Sitting of 10 December 1919

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

  BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL [Lords].—(By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have considered the provisions of this Bill, of which the chief is that the London assets of a Russian bank should be appropriated for the benefit of creditors through the London branch, to the detriment of British and Russian creditors through the Russian headquarters and branches, and whether, in view of the fact that it raises issues of the gravest nature with regard to international relations, and sets a precedent for foreign retaliation which would inflict serious injury on other British subjects, you consider that this. is a proper subject to be dealt with in a private Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have read the Bill, and also consulted the Speaker's Counsel and the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am of opinion that this Bill is properly introduced as a private Bill. It could not be introduced as a public Bill. It deals with a certain number of private interests, but not public interests. It may be a very proper thing to discuss the Bill from a public point of view; of that I say nothing. All I say is that it is properly introduced as a private Bill.
  Mr. SCOTT: May I ask whether, if the Bill is correctly described here, having regard to its effect on international relations and to the fact that the whole balance of credit as between private creditors in this country and in Russia is involved, these are subjects which ought to be taken into consideration by the Government before they allow the Bill to proceed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: it is a matter which can be discussed in the public interest and in its bearings on public interests generally. I quite agree that that would be a perfectly relevant topic to discuss.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it the intention of the Government to give facilities for getting this Bill through?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I have no intention of giving this Bill facilities at this period of the Session. The question of public policy raised is not a matter for me, but for the Government Departments. My duty is confined to seeing that a Bill which, it is represented, has these points, does not slip through. Hon. Members may be assured that I shall take care that it does not, without adequate examination.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    JAPANESE EXPORTS.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Secretary of state for India whether he would give the principal items, with their value in British money, of the Japanese exports to India for the year ended 31st March last; the corresponding figures for the past six months; and what were the import Duties levied on British and Indian goods entering Japan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures referred to:
    The following table shows the value of the principal articles imported into India from Japan during the year ending 31st. March, 1919, and the corresponding figures for the five months, 1st April, 1919, to 31st August, 1919, where such figures are available.
    Statistics of Indian imports from Japan during the past six months are not available.
    The figures are taken from a publication which treats the rupee throughout as equal to 1s. 4d.

    Article.

    1917–18.

    August, 1919.

    £

    £

    Apparel (excluding, hosiery and boots and shoes)

    211,421

    100,234

    Bobbins

    175,792

    *

    Building and engineering materials

    161,587

    *

    Chemicals

    404,297

    *

    Cotton, hosiery

    490,617

    232,785

    " twist and yarn

    3,552,767

    109,398

    " piece goods

    7,097,493

    *

    Earthenware

    163,418

    *

    Glass and glassware

    552,014

    257,457

    Haberdashery

    124,388

    54,365

    Hardware

    617,529

    162,291

    Machinery and millwork

    164,195

    35,446

    Instruments and apparatus

    323,503

    *

    Liquors—Ale and beer

    247,096

    84,230

    Matches

    1,042,271

    345,887

    Paints and colours

    327,850

    23,885

    Paper and pasteboard

    464,987

    *

    Metals, aluminium

    106,387

    *

    " brass, bronze, and similar alloys

    596,522

    *

    " copper

    263,613

    *

    " iron and steel

    1,162,238

    *

    " zinc and spelter196.584

    196,584

    *

    Silk, piece goods

    1,064,996

    787,661

    Tea chests

    303,082

    *

    Toys

    105,125

    *

    Wood and timber (excluding tea chests)

    189,137

    *

    Woollen manufactures

    222,291

    *

    *Figures not available.

    The same rates of Import Duty are levied on goods imported from the United Kingdom and India into Japan. They vary with the nature of the goods, but are in no case higher than those levied on similar goods from any other foreign country. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy of the Japanese tariff if he so desires. Meantime I may mention that raw cotton, which accounts for 80 to 90 per cent. of the total value of Indian imports into Japan, is admitted free of duty.

    FRONTIER EXPEDITIONS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for India, whether he could now state the approximate cost of the expeditions against the Frontier tribes; and out of which Vote this cost was defrayed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The cost of the Afghan War and the connected operations on the. North-West Frontier is estimated at £14,000,000. It is borne by Indian revenues.

    INDENTURED LABOUR (FIJI).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Indian indentured labourers in Fiji were now to be released from their engagements; whether the Fiji Government could continue their indentures if certain reforms were carried into effect; and, if so, what action was being taken in this behalf?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The matter is under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

    MAJOR-GENERAL SHAW.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that, in answer to a question in the douse of Commons on 1st August, 1916, the then Secretary of State for India stated that Major-General Shaw had been dismissed from his post as General Officer Commanding Karachi on the grounds that he was partly responsible for the Karachi troop-train episode in that as General Officer commanding Karachi he was responsible for the railway arrangements; that he took no steps nor gave any orders to see that the safety or comforts of the troops were provided for; and that the train was allowed to leave Karachi without experienced officers either medical or combatant; was he aware that each and every one of these statements is denied by Major-General Shaw; would he say if, in the light of subsequent information, the statement, then given, accurately and in detail, stated the reasons for the dismissal of Major-General Shaw; had any of these charges been substantiated; and, if not, what in detail were the acts of omission and commission on account of which Major-General Shaw remained in compulsory retirement?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 9th July, to which I have nothing to add.
    Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he now has any

    1285
    information which will enable him to inform this House as to whether the charges specifically alleged against Major-General Shaw are correct or incorrect?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred he will see that I cannot undertake to revise the findings of the Committee of Inquiry, but I gave Major-General Shaw the opportunity of a new inquiry in order that he might claim satisfaction if the inquiry resulted in that way, and Major-General Slaw refused it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RELEASE FROM SERVICE.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps, if any, he purposed taking to meet the wishes of parents who desired to buy their sons out of the Navy; whether he was prepared to give early and special consideration to the cases of widows and the aged who required the help of their sons in assisting to maintain them; and whether he could hold out any hope of the reduction of the sum required to meet such cases?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In the case of ratings over the age of eighteen a recent Admiralty Order, in connection with the reduction of the personnel of the Fleet, authorises the free discharge of a certain number of men by senior officers. The numbers to be discharged are necessarily limited by the requirements of the post-war Fleet, and in certain branches, specified in the Order, no applications for discharge can at present be considered. Any really exceptional cases, however, will be specially considered by the Admiralty, on the recommendation of the Commanding Officer and Senior Officer concerned. As long as this Order is in operation, purchase money is waived for ratings over eighteen.
    As regards boys under eighteen, applications for their discharge by purchase are invariably considered on their merits. It is not, I am advised, considered desirable to authorise their discharge free or at reduced rates of purchase money, unless the circumstances of the individual ease are such as to warrant exceptional treatment.

    Ex-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any women were now employed by the Admiralty for the discharge of duties formerly carried out by the Women's Royal Naval Service; if so, how many of those women formerly belonged to the Women's Royal Naval Service; by whom were they administered; whether it was intended to continue their employment; and under what Vote their rates of pay could be found?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: From reports received up to date, 632 ex-Women's Royal Naval Service ratings have been re-entered on a civilian basis. Of these sixty-eight have been discharged. The number at present known to be serving is, therefore, 564. As regards administration, they are dealt with similarly to other civilian staff in Admiralty service, and it is intended to continue their employment so long as their services are required for the particular work on which they are engaged. In the great majority of cases the employment is purely temporary, and, where practicable, ex-Service men are being substituted. Most of the women in question are employed on Fleet Services at Royal Naval Barracks and Naval Bases, as clerks, typists, messengers, charwomen, etc. Their pay is chargeable to Vote, 4, B.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction has been caused in the Fleet by the retaining of these ladies on duties which might be carried out by ex-Service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already had my attention called to that, and taken what steps are practicable to secure the carrying out of what I have said in the answer. In the great majority of cases, where practicable, ex-Service men are employed.
    Captain TERRELL: Will you say what steps you are taking?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Board is issuing instructions in particular cases.

    ADMIRALTY (OFFICERS EMPLOYED).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any retired officers, Royal Navy, Royal Naval Re-

    1287
    serve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, temporary or otherwise, were now employed in the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are thirteen retired officers Royal Navy, and one retired officer Royal Naval Reserve serving in the Admiralty. Nine of these are prewar appointments of long standing, and of the remainder, two are under orders to revert to the retired list shortly.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether there are any officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Service dealt with?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so. The Noble Lord had better put a question down.
    Viscount CURZON: Am I to understand that the answer with regard to one member of the Royal Naval Reserve covers the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. Perhaps my hon. Friend had better put a question down.

    GRAND FLEET FUND.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would state what was the present staff for administering the Grand Fleet Fund what was the yearly cost of administration, together with details as to salaries, etc.; what was the present income of the fund; and what policy had been decided upon with regard to its future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Grand Fleet Fund is not an Admiralty organisation, and the Admiralty are unable to furnish the information asked for. At the request of the Grand Fleet Fund, the Admiralty recently appointed a representative—namely, Captain Lionel Wells, C.B., C.M.G.—on the committee of the fund, with the object of keeping in touch with its general policy, but he has not yet made any report as to the future policy decided upon.
    Viscount CURZON: To whom should questions be addressed in connection with this fund?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the question were put on the Paper we should have to consider whether the Admiralty authorities should answer it.

    INTER-ALLIED WAR NEDAL.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was now in a position to make any statement as to whether officers and men of the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Royal Naval Division were entitled to the inter-Allied War Medal; and, if so, under what conditions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers and men of the forces mentioned will be granted the Victory Medal, provided they were mobilised and rendered approved service either—

    (i) at sea between midnight 4th/5th August, 1914, and midnight 11th/12th November, 1918, or

    (ii) on the establishment of a, unit within a theatre of military operations.

    As the orders are too long to be given in full, I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.
    Mr. A. SHAW: Will that apply to the Royal Marines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, HONG KONG.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was now in a position to give the terms of the settlement arrived at between the Government and the employés in the Royal dockyard at Hong Kong?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the applications which have been made by the chargemen who are serving at Hong Kong under agreement from home dockyards for an increase in their emoluments. The grant to these employés of an increase of 10 per cent. on their rates of wages, which are paid in dollars, was notified on 4th July, 1919, to take effect as from the 1st January, 1918. The employés in question, however, profess themselves to be dissatisfied with the amount of this grant, and the matter is receiving further consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of exchange is so bad that the emoluments of these men under the July award are really not sufficient for them to carry on at all, and that several of them are in very great distress?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope that is not the case.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is; I have a telegram here to that effect.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men are not satisfied with the grant, and the matter is receiving further consideration.

    SHIP REPAIRING, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he was aware that, owing to the large number of vessels sent to Liverpool by the Admiralty to be repaired and reconditioned, the Merseyside ship-repairing firms had greatly increased their premises and plants and had brought many skilled mechanics into Liverpool from other districts, and that, owing to the decision of the Admiralty not to send further vessels to Liverpool to be repaired and reconditioned, there were grave fears of unemployment of skilled workmen in Liverpool; and whether the Admiralty could reconsider that decision and continue to send vessels to the Mersey for repair and reconditioning, but placing the vessels in the Birkenhead docks or great float, where they would not congest or interfere with the working of the Liverpool docks for commercial purposes and would at the same time provide work for Liverpool and Birkenhead mechanics?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no reason to doubt the statement that the Mersey ship-repairing firms have increased their premises and plants, and, in consequence, have probably brought skilled mechanics into Liverpool and its surrounding district. The decision of the Admiralty that no further fishing vessels should be sent to Liverpool was taken in September last, and at an earlier date it had been decided that no other description of work would be sent there if it could be dealt with in the dockyards. I need not remind my hon. Friend that the Admiralty are faced, and have been faced, with the question of unemployment and consequent discharges from the Royal dockyards for several months past. He is aware that we have endeavoured to stem the tide of such discharges by allotting to the Royal dockyards any repair and reconditioning work which was available and which could be dealt with appropriately in the dockyards. For these reasons I am sure my hon. Friend will not press me to reconsider the decision of the Admiralty not to send further vessels to the Mersey for repair and reconditioning.
    Mr. HOUSTON: May I hope to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Admiral in charge?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, with great pleasure.

    ENGINEER-COMMANDERS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to those few engineer-commanders who reached the compulsory retirement age before August, 1914, and were given the rank of engineer-captain on retirement, but were still employed on the active list when war broke out, and who have only been given 15 per cent. bonus instead of 25 per cent.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret I am not in a position to make a statement on this question, which is still under discussion.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to the date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot, but I will notify my hon. Friend the moment am in a position to do so.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the present and future position of those engineer-commanders who reached the age of compulsory retirement during the War and were entitled to a step in rank with pay and bonus and back pay of officers who were recalled, but who have received none of these?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Owing to the reply being rather lengthy, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the reply referred to:
    It has been decided to offer those officers who reached the normal age for compulsory retirement during the War, but who were retained on the active list, the choice between—

    (i) being placed on the retired list, with a step in rank where applicable, and being regarded as retired officers re-employed, with the 25 per cent. bonus, from the date they would have been compulsorily retired under normal conditions; or

    (ii) remaining on the active list until. they ceased service and being placed on the retired list from that date.

    In the latter case they would continue to count their service towards increase of retired pay, within the maximum rate allowed under the regulations, until they were actually placed on the retired list.
    An investigation is now being made into each officer's case, and as soon as this is completed a communication will be sent to him stating the effect of the two alternatives in his particular case and asking which of them he wishes to adopt.
    I would observe that officers of various ranks and branches, and not engineer-commanders only, are concerned, and the circumstances vary so much in individual cases that it is not possible to lay down a general rule which would dispense with the necessity of examining each case.
    All these officers have received the bonus on the full pay which they have actually drawn, and a further sum will become payable in any cases in which increased pay becomes issuable in consequence of higher rank being granted.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES (GRANTS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the discontent existing amongst demobilised men regarding the delay and dilatory methods of the Civil Liabilities Commissioners in meeting the claims of applicants for resettlement grants; if he will state why in certain cases after a claim has been made out within the regulations such cases are being turned down without satisfactory explanation; and if he will state what steps he intends to take to expedite the decisions of the Commissioners and to administer the regulations in the spirit in which they are formulated?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I am aware that there have been complaints concerning delay in giving decisions by the Civil Liabilities Department, and I have taken steps to enable the Department to deal more expeditiously with the applications which are made. It may be taken generally that where a grant is refused serious financial hardship by reason of undertaking military service has not been sufficiently proved in terms of the Regulations. I am always prepared to re-examine cases in which fresh facts are disclosed indicating that such hardship has been suffered.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that grants have been given by the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) for the purchase of tools to apprentices who reside with their parents, and consequently do not require the whole of their income; whether similar treatment will be given to apprentices without parents living who have to maintain themselves; whether under these circumstances he will reconsider the claim of Nicholas Ferguson, who has been refused financial support; and whether he is aware that this apprentice has to be obliged to his fellow workmates to lend him tools so that he may be able to complete his apprenticeship?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware that grants have been given in the first type of case or refused in the second, but if the hon. Member will supply me with instances I will have inquiries made. The claim of Nicholas Ferguson, to which reference is made, was refused, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, on the failure sufficiently to establish the existence of serious financial hardship by reason of undertaking military service.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now decided to inform unsuccessful applicants for help from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department of the ground on which a grant is refused?
    Sir R. HORNE: After carefully considering the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, I have come to the conclusion that the grounds of decision in such cases should not be specified. I have arrived at this opinion with some reluctance, but a. survey of the reasons which in some cases determine the result has made it plain to me that it is better in the interests of everybody that the reasons should not be published.

  LEVANT MINE DISASTER.
  Mr. SIMMasked the Minister of Labour in what position are the persons injured in the Levant Mine accident and the widows and dependants of those unfortunately killed with respect to insurance and compensation; will he indicate what steps are being taken to deal with this aspect of the matter; with what insurance company were the Levant Mine

  1293
  Company insured for purposes of workmen's compensation; and can he supply any details with respect to settlements?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The injured workmen and the dependants of those killed are entitled to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act from their employers, who, I am informed, are insured so far as the fatal cases are concerned with the Excess Insurance Company. I understand that the employers are paying compensation to the injured and that steps are being taken to settle the amount of the compensation in the fatal cases, the dependants meanwhile receiving weekly payments from a local fund.
  Mr. SIMMasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are thrown out of work in consequence of the Levant Mine disaster, Cornwall; what was the total number in receipt of unemployment benefit for the last known week in the town of St. Just, Cornwall; whether be can state what were the average wages, approximately, of the tin miners employed in this mine for the four weeks preceding the accident; what steps have been taken to provide relief work for those thrown out of employment; and whether any date can be given at which work will be resumed in the mine?
  Sir R. HORNE: I understand that 280 men out of a total of about 350 were thrown out of work at this mine, and that eighty-nine ex-members of His Majesty's forces and 115 civilians claimed out-of-work donation. The civilians ceased to draw donation when the scheme for civilian donation terminated on 24th November. The ex-members of His Majesty's forces are still on donation. I am informed that the approximate average wage of the tin miners employed in the Levant Mine, for the four weeks preceding the accident, was from 10s. to 11s. per day per man. No relief work has been commenced for those thrown out of employment, but everything possible is being done through the local Employment Exchange to find employment for those who are willing to accept work temporarily in other districts. The management are, I understand, reinstating men as work can be found for them, but they are unable to state at present when a general resumption of work will be made.

  TRADE BOARDS.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state when the trade board for the mineral water and bottling industry will be established?
  Sir R. HORNE: The first meeting of the Board for England and Wales has been provisionally arranged for the 7th January, 1920. It is hoped that the Board for Scotland will meet in the following week, and that the first meeting of the Irish Board will be held soon afterwards.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour if he can name an approximate date upon which he anticipates that the 20,000 ex-Service men officially recognised as awaiting training will have been afforded the promised and necessary facilities?
  Sir R. HORNE: The speed with which the necessary training facilities can be provided depends entirely upon the progress of the negotiations for the acquisition of further instructional factories. I may add, however, that many new factories are at present in process of being equipped, and it is hoped that the number of men in training will show a marked increase in the New Year.
  Mr. TERRELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has now any difficulty from the A. S. E. in regard to these men being trained, or working with these men?
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that question entirely arises out of the question which I have just answered. As matters stand at present, as he will remember, the A. S. E. by ballot refused to help in the matter of taking in discharged men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]—but they have been helping us in connection with the training schemes.
  Captain COOTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility, in cases where men have been approved for training by local committees and have to wait for a long period before a vacancy occurs, of the granting to such men of a training allowance pending the vacancy?
  Sir R. HORNE: There may be cases of hardship arising, but in most of the cases which came before me the men have been receiving either out-of-work donation or a training allowance under a system of general education.
  Captain FALCONasked the Minister of Labour if he will inform the House to what extent he is dependent upon the Office of Works in the matter of accelerating the completion of institutions suitable for the reception of the thousands of ex-soldiers promised and awaiting training?
  Sir R. HORNE: The Ministry of Labour is dependent on the Office of Works to the extent that the latter is responsible for estimating and reporting on the reasonableness of the cost of premises and equipment for training institutions which are to be borne on the Ministry of Labour Building Vote: for the actual hiring or purchase of such premises, and, when requested, for finding suitable premises and providing the necessary equipment.
  Captain LOSEBY: Is it the fact that the delay in equipping these institutions, which we hear is holding up some thousands of men, is largely owing to the fact of delay on the part of the Office of Works in doing the work?
  Sir R. HORNE: I should not like to say it is due to delay on the part of any other Government Department. It arises out of difficulties which are inherent to the management of such things where various Departments are involved, and, necessarily, we must proceed through the recognised Government Departments in dealing with these matters.
  Captain LOSEBY: Would it not be possible to put it up by private contract?
  Sir R. HORNE: Obviously, where you are giving a grant of money for the purpose of instituting training, you must have a Government check, and you could not possibly put it into the hands of private contractors.
  Captain FALCONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction with the manner in which the training of ex-soldiers is being administered by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour; and if he will consider the advisability of instituting a special inquiry with a view to a reorganisation?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that the Appointments Department has been subjected to a good deal of criticism for its administration of the Training Grants scheme; but I believe this criticism is in the main the result of a generalisation from a comparatively small number of individual cases. The working of the Department is closely watched, and improvements are constantly being made in the light of the experience gained. I do not consider that a special inquiry would have any advantageous results.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this dissatisfaction is by no means as widespread as indicated in the question?
  Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department is advertising special technical training in certain subjects, and on receiving applications has, in many cases, not given a reply to the applicants?
  Sir R. HORNE: I should regret very much if there were cases in which no reply was given to these men, and I should like to look into it if the hon. and gallant Member would give me any certificates. There would be no excuse for that, but I hope the House will realise that the Department is working under very considerable difficulties in regard to finding opportunities of employment. We do have, as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Ashley) has just pointed out, not only criticism, but from time to time a considerable amount of praise.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a letter written to him on 10th November with regard to the case of ex-Sergeant George F. Hall by the hon. Member for Consett; whether a reminder from the hon. Member, dated the 1st December, reached his office; and whether any grant will be given to Mr. Hall to help him to qualify himself as a journalist, or a grant to compensate him for his expenses during the six weeks of training which was rendered of no avail because of the mistaken information given to him by the Appointments Department, Ministry of Labour, Newcastle-on-Tyne?
  Sir R. HORNE: I duly received my, hon. Friend's letters on behalf of ex-Sergeant Hall, and I am writing to him about the case.
  Captain FALCONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many ex-

  1297
  officers who, in reliance upon advice given from his Department of adequate monetary assistance have undertaken university and other similar courses, have, after undertaking grave responsibilities, been notified of monetary awards which are quite insufficient for the purpose for which they are nominally awarded; and if he will take steps to ensure that candidates promised assistance are at the same time informed of the full extent of that assistance?
  Sir R. HORNE: Grants in respect of university courses are made by the Board of Education and the corresponding Departments in Scotland and Ireland. In the case of grants for training in offices and works, which are administered by the Appointments Department, an applicant who is awarded a grant which he considers insufficient for reasonable maintenance has the right of appeal. I am not sure that I understand the last part of the question, but I may say that no member of the interviewing boards or of the Appointments Department has authority to make any promise in advance of final sanction, when full particulars of the grant awarded are, as a matter of course, notified to the applicant.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many ex-officers throughout the country who, in reliance upon promises from his Department of monetary assistance, commenced technical training in September and October have not yet received payments promised and are considerably embarrased thereby; and if he will take steps to ensure that this unnecessary hardship is removed?
  Sir R. HORNE: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of the 3rd December, in which I stated that, although such grants are not normally paid in advance, half the first month's grant may be so paid in necessitous cases. In the normal case of men awarded grants by the Appointments Department, and commencing training in September and October, payments would be made in October and November respectively. I shall be pleased to make inquiry in any such cases where payments were not punctually made. Meanwhile, I can assure the hon. Member that every effort is being made to ensure that the men concerned are spared unnecessary embarrassment owing to delay in making payments.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister the number of Departments of State that are concerned, directly or indirectly, with the matter of providing the promised training facilities to ex-soldiers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the Answer promised:
  The Ministry of Labour alone is directly concerned with the provision of industrial training facilities for ex-soldiers, except in agriculture, for which the Board of Agriculture is responsible. The Board of Education and the Interim Forest Authority are also concerned in so far as use may be made of schools and institutions which fall under these authorities. Other Departments indirectly concerned in matters of finance, equipment, and the acquisition of premises are the Treasury, the Ministry of Munitions and the Office of Works.
  The Minister of Labour has also a general responsibility for the Grants scheme for higher educational, professional, and business training. The immediate responsibilities lie with the Education Departments in respect of training given in universities and other educational institutions approved by them, with the Agricultural Departments in respect of agricultural training, and with the Appointments Department in respect of office and works training.
  In the case of men undergoing treatment who are not certified as fit for industrial training, the Ministry of Pensions provide such training as is suitable, except in tuberculous cases, which are dealt with by the Ministry of Health.

  UNEMPLOYMENT, GATESHEAD.
  Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the borough of Gateshead there are now 1,550 ex-Service men and 750 civilian men and women unable to obtain work locally; and whether any temporary measure can be taken to alleviate the situation?
  Sir R. HORNE: The figures given by the hon. and gallant Member are approximately accurate. A large part of

  1299
  the unemployment referred to is due to the moulders' dispute, and will cease when that is settled.

  HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been arrived at to give foremen and the supervisory grades generally the benefit of the proposed eight hours day under the Hours of Employment Bill?
  Sir R. HORNE: Clause 8 (1) of the Bill deals with the position of foremen and persons holding positions of supervision and management. The principle of this Clause was agreed upon by the Joint Sub-Committee of Employers and Trade Union representatives who assisted the Government in preparing the Bill; but the precise terminology of the Clause is under reconsideration.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the foremen and supervisory grades were represented on that Joint Committee that agreed to the terms?
  Sir R. HORNE: There were representatives who covered all the trade union movement, but there was no special representation of foremen and supervisory grades.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that there was no representation at all of foremen and supervisory grades?
  Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend is probably very well aware that in many trade unions foremen are covered, and we took the representatives who were the most prominent leaders in connection with these matters, and who were elected by the Joint Industrial Conference for this purpose.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will he not consult these foremen and supervising grades in their own interests and in the interests of the country?
  Sir R. HORNE: I really do not see by what means one could consult them, or whom one could select for the purpose of consultation. There are not many foremen's associations of the kind who could give us the necessary advice, and accordingly we took the best advice we could, but I hope my hon. Friend is satisfied with the fact that their case is being at present reconsidered.

  LABOUR EXCHANGES, BRIERLEY HILL, STAFFORD.
  24. Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the primary factor that determines the retention or closure of a labour exchange; whether it is the number of the population, the particular characteristic, industrial, or commercial, or any other special circumstance of the area in which it is situated; whether he is aware that the number of workpeople and industrial concerns served by the present temporary labour exchange at Brierley Hill, Stafford, is greater than the number of workpeople and business undertakings at Stourbridge, to which it is apparently contemplated all exchange operations in that district shall be transferred; and whether he will take that fact into account when considering the application of the Brierley Hill Urban District Council for the temporary labour exchange in its area to be made a permanent centre for such affairs?
  Sir R. HORNE: All the factors referred to by the hon. Member are taken into consideration in determining whether an exchange should be retained or closed. The office at Brierley Hill was one of a number opened for dealing with the pressure incidental to the payment of out-of-work donation; and in the ordinary course it would have been closed when the work was sufficiently reduced to permit of this being done. It has been decided to retain this office for a further period, and, in considering whether to retain it permanently, the factors referred to by the hon. Member, and the representations of the Urban District Council, will be fully borne in mind.

  LABOUR MOVEMENT (INFORMA TION).
  25. Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour upon what source, or sources, his Department relies for information about the labour movement abroad; whether this information is available on the request of a trade union or other labour organisation in this country; and to what bodies or individuals in foreign countries information about the labour movement in this country is provided?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer to this question involves a very long and detailed reply, and I hope I may be allowed to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the Answer referred to:
  The principal sources upon which the Ministry of Labour relies for information about the labour movement abroad are (a) periodical and other publications issued by foreign and Colonial Departments of Labour Statistics, (b) statistical data furnished by such Departments, (c) Reports received through the Foreign Office from His Majesty's representatives abroad, and (d) statements and Reports published in the foreign Press.
  The greater part of the information so obtained, in so far as it is of public interest, is summarised regularly in the "Labour Gazette," and any further similar information which is available in the Ministry, in so far as it is not of a confidential character, would be supplied upon request.
  Information as to the labour movement in this country is also published regularly in the "Labour Gazette," which is circulated to the Labour and Statistical Departments of the principal foreign and Colonial Governments, to eminent economists and statisticians abroad, to a number of His Majesty's representatives in foreign countries, and to various public institutions abroad. Applications for information are also received from time to time from individuals in foreign countries. In such cases the required particulars are supplied, so far as they are not confidential; but no unpublished information of a confidential character is circulated either to foreign Governments or to individuals.

  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour whether the unemployment donation is withdrawn from a demobilised soldier who apprentices himself to a firm to learn a trade, even though he receives no pay; and whether he will reconsider this Regulation with a view to encouraging discharged soldiers to become skilled workmen and to cease to be a charge on the State?
  Sir R. HORNE: The payment of out-of-work donation to persons who are in employment, even though receiving no wages, would be open to grave objection;
  1302
  but ex-Service men undergoing apprenticeship or other forms of training are in general provided for under the allowances given by the training Department of the Ministry of Labour. I do not know of cases such as the hon. Member refers to, but if he has any specific instances in mind and will send me particulars I will be glad to make inquiries into them.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that workmen who are unemployed from engineering and other establishments in consequence of the ironfounders' dispute are entitled to receive unemployment benefit from the State and have their health insurance cards cleared, whereas workmen not in dispute who are stopped from working at an establishment where moulders are employed are not entitled to unemployment benefit and are getting into arrears with their health insurance; and if he will take action with a view to removing this inequality of treatment?
  Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The rules in accordance with which claims to unemployment benefit are decided in cases of unemployment caused by a trade dispute were explained in reply to the question, put by the hon. Member on 27th October. They were drawn up after very careful consideration when the Statutes relating to unemployment insurance and health insurance was passed, and I cannot undertake to propose that they should be altered in this special case.
  Mr. THORNE: I do not think my right hon. Friend has answered the question. Is he aware that, in consequence of a large number of labourers being thrown out of employment through the moulders' strike, and not being in a position to receive any unemployment benefit, they are getting into arrears with their insurance cards, and will eventually be entirely out of benefit, and cannot he see his way clear to have their cards cleared, so as to keep them in benefit?
  Sir R. HORNE: I think I did answer the question, but I will try to answer it further by having a consultation with the Minister of Health to see whether any way can be devised. It is obvious that the two Departments will require to work together for this purpose. At present we are acting according to the ordinary rules which were laid down some years ago.

  POPLAR BOROUGH COUNCIL.
  Major BLAIRasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a recommendation carried by the Poplar Borough Council Works Committee on the 27th November to the effect that extra pay be allowed to hammermen who are members of a trade organisation or join within four weeks; and, if so, will he take steps to stop this form of coercion?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): My attention has not otherwise been drawn to the recommendation re-felled to in my right hon. Friend's question, but in any case I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the auditors in his Department will sanction extra expenditure of this kind?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that in this particular matter we have no jurisdiction.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if inquiry will be made as to the increased cost of building houses owing to the operations of an association which prevents competition in the price of builders' materials, and compels builders' merchants to maintain a fixed minimum price regardless of any reduction in cost to them?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of the association referred to in the question, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will supply me with particulars, so that inquiries may be made. The Profiteering Act has been applied to all the principal building materials, and investigations are at present being made by the Central Committee into the questions governing the cost of building materials.

    LONDON COUNTY COITNCIL SCHEME (BARKING).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Health whether the London County Council have applied for sanction for the acquisition of an estate of about 3,000 acres in the neighbourhood of Barking for housing purposes; if so, whether sanction
    1304
    has been given; and, if the matter is still under consideration, will he take steps to expedite a settlement?
    Dr. ADDISON: The London County Council have asked for my confirmation of an order made by them for the compulsory acquisition of the land in question, but a number of objections to such confirmation being given have been received. Conferences are at present taking place, with a view to effecting the settlement of certain matters in dispute.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this scheme is agreed to, in consequence of the very serious congestion on the District Railway, it is quite impossible to carry any more passengers than they are carrying at present?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is also a part of the scheme that additional transport facilities should be provided.
    Mr. THORNE: But in what way?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is a detailed question. Evidently greatly increased transport facilities are necessary, and they are part of the scheme.
    Mr. THORNE: Is he aware that for the last two years myself and other Members have been hammering away for the purpose of getting better facilities in the East End? It is an abominable thing altogether.
    Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but I have no control over those matters.
    Mr. THORNE: Well, somebody should have it, end quick, too.

    BUILDING TRADE (WORKMEN EMPLOYED).
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Minister of health what is the approximate number of the workmen now employed in the building trade, and how many are required to build 300,000 working-class houses?
    Dr. ADDISON: The approximate number of workmen now employed in and about the building trade in the United Kingdom is 748,000. Approximately 200,000 men would be required per year to build 300,000 houses at a yearly rate of 100,000 houses assuming that the workmen were kept continuously employed.

    LOCAL BONDS.
    Sir S. HOAREasked how much money it is estimated will be raised by local housing bonds?
    Dr. ADDISON: Until I have had some experience of the scheme in its actual working, I do not think I can usefully give the estimate for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.
    Sir S. HOARE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any general estimate in his mind? I presume he has some figure in his mind as to what sum will be raised in this way?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are hoping that the authorities who will be authorised to issue these bonds will be able to raise sufficient money to finance their housing schemes. Whether that is so or not remains to be seen.
    Sir S. HOARE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the amount likely to be raised in this way. He must have some figure in his mind?
    Dr. ADDISON: I really cannot say we have any in our mind. I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman the amount that is required.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dublin Corporation, who possess a very big fee-simple estate, wished to borrow a million pounds the other day from the Irish banks, and the Irish banks unanimously refused to lend them the money for housing purposes?
    Dr. ADDISON: That may be a reflection on the Dublin Corporation.

    OUTPUT RESTRICTION.
    Sir S. HOAREasked whether an inquiry is to be had into the charge that output is restricted in the building trade?
    Dr. ADDISON: The possibility of securing an effective inquiry is under consideration.
    Sir S. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this inquiry is going to be held? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that it has been pressed for some months past.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is mainly, of course, a matter for the Ministry of Labour, but it is very difficult to secure an effective inquiry.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any real information to justify this charge against men employed in the building trade?
    Dr. ADDISONThere is a considerable body of opinion of a kind, but it is always difficult in these matters to obtain precise details.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief charge is against the bricklayers, and will he put himself into communication with the general secretary of that organisation and find out for himself?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are in communication with a very large number of individuals.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself pressing for such an inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are doing all we can to obtain reliable information.
    Sir S. HOARE: But is he himself pressing for an inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have answered as well as I can. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by an inquiry. We are making all the inquiries we can.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an hon. Member made several charges last week—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    SUBSIDY TO BUILDERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the Minister of Health upon what factors the Grant of £150 to private builders is based; and what is the number of houses estimated to be built as a result of it?
    Dr. ADDISON: The subsidy proposed under the new Housing Bill was fixed after consultation with persons having a close knowledge of the building trade. It is hoped that approximately 100,000 houses will be built under the scheme.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the houses will be built roughly on the same lines as those built by the municipalities, and will they produce the same rent; and, if so, will he explain why the sum of £150 is considered sufficient, in view of the fact

    1307
    that the loss per house under the municipal scheme has been admitted to be much greater?
    Dr. ADDISON: This is a question which was very much handled in the Debate on the Bill. I cannot be expected to answer all these details by question and answer.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the representatives of the workmen's organisations were consulted, and, if so, who?
    Dr. ADDISON: With reference to the subsidy, as I explained the other night, the Joint Industrial Council was not consulted on the question of the subsidy.

    HOUSES COMPLETED.
    Major HILLSasked what is the number of houses now actually completed under the Housing Act?
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret that the Returns for the month of November are not yet available. They will be available in a few days, and I will then make them public. Up to 1st November, as I previously informed the House, 124 houses had been completed ready for occupation under the Housing Act, which became law in August of this year.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health what is the estimated amount for the current financial year of Exchequer contributions towards the supply of milk below cost price to necessitous mothers and children?
    Dr. ADDISON: The provisional Estimate was £50,000, but it is possible that this will be exceeded in consequence of the rise in the price of milk.

  WELSH HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
  Major BREESEasked the Minister of Health if he will state the total annual revenue of the Welsh Health Insurance Commission for the years 1913 to 1918, respectively; the total annual cost of administration for each of those years,
  1308
  showing the amount of salary paid to each of the Commissioners and secretary, rent of offices and establishment expenses, together with the total of all other payments and disbursements; the total amount of benefits distributed, and the balance or surplus undistributed now in hand?
  Dr. ADDISON: It has not been possible, in the very short time since the question first appeared on the Paper yesterday, to obtain from Wales the large number of detailed figures asked for by the hon. Member. I am having them collected and will send them to him.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (COST OF ADMINISTRATION).
  Mr. HINDSasked the Minister of Health whether he will state what ratio the cost of administration bears to the revenue from health insurance in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, for each complete year the Act has been in operation?
  Dr. ADDISON: The ratio of the total cost of administration (local and central) of national health insurance to the total revenue varies very slightly from year to year. The figure for England and Wales for the year 1918 was 11½ per cent., as will be seen from the reply given on 28th October to the hon. Member for Wood Green. I am having the separate figures for England and Wales, respectively, procured, and will send them to the hon. Member; he should address inquiry to the Secretary for Scotland as regards the analogous figure for Scotland.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (STAFF).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Health how many secretaries and assistant and under-secretaries are on the staff of the Ministry, and what is the total number of the permanent and temporary staff employed by the Ministry of Health?
  Dr. ADDISON: There are at the Ministry of Health one Parliamentary Secretary and a first and a second secretary; there are eleven assistant secretaries. The number and grades of the other permanent posts and staff of the

  1309
  Ministry are shown in the Estimates laid before Parliament. The total number of persons at present employed in any capacity, including the temporary staff, is 5,411; this figure excludes the staff of the Welsh Board of Health, but includes the staff employed by the Ministry in the all parts of England.

  GRAIN IMPORTS.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister how many ships are at present employed in bringing grain from the southern ports of the United States, and the tonnage of those ships; and whether, in view of the much longer voyage to the above ports, and the adverse exchange depreciating the value of such exports on the outward voyage as it may be possible to sell to the States, it is advisable to employ these vessels in trading with the Black Sea ports, whose inhabitants and those of the hinterland urgently require British exports, and have a practically unlimited supply of grain to exchange therefor at a favourable, rate of exchange?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Before answering this question I would like to say to the House that M. Clemenceau is coming over to-morrow morning. He will be here for a few days only. It will be impossible for the Prime Minister, who must keep himself available for the discussions with M. Clemenceau, to be here to-morrow. If any hon. Member wishes questions answered by the Prime Minister, and will postpone them till Monday, the Prime Minister will come both on Monday and Thursday next week.
  In reply to my hon. Friend, liners only have recently been employed in bringing grain to the United Kingdom from the Southern ports of the United States of America. The number so employed during November was twelve, and the quantity of grain and flour carried on Government account was approximately 30,000 tons. Efforts will be made to export grain from the Black Sea as soon as circumstances permit.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: If in order, I would like to ask whether it would be possible for this House to receive M. Clemenceau in this Chamber.
  Mr. BONAR LAWindicated dissent.

  AUSTRIA (NECESSITIES OF LIFE).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of the necessities of life in Vienna and other towns in Austria; whether he is also aware of the statements made by the British Food Minister that the stocks of frozen meat in this country are so great that the importation of Irish fat cattle has had to be prohibited; whether he is also aware that coal is being sent to Vienna from America at very considerable expense; while there are coal mines in Czecho-Slovakia within 100 miles of that city; whether His Majesty's Government are attempting in any way to remedy this state of affairs; and, if so, how?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of the seriousness of the situation to which the hon. and gallant Member calls attention. So far as I know, no coal is being sent to Vienna from America; but, in view of the situation, His Majesty's Government are using every means in their power to stimulate the delivery of coal from Czecho-Slovakia, to Austria.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the cessation of coal from America is due to the strike, and therefore temporary, but, if permanent, whether we are doing anything to send coal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be possible for us to send coal. As I have said, we are doing everything in our power to get coal sent from the adjacent countries where it is, to some extent, available.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is the Government still pressing the United States Government to extend credits to Central Europe in view of the shortage of food and coal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The position is exactly the same as when I last answered a question on the subject. The Government fully realise, and have made plain to the Government of the United States, that without financial assistance from the United States it is impossible that adequate provision can be made.

  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's

  1311
  Government is using and will use its good offices to expedite the repatriation of all German prisoners held by our Allies, both in view of the Peace terms and on the grounds of humanity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government have no doubt that all German prisoners will be immediately repatriated as soon as ratifications have been exchanged.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CON FERENCE, WASHINGTON.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether the International Labour Conference at Washington has approved of a minimum working week of 60 hours for miners and certain railway workers in India; and, if so, what was the attitude of the representatives of the British Government on this question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not yet received any information on the points raised by the hon. Member.

  RUSSIA

    CZECH FORCES IN SIBERIA.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Czech forces in Siberia have refused to co-operate with Admiral Koltchak, and what arrangements are being made for the repatriation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Peace Conference in Paris are making arrangements for the repatriation of the Czecho-Slovak troops which are not yet complete.

  GERMAN WAR MATERIAL (MANUFACTURE).
  Mr. L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Allies are, under the terms of the Peace Treaty, making provision to ensure that the chief German works associated with the manufacture of war material are no longer devoting themselves to this object; whether he can state the present and contemplated employment of Krupps; and whether it will be permitted to carry on as hitherto its activities in stirring up world trouble to assist it in selling its wares?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. His Majesty's Government have no precise information with regard to the second part of the question. Such information as is obtainable, however, indicates that the Krupp Works are undergoing conversion to the manufacture of commercial articles.

  SHOP STEWARDS (GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS).
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the Prime Minister if he will state the number of shop stewards who during the War received payment, directly or indirectly, from any Government Department other than the Ministry of Munitions, and the total amount of disbursement under this head; how many shop stewards are receiving such payment at the present time; and whether he will give an estimate of the expenditure contemplated during the present financial year upon this head?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I am aware, the answer to the first two parts of the question is none. The last part does not, therefore, arise.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if the Government proposes to carry out any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions before the end of this Session?
  Captain BOWYERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government has determined to introduce legislation to amend the scheme of old age pensions; whether this scheme will be on the lines recommended in the Majority Report recently submitted to the House; and, in view of the inadequacy of the present old age pension, will he introduce this legislation at as early a date as possible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I said in reply to questions on this subject on Monday last.
  Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the Government do not propose to do anything this Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; the answer I gave was that we hoped to be able to announce our proposals before the Recess.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SOUTH AMERICA (CONSULS).
    Sir N. MOOREasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the remuneration received by many of the Consuls and Vice-Consuls in South America is totally inadequate to secure the services of men having commercial experience; and whether he will inquire into this matter?
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the details circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday, and to the new rates of pay and allowances for the Consular Service.
    Sir N. MOORE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the agents of other countries are actively engaged in securing trade for these countries, and that our representatives are handicapped from the fact that they have no funds placed at their disposal to enable them to carry out the functions which they are supposed to carry out?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of all these matters, and many others that are relevant, but it is for this House of Commons to increase the salaries of the Consular Service, and not for me.

  TALAAT PASHA.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Talaat Pasha, ex-Vizier of Turkey, is now in Berlin on his way to Moscow to confer with Radek and Trotsky; what steps are being taken to secure the custody of Talaat's person, with a view to his trial for instigating and initiating the massacre of thousands of Armenians; and whether the German Government has been asked to surrender him to justice?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I shave no information as to the reported journey of Talaat Pasha. His disposal is a matter for agreement among the Allied and Associated Powers.

  ALBANIA.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked whether the case of Albania has yet come before the Peace Conference?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The future of Albania has been under the consideration of the representatives of France, Italy, Great Britain, and the United States at the Paris Conference. I can make no further statement at present.

  MALTA.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any intimation from the Governor of Malta as to the reception accorded by the inhabitants of Malta and Gozo to the proposed constitutional changes; and when he hopes to be able to announce in greater detail the particulars of the proposed changes and the amount of financial assistance?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Governor has informed me that the proposals were received with great demonstration of enthusiasm and loyalty. The details of the constitutional changes proposed, owing to their novel character, require much care and consideration, and I may not be in a position to make a complete statement for some time. Meanwhile, I may say that the general principle on which they will be based is that the legislative, administrative, and financial control of all the purely local functions of government in Malta will be entrusted to the local Legislature and to Ministers responsible to that Legislature, the control of the services reserved as appertaining to the position of Malta as an Imperial fortress and harbour remaining vested in the Governor.
  As regards finance, it is proposed to ask Parliament next year for a Grant-in-Aid of £250,000, and that the Imperial contribution towards the cost of the drainage system and other similar public works in which the Navy and Army are concerned should be increased, as suggested by the Mowatt Committee in 1912.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the plan of the Government of India Bill, more or less, dividing the functions of the government of Malta into reserved and transferred 'subjects, has been followed in the new constitution?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir; the principle is the same to this extent, that in whatever matters the local Legislature is given power it is a correspondingly full, responsible power—administrative, legislative, and financial.
  Captain REDMOND: Have the inhabitants of Malta been in any way consulted in regard to this proposed alteration of their constitution, and have their views been given consideration?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Oh, yes; the inhabitants of Malta, through the informal conference or assembly known as the National Assembly of Malta, put forward proposals which were carefully considered. These are to a large extent the basis of the action we have taken.
  Captain REDMOND: Why, in this regard, is Malta not treated the same as Ireland?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take this precedent for the rather analogous case of Gibraltar?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Circumstances differ very considerably in the two cases. The population of Malta is 250,000; the population within the actual fortified precincts of the port is under 20,000. But my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that in the case of Gibraltar that wherever we reasonably can we have no prejudices against considering the wishes of the resident population.
  Captain REDMOND: That is very kind of you.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (WEST INDIES).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give directions that in future the Annual Colonial Reports dealing with Ceylon, Straits Settlements, Malta, Cyprus, British Guiana, Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the other principal Crown colonies, shall include a, summary of the principal political developments and activities in the colonies in addition to the skeleton abstract of statistical information which now composes these Reports; and whether he will take the most recent Moral Material Progress Report issued by the Government of India as a model in this respect?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Colonial Annual Reports have always contained, in
  1316
  addition to a brief summary of important legislation and educational progress, a section devoted to observations on the social and general condition of the territory, including references to any important changes or events which may have occurred in the year under review. The improvement of these Reports was carefully considered by a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State's predecessor, and as a result of their recommendations it is hoped that the Reports will, in future, be made more interesting, and the statistics which accompany them more valuable for trade.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give special consideration to these Reports, particularly in the case of the British West Indies and British Guiana, where there is great dissatisfaction amongst the civilian inhabitants owing to the lack of interest taken by this country in their progress and in their commercial and political development?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I entirely agree that it is most desirable that this country should take the keenest possible interest in the West Indies.

  GERMAN COLONIES.
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to make statements as to the future of German East Africa; and whether the territory is to become a native reserve with no European settlement, or whether the large amount of capital already invested in the country by European concerns is to be allowed to continue operations?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It is not intended that German East Africa should be administered as a native reserve and closed to European settlement. correspondence is proceeding with the Administrator on various matters of policy, but at present I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to give any information as to the steps contemplated for the improvement of the status and condition of the natives in those territories which were, until lately, under German rule?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the administration of the former German Colonies in South-West Africa and the Pacific which have been placed under British control, is a matter for the Dominions Government. With regard to German East Africa, Cameroons and Togoland, the hon. Member may rest assured that when the extent and status of the British spheres have been finally settled those spheres will be administered on the lines which have already proved so successful in the British Colonies and Protectorates in tropical Africa.

  PARIS EXHIBITION (BRITISH AEROPLANES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked how many British aeroplane firms are showing at the Paris Exhibition; whether the number is satisfactory; and what steps are being taken to encourage and assist British firms to attend foreign exhibitions of aircraft?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first and second parts is that six British aeroplane firms are showing at the Paris Exhibition, and that on the whole this number of exhibitors may be taken to be satisfactory. The Society of British Aircraft Constructors was unable to obtain sufficient space on the ground floor for a corporate exhibit, and, therefore, are not exhibiting. In regard to the last part of the question, offers of assistance were made to the Society of British Aircraft Constructors at a meeting held early in October.

  INCOME TAX.

    DISCHARGED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the members of the Welsh National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers are protesting against the assessment of Income Tax, and that they demand that all those who have served in His Majesty's Forces during the War shall be exempted from paying Income Tax for a period equivalent to the duration of the War; and will he consider this?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am aware of the representations to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not see my way to support the proposal put forward.

  MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT (COSTS OF INQUIRY).
  Major - General Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Prime Minister if he will state the cost of the Pennant inquiry instituted by the House of Lords; under what Vote or Votes the expenditure will be chargeable; and whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing the expenditure incurred, the House of Commons having decided by vote that no inquiry was justified?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is estimated that the total charges will be upwards of £9,000. These will be paid from the House of Lords Vote, the Stationery Office Vote, and the Vote for Law Charges. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the discussion suggested.
  Sir N. MOORE: Does not the question of constitutional privilege arise out of this? This expenditure was refused by the House of Commons, and, being refused, another place took upon itself to authorise it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It does raise a very big constitutional question—so big that I do not think it is possible to deal with it by question and answer.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the costs of the officers of the Air Force who have come out of the charges brought against them be defrayed by the Treasury?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a question on that subject for to-morrow. I may, however, as well say at once that the Cabinet have considered the matter. I think it would be too unfair to allow these expenses to be undeservedly thrown upon people who can ill afford to pay them.

  HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if the delay in the passing of the Hours of Employment (No. 2) Bill is due

  1319
  principally or in part to the difficulty which has arisen on the question of the application of this limitation of hours to agriculture; and, if so, whether the Government intends to make the exclusion of agriculture a condition of the passing of the measure, in view of the serious effects which would result from applying the principle, under existing conditions, to that industry?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The delay in dealing with the Hours of Employment Bill is mainly due to the fact that conversations have been proceeding with regard to the position of agriculture in relation to the provisions of the Bill. Until the conferences referred to have definitely terminated it would be premature for the Government to come to a final determination.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT (AMENDING) BILL.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to issue a financial statement as a White Paper in connection with the Government of Ireland Act (Amending) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will probably be found convenient to circulate something of this nature before Second Reading.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONWill the Leader of the House arrange that this White Paper shall be issued in good time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall try to do that.

  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision of the Government to use canteen profits accumulated during the War as a fund, to be known as the United Services Fund, for the disposal of disabled and discharged officers, noncommissioned officers, and men, it would be possible to extend the principle thus adopted by introducing in Great Britain the system known as the Stockholm system now existing in Sweden, or some analogous plan, and using the profits for the above and other social purposes; and whether he will ask for a detailed Report on the working of the Stockholm system
  1320
  in Sweden both as to the financial side of the scheme and as to its effect on the social welfare of the country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The introduction into this country of the Stockholm system, which has no connection with the application of the profits derived from canteen funds, is not a question for the War Office.

  BRITISH LABOUR CORPS.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the numbers of men now retained with the Labour Corps in France; whether he is aware that only a very small portion of these Labour Companies actually do work; and whether, in view of the fact that these men mostly have employment to go to in this country, he will take immediate steps to reduce the numbers of those who are either wasting their time or are employed on unimportant camp duties?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed. In France and Flanders at the present time there are thirty exhumation companies of the British Labour Corps, and all the men of these companies are fully employed. Apart from these, there are only two and a-half Labour Companies, and these are working with the Royal Engineers in dismantling camps, etc., and doing duty with transport in Boulogne and Calais. The latter portion of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any reason why officers and civilians on the lands branch should not participate in the increased rates of subsistence allowances now given to other officers; and whether the nature of the work involves more travelling than falls to the lot of ordinary officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This question is still under consideration.
    Mr. LYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the question is only now under consideration?

    DECORATIONS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been arrived at as to the granting of a decoration to those mentioned in dispatches?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on this matter at an early date.

    ARMY PAY CLERKS (DUBLIN AND CORK).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the majority of the clerks employed in the Army pay offices and record offices of Dublin and Cork who have been dismissed, or are under notice of dismissal, have been employed at these offices since 1914; that they are now being dismissed at a time when there is practically no demand for clerical labour; that they are not entitled to unemployment donation and, except in a few instances, do not receive any gratuity; that if these men had entered ordinary civilian service in 1914 they would now be in secure employment; and whether, in the event of it being found impossible to retain the services of these men, he will favourably consider the grant of a substantial gratuity in every case in order to help the men over a period of unemployment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that discharges of civilian employés have been necessary not only in Cork and Dublin, but at a number of War Department establishments in the United Kingdom. I regret that no gratuity can be granted.

  MILITARY PRISONERS.

    STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
    Mr. T. A. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to release all soldiers now serving sentences of penal servitude and imprisonment for purely military offences?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have already stated on previous occasions, the Government decided, after very careful consideration, not to adopt the course suggested. I would, however, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statement which I am about to make in answer to question No. 82 on the subject of the suspension and remission of sentences generally.
    Mr. K1LEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that during the War many soldiers were sen-
    1322
    termed to terms of imprisonment for offences other than criminal; is he aware that these men were not then imprisoned but were put in the firing line, and those who were not killed or maimed were sent to prison after the Armistice was signed; and, in view of the fact that nearly all the Great Powers have released their military prisoners, is he prepared to advise similar action so far as British soldiers are concerned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot accept the terms of the hon. Member's question as a correct representation of the facts. During the War many soldiers were sentenced to terms of penal servitude and imprison-men for offences other than those or a criminal nature, of whom many thousands in fact never served one single day of such sentences. This is due to the operation of the Army Suspension of Sentences Act, which I venture to claim is the most humane measure that has ever been passed in the history of the British Army. Under that Act it is possible for a soldier by an act of gallantry or satisfactory conduct in action, or by a period of good conduct, to earn absolute and complete remission of his sentence. There have been cases where soldiers convicted by courts-martial of most serious offences have within a few weeks, or even days, earned immediate remission of their sentence through their gallantry in action. I cannot state exactly the number of eases where sentences have been suspended, but 20,000 men have probably received the benefits of this Act. All sentences, in a state of suspension, lapsed automatically on the demobilisation of the soldier, and, moreover, the fact that a soldier is under suspension of sentence does not debar his demobilisation.
    On the other hand, with regard to soldiers who have abused the privileges which the Act has extended to them, there was power under the Act that for subsequent offences of misconduct the sentence so suspended might be put into execution. Again, I cannot quote precise figures, but there doubtless has been a considerable number of cases where soldiers have been committed to prison to undergo a previously suspended sentence.
    But the clemency which has been extended to the soldier does not end with the Army Suspension of Sentences Act. A most careful and complete review of all sentences of penal servitude and imprisonment has been going on not only all through the War but since the Armistice as prisoners arrive in this country, and

    1323
    as a result I am glad to be able to say that the sentences of all soldiers under sentence at the Armistice have now passed under review with the following result:
    Four hundred and forty-five sentences of penal servitude have been reviewed for the first time.
    Of these there have been forty complete remissions and ninety-six immediate mitigations to lesser punishments.
    Of these 445, 198 sentences of penal servitude have now been reviewed for the second time, and large reductions effected.
    To give an idea of the scale of the reduction I should mention that of these 198 cases reviewed a second time, 1,207 years out of an aggregate of 1,659 years have been eliminated from the sentences, and the prisoner informed of the exact day when he will be released from prison provided he behaves himself.
    This second review will in due course be completed, and a similar scale of reductions may be anticipated with regard to them. 918 cases of imprisonment have been reviewed, of which 251 have been totally remitted and 330 commuted to the lesser punishment of detention.
    Further, about 950 soldiers have been released from detention, and the weekly releases from detention average about forty. It will thus be seen that no soldier has been permitted to remain undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment, or detention, without most careful inquiry and consideration having been given to his case, and the most substantial remissions possible being granted to him.
    It can fairly be claimed, therefore, that no soldier has during this War or since been allowed to remain forgotten in prison. The utmost clemency has been extended to him all through the War, and since not only by the operations of the Army Suspension of Sentences Act but by the continuous review to which all sentences have been and are being submitted.
    If any Member will place me in possession of the particulars of any case in which he considers hardship is being inflicted, I shall be glad to furnish all information as to the nature of the offences which the soldier has committed, the punishment which he is undergoing, and the date upon which he will secure his release if his conduct is satisfactory.

    CHELSEA PENSIONERS.
    Mr. FORRESTasked if any decision has been arrived at with regard to increase of the present scale of the pensions of Chelsea pensioners as a result of the advanced cost of living; and whether he is aware that public attention has already been called to the urgency of the matter in India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The scale of pensions has been increased by Army Order 325 of September last. It applies to pre-war pensioners who have given satisfactory re-enlisted service during the War.

    RECRUITS (1916) IN WESTERN EUROPE.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked how many men who joined the Army in 1916 are still serving with the Colours in Western Europe; and what is the probable date by which these men will be released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's question is not readily available, and it would involve a considerable amount of labour to obtain the figures. As regards the latter part, all men who voluntarily joined the Colours before 1st July, 1916, and are serving in Western Europe were ordered to be sent for demobilisation by the 1st November, 1919, provided they had not signed on for further service.
    All men who voluntarily joined the Colours after the 1st July, 1916, and have not signed on for further service, have been ordered to be sent for demobilisation by the 1st February, 1920; but, under arrangements that have been made, it is hoped that it will be possible to demobilise all such men who are serving in Western Europe by the end of the year. The deciding factor is the actual date of joining, and not the date of attestation.
    All conscripts who joined the Colours before the end of 1916, and have not signed on for further service, have been ordered to be sent for demobilisation by the 1st March, 1920.

  OHINESE LABOURERS IN FRANCE.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked whether nearly 100,000 Chinese labourers have served this country in France during the War; whether any of them have been granted the right to wear the victory or general service medal; if not, why this right has not been granted, seeing that Indian, Egyptian, and South African labourers have been granted that right;

  1325
  whether he has considered the effect of the granting of a similar right to Chinese labourers in China; and whether he is aware that the refusal of the medals has caused disappointment among the Chinese labourers, who consider that they have borne greater risks than other coloured labourers and who have lost 2,000 of their number dead from wounds and sickness?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Chinese labourers who were enrolled in the Labour Corps will receive the British War Medal in bronze.

  AIR MINISTRY.

    STORES DEFICIENCIES.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for War how much has been written off since the Armistice as a charge against the public for stores deficiencies of air squadrons stationed in Great Britain and of the various air store depots and parks which were at that time in existence?
    Captain GUEST: This information would take some time to collect, and I am unwilling at present to throw additional work on the Air Ministry and local Air Force staffs; but if my hon. Friend presses for it, I will obtain the information and send it to him.
    Mr. RAPER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some rough idea of the amount?
    Captain GUEST: No, I cannot, and I do not think a rough idea is what the hon. Member requires.
    Mr. RAPER: When can we have these particulars?
    Captain GUEST: When the pressure on the Ministry is a little less than it is now.

    COMMERCIAL ORGANISATION.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now appoint a small but permanent committee, composed of two or three hon. Members of this House and two or three gentlemen outside the House who have a knowledge of commercial organisation, to assist the Air Ministry authorities in finance and business matters generally?
    Captain GUEST: I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given to my hon. Friend in reply to similar questions on the 31st March and 3rd April last.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the last answer given was that this question was under discussion?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir; and it is still under consideration.

  "EGYPTIAN CIRCULAR" (EDITOR'S ARREST).
  Mr. ADAMSON (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a fact that Kyriakos Mikhail, the editor of the "Egyptian Gazette," has been arrested; if so, whether he can state the grounds for this action, and whether it is proposed to try this man in open Court?
  Mr. SHORTT: Kyriakos Mikhail, the editor of the "Egyptian Circular," has been arrested with a view to his deportation to Egypt. He has been concerned in stirring up trouble among Egyptians, and circulating false and libellous statements with regard to British troops, and is no longer entitled to the hospitality of this; country.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Would it not be well, in the public interest, to try this man in open Court—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—so that his allegation, if untrue, can be refuted?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; that is not at all desirable.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the urgency of food questions, car the right hon. Gentleman see his way to giving the Food Ministry the first or second chance one day a week to answer questions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that suggestion, and, if possible, arrange it for next week.

  AUSTRALIA BY AIR.

    MR. CHURCHILL'S CONGRATULATIONS TO CAPTAIN ROSS SMITH.
    Sir N. MOORE: Has the Secretary for War received any official information as to the arrival of Captain Ross Smith in Australia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand he has successfully arrived, and I think I shall be doing right in sending official congratulations on this very remarkable exploit.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what the business will be next week, and also what Orders he proposes to take under the Notice of Motion which stands in his name to-day?
Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the business for next week, I shall be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will wait until to-morrow, the usual day for making the announcement. In reply to his further question, I may say we must have the first three Orders on the Paper to-night if we are to succeed in getting away in time.
Captain ORMSBY-GORE: What will be the business for Friday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall require to take the Report stage of the Housing Bill, and the other business will depend on the progress we make to-day and to-morrow with the Orders on the Paper.
Sir S. HOARE: When is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to take the Union of Benefices Bill?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Not to-day.
Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[Mr. Bonar Law.]

VOTING (PROCEDURE).
Dr. MACDONALD: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the anomalies that exist with regard to voting as between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I understand that if a Member of the House of Lords passes through the wrong Lobby he has a right, within a limited period, to correct any inadvertence in voting that he may have committed. But this practice does not apply to the House of Commons. May I ask if you will take steps to place the two Houses on the same footing?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is any business of this House to concern itself with the procedure of the House of Lords, which in many respects is anomalous. For instance, the Speaker in the House of Lords has no power at all on points of Order. With regard to voting, I understand that the hon. Member for Wallasley
1328
(Dr. Macdonald) is rather anxious to alter a vote which he gave the other day by inadvertence. We have had that question raised before, bat I think it would be impossible to permit that to take place in this House. Many Members might in a very short time find it desirable to change their votes, and such change might eventuate in a reversal of the decision arrived at. It is always open to an hon. Member not to vote, or, if he finds he has voted by mistake, to vote again in the opposite Lobby and thereby nullify the first vote.

AIR ESTIMATES (1919–20).
Estimate presented of the sum required for the year 1919–20 fur the Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Air Force [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 226.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Cannock Urban District Council Bill, Walsall Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

BILL PRESENTED.
ALLOTMENTS (USE OF UNCULTIVATED LAND) BILL,—"to facilitate the requisition of uncultivated Land for Allotments," presented by Mr. LEONARD LYLE; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    NAVY (REVISED) ESTIMATES 1919–20.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I wish to raise a point of Order. In accordance with recent practice in introducing the Navy Estimates, a general discussion has been rendered possible before Vote A is put from the Chair. But this year Vote A was put when the original Vote on Account was agreed to on the 14th March, and as the Committee see these Estimates to-day for the first time, I venture to suggest that the usual practice might be followed, even although Vote A has been granted. It would, I think, be for the general convenience of the Committee, as otherwise the discussion would, of course, be limited.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: No doubt the proper method of raising this general dismission would have been to put Vote 8, or the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, first in order on the Paper. The request which my right hon. Friend makes is, of course, one which certainly will meet the general convenience of the Committee, if it has your assent. But there is one saving point I would like, with much respect, to put before you, and it is this: The function of Committees is, after all to deal with details, and a large part of the power of the House of Commons in Committee on these very important matters of Supply would be lost if what it is proposed to do to-day became in any degree in the nature of a precedent. I am sure my right hon. Friend, who is a true son of the House of Commons, if he will allow me to say so, is as anxious as we all of us are that this should not take place, and if you grant the request put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and respectfully supported by myself, I would like, if I may ask it, that you should save the future prooedure of the House in any reply which you give.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has correctly stated the prac-
    1368
    tice and the Rules of this Committee. I regard them as of such importance in the interests of private Members and of this Assembly that they should remain intact, so that anything that is done on the present occasion must be regarded as quite exceptional and as not setting a precedent. I recognise that the circumstances of this year in the presentation of revised Estimates are special, and I propose, with the assent of the Committee, to allow the general discussion, which in other years has taken place on Vote 12—the Admiralty Vote —the second discussion of the year on naval affairs, to be taken on Vote 1, but it will be on the understanding that it will not be repeated on subsequent Votes, and any discussion there may be on subsequent Votes will be confined, to the details of those Votes If the Committee agree to that understanding I shall permit on Vote I the discussion which usually pertains to Vote A.

    NAVY (REVISED) ESTIMATES 1919–20.

      WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COAST GUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £8,077,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense, of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £25,816,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. LONG: I desire to thank the Committee for consenting to the suggestion which I ventured to put before them and which was endorsed by you, Sir. I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) for supporting the suggestion, and to assure him that I cordially and wholeheartedly accept the views which he expressed with retard to there being no precedent created on this occasion. The Committee will realise that what has fallen from you in regard to the circumstances of the day is literally and absolutely true. The circumstances are wholly exceptional, and the suggestion that I made was certainly not made with the intention in any way of curtailing the rights of Members or limiting discussion, but only in order that in these exceptional circumstances we should have the same opportunities of debate that we have had on ordinary occasions. I realise to the full that in the Estimates which we are presenting to Parlia-

      1369
      ment we are making a great demand upon the finances of the country. I think, however, that those Members who have had time and opportunity to examine the statements that I have circulated with the Vote and the figures contained therein will find that every effort has been made to secure economy, where economy is consistent with our duty and with efficiency. I am the last person in this House to complain of criticism—I welcome it—but I think the criticisms upon the Board of Admiralty which we have heard from time to time during recent months to the effect that they have not been sufficiently mindful of their duty and have not secured such reductions as they ought to have secured has been just a little unjust. I would venture to remind the Committee of the circumstances, in which we found ourselves at the beginning of this year. The Prime Minister, in a speech which he made not very long ago, reminded the House and the country of the undeniable fact that up to the very last moment of the signing of Peace the gravest doubts were entertained whether that Peace would be consummated or not. In these circumstances, I am quite satisfied that this House, as it is now constituted or any House of Commons, would have been the first to have condemned the Board of Admiralty, if possessed of that knowledge and realising what the risks were, they had failed to keep the Navy in such strength as would have enabled them to have done their duty if unfortunately the Peace had fallen to the ground. In addition to that, we had, and we still have—they are only just concluding—operations in the Baltic which threw a very heavy burden upon the Navy, and let me once again pay a tribute to the gallant admiral, Sir Walter Cavan, who has been in command in the Baltic, for the brilliant ability and unfailing determination with which he has conducted those very difficult operations.
      In addition to these two calls upon our time, we were responsible for mine clearing. The seas were sown with mines which made navigation dangerous and impossible. While we have been talking and thinking of other things, a most gallant body of officers and men have been engaged day and night in the perilous task of sweeping the seas clear of mines. Let me tell the Committee, very briefly, what the work has meant. The position is as follows: The operations of clearing moored mines from the British area allocated by
      1370
      the Allied Council is now complete in home waters, and these areas are open to navigation. The area swept in home waters is no less than 59,065 square miles. An localities in which mines were laid were swept twice, and in many cases thrice. Some 11,000 mines, in 1,360 mine fields, were laid by the enemy in home waters. Practically all these were cleared during hostilities, and it is a tribute to the efficiency of this service that post-war clearances have only produced a further seventy-four mines. The mines laid by the British numbered 65,302, and 29,494, or 33 per cent., were swept up. I am thankful to be able to say that the loss of life in this dangerous and difficult work only amounts to 06 per cent. of the force employed, although upwards of 23,000 moored mines have been removed from home waters. That brief statement will show the Committee that this work has been a work of great magnitude. It has been most efficiently and splendidly done, and a deep debt of gratitude is due from this House and the country to the gallant men who have discharged this duty and who have been enthusiastic in the performance of it.
      Some criticisms have been passed upon the staff of the Admiralty. We are told that it is not being reduced with the rapidity which is desirable. If we are to blame in this respect, I wish to say at once that I take undivided responsibility for anything that may have happened. May I respectfully remind the Committee that I have been now for more than thirty years connected at different times with various Departments, and I do therefore know from personal experience something of the work of our public Departments. Before the War the Admiralty was under-staff and over-worked. When I came to the Admiralty I found the civilian staff from the head of it downwards literally worked out. They had had no leave; they had worked seven days in the week at anxious, laborious, and difficult work; they had worked overtime; and they had had neither rest nor leisure. I made up my mind, whatever might be the criticisms levelled at me or whatever the attacks made upon me, that my first duty was to see that these men had the leave to which they were entitled, and the rest which they so badly needed, and I believe that in doing that I was acting not only in the interests of ordinary humanity, but in the interests of good administration. Men worn out in the service of the State cannot

      1371
      give to the State the service that they give when they have had a reasonable amount of rest I ask that that fact shall be considered when criticisms are addressed to us in regard to the size of our staff.
      There is a natural desire for the reduction of expenditure and that demobilisation shall be accelerated. People seem to think, if you have so many thousand men and you want to reduce them to a much smaller number, that all you have to do is to say, "We do not want three hundred out of four thousand," put your pen through the names, and the thing is done. Demobilisation is a far more difficult matter for the Department concerned than recruiting. Demobilisation is one of the most laborious tasks that you can throw upon a Department. The amount of extra work thrown upon the Admiralty in consequence of demobilisation has been tremendous, and this fact has to be borne in mind when criticisms are made against us for not having demobilised sufficiently. I think that a careful, may I say an impartial, examination of our record as it is to be found in the statements circulated, and which I hope I may be able to make even clearer by the remarks that I shall make, will show that, though outside people are not altogether satisfied, the Admiralty are not really so much to blame as they endeavour to make out. Notwithstanding the fact to which I have called attention—the demand upon us for possible service at the beginning of this year—immediate steps were taken at the Admiralty to effect reductions and to secure economies.
      My right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Transport began directly the Armistice had been signed. I followed in his place in January. We continued the work that he was doing, and I will give the Committee a very few figures which will show, I think, that we have done this with some efficiency. Before I come to the figures, I want to tell the Committee what it was that we actually did. We appointed a Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, to go into expenditure in all its branches, examine it, and report as to reductions. A little later, when Peace had been signed, and we were able to make more definite plans for the future, the Naval Lords gave up their leave, to which some of them were fully entitled, and sat continuously on a Committee in London, examining into the
      1372
      naval side of the question with a view of ascertaining what reductions could properly and safely be made in respect of the Navy. I myself inspected our naval stations practically round the coast, beginning with Scotland. That was work which could only be done by the First Lord of the Admiralty, because in each of these stations there was more than one Department concerned. It was only possible to effect the necessary reductions there by personal inspection on the spot. I do not hesitate to say that if I had realised the kind of work that I should have to do I should have hesitated even more than I did before accepting the high office that I have now the honour to fill. I never have in all my life in connection with any public duty felt more depressed than I was when I visited these stations.
      Let the Committee remember what had been going on. During the War there suddenly arose the need for a station for some purpose or another, for testing one thing or another, for making one thing or another, for storing them, or for a variety of purposes. There was not time to look round and select, perhaps, the very best site and to put the place in the best condition. What the Admiralty did was to say, "This thing is wanted for the efficiency of the Fleet, and it has to be found." It was found, and I say all honour to them. I am not responsible, except indirectly, for the work that they did. In these circumstances, we brought in men and women who were called upon to begin absolutely new work of the most difficult and even technical character. They devoted themselves to it with all their energy and all their power. They brought their various stations and the works in them to the most wonderful state of perfection, and it was a most painful task to have to tell them that their work was finished, that they were no longer required, and that all that they had done had to be brought to an end.
      I had interviews with many of them. The Committee can hardly realise that they were working in distant places far removed from the centre of information, not the least realising what was the great movement going on generally in the country and in the world, but concentrated day and night upon this difficult and sometimes dangerous work. It was not unnatural that they should think that their particular work and their particular station were essential to the safety of

      1373
      the country. It was very difficult for them to realise that the War was over, that Peace required a different condition of things, and that these stations were no longer required. Do not let the Committee imagine that this is a financial matter and that these people were depressed because they were losing their employment. Nothing of the kind! They were depressed because they saw the child they had brought to such a wonderful state of maturity suddenly no longer required, and they thought that all the work they had done would be brought to naught. I was very glad to have the assistance of the Prime Minister, who was good enough to write a letter, which appeared in the newspapers, conveying the thanks of His Majesty's Government to these men and women, many of whose names are absolutely unknown and many of them who have worked without getting any reward except some small personal recognition from the Board of Admiralty. I have told this little story to the Committee because I am anxious that we should to-day record our gratitude to these men and women, who in many cases occupy humble positions, for the most wonderful work they did and for the devotion with which they gave their services to their country in the time of her need.
      In addition, we have appointed a Committee, presided over by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whose duty it is to ascertain all the properties that we possess and to make' recommendations to the Board of Admiralty as to their present condition, whether they are still necessary for us, and, if not, how they can best be disposed of, so that, so far as critical, careful, and insistent examination into the expenditure and the finances of the Board is concerned, really I think we have done and are doing all that men could do. I have seen in Some of the criticisms comparisons made between the Estimates of 1913–14 and the Estimates of the present year. There is no possible comparison between them. The Estimates of 1913–14 were made by a Board of Admiralty which was preparing for the future and preparing for a possible war. The cost of every single thing was totally different from what the cost is now. The present Estimates are still Estimates connected with the War. In them are still to be found, not only the aftermath of the War, but the actual realities of war. We are discharging liabilities already incurred. When it is said, as it is said in
      1374
      some quarters, that the Admiralty is spending £140,000,000 or £150,000,000 a year which they ought not to spend, that statement is singularly inaccurate and misleading. It is not accurate to say of a man that he is spending £100,000 a year because he is spending £20,000 a year in upkeep and £80,000 a year in paying off perhaps, it may be, the cost of the erection of buildings, or putting in machinery or anything of that kind. The Admiralty in this case are paying money which is due. They are discharging debts already incurred in connection with the War. Therefore any comparison between the two periods I have named is wholly misleading. It is not fair to say that our expenditure has been on the colossal scale indicated when, in reality, only part of it is annual expenditure and a very great part of it is the discharge of liabilities. For the same reason you cannot take the Estimates for this year as providing any reliable guide for our expenditure in future. I shall say a word or two in a moment about that, but what you, Sir, said just now when the Committee granted permission for the general discussion, applies to these Estimates — they are wholly exceptional. They occur to-day, and I hope they will never recur. Certainly this year and next year are quite incomparable, because next year I hope we shall revert to real peace conditions, whereas to-day we are dealing in our Estimates in the money that we are voting to a very large extent with the past.
      Before I give the Committee a few figures showing what the actual work of the Admiralty has been, I should like to say just a word about the changes in the Board of Admiralty. These Estimates are signed by the members of the old Board, of which Sir Rosslyn Wemyss, now Lord Wester Wemyss, was First Sea Lord. He has ceased to be First Sea Lord, and I am anxious here to say that he has left in the Navy and in the Admiralty permanent records of the admirable work he did as First Sea Lord, and among those who were privileged to be his colleagues he has left an enduring memory which we shall always cherish. His place has been taken by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Beatty. I am confident that the country will rejoice to know that he is now taking an active part in our naval administration. For myself, I feel that we owe him a debt of gratitude for accepting this onerous, difficult, and thankless post. He has done great service for his country continuously, and he might

      1375
      very fairly have claimed a period of rest and retirement; but he did nothing of the kind. He put his services unreservedly at the disposal of his country. Therefore, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty and, I believe I may say, on behalf of this House, we are very thankful to have the advantage of his unquestioned ability, his great energy, and his untiring example in the Board of Admiralty, because we have very difficult tasks before us and very difficult work to accomplish. I am thankful to be able to show the Committee that on the Board of Admiralty we have riot only Lord Beatty, but other Sea Lords, all of them being men who have come fresh from sea service, all of them being distinguished sailors who have proved their value to their country on many an occasion. Therefore there is no foundation for the charge I see made so often, and which fills me with astonishment—coming, as I do, new to my task—that the Board of Admiralty is old-fashioned, is hide-bound, will not think of new policies, and will not allow suggestions to be made or fairly considered. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Board of Admiralty to-day, as I believe it has always been, is composed of men who have come fresh from sea service, who have taken part in nearly all our naval engagements, and who, surely, must have the knowledge which is necessary if we are to approach the new problems of the future with any hope of being able to solve them!
      May I say a word for us civilian members of the Government who are connected with the naval and other Departments? We are told that we are squandering public money, making too great demands upon the public purse, and so on. I can assure the Committee that the civilian members of the Board of Admiralty, and as far as I know of the other military establishments, are just as anxious to avoid the heavy burden of taxation as anybody in this House can be. We pay taxes and we hate it just as cordially as any Member of the House and anybody else in the country who has to pay them. The last thing we would do if we could help it would be to add to the national expenditure simply for the pleasