The householder register was prepared from the rates book, and where persons did not pay rates direct their names were prepared by the rate collectors, and put on the household or occupier register. As regards the lodger, it is true he had to sign a form in order to get on the present register, but everybody knows that in practice the lodger did not fill up the form himself. All the details in the form—which in very many cases were almost as large as this particular pink form which has been issued—were filled up by the agents, and all that the man, had to do was to sign his name on that particular form. I therefore do press on the Local Government Board that if, as they will probably have to do, they issue further forms in order to get them filled up, they should be of a different character from this particular pink form which has been issued.
  I would like to tell the President of the Local Government Board, particularly so far as London is concerned, what we certainly understood when the Representation of the People Act was being passed in this House, namely, that we should have a proper house-to-house canvass. I asked the President of the Local Government Board yesterday a question

  1799
  as to how these forms were being delivered, and whether his attention had been drawn to the way in which they were being delivered? He answered that probably I did not know the difficulties under which the registration officers had to work. I quite appreciate the very great difficulties under which the registration officers had to work, and, although I can only speak from the London point of view, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as London is concerned, we have a number of registration officers, and each of those registration officers is doing the registration in the way he thinks best. The result of that is that we have not one unified form of working in London for making this new register. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pan-eras (Sir W. Dickinson) has referred to the different ways in which these different registration officers are carrying out their work. I asked a question yesterday as to whether the persons who are going round and delivering these forms in some cases only ask if one person lives in the house, and only leave one form. As those who are concerned with London well know, houses are let out in tenements, and there are often two, three, or four families in one house. In those cases you will want four forms, and not one. As I pointed out, it would be almost impossible for one family to fill in on this form the particulars, and it will be an utter impossibility to fill in the details of two, three, or four families, if there is that number in the house. In one district I know in London women have been doing this work. They have called at the house; they have obtained the name of the resident from the rate book or existing register; they have asked if Mr. A. or Mr. B. lives there; they have left a form, and have asked for it to be returned by post. I think that is a great waste of labour. It does seem to me that the simplest and most helpful plan would be that that person calling at the house should obtain the information right away. Then that information could be used by the registration officer, and could be checked and verified if he had any doubt whatever about it. I believe even up to now in some districts of London the forms have not been delivered, and in other places, I believe, they are getting verification of the people
  1800
  who live in the district from the food cards or the sugar cards which are registered at the town hall.
  Speaking from a purely London point of view, it seems to me that all these various ways of conducting the registration are very unfortunate, and I do wish the Local Government Board had agreed with the London registration officers that they should all work on one plan. Some of the registration officers are doing this work admirably. As regards canvassing, the President of the Local Government Board, speaking just now, said, of course, the great difficulty was to obtain people who can do canvassing and obtain the right information. He said that in certain districts it was only possible to obtain information at night time. That is probably true of a great many districts in London, but I believe, under the special circumstances, a good deal of labour could be temporarily obtained to do this work, and I would ask the Local Government Board, as this is special work which may require two, three, or four months to do, they might well use the teachers in London, who are educated, who are quite used to filling up forms, and who could do this particular form of canvassing. In addition to that, you have the school officers in London, and a great army of insurance officials who are used to doing this kind of canvassing. In order to obtain a proper register, I think the registration officers want instruction from that point of view, and I believe that if they use part of the time on these particular people, and probably other people in similar employment, that would be a very great help in framing this register.
  There is another point I would like to raise. The President of the Local Government Board did not make quite clear this matter of the naval and military voters. I, like the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, am under the impression that certain registration officers in London are not going to put people on the naval or military voters' list unless they get a card from the naval or military authorities themselves. In this pink form, under Clause 5, you ask the people who occupy houses to give information as to people who are serving in the Navy or Army, and I do hope some Instruction will go out to the registration officers that they are to take the information given by the occupiers, and to fill up the Local Government Board form. If this information is not to be used until it has

  1801
  been verified by a report from the naval or military authorities, I am afraid you are going to have great delay with that particular part of the register. I am quite certain of this, that unless things are altered very much from the way in which this canvassing has been started, at any rate, so far as London is concerned, you are not going to get anything like a perfect register in the Parliamentary constituencies. We who are connected with London hoped and believed that we were going to get a proper registration in London by what, we think, is the only way—and that is, a proper house-to-house canvass. I do hope the President of the Local Government Board will take strong steps to enforce this particular view on the whole of the registration officers in London. It may mean a little extra expense, but I think all of us are very keen, after having waited for this register the time we have, on getting, at any rate, as perfect a register as we possibly can. And I firmly believe, from my knowledge of registration work in London, that the only way we can get in London, and in probably other large towns, a proper registration is to have an efficient house-to-house canvass.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not want to deal with the details as other speakers have done, but I only wish to express thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply just now. Evidently he is as desirous as any of us that this register should be perfect. All parties want to get people registered, because no one knows where they are going to vote. The two points I want to raise are these. It is evident from what the President himself has said that a canvass is absolutely necessary to get anything like a perfect register. The President said he desired to have a canvass. Has he the power to make it mandatory on the local authorities, and, if so, will he do so? I hope he will give us a specific reply on that point, because it is very important indeed. With regard to the necessity of engaging experts to do this canvass, I do not think any expert knowledge is necessary beyond what could be acquired in the course of a very few days' instruction, and I think the persons most fit to make these inquiries really are women. I know in some parts women have been engaged—indeed, in the part in which I believe the greatest perfection up to now has been—women have been almost exclusively engaged in getting this information, and the necessity for canvassing at night time now
  1802
  is not so great as it was before. During the past few years women have been taking a far greater part in politics than before, and we know with what interest those conducting women's papers have watched this Bill passing through the House, and what pains they have taken to instruct their readers as to the details of the Bill. I believe amongst those who have taken an active part in agitating for the franchise during the last few years you could get an ample staff of skilled persons who have acquainted themselves with all the details, and who, if employed on this work in the daytime, would be able to get all the information from the wives, who are just as able to give it as the husbands, and I think the number of husbands who would refuse their wives permission to give the necessary information would probably be very few indeed. If women were employed in this work, most of it could be done in the daytime, and it would be done efficiently, especially if the women I have in mind were engaged on it. The work could then be pushed on and got through much more readily than otherwise. A canvass is essential, and I hope an assurance will be given that it will be made universal.
  Sir J. D. REES: I have only risen to urge the President of the Local Board to earn the gratitude of the Committee a second time to-night. He has done it once by meeting the strong wishes we entertained about legal advice before the tribunals, and I hope he will earn that gratitude a second time by advising the Government, of which he is a distinguished member, fairly and squarely that an election held upon a register prepared by 1st October would be a farce. There was a time when it was regarded as a daring flight of humour to combine Monmouth and Macedon for the reason that they both began with M, and now it is proposed in all seriousness to bring Monmouth and Mesopotamia together. I happen to know both of them. I have been to the first of them recently. They are a long way apart. The idea that you can get an election on 1st October in which you are to have a fair representation of the people, when those who are shedding their blood and laying down their lives for us can only with the utmost difficulty be brought to vote, seems to me one of the most preposterous things that could enter into the mind of a moribund House of Commons. T took up the pink form. I have

  1803
  been long in the habit of filling up forms; indeed, it was my duty to invent them for many years of my life. Consequently I do not intend adversely to criticise this form. I do not know that the Local Government Board could have prepared a better form. I should like to see the critics turn out a better form. Nevertheless, I confess that after filling it in I put it to one side for further consideration.
  That brings me to the very point which brought me to my legs. I had filled in the form so far, and until I came to the space for those ''ordinarily resident in the house" who are not there at present. Take the case of one's chauffeur. That man, in my case, as probably in others, was called to the Army directly the War broke out. Above all men I should wish to see his name entered on the form. Though he wrote to me regularly for a long time, seeing that I have not heard from him for some months, I do not know whether my friend and driver is still alive. How is he going to be put on this form? More than myself he is entitled to be there, because he, being younger, was more fortunate, and able to go into the field and fight for his country. I cannot put him on the register. I might go into any one of those 1,000 rooms occupied by the War Office and try to trace him and get information about him, and I might fail in the end. How are such men to be got on the register? What is the use of an election without them? I submit that it is the duty of the President of the Local Government Board, after the speech he made to-night, to advise the Government that there is a very strong feeling in every quarter of the House that it is impossible to hold an election that would be anything but a farce on 1st October. It is for that sole purpose of saying that that I rose. I heard with the greatest interest the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Bridgwater Division, and I agree with everything he said. Everything my agent tells me bears out what the hon. Gentleman has said. The difficulties are infinite. You must have a canvass to make anything of it. Where are you going to get your canvassers? Take the women. All, or the best of them, that would be useful in canvassing are occupied on other duties. Take the case of a neighbour of mine, an excellent woman, who lives in a lodge near to my house. She gets up at five in the morning to go to munition
  1804
  works at Watford, and very often walks the five miles. She works there all day, and gets home at eight at night. These are the women who ordinarily would be canvassing. How can they now? The fact is, there is nothing to be said except that the country does not want politics now. The country does not want elections. It does not want the results of elections. It does not want Bills nor Acts, least of all such as entail a further charge upon an already overcharged Exchequer. All it wants is the provision of men and money for the War. It would not for that purpose get a better House of Commons than it has now if it had an election in October—whether or not the House it has now be the best possible.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to raise a question which, I think, is quite as important as those questions which we have been discussing, though it has been pushed off to a time when the House is empty, and the President of the Local Government Board is having his dinner. The question is that of the housing proposals of the Government. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Government in having adopted the principle of a Government Grant to local authorities. It is a principle which the party with which I am associated fought for in the years preceding the War against the strenuous opposition of the then President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea. It is, of course, a matter of great satisfaction to most of us that the principle is now being adopted by, I think, the unanimous assent of the House. But though I congratulate the Government on having adopted the principle, I am afraid I cannot congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the method which he has adopted of giving this money. I understood from the speech which he made at Manchester some months ago that the Government intended to give a block Grant to local authorities of one-third of the capital cost of building. If the Government had done that they would have pleased and satisfied all the local authorities, who would at once have made their plans, so that when the curtain falls on this terrible War they could immediately commence their operations. As a matter of fact, however, I suppose owing to Treasury pressure, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a plan which is not, I

  1805
  think, satisfactory to the larger progressive authorities, and which certainly does put a premium on delay by the smaller unprogressive authorities.
  With the indulgence of the House I would like for a moment to read what the City Council of Bradford says on this subject. Its resolution reads as follows:
  "Resolved: That a strong protest be made against the ambiguous nature of the proposals now submitted by the Government, which proposals are—"
  It goes on to explain the proposals:
  "No indication being given by the Government as to the basis upon which the local authorities are to fix the rentals of the properties, and it being impossible to frame any reliable estimate of the value of the properties, at the valuation period, as this must inevitably depend upon circumstances which cannot now be foreseen. Having regard to the fact that the present proposals of the Government, upon which local authorities are urged, in the national interests, to formulate housing schemes, afford absolutely no indication of the financial responsibilities ultimately to be borne by the local authority which undertakes a housing scheme, the Government be urged— (1) To fix a definite proportion of the cost of the scheme in respect of which they will make contributions either in the way of a capital sum or towards the annual charges."
  And it further says:
  "It is felt that no local authority would be justified in undertaking the task on such uncertain terms as are now proposed."
  When I interrupted my right hon. Friend earlier in the afternoon he said that the City Council of Bradford objected to his proposal because that council put forward a demand that the State should bear the total cost. That is not borne out by this resolution. Newcastle-on Tyne has followed suit, and undoubtedly other large municipalities will take the same line. They object to this scheme on account of its indefiniteness: the in-definiteness of the loss they will have to sustain. So much, then, for the progressive parties. If there is one thing agreed upon by everybody in this country it is upon the necessity for immediate action in regard to the building of houses when the War ceases. My right hon. Friend made an eloquent reference to the subject to prove how deep and urgent was the need. I need not enforce that point. Everybody is agreed that there is really disgraceful overcrowding, and everybody knows that directly the restrictions are removed rents will soar up to double or treble their present figure. What ought to move the conscience of the people of this country more than anything else, and it certainly does
  1806
  mine, is the overwhelming necessity we shall be under of paying a debt of gratitude to our gallant soldiers who are now at the front. I think it is really most pathetic the manner in which all our soldiers are looking forward when they come back to finding a really happier and a better world, and it is needless to say that their dreams of happiness fix themselves upon the possession of a house and the partnership of the lady of their choice. It would be one of the basest pieces of gratitude if we adopted a scheme which does not take immediate and drastic action to build houses for our returning soldiers. I cannot let this scheme go forward without a protest because I do not think it will lead to immediate action such as my right hon. Friend suggested, for he seemed to think that you have only got to press the button and everything will go forward.
  This scheme puts a premium on the delay by the local authorities because they will have to bear 25 per cent. of the loss if they build these houses now. The coat of building at the end of the War is estimated to be 60 per cent. higher than it was in 1914, and at the end of seven years time after that it is estimated that it will fall to 30 per cent. higher than 1914. In a scheme costing £160,000 at the end of the War it is estimated that the gross value of that scheme will have fallen to £130,000, in other words the local authority will be poorer by £7,500 in the value of their property. Now, is it likely that the local authority will incur the certain loss of £7.500 when by waiting it can build without any loss at all. Under these circumstances, undoubtedly it will be the object, and, in fact, it will be to the advantage of local authorities not to commence building at once under this scheme, but put it off as long as they can. Another unsatisfactory feature of this scheme is that there is no definite promise at all that the capital will be found by the Government. Let me read paragraph 5:
  "The precise date at which the execution of any scheme approved by the Board can be commenced must depend upon circumstances which cannot at present be foreseen, and the financial position may be such that it may be necessary to give precedence to the more urgent cases, even to the exclusion for the time being of the lesser."
  It is quite evident that a great many schemes will not be attempted at all, but will be pushed aside, and have to wait until the more urgent are taken in hand. In fact, one cannot help feeling the whole

  1807
  object of the Treasury in sanctioning this scheme is to release themselves from the obligation of finding the money for as long as possible after the War, and that, to my mind, makes the scheme as an immediate scheme for the solution of the housing problem somewhat of a fraud and a sham. There is no definite date imposed upon the local authorities at all in the Bill, and there is no indication in the Local Government Board's Circular that local authorities who refuse to do their duty will be made to do it. The right hon. Gentleman in one of his speeches—I think it was at Manchester—said
  "Local authorities would be obliged to push on, and if they did not push on they would have to push off."
  There is nothing about that in the Circular addressed to the local authorities. I am quite well aware of the advisability of carrying these local bodies with you and getting their good will, but at the same time, there are recalcitrant local authorities whom nothing will move except compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech this afternoon said that he had every reason to believe that local authorities were approving of his scheme. I read in the "Yorkshire Gazette" that the Norton Rural District Council and the Pickering Rural District Council refused even to consider the scheme, and the Pickering Rural District Council said that it was a question for after war consideration. In another part of the country the Liskeard Urban District Council postponed consideration of the housing scheme. The Saffron Walden Town Council considered the scheme, and decided that no action should be taken, and the mayor went so far as to say that it would be difficult to raise the necessary loan. What I want to know is what the Local Government Board proposes to do with urban and rural district councils like Norton, Pickering, and Liskeard? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take it lying down, and let these local authorities allow his scheme contemptuously to lie on the table, or is he going to fulfil his obligation to the returning soldiers and get a move on with these backward local authorities? I think the House will be glad to hear if the right hon. Gentleman has any policy for dealing with these local authorities.
  Another unfortunate result of this scheme will be that private enterprise, and the enterprise of public utility
  1808
  societies, will be absolutely snuffed out like a candle. I do ask that the scheme which the Government launches should not make it perfectly impossible for public utility societies to continue their operations. We are under a deep debt of gratitude, to these societies. They have been the pioneers. We are indebted to them for the idea of the garden city, and any scheme of housing ought to rope in the activities not only of the local authorities but also of the public utility societies. How can any public utility society expect to carry on its operations when all it gets from the Government is 75 per cent. of the loss? The words fault that this scheme possesses is that it does-nothing at all to induce the local authorities to go in for schemes of town-planning and it does nothing to promote co-operation among local authorities, both rural and urban, in shouldering their common responsibility for housing the working-class population.
  What is really most necessary for the housing of the people is cordial co-operation between urban and rural authorities. This scheme of the Government puts an impediment in the way because by saddling the authorities with the prospective loss, it makes them more eager to throw the responsibility for that loss upon their neighbours. For instance, there are sixty housing authorities within fifteen miles of London. There are none of them eager to have working-class housing schemes in their areas, because the cost of the education of the children resulting from those schemes would be greater than any profit that could possibly arise from housing. Therefore, in London, and in all large urban areas, it is a struggle between the central authority and the suburban authorities to evade the responsibility of housing the people. It is most unfortunate that the Government scheme will result in accentuating this tendency, causing local authorities to try and shuffle off their responsibility on to somebody else. Our sole idea in the past in town planning has been to crowd the maximum number of people on every single acre of ground, and to provide public-houses at every corner of the street. Our only hope of repairing the wrong that has been done to the working-class population of this country is to encourage schemes of housing in the healthy countryside and to provide cheap transit in order to enable the workmen to get there. Bradford has adopted a most

  1809
  enlightened and up-to-date scheme. It is not going to re-house its people in the slum areas in the central of the town, but it is going in for a large scheme of building, I think, seven or eight villages for housing the people, and it is going to run cheap trams out in order that the people may get there. That is a model which I hope every large urban area will follow. It is a thing which the Government ought to encourage in every possible way. Modern housing reformers with the most up-to-date ideas deprecate the pulling down and rebuilding of slum areas. They prefer that people should be housed well outside the town and that the slum areas should be gradually depopulated. It is a great misfortune that this Bill does nothing to co-ordinate the efforts of local authorities and nothing to promote the most intelligent and up-to-date schemes. I hope very much indeed, as the President of the Local Government Board has already made two graceful concessions this afternoon, that he will add yet a third, and withdraw a scheme which will only end in the greatest possible disappointment to a number of people who have an endless claim to our gratitude.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I do not believe that we could discuss any more important social problem than the one raised by these proposals, and in supporting what my hon. and gallant Friend has said by way of criticism of the action that has been taken by the Local Government Board I do it with profound regret, because no one recognises more fully than I do the interest and the sympathy and the desire of the President of the Board to deal adequately with this problem. I recognise very fully some of the excellent work that has been done by some of these Committees that have been set up. If we can get 300,000 houses built during the first year after the War, as he desires, and if those houses are going to be built on the plan of only twelve to an acre in urban areas and eight to an acre in rural areas, then anyone who knows anything about housing knows that it would begin an enormous transformation in the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his suggestion of having no more than twelve houses to an acre in urban areas. There has been a great development in allotments in the last two or three years. Most people now have an interest in the land which they never had before, but the one regret that they have is that the allotment is often far away from their home. If in our
  1810
  cities we could get houses with gardens built only twleve to the acre it would mean one of the greatest transformations in the social life of England that we have seen for a very long time. Therefore I want the Under-Secretary to realise that in criticising, as we are bound to do, the form these proposals are taking, we are not criticising the intention of the President, but we do feel that forces have been allowed to prevail in the Local Government Board which are contrary to the best desires of those who are working at this question.
  In connection with this matter the most important point is for us to ask this: question: Are we in earnest about this housing question, and do we mean business 1 There is no doubt, I am convinced, that there is no question in which the soldiers are more interested than this question of housing. I trust that the President will most carefully consider whether the proposals suggested in this, letter are wise. If we are going to get anything like 300,000 houses in the first year after the War, the President and the Local Government Board will want all the help they can get from all who are interested in housing. It is a deplorable thing that this suggestion, put forward in the way it has been, is considered by many of those who are keenest on housing as a suggestion which will not meet the need. The President has rightly come down on the side of saying that it is the local authorities who must provide the housing. But the local authorities will not provide the housing unless much easier terms are given than those suggested. The President talked of the State going into partnership with the local authorities. That is a perfectly right view, but he will find, I believe, that the terms of partnership suggested are not acceptable to the local authorities.
  9.0 P.M.
  The two questions we have to ask ourselves are these: First, will the suggestions be effective in securing houses where they are most needed; and, secondly, are they such as to ensure the speedy building in the first year of the 300,000 houses which the right hon. Gentleman considers are necessary? One has only carefully to consider the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend to see that the suggested terms fail to meet these requirements. Take the question of capital. The circular, quoting the Treasury—that is rather a significant fact—indicates that

  1811
  their policy is to avoid finding the capital. The local authorities are to raise their own loans. If the loans are made by the State, they are to be made at the full market rate instead of the local authorities being allowed preferential rates as they have been in the past. My right hon. Friend knows very well that the local authorities will at once say they cannot find the capital. They are not going to find the capital at these very high rates. The more he looks into this question—no one, after all, is keener to get the workers properly housed than he is—he will find, in fact he knows, that if you are going to get anything like 300,000 houses provided by the local authorities in the first year after the War, the State itself will have to provide the capital. The way in which it is dealt with can be decided later on, but the State will have to provide the capital. Does the proposal secure the houses where they are most needed? The President made a rather remarkable admission in the course of his speech. He said that, in answer to the letter he had sent to the local authorities asking what accommodation they required, only two-thirds of them had replied. I should like to know who are the one-third who had not replied? The one-third who had not replied would be, of course, those who do not want to do anything, and who are not prepared to look into the facts. Yet these are the places where you need the houses most of all. Any scheme that is suggested in regard to housing must be a scheme which provides that houses shall be supplied in the districts where they are most required, and where for some time past there has been the greatest difficulty in getting the houses because of the retrograde views held by the local authorities. Again, the scheme does not recognise the ultimate responsibility of the State for seeing that the necessary houses are provided. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that, if 300,000 houses are going to be built the year after the War, the plans ought to be ready now in many cases. Unless the plans arc ready before peace is declared, you are not going to get these houses built in the districts where they are most needed. Further, in the circular no definite duty is thrown upon the local authorities. The authorities are asked rather than required to do this task. Again I say I am afraid that, un-
  1812
  less the definite duty is thrown upon these local authorities, the President will be disappointed in what he desires to achieve.
  I want to emphasise also the point that the plan is not one which will ensure speedy building. If hon. Members will look at the letter, they will find there is no limit of time given in which local authorities must submit a scheme, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has already pointed out, the suggestion, as it is made to the local authorities at the present time, is a suggestion which really encourages them to delay, because of the fact that, directly after the War, the expense of building is going to be so high. The President mentioned that prices are now 60 per cent. higher than they were before the War.
  Mr. FISHER: I did not say that.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: If it was not mentioned by the President, the fact has been mentioned in Debate. I am not sure that it is not higher than 60 per cent. now. Sixty per cent. is a low figure. If within seven years that 60 per cent. goes down and settles at from 25 to 30 per cent. higher than the prices in pre-war time, then, under the scheme as suggested, it is now all to the pecuniary advantage of the local authorities to delay action, so that the quarter of capital lost will be substantially reduced. I hope the President will reconsider these proposals, and will try and see that the final scheme that is suggested is one which will receive the enthusiastic support of housing reformers. I believe if he is going to do that he will have to accede to the view that it is essential that the State should undertake to find the necessary capital, that the duty of building should be placed upon the local authorities, who should be absolutely required to submit their schemes within a definite time, and as the largest costs, the building costs, are going to be so much higher immediately after the War than when normal post-war conditions are reached, in the form in which he gives his assistance to the local authorities care should be taken to recognise that fact and make the conditions such that, instead of there being an inducement to delay building, there is really an inducement to begin building at once. The suggestion of the Royal Commission on housing in Scotland really points the

  1813
  way in which the help should be given. The Commission's recommendation is that—
  "To enable local authorities to fulfil the statutory obligation above referred to the State should, for a period of seven years subsequent to the War, make up by way of subsidy the difference between the rentals received by local authorities from their housing schemes and the outgoings for such properties, and that at the end of the period of seven years the Government should have the houses which have been erected during that period valued, and should then pay the local authorities the whole of the capital loss— that is, the difference between the cost of the houses and the ascertained value."
  Finally, I am perfectly sure the scheme should be one which will enable private enterprise, and also the public utility societies, to be encouraged in the right way. We all know the intentions and desires of the President so well in this country that it seems an ungracious thing to have to criticise these proposals in the way that some of us have felt to be necessary, but I hope he will give most careful consideration to the views that have been expressed, and that he will try to meet the objections, so that in this tremendous task of providing, in the first year after the War, 300,000 houses he may have the whole-hearted support of all who are interested in housing. He knows perfectly well that the 300,000 houses are not all that are required, but that really, if you are going to get the transformation in urban and rural England that you desire, the probability is that nearly 1,000,000 houses will be required before many year.; are over. I hope I have not spoken too strongly, but there is very great uneasiness on the part of many authorities at the form the suggestion has taken, and T trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reconsider the matter with very great care.
  Sir J. BOYTON: The two speeches we have just heard have expressed somewhat gloomy foreboding, but still I am hopeful, because I know the amount of work which my right hon. Friend is putting into this business, and for the sake of the many Committees which are dealing with the subject I hope some measure of success will attend the efforts which he is making. I am afraid, from what he has said in the early part of the proceedings, that private enterprise will derive but very cold comfort. I am afraid there is a general feeling amongst those who have hitherto been the great providers of dwellings for the working classes, to the extent of some 95 per cent. of all the accommodation that
  1814
  exists, that unless they are encouraged the enterprise which they have hitherto shown will practically cease to exist. I believe private enterprise could take this job on, or at all events a large portion of it, without a subsidy if only it was advanced a much larger proportion than the ordinary mortgagee usually advances to a builder. In ordinary trading a mortgagee lends two-thirds of the value. If my right hon. Friend will consider an extension of that limit, if he would lend, say, 80 per cent. of the value, and make some financial arrangement—ask the public for a special housing loan perhaps, for which they would get a proper and fair return—he might then be able to encourage builders and the public utility societies to go on with their great work. I doubt whether the local authorities will take up the scheme to the full extent that he hopes for. Many will, no doubt, but others will fight shy of it. When the War is over and men return and seek for employment I hope they will not troop off to the big towns, but will come back to the village carpenter or builder where they have hitherto been employed and that he will be able to employ them. He cannot do it unless he receives assistance on a much wider scale than he has hitherto been able to obtain it from the private mortgagee. He may hope— perhaps he may fail in his hope—to get the money a little cheaper than he has hitherto got it from the private mortgagee. At all events, I am bold enough to state here that if the private builder could be sure of 80 per cent. being advanced to him under some repayment System which would give him a certain amount of security for the first few years against the mortgage not being called in, and if there could be some scheme of repayment by instalment after the manner of building societies, I believe it would have a very good effect. I do not suppose he would shy at 5 per cent. In more prosperous times he has borrowed at 4 per cent. If some system could be devised whereby he could have 80 per cent. advanced to him at 5 per cent. interest, it would to a very large extent help materially to make up the admitted shortage in the houses required. Again, the public utility societies might, with more liberal allowances, begin their work again. There is generally someone in the background who is liberal enough to provide the financial backing for these societies. The hon.

  1815
  Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) knows something about financing these undertakings, and perhaps he and his friends, and an increasing number of his friends, might be able to induce more capital to be put into these undertakings if they were sure that greater consideration would be shown in the way I have indicated. I know something of the difficulty which surrounds the subject, but I hope there will be some more hopeful outlook for private enterprise and the public utility societies than the President foreshadowed to-day.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): The Debate in respect of the housing problem has certainly taken a very interesting turn, and I do not think that anybody could complain of the spirit which has been brought to bear in the matter. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is one worthy of a good deal of consideration. How far we can approach the public utility societies and private enterprise is certainly a very proper matter for consideration. There is a very great debt of gratitude owing by the nation to the gentlemen who in the past have been engaged in private enterprise in the building trade. They have built well over 90 per cent. of the houses erected, and although it may be said that many of those houses hardly deserved the name, there is not the slightest doubt there has been a great increase in the standard of building and a good deal of gratitude is due to the men who put honest, self-sacrificing work into their business. Nobody can deny that the public utility societies should be encouraged, but when we consider the whole subject, the magnitude of the problem, and the immense demand, the almost overwhelming demand, there will be at the conclusion of the War, we are driven to the conclusion that in the first place you must entrust the carrying out of this very urgent duty to the public authorities themselves. That does not in any way close the door upon the necessity of using the enterprise of the public utility societies and the private builders, and I can certainly say of my right hon. Friend that he less than any man I know is willing to turn his mind against that consideration and all the help that can be brought to the exigencies of the State.
  1816
  It had been complained that the circular issued and the terms submitted to local authorities are not such as will induce them to take this problem in hand. But I think the local authorities are not profit-making concerns. The one thing that interests them is the extent to which they are to be guaranteed against loss, and the State has come forward and said, "We-will vote powers so that as between the rents you can actually charge and the actual cost the rates to be levied need not, if we approve, exceed Id. in the £." Hon. Members must see that, after all, there is a certain local responsibility. Many of us have a good deal of experience of the conditions under which industrial areas have grown up, and it is not the fault of the State that some of these areas are simply congeries of ill-health, insanitation, overcrowding, and all the concomitants that follow. It has been in many cases the fault of the local administration, and it surely is not the right thing that the State shall be compelled to take over all the horrible legacies of the past, and that no responsibility shall be brought to bear upon the local areas. When the State does in effect say— because bringing down the meaning of the circular to its lowest denominator it means this—that of any deficiency not more than one penny rate need vest upon the shoulders of the local authority, I do not think that in the whole of my reading I know of more generous terms that have ever been offered in the history of social legislation. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) asked what would be done with recalcitrant authorities? At present there is no special power, but we are hoping very shortly that a Bill will be placed on the Statute Book which will give county councils power to act in default of local authorities that are neglectful of their obligations in this particular matter. We have always considered that you cannot ride roughshod over local authorities. They are the elected of the people, and presumably possess the confidence of the people in that area, and consistent with the proper carrying out of democratic principles—which I think hon. Members will agree should be the basis of our action—we do intend in regard to any authorities which are not willing to rise to the proper height of their obligations to put pressure upon them, so that the duties which they ought to discharge shall be carried out.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What will happen supposing the county council refuses to do it?
  Mr. WALSH: Are we to assume that in this great code of local administration there is no public spirit in a local body or in a county body? My right hon. Friend suggests, what I would have been timorous of advancing, that in the future the wide electorate and an electorate of particular quality may be expected to be able to galvanise into action authorities which will be inactive. But let us see to what extent the authorities are recalcitrant. It was stated that two-thirds of them had replied to the Circular. As a matter of fact over two-thirds did—85 per cent. of the authorities who have been served with the Circular have replied notwithstanding the vast amount of work which these local governing bodies have to do to-day. Hon. Members know perfectly well the immense amount of duties which these bodies have had to undertake during the last two or three years, and it is remarkable to find that twenty-eight out of twenty-nine metropolitan boroughs, or 95 per cent., eighty-one out of eighty-two county boroughs, or 99 per cent., 213 out of 245 or 87 per cent. of the borough councils, 688 out of 800 of the urban district council?, and 526 out of 620 rural district councils replied to the Circular, while the complete average is 85 per cent. They have made this response under conditions when the pressure of public work has been greater than it has ever been in the history of the nation. These public authorities are amongst the most enlightened authorities in the world. Many names of such bodies will occur to everyone of us readily, and I venture to say that no authorities are more enlightened than certain large municipalities in the Midlands, in Lancashire, and other parts of the country, though we need not particularise. What is most remarkable of all is that we have the rural districts making an average of 81 per cent. and that the general average is as high as 85 per cent., although it must have required more thought and consideration than one might be prepared to conclude from the ten our of this Debate.
  Mr. RAFFAN: How many said they were prepared to take action?
  Mr. WALSH: The particular Circular laying down the conditions under which the Treasury was willing to meet the
  1818
  situation was only recently issued. But the first letter, which is the vital one, does go to show that the authorities are willing to recognise the urgent need, and they have replied in such a way as to indicate that they will perform their work in a very creditable manner. The other circular is only a few weeks old.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I suppose there has not really been time for them to do it?
  Mr. WALSH: No, but we are very hopeful that they will undertake it in a proper spirit. It has been complained that what we consider the most urgent cases are to be given precedence. Under no scheme which any man could devise could you have all the work going on concurrently, because it is a question of labour and materials and you cannot have all the men you require. Surely the most urgent cases must be dealt with first of all. I think it is a matter of exceeding credit to the local government life of Great Britain that, under conditions unprecedented in the history of the nation, our bill of health should remain as satisfactory as it has been. There is always the greatest danger in your large industrial areas where your need is most intense, and in my view it is a most proper thing that they should have precedence over the areas where the conditions are healthier and where you have green fields. Industrial areas, which are the hotbeds of fever and death, ought to have precedence as soon as the State is in a position to deal with the problem effectively.
  In the course of the Debate we have been asked whether we are in earnest. I certainly think that the action taken by the Local Government Board and the cumulative pressure of the last half-score years do go to show that if the nation were ever in earnest in a matter it is earnest now on this housing question. Every social reformer, every sanitarian, every true lover of his country recognises that the housing problem is at the root of all the other social problems of the State, and that we cannot hope to have a healthy population and a citizenship fit to discharge its duties unless we really do house the people in a manner worthy of the nation. So far as I have knowledge of the Department, I may say that day by day and week by week it is giving the most complete attention to the manifold phases of this difficult problem which are so great as almost to baffle the wit of man. I think I may assure my hon.

  1819
  Friend that, so far as I can judge, the Department is in earnest, though I have only been there a few months, and can only speak with such knowledge as a politician can gain in a comparatively short time. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say very much on the relatively small points which have been raised during the discussion in regard to the machinery of registration, and so on. We were asked whether the Local Government Board could compel the registration officers to adopt a particular method. The registration officers are people appointed under the law with statutory obligations. and if they fail to carry out these obligations heavy penalties may be imposed upon them.
  What the Local Government Board will do is to consider the whole case in order to see how far the work can be expedited and issue recommendations, so as to bring about in the shortest possible space of time the complete register which we all desire. I am in fullest agreement with my hon. Friend in recognising the overwhelming necessity of having the register as complete as human minds can make it when we do go to the poll. For it would be a real discredit; to us all if, after the immense amount of work which has been performed, both by this House and by the officials who, to my knowledge, have been working day by day and night by night for months past—if, having led the people of this country to believe that they are to have a real chance of voting on a comprehensive scale for the first time in the history of the nation, if the whole scheme were prejudiced because we were hurrying matters which required thoughtful and honest effort and deliberation. I speak only as one Member, but I hope this Parliament will insist that, now we have put our hands to the task, it shall be effectively carried through, so that the nation when it is called upon to exercise its will at the polls may be able to do so in no uncertain manner. The other points which have been raised are mainly points of machinery, and I do not think I ought to take up any more of the time of the House, because I am sure those other points have been really met in advance by the speech of my right hon. Friend. I thank the House for having given me the opportunity to clear up the points raised in discussion.
  Mr. WING: I hope that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down
  1820
  will be received as expressing the full driving power of the Local Government Department of which he is a member. I feel, however, that some remarks which he made affirm the necessity'. in regard to some of the points that have been raised, of an Order of a somewhat mandatory character, when matters do not move in a line to meet the objections which were put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham. I think we should have something more definite with respect to the assistance or the use of private endeavour in building. Take the county of Durham, which to its credit has for some time been ahead, at least in some directions, of the Local Government Board in the desire for erecting house accommodation. In that district the large majority of houses built in recent years is the result of private enterprise, and the buildings are very creditable to the people who have undertaken them, indicating a gradual rise in the standard of excellence and of convenience. It would be a very great pity that the efforts of these people should not be encouraged. I submit that they should be encouraged on just such terms as you give to the local authorities. I should like to see public utility societies and private enterprise also encouraged in the way I suggest. I think it should not be forgotten that those who undertake the erection of these houses give a security which takes away any risk on the part of the State. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman representing the Local Government Board is altogether in the right in placing on the local authorities entire responsibility for neglected areas, for it should be recollected that in the localities the Local Government Board is regarded as being in a position of authority, and that they can insist upon more sanitary and better buildings being provided. I do not think all the responsibility should be placed upon the county council.
  Mr. WALSH: I should be sorry if my remarks could be so understood. I did not say that all the responsibilities should be placed upon the locality. What I endeavoured to state was that at least some responsibility must be placed upon the local authorities, and there are many matters in regard to which responsibility must be local.
  Mr. WING: I agree that there are many reforms, such as education, and sanitation, and other matters in which local authorities are responsible, but there are

  1821
  many subtle forces in play which prevent local authorities from carrying out what they recognise is required, and I think there should be some mandatory power on the part of the Local Government Board to say that certain things must be done, and I hope that we may rely upon the Department insisting upon houses of the right character, such as are suited to the needs of those for whom they are intended, shall be erected, and that they shall comply with the demands which make for public health. I thoroughly endorse the statement as to the high mortality amongst children, and I believe that the Local Government Board are really in earnest in the work in which they are engaged. I trust that the local authorities and the Local Government Board will be able to work in harmony, and that all the forces which can be commanded may be brought into operation, so that we may have built houses in every respect convenient, well built, and worthy of those who are to occupy them.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I think it is quite impossible to exaggerate the gravity and importance of this housing question. It was a subject of very great importance before the War, when there was a great deal of overcrowding. Since the War there has been no building, and the conditions have been very much accentuated. I think we may draw great hope from what has been said by the President of the Local Government Board and my hon. Friend, and from the great interest which they are taking, and have taken, in this question. In the course of the Debate, so far as I have been able to hear it, I think one of the most important aspects of the subject appears to have been overlooked, and I should like to have some assurance with regard to it. My hon. Friend has said that there has been lax action on the part of some of the authorities. I happen to be a member of the district council and of the county council in a colliery district, where every endeavour has been made to secure better conditions in connection with the erection of houses, but we have found again and again that whenever we endeavoured to build additional houses, the demands made upon us by the landowners from whom it was proposed to acquire land were so great that it was impossible for us to provide these houses and let them at reasonable rents, without throwing a burden upon the local rates, which the Local Government Board, at that time at any
  1822
  rate, would not allow us to throw upon the rates. In regard to that question, in, my view no administrative action that the right hon. Gentleman can take, or my hon. Friend can take, will get rid of our fundamentally-vicious rating system, which requires to be entirely altered before you can put the housing conditions right. I want some assurance in regard to this; I want some assurance as to whether this matter has come at all within the purview of this Department, and whether they have any plan in contemplation, for enabling the local authorities to get over these difficulties. I find from the return which has been made of the capital value of estates, that the assessment is something like£50 an acre, sometimes less, and sometimes £25 an acre. But when we desired, for the purpose of building houses to acquire land, we could never obtain it at less than£1,000 an acre. As there is to be this enormous national subsidy, and this additional subsidy from the local rates to assist in the erection of houses, surely some steps should be taken to see that the money is really expended in house building, that it does secure additional house accommodation for the people, and that it does not all merely drift into the pocket of the landlord. If you are not to build the old, hideous mining villas, which, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, are a blot, whether it be in Lancashire, Monmouthshire, or in any other mining district, and if you are going to have a garden attached to every house, you will have to build not more than ten houses to the acre. I am sure the experts of the Board will not advise more than ten.
  Mr. FISHER: They advise twelve in the urban districts, and not move than eight in the country districts.
  Mr. RAFFAN: That puts my calculation out a little, but it does not affect my argument. If I assume ten houses to the acre then, if the local authority is to pay£l,000 per acre for the land, that means£100 for the site of each house. I do say that if that enormous sum is to be paid, the whole of the State subsidy will go in increased revenue to the landowner, who is rendering no service whatever in return and who will really be able to find in this new scheme afresh method of making exactions from the public. I should like some assurance that if this State subsidy is to be given, and if the local authorities

  1823
  are to be encouraged to impose rates in the various districts for the purpose of assisting house building, some power will be given to them to acquire the land on the basis which the owner himself would, I assume, regard as fair—that is to say, on the basis of the valuation. We have taken, or are taking at an enormous cost, a valuation of the whole of the land of the country. This has been done by State officials; presumably they were entirely impartial, and arrived at fair valuations. I suggest that some power ought to be given to the local authorities to acquire land, and that they should not be at the mere mercy of the landowner, who might, for some purposes of this own, refuse permission to build altogether, or, if he gave permission, might only give it on terms which would mean that the entire subsidy went to him, and would not be used for the purposes for which it was intended. I should like an assurance that the local authority would purchase the land on the basis of the valuation, which I think would be a fair proposal. Of course, I am not tied definitely to that. If the right hon. Gentleman could propose some better way by which land may be acquired on fair and reasonable terms, I would be content with it. But I should like some assurance that this aspect of the question—I can assure the House it is not merely theoretical, but severely practical—has been considered, and that in some way or other, when the subsidy is given, there will be some provision which will enable the local authority to obtain the land at its real value.
  Mr. FISHER: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House earlier in the afternoon, when I made my original speech, he would have recognised that I dealt with that question. In the questions issued to the local authorities we particularly asked them whether they expected any difficulty in obtaining land at a fair valuation. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Town Planning Act, I think he will find that under it we have fairly adequate powers for seeing that the local authorities do obtain land at a reasonable rate, and at a fair valuation. That was the Town Planning Act of 1909, and I think that that measure had not been passed when the hon. Gentleman had his experience in local bodies.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Oh, yea!
  Mr. FISHER: Then I wonder that the local authority of which he was a member did not make use of it.
  Mr. RAFFAN: It is utterly useless.
  Mr. FISHER: Allow me to tell the hon. Gentleman that he had a somewhat singular experience.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Not at all; it is the entire experience of South Wales.
  Mr. FISHER: We have found, from a much larger experience than the hon. Gentleman can have had, that the powers under that Town Planning Act have been of very effective use. If those powers are not adequate for obtaining land at a reasonable rate and at a fair valuation, for purposes which are now of national importance, there will be other ways in which we shall be able to obtain it. But, when the hon. Gentleman says that the landlords do nothing whatever for the£l,000 per acre, or whatever price they get, let me remind the House that there is a Budget, and taxation, and I wonder how much of that money goes into the landlords' pockets in these days. After all there is the Income Tax, the Supertax, and a few other little charges like that.
  Mr. RAFFAN: It does not touch one of them.
  Mr. FISHER: I must differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that the landlord will get the round sum of£l,000 per acre, and that for every£l,000 per acre nothing in the way of profit or cash goes into the pocket of the State at all. I differ from him, and I am quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will differ from him too. But this matter of land is not of such great importance as he thinks. The price of land is a matter which really does not to any large extent affect the actual weekly rent of the house, but it is the price at which the money can be obtained to build the house. That is a far more important factor. The question of the price of the land has been grossly exaggerated in considering what economic rent is to be charged on the building to be erected on the land. Still, this great housing question is really a national problem, and it is only reasonable that the State, entering into a partnership with the local authority, should see that the local authority has got adequate power placed at its disposal by

  1825
  which it might be able to obtain land on which to build houses at a reasonable rate and at a fair valuation.
  Sir H. NIELD: I want for a very few minutes to intervene between the House and the Vote in order to call the attention of the President to a matter which has become very urgent in my county of Middlesex, namely, the provision of proper tuberculosis accommodation. The problems with which the county committee have had to contend, by reason of its very large population and the number returning of soldiers who are affected by tubercule has caused them very serious difficulty with regard to their scheme, and the point to which I desire to direct his attention or that of the Parliamentary Secretary is the difficulty of obtaining the Board's sanction to proposals whereby the county will be able to pay, out of its funds—and the Insurance Commissioners will also be able to deal with cases arising within their purview, through the county committee—for cases within Poor Law institutions. At present the demand for beds for other things are such that it is impossible for the county's scheme to be properly carried out, because that accommodation cannot be provided if the cases in Poor Law institutions have to be removed from there to other institutions. The difficulty is that the Board has been unable, so far, to give its sanction to the proposals which the county of Middlesex have laid before it. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, or on the Parliamentary Secretary, that this matter shall receive attention, and that whatever is necessary to enable the Board to give sanction to the scheme of the county may be done at once, so that the accommodation at present needed for these cases may be provided in institutional homes as such, and we shall be allowed to continue the cases in Poor Law institutions and still receive the proper Grant. It is impossible for us to deal with these cases under the conditions under which we are now working. I ask that this matter may be seriously considered. It may be a question for the Treasury, but I hope, at any rate, that what I have now said may be the means of relieving the county from the difficulty in which it is a present placed.
  Mr. FISHER: The question raised by my hon. Friend is one which affects the Treasury, I think, rather more than the Local Government Board. I will look into
  1826
  it very carefully and consider with the Treasury whether any action can be taken. I quite understand the difficulty under which the Middlesex County Council and the insurance committees are labouring, but I should be slow to adopt any suggestion that soldiers suffering from tuberculosis should be put into Poor Law institutions.
  Sir H. NIELD: That is not what I was suggesting. We want to remove from the Poor Law institutions the cases of soldiers that are there and we want to keep in them the Poor Law cases, and at the same time get our proper Grant in respect of them.
  Mr. FISHER: Although it is a somewhat-minute point, a large question of principle is raised and that is as to how far the Treasury can make Grants in a matter of this kind. We know the strong feeling there is with regard to Grants in connection with Poor Law institutions, but T will look carefully into the matter and seek the advice of the Treasury and communicate with my hon. and learned Friend as to whether anything can be done to meet the wishes of the Middlesex County Council.
  Mr. WATT: We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the price of land has no effect on the rent of cottages.
  Mr. FISHER: I never said anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth which I never uttered. I said that as compared with the price paid for money, the price paid for the land was not so heavy a burden as has been suggested.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WATT: I apologise if I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. Still, he spoke as if £l,000 per acre was not a very large sum in this connection. But if four cottages are to be built. on an acre of land, and if £1,000 is paid for the site, that will represent £250 for land alone for each cottage, and I say it is absurd to pay that.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman may think, but he must not put into my mouth his views. I never suggested that four cottages only should be built on an acre of land. My suggestion was that the number should be twelve in urban districts and eight in rural districts.
  Mr. WATT: And if it is eight in a country district it represents nearly £150

  1827
  per cottage per land, and that would represent a very serious item and would be responsible for a very heavy rent. The second point put by the right hon. Gentleman was that a considerable part of this£1,000 was got back by the Government from the landowner in the shape of Income Tax and other payment. I strongly disagree. The money is capital merely, and is not subject to Income Tax at all. I know what the right hon. Gentleman meant. He supposed that landlords would necessarily invest the£1,000 in some other undertaking in order to get interest and dividend, and that then the Government would get a considerable share back by way of Income Tax. All I want to do is to point out that the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on this matter will not hold water.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I should like to emphasise the importance of the cost of land if you are going to build houses in open order. I have had considerable experience in thus building houses, and the result works out perfectly simply. If you have ten to the acre, and if you pay£250 per acre for the land, it means£25 for the land on which each cottage stands, and that is roughly 6d. per week to be added to the rent. If you pay£1,000 per acre, then the addition to the rent is 2s. per week. Cottages built in open order, according to my experience, will stand an addition to the rent of 6d. per week for the land, as the garden is worth a good deal. But when you have to charge more than that it practically prevents building them in open order. Anything like a charge of£1,000 per acre would be fatal to building cottages in open areas.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Mon day next.

  SUPPLY [18th APRIL].
  Resolutions reported,
  SUPPLY [18th APRIL].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
      Class II.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding£64,340, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

      Class I.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding£34,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in- Aid."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding£4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding£57,050, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding£35,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expendiiture in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding£40,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
      Resolutions agreed to.
      Resolution reported,
      8. "That a sum', not exceeding £23,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expendiure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. WATT: There is an item of £2,500 to be paid under this Vote for a Consulate at Harbin, and I desire to put before the First Commissioner of Works when he is present my objections to the erection of this building at Harbin at the present time.
      Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
      Resolutions reported,
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding£304,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £151,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding£138,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in
      1830
      respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
      Resolutions agreed to.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Ten o'clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February

WAR.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    SELECT COMMITTEE (THIRD REPORT).
    SELECT COMMITTEE (THIRD REPORT).
    CONSCRIPTION OF WOMEN,
    CONSCRIPTION OF WOMEN,
    STATIONERY OFFICE INSPECTORATE (MAJOR STENSON COOKE)
    STATIONERY OFFICE INSPECTORATE (MAJOR STENSON COOKE)
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    FOREMAN BREWER.
    FOREMAN BREWER.
    ARMY AMBULANCES (COMMAND).
    ARMY AMBULANCES (COMMAND).
    DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
    PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
    EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COINAGE).
    EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COINAGE).
  Vaccination Acts (Offenders Imprisoned).
  Vaccination Acts (Offenders Imprisoned).
Preamble
The Lord BLYTHSWOOD The Lord BLYTHSWOOD—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INCREASE OF RENT, &c. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I suppose it is no use making an appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to give us more time, because I know that arrangements have been made to agree to these Amendments and to get the Royal Assent to the Bill to-day: but I think such a course is extremely unjust and unfair to the House. We parted with this Bill about six weeks ago. The Second Reading was taken in the House of Commons so long ago as April 17; the Committee stage was on April 24; and the Report and Third Reading were taken two or three days ago. I think we should have been given more time. The Amendments which the noble and learned Lord will have to explain are very important. I shall not go into them on the merits, but I must say that it is very hard upon this House that those of us who have interests in Scotland in connection with this matter have had absolutely no time to communicate with those interested in this Bill, and it has been quite impossible for those who are interested there to communicate with us. Consequently I think it is unfair to this House to proceed with the matter to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I would point out to my noble friend that this Bill was sent down to the House of Commons on March 2. Then came the Easter recess. The Second Reading was taken in the House of Commons on April 17, the Committee stage on April 24, and the Report and Third Read-
928
ing on April 30. There has been an abundance of time for correspondence with Scotland with regard to any particulars in connection with this Bill. It was perfectly well known what the Commons were doing and to what Amendments the Government had assented in the other House. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will see, as the matter is extremely urgent, the desirability of leaving the Bill to be dealt with as proposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord tells us that the matter is very urgent, far be it from me, of course, to contradict him; but the proceedings in the Commons do not look like it. The matter was not urgently pressed forward in that House. Weeks were allowed to elapse. The House of Commons was allowed to rise for the Easter recess without the Bill being passed into law. Nobody thought that this was improper; but when it comes back to this House, then the matter must be settled in twenty-four hours. I cannot understand that kind of urgency—an urgency which exists only at this end of the corridor and not at the other. An urgency which is one of place and not of time appears to me to be a very strange form of urgency. If my noble friend Lord Balfour, who has paid special attention to this subject and who knows that it interests his friends in Scotland, desires more time to consider the Amendments to this Bill which have come from the Commons, I must say that I think he is entitled to have it. If the Bill had been rushed through the Commons in, say, a week, and sent back to your Lordships' House, one could have understood it; but in the circumstances of the case I think we might respectfully ask for a little more explanation from the Government before we allow the Bill to proceed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With your Lordships' permission I might say that it was proposed to take the Bill yesterday, but it was postponed until to-day at the request of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in order to give him more time. With regard to the delay in the House of Commons, the noble Marquess will recollect that it was only on March 20 that the Bill was sent down to that House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is six weeks ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; but it was desirable that the question of making the Bill retrospective should be considered. That question has been considered, and the result will be seen. In the circumstances I hope that Lord Balfour of Burleigh will recognise that we have endeavoured to meet him as far as possible, and that nothing will be gained by taking further time for inquiries which might have been made while the Bill was in the Commons.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can speak again only by the indulgence of the House. The noble and learned Lord is not absolutely accurate in saying that the postponement until to-day was made at my request. I requested that the Bill should not be taken yesterday, which thought was a scandal in the circumstances; but my appeal was really for a longer time and not until to-day. However understand that the Government are determined to go on to-day; therefore it must be so. If will not take the responsibility of making it impossible now to consider the Commons Amendments, but I shall say something upon their merits when they are moved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 7.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ("twelfth") and insert ("thirtieth")
Clause 1, Page 1, line 11, leave out ("March") and insert ("September"), and leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("seventeen")
Clause 1, Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and the provisions of the said subsection with respect to orders made but not executed before the passing of that Act, shall apply to orders made but not executed before the passing of this Act, as if this Act had been substituted for that Act in the said subsection.
"Provided that this enactment shall not apply in any case where the court is satisfied by certificate given by or on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or as regards premises in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, or in Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland) that the premises in question are required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work of urgent national importance").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in these Amendments. This Bill originated in consequence of a letter which was sent to me by the chairman of the Military Pensions Committee in Buck-
930
inghamshire, pointing out the great hardship on tenants of small houses—in many cases the families of soldiers serving—in consequence of the practice which had grown up nullifying to a great extent the beneficial effects of the Act passed on December 23, 1915, chapter 97, of 5 & 6 George V, for preventing the increase of rent of small houses of £25 a year, £30 a year, and £35 a year according to the part of the country in which the houses are situate. My attention was called to the fact that since the air raids upon London had begun a great many people had taken to purchasing these cottages from the landlords with a view of getting the tenants out under the terms of a clause to which I am going to call your Lordships' attention.
The general scope of the Act to which I have referred was, as your Lordships are aware, to prevent the rent being increased beyond the standard rate at which it had been before circumstances altered so much; and it was to prevent the termination of the tenancy and the creation of a new tenancy which would have nullified altogether so far as the tenant was concerned the beneficial effect of the Act. Section 1, subsection (3), contains this provision—
"No Order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by this Act and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, or on some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court making such Order …"
The material words for the present purpose are—except in the case where the premises are wanted by the landlord "for the occupation of himself or some person in his employ." In order to take advantage of that provision it was alleged—I believe with great truth—that in very many cases the owners of cottages where poor people, many of them dependants of soldiers, lived, were asked to sell to people who wanted them for their own occupation where they would be safe from the effects of air raids, principally in the West of London. I took the matter up, and after consultation with the Department concerned prepared a Bill which had the effect of providing that for the purposes of this subsection a purchaser

931
from the lessor should not be deemed to be the landlord—that is to say, you would prevent a man who had bought from the lessor from giving notice. This was in order to put an end to the most objectionable practice of these cottages being bought up, sometimes for a price paid down and sometimes for a certain sum paid down and then weekly or monthly payments; because if that practice became extensively pursued the result would be that the persons for whose protection this Act was passed would be ousted from the benefit of the Act altogether. When the Act was passed, what was intended to be provided for was the fact of the landlord (the lessor) wanting the premises for the occupation of himself or of somebody in his employment, and I do not think that the case was ever considered of its being possible that there should be froth special causes, such a run upon property of this description that the Act would be in effect nullified by such purchases.
The Bill having been drafted on the lines with which your Lordships are now familiar—that is to say, excluding from the meaning of the word "landlord" in that section the purchaser from the landlord—I found that the very same evil existed to a very great extent in Scotland, and before the Bill was settled I had the advantage of a consultation with the Scottish Office and with the Lord Advocate. I found that the civil in Scotland did not assume exactly the same character. It was not that people were anxious to get cottages to escape from air raids, but that, particularly in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, there was a great run upon property for the accommodation of munition workers. In many cases it was the munition workers themselves who, getting excellent wages, bought the cottages either outright or by the payment of a sum down and instalments. What the proportion of such cases relatively was I do not know. In other cases the cottages were purchased by contractors who were desirous of providing accommodation for their workers. The evil in Scotland, I found, was in the opinion of the Scottish Office quite as serious as, perhaps more serious than, that in the neighbourhood of London.
Your Lordships will recollect that before this Bill went down to the House of Commons more than one member of your Lordships' House expressed a strong desire that it should be made retrospective on the ground that if the Bill were not retrospec-
932
tive a great many cases would be unredressed—that is to say, that there were cases of purchases which had taken place within a certain number of months before the introduction of the Bill where eviction might yet take place. Your Lordships will observe that the whole scope of the Bill in amending the Act of 1915 was to prevent eviction—that is to say, that process should not be granted for turning a tenant out except on the ground specified in the subsections which I read to your Lordships a few minutes ago; and accordingly it is desired that tenants still in possession of these premises should not be exposed to eviction. It is not proposed by the Amendment for making the Bill retrospective to interfere at all with possession that has been taken by purchasers. It may be hard, but still possession has been taken, and it would upset arrangements too much to turn out a man who has entered, and in cases, it may be, where the tenant who has been evicted has made other arrangements for his occupation. All that the Bill before your Lordships protects the tenant from is process in the future, with one qualification arising out of an Amendment made in the Commons, to which I will call your Lordships' attention presently. A man who has possession wants no protection, nor does it matter whether that possession has been obtained by arrangement with the tenant or by execution followed by his taking possession.
In answer to the representations that the Bill ought to be made retrospective I pointed out that there was prima facie strong objection to retrospective legislation, but I admitted that there might be cases justifying it, and I said that I thought the case should be considered carefully during the progress of the measure through the Commons. It has been considered, and the Government Departments concerned—the Local Government Board and the Scottish Office—came to the conclusion that they ought not to resist the desire of the House of Commons that the Bill should be made retrospective. Various dates were suggested. One proposal was, I think, that it should relate back to January 1 of this year. Another proposal was that it should date back to May of last year. A third form of Amendment was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division, who suggested that it should relate back to September 30, 1917. The Government ultimately decided in the

933
House of Commons to accept that date, as striking a mean and as being in their judgment a fair date to take. There is very little doubt that that date was suggested to the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division by the fact that just about that time the pressure of the air raids was beginning to make itself felt in the West of London—that is to say, a demand for cottages was springing up in consequence of the air raids. In that way it seemed a very suitable date so far as London and the neighbourhood of London were concerned.
This date happened also to suit Scotland very well, for this reason. In England most of these tenancies, or at all events a great many of them, are weekly tenancies. In Scotland they are half-yearly tenancies, and you get a man out either on November 28, or, I think it is, May 28; and if any man had purchased before September 30 presumably he would have recovered possession in the interval, during the forty or fifty days that elapsed between the end of September and November 11 (the date for which the notice had to be given), the actual possession being got on November 28. Forty days notice is provided for by the Scottish law. Therefore you have coming on in May, towards the end of this month, a very considerable mass of demands for evictions in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, and September 30, though suggested from the English point of view, happened to suit the Scottish point of view very well. In these circumstances the clause, as passed by the House of Commons and sent up to your Lordships, substituted September 30, 1917, for March 12, 1918, the date of the introduction of the Bill.
There is only one word I have to say in regard to this Amendment. In the House of Commons there was a Motion made that words should be inserted giving a discretion to the Court. It was proposed to insert in the Bill on page 1, line 10, after the word "not" the words "except with the consent of the Court." Your Lordships will observe that that Amendment would have been a little odd in its framing, because the Bill says that "landlord" in these circumstances shall have a certain meaning, and to say that it shall have a certain meaning "except with the consent of the Court" is a little odd in form. That is a matter rather of style than of substance. In substance, however, there is an objection to giving that arbitrary discretion, as no lines were laid down on which it should be
934
exercised, and in a great many cases the jurisdiction in England would have to be exercised by the magistrates. Consequently, the Government felt that it was certainly not desirable that this entirely arbitrary discretion should be conferred either upon the magistrates or the County Court Judges, and the Amendment to introduce these words was defeated in the House of Commons by, I think, 140 to 53. As I submit to your Lordships, the House of Commons took the right view when they refused to introduce that qualification.
The second Amendment your Lordships will see is this—
"and the provisions of the said subsection—"
that is, the subsection in the Act of 1915, part of which I read to your Lordships—
"with respect to Orders made but not executed before the passing of that Act, shall apply to Orders made but not executed before the passing of this Act, as if this Act had been substituted for that Act in the said subsection."
That means simply this. You may have a case where a man has obtained judgment in the County Court for possession but it has not been executed. In these circumstances it would be very hard if there were no power in the Court to modify the decree so as to give effect to the intention of the Act as if it had been in force at the time when the proceedings were taken. Accordingly, by reference to that provision at the end of subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the original Act of 1915, this power is given.
The third point to which I should call attention arises in the next paragraph of the Commons Amendments, and it is a point of some importance. It was raised by Members interested in agriculture in the House of Commons, who said there may be cases where in the public interest, in order to provide cottages for agricultural labourers who are urgently wanted upon the land, it may be desirable that the present tenants should go. For that reason this Amendment was introduced—
"Provided that this enactment shall not apply in any case where the Court is satisfied by certificate given by or on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or as regards premises in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, or in Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland) that the premises in question are required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work of urgent national importance."
To that Amendment, the importance of which on national grounds is very obvious,

935
an Amendment was moved, with the object of which every one, I think, must sympathise. It was an Amendment for the purpose of excepting from the operation of such a certificate given by the Board of Agriculture cases where the premises were occupied by the families of soldiers or sailors. A long discussion took place upon that Amendment. In columns 1423 and 1424 of the Commons Hansard for Tuesday, April 30, 1918, appear the observations of the President of the Local Government Board in dealing with this Amendment, the effect of which I have stated to be to except the cases of cottages occupied by dependants of soldiers. The President said—
"The number of cases where a landlord might desire to turn out the tenant of a cottage who happens to be the wife or dependant of a soldier or sailor likely to arise under this Bill is not very large, and I doubt if it would be possible to find any words which would absolutely secure what is aimed at by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But after consultation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, I can give an undertaking that the Board of Agriculture will not issue any certificate to any man by which he can obtain possession, for a ploughman or anybody he desires to employ, of a particular cottage without first considering whether it is a matter of grave national necessity from the point of view of carrying on the farm that he should obtain possession of the cottage. That will have to be most carefully considered, and at the same time it will also be considered whether or not suitable and adequate house accommodation can be obtained for the person proposed to be evicted. I hope that this undertaking will satisfy the House, and I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that the Board is really inspired by a desire to act in that spirit."
After some further discussion the Motion, which was persevered in, was defeated by 123 to 71, and I submit to your Lordships that the course taken by the Government in this matter was a right and reasonable one, and that your Lordships should take the same view on this matter that was adopted by the House of Commons after a full debate. I submit that the matter ought to be allowed to rest on the undertaking given by the President of the Local Government Board on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. I think I have stated all the facts that are neessary to enable your Lordships to form an opinion on these Amendments, and I beg to move that they be now agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have no challenge to make with regard to the last of the Amendments, but I think it would have been more convenient if we had taken the Amendments separately. It would have perhaps saved time. I want to make it quite clear that so far as the last part of the noble and learned Lord's speech was concerned, I have no criticism to make and no challenge to offer. The Amendment made in the House of Commons was made with singular judgment and was absolutely right. I entirely agree with the decision which was arrived at.
The only point I desire to challenge is that of making the Bill so largely retrospective as has now been done. Even upon that point I frankly state that I do not criticise the statement of facts which the noble and learned Lord has made from the Woolsack. As every one would have expected, he made his statement of facts with absolute accuracy, except perhaps on one small point—the dates which were selected for debate in the House of Commons were not quite correct. The main point is that the Amendment now makes the Bill retrospective to September 30 of last year. I think that this will inflict enormous hardship upon a large number of very innocent persons. I should have said nothing about it if there had been an impartial tribunal set up, such as was indicated in one of the Amendments in the House of Commons, in order to decide between the various conflicting interests. I frankly admit that there are difficulties either way. Things have been done by unscrupulous people, both owners and tenants, which ought not to have been done, and difficulties have arisen. But the method which has been taken of amending this Bill will, beyond all question, inflict great hardship on many innocent people, and to my mind it is a great blot on the Bill that there is no impartial tribunal provided to adjudicate upon the merits of the cases that might be brought before them.
If I had had time, the line which I, personally, should have been inclined to take would have been to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment to enable this House to pass a judgment as to the merits of this particular issue. There will be great hardship on owners, in some respects at least equal to those inflicted on tenants. There will be extreme hardship

937
to bona fide purchasers of houses for their own use, the purchase of which was effected during the last six or eight months. I will give two instances which I have had sent to me—I have had scores—and I have every reason to believe they are absolutely accurate and not in the slightest degree over-stated. I think your Lordships will agree that there ought to have been some provision for a judicial decision in regard to them. In one of the letters I have received this instance is given—
"We have one case where a cottage house of £30 was purchased by an invalid in January last, solely on health grounds. If the Bill is passed with the present date she will be unable to get possession of the house. Apart from this case, the retrospective nature of the measure will cause many hardships. Many purchasers have given up their present houses and will be homeless if the tenant of the purchased house does not remove."
The other letter runs as follows—
"On March 11 I bought a small cottage with the intention of occupying it myself. I did not know until a day or two afterwards of the existence of the Bill in question, and I gave up my present abode, which is now let to another party. The seller of the cottage wished the cash, and the sale took place in the open market to the highest offerer, the present tenant of the cottage being aware of the transaction, but declining to offer. He now takes advantage of the provisions of the Increase of Rents Bill, and says that if it is made sufficiently retrospective to suit him, he will decline to move away."
He adds that be is neither an alien nor a munition worker, but is trying to succeed by the Scottish ideal of making the best of circumstances. The Bill, if it goes back to September 30, 1917, will leave him without a home as the reward of diligence.
I feel bound to say that making the Bill retrospective is extremely unjust. It is a new precedent in our legislation, and I do not believe it is in itself reasonable without some Court to decide on the circumstances of individual cases. A great deal has been made of the injustice of owners raising rents. If an owner takes advantage of air raids unduly to raise rents on existing tenants, I fully agree; but it is not an injustice for an owner of a small house to raise the rent in order to meet the necessary cost of repairs as they now exist. Take the case of a house let at £25 a year five years ago. The repairs to-day cost three or four times as much as they did then, so that, if the rent (£25) paid an interest of 5 or 6 per cent. on the capital, the increased cost of repairs, possibly of interest on mortgages, of rates and of public burdens,
938
will reduce the income of the owner to less than nothing, and this from no fault of his own. If you interfere with contracts and make your interference retrospective, you ought to provide an easy access to some tribunal which will say whether the effect of the interference you have made is just or unjust. Why should there not be an appeal to art impartial tribunal? In most cases it is the good owner who is suffering. A tenant may go, but the owner cannot change his tenant. It seems to me that it is the best of the men who are suffering because they will have no remedy. Surely in these times we must face the economic facts of the situation, and why not make a reasonable allowance if the owner wants to raise the rent reasonably in order to compensate for the increased cost of repairs, where the contract provides that the repairs shall be done by the landlord? As a matter of form, I shall move that the first of the Commons Amendments be not agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the first Amendment.".—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the matter has been so fully discussed that it is only necessary for me to say one or two words. What Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said to the effect that an owner ought to be allowed to raise rents reasonably may be quite true, but it is contrary to the Act of 1915 with which we are now dealing. The object of that Act was to forbid rents being raised, and to preserve the right of a tenant to remain in the house so long as he paid the rent agreed upon. Unfortunately many owners have taken advantage of certain words in the Act which said that they might require their house if they wanted it for their own purposes. If that part of the Act had been fairly interpreted and administered by the owners, I do not think that anything could have been said, but a great many owners took advantage of those words to give notice to their tenants that they required the house for themselves when as a matter of fact they did not so require it, but wanted in most cases to sell, and thereby make a profit which it had been the purpose of the Act of 1915 to prevent. In these circumstances, unless this proposed Bill remains retrospective to some extent at all events, the Act of 1915 would be defeated

939
and evaded in a not very creditable way. I am entirely opposed to retrospective legislation, and I see all the objections that there are to it. At the same time unless in this amending Bill you introduce retrospective legislation the Act would have no force whatever and would be merely waste paper. The matter has been so fully discussed by the Lord Chancellor that it is not necessary for me to take up your Lordships' time any further, but I would say that I think upon the whole the Amendments proposed by the Commons are Amendments to which your Lordships should agree.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I should like to call attention to one case which I think bears out a great deal of what fell from my noble friend Lord Balfour, and not only bears it out but also points to a considerable gap in what this Bill will achieve. I refer to the hardships that may be inflicted not only by an owner raising rent, but by a tenant letting his house at a very large increase of rent to a sub-tenant. I have one case which I should like to put before your Lordships. It is a case where a landlord owned 300 houses, and sought to raise his rent collectively by £200. He obtained the permission of the local authority to do so. This was challenged by the tenants in the Courts, and the decision of the local authority was reversed. The landlord, therefore, was not allowed to do what he wished, although it was proved that his tenants had sub-let the houses at a profit of £3,000. I quite agree that landlords ought not to seek to make house profiteering, but I also submit that there is a case for inquiry to prevent tenants sub-letting at a great profit to themselves. So long as you allow tenants to make that profit you will find that there are many cases in which landlords have been very unfairly treated.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I should like, to support what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. Several cases—something like forty, I think—have occurred at Brighton. These are mostly cases of alien fugitives. Of these three have been mentioned to me in which the landlord had displaced the tenant and removed into the house in order that he might make over the house to an alien fugitive. I therefore hope that this Amendment of the House of Commons will be passed. Much as one dislikes the idea of retrospective legislation, I
940
think that it is necessary in the interests of a great many people who have been very hardly pressed by this rush of aliens to the coast to get away from the air raids on London.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, should like to say a word regarding what has fallen from the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. The objection made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh regarding the increase in rent by the landlord is not really an objection to this Bill but is an objection to the original Act of 1915. In the second place, your Lordships will see that there may be cases where the tenant is making some profit out of his house, and that is aggravating for the landlord to witness, but I should think, bearing in mind the class of house to which this Bill relates, that those cases are comparatively few. At all events, the evil that has arisen is not with regard to them but is in relation to sales by the landlord, and we felt that it was imperative to deal with the evil in the shape in which it presented itself to us. The Act relates only to very small properties of £35 annual value, and your Lordships will clearly appreciate that it does not affect any case where possession has been taken over by consent, or under the order of the Court, but deals only with the right to take proceedings in the future, and with the parallel right to have a decree that has been obtained before the Act passes but not executed modified so as to make it fair having regard to the terms of the Act. I shall not repeat what I have said as to the extraordinary difficulty of putting in the words which were proposed in the Commons but rejected that the variation of the Bill should be subject to the consent of the Court, for no guide could be suggested for the magistrates or County Court Judges who would have to administer the Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one in your Lordships' House objects to the principal Act which we are engaged in amending. It was accepted, I believe, without any dissent. Nor does any one object to the principle of making the Act retrospective in order to defeat the cases of those alien gentlemen to whom my noble friend Lord Sydenham referred. We are all agreed about that. But my noble friend Lord Balfour has called attention to the fact that in certain instances this enactment will work great hardship, and he has

941
quoted actual cases in which this would be so.
I observe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not attempt to deal with those cases. He did not say that my noble friend was under a misapprehension, or that he had no grounds for thinking that this Bill would not work injustice. All he said was that he did not think that an Amendment which had been proposed in the Commons would have been a workable Amendment. Does not that illustrate the extreme objection to the way in which we do our business in this House, to which my noble friend called attention at the beginning of the proceedings? Had we been given a day or two, or a few hours, after the Amendments were put into our hands in order to consider them, it is not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that noble Lords so expert in drafting Amendments would have been able to draw up an Amendment which would to some extent have mitigated the hardship of those cases to which my noble friend has referred. But your Lordships are given no opportunity of doing that kind of thing. The Government do not allow us the proper time to consider such points. Not that we want to stop the legislation, or that we object to the principle of the legislation or the principle of the Commons Amendments. On the contrary, we are all agreed about that. But it is what I cannot help describing as a headlong method of legislation when there is really no case and no reason for it, to compel your Lordships to pass things which ex concessis will do great harm to His Majesty's subjects. I think we have a real ground of complaint. If this Bill had been put off for two days it would not have made the slightest difference to its efficacy, and it would have given Lord Balfour an opportunity of trying his hand at drafting an Amendment, which he does not now possess.
I earnestly hope that we may not often have the spectacle that we now see when we come here to consider the Commons Amendments—the Throne is uncovered, and we are practically told, "There is no opportunity for you we have arranged that the Commons Amendments shall be taken at once." My Lords, you might as well none of you be here; we are all really a sham. I think this is a matter for genuine resentment on the part of your Lordships which I earnestly hope we may be spared in future.
942
Amendment to disagree with the Commons first Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion—"That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments"—put and agreed to.

LOCH DOON AERIAL GUNNERY SCHOOL SCHEME.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask at what date and on whose authority the resolution was taken to establish an aerial gunnery school on Loch Doon; who was the engineer who was responsible for recommending the scheme; what local representations were made as to the difficulties in the way of carrying it out, and whether these representations have been justified in the result; and to move for a complete Return of the total cost to the public funds for materials, the cost of construction, of labour, of employment of prisoners, and the amount of compensation paid, and the probable amount of compensation and cost of restoration still to be met.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke at some length a few weeks ago about the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, and although everything I have heard since confirms is what I then said, I do not intend to repeat my statement. I propose simply to put this Question, to make the Motion which stands in my name, and to move for Papers.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in the absence for the time being of any representative of the Air Ministry in your Lordships' House, I have undertaken to reply to the Question of the noble Lord this afternoon. Indeed, it was at my instance, on the occasion to which he has alluded when the subject was raised before, that a further Question was put on the Paper by the noble Lord in order to enable additional information to be given from this Bench. I have investigated this matter to the best of my ability, and the circumstances, as I shall state them to your Lordships' House, throw a somewhat different light on the affair from that which was supposed by the noble Lord when he spoke on the matter a few weeks ago. I will give the House the sequence of events

943
as they have occurred in relation to the selection, in the first place, and, in the later stage, the abandonment of Loch Doon.
In the summer of 1916 it was considered very desirable to establish a school of aerial gunnery at some point in the British Isles. Certain conditions were necessary in the selection of such a site. It was desirable that the place should be a lonely and isolated spot where there would be little or no population, so that the requisite shooting practice could take place without risk to human life. Secondly, it was indispensable to get an expanse of smooth water. Accordingly a committee of experts went round the British Isles investigating the various possible sites that would answer to this description. They went over Scotland, Ireland, and the most likely parts of England, particularly the Eastern counties, Norfolk, and the Fen country in Lincolnshire. The first reconnaissance was made by them in the month of May, 1916, and their report, on which action was afterwards taken, was handed in during August of that year. They reported in favour of Loch Doon, stating that it was in many respects an almost ideal spot for the purposes that I have described.
Loch Doon itself, which I do not know, and of which I can speak only from hearsay, appears to be a long, narrow, extensive stretch of smooth water. It is surrounded by high hills, which were suitable for the target practice and other operations that were in contemplation. Shooting could take place there without the injury to human life of which I have spoken, because there was little or no human population to be disturbed. Accordingly the committee made this recommendation to the War Office. The decision in its favour was an Army Council decision—that is to say, it was a decision of the War Office, which was in charge of the matter at that time.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask at what date?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: August, 1916. This decision was taken on the advice of Lieut-General Sir David Henderson, the Director-General of Military Aeronautics at that time; of Major-General Brancker, the Deputy Director-General, who twice visited the spot; of Brigadier-General Charlton, the Director of Air Organisation; and of other officers of
944
the Royal Flying Corps, who had direct, personal experience both of flying in the air and of aerial gunnery. It was recognised from the start that certain—I will even say formidable—difficulties would have to be met, and, if possible, overcome. There were engineering difficulties, in the first place, arising out of the construction of a road or roads to the loch, and possibly of a railroad, should that be required. There was the difficulty that confronted the construction of the aerodrome itself, arising from the wet and marshy character of the ground on the borders of the loch, where obviously a good deal of drainage would be required. This difficulty, I understand, it was proposed to meet by placing the aerodrome, not on the borders of the loch, but rather lower down, a little distance from the loch and at the bottom of the hill. But the difficulty of the aerodrome was not looked upon in itself as of capital importance, because it was in the main for the experimental use of seaplanes rising from the water that this particular site was demanded.
Then also doubts were entertained in some quarters as to the suitability of the climate, in reply to which it was pointed out that the climate for aviation at Ayr, which is, I believe, only twenty miles distant, is among the best in any part of the British Isles. Thus, my Lords, there was at that time a very strong consensus of expert opinion in favour of the selection of this site. Apart from this—in reply to one of the Questions of the noble Lord—a local inspection was carried out by the Chief Engineer of the Scottish Command, Brigadier-General Stewart; by the Commanding Officer of the Royal Engineers in the Lowlands, Lieutenant-Colonel Molony; and, as regards drainage, by Mr. MacGregor, the county surveyor of the area. On the other hand, considerable stress was laid upon the gravity of the engineering difficulties (to which I have referred) by Major-General Sir George Moncrieff, the Director of Fortifications and Works; and he urged that in view of those difficulties some other site should, if possible, be preferred. But in the inability to discover any more suitable alternative, that officer reluctantly acquiesced in the choice of Loch Doon in deference to the opinion of the technical experts to whom I have referred. The next step before the final commencement of works on this spot was that it was visited by a committee of experts consisting of representatives of the

945
Director of Fortifications and Works, the Director-General of Military Aeronautics, and the county surveyor whose name I have given. I might add that several of these officers—some of whom I have seen—still retain the opinion that the choice was a right and wise one, and that the mistake made was not in the selection in the first place, but in abandoning it at a subsequent period. I do not offer any opinion about that, because my information is only second-hand.
Now as to the point of the local representations, about which the noble Lord asks in his Question. Local representations of a kind were made, but they related mainly to the effect on the fishing and other amenities of the property, and were chiefly made by the firm of solicitors representing the principal owner of the property involved. Satisfactory arrangements were made with that property owner, a lady, no doubt known by name to the noble Lord. So far as I can ascertain, no other representations were made by, and no protest was received from, the local inhabitants, such as they were, in the neighbourhood. That was the position of affairs when the works were instituted. They went on during the course the past year. A great deal of money was spent—though not nearly so much, as I shall show in a minute, as has been stated in some quarters—until the matter came under revision on the creation of the new Air Ministry and the constitution of an Air Council in the beginning of the present year. The matter was looked into afresh by them. The climatic conditions, after the experience of a year, were again severely criticised, and were apparently not very successfully defended. It was found that the engineering difficulties had been under-estimated, and that the scheme had been very much more costly and had taken much longer in carrying out than had been anticipated. Your Lordships must, I think, in fairness remember that this is to some extent due to the great and obvious difficulty of obtaining labour and materials in war time. Had these works been undertaken under normal conditions in time of peace I think there is little reason to doubt that they could have been successfully carried through. But when you come to the fact that the works were being inevitably prolonged, that the date of opening seemed remote, that the difficulties of carrying them out were considerable, and that the cost was very large, it is obvious
946
that the claims of other and competing public objects in connection with the war had to be considered and might have to be preferred in its place. Now as regards the cost. In our previous discussion upon the matter some noble Lord—I rather think it was Lord Balfour—from a letter which he quoted gave the gigantic sum of £3,000,000.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What I actually said was that I had no information, but that I understood a sum of £3,000,000 had passed through the local branch bank, and that some large portion of that money was undoubtedly for these works.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The impression suggested was that if £3,000,000 had not been expended upon these works, at any rate £3,000,000 had been banked in a neighbouring banking institution; and the inference was that a considerable proportion of that sum had been devoted to these works. I will give the noble Lord the actual figures, which I have been careful to ascertain. The best estimate of the total cost which I have been able to procure is £433,229. That may be taken as the cost of construction. Of this sum it is estimated that about £152,000 represents the cost of labour, while the amount paid for employment of prisoners of war was £10,718. But it is fair to inform your Lordships that we have already credits estimated at £205,000 in respect of plant, timber, and other materials, to be set against the £433,000 odd that I gave just now. So that the net adverse balance is brought down, as will be seen, to £228,000.
Those are the facts as I have been able to ascertain them, and I think they may be held to establish the following propositions. First, the construction of such a school of gunnery, with if possible an aerodrome attached to it, was, and remains, a matter of capital importance; because I may add that in the failure of Loch Doon no site of similar qualifications, or with what are believed to be similar qualifications, has been found to take its place. Secondly, the selection of this particular site was preceded by a careful examination not only of this but of other possible sites in all parts of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the site was selected, after careful examination and visits to the spot by expert authorities, as the most suitable for the purpose. Fourthly, the

947
engineering difficulties were clearly underestimated by the engineers to whom I have referred, and were found as the work went on to be greater than had been anticipated. Finally, as to the decision for abandonment, I can, of course, offer no opinion, because I took no part in the discussions which led to that result; and I am all the more precluded from offering an opinion, even if I had one, by the fact that the matter is under investigation by a Committee of another place which is inquiring into this among other objects of national expenditure arising out of the war. I think it as well that your Lordships should await the Report of that Committee, because, as I mentioned just now, though some of those who are concerned in this matter might conceivably be held to be prejudiced, nevertheless they held the opinion very strongly indeed that the right choice was made, that it, ought to have been persisted in, and that the cost, of which so much complaint has been made, should have been incurred and continued to be incurred; and it is conceivable that when the Report of the other House reaches us some weight—I do not say how much—may be attached to that expression of opinion. Those are the facts of the case as I have been able to ascertain them. I have put them before your Lordships, I hope, with candour, and I trust that they give a sufficient reply to the Questions which have been asked by my noble friend.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to express my acknowledgments to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council for the evident care and pains which he has taken to investigate this matter and to give us the fullest answer that he thinks consistent with the public interest at the present time. I fully recognise some of the considerations which he mentioned towards the close of his speech, and I am perfectly willing to wait for the Report which he has indicated. I think, however, that he was in error on one point at any rate, when he said that the local representations were only as to sporting rights, fishing, and so on, which I personally in a matter of this kind would be perfectly willing to disregard and compensate for. The local representations, as I am informed, were really upon the engineering difficulties, and if I am not in error it was really these engineering difficulties which caused the abandonment of the
948
scheme—engineering difficulties as to the impossibility of draining the depth of the peat area in this district; the extraordinary flooding which there is at times of the year owing to the peculiar configuration and the narrow outlet of the loch at the southern end; the, comparatively speaking, smaller area over which the water collects at that point, and the impossibility of getting the water away from the southern end of the loch. For weeks at a time it lies over the flat area on which some of these structures were intended to be built. My information is that all these points were put before those who were sent down to investigate, and that they did not receive the attention which they ought to have received. The noble Earl made a debtor and creditor account of the expenditure and of what it was expected to get back, but, so far as I could follow him, he did not mention anything about the amount of compensation paid for disturbance, either for sporting rights or other things, or the amount of compensation and restoration which may still have to be met. Therefore I think to that extent his answer was not complete. As far as my information goes—I had a letter from the owner of the estate at any rate within the last few weeks—no compensation has yet been paid, and the question of compensation and possible expenses of restoration has still to be met.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in regard to the two points made by the noble Lord, of course I cannot speak as to what local representations may have been made to the officers visiting the spot. I could only ascertain whether such representations were made by seeing the whole of the officers. I have given all the information in the possession of the Air Ministry upon the point, and there is no record other than that to which I have referred. As regards the question of compensation, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right. I cannot give such figures because nothing has yet been paid. The amount remains for settlement and will have to be added to the adverse balance, as I have called it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then we have not yet got the whole cost?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No. The amount that may have to be given for restoration and compensation cannot be stated. At a later date, if the noble

949
Lord requires the information, I will do my best to supply it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent—
Increase of Rent, &c. (Amendment).

PRIVATE BILLS, &c.
[From Minutes of May 1.]
BRITISH ALUMINIUM COMPANY (LOCHABER WATER POWER) BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON, AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords: The same was ordered to lie on the Table and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past six o'clock.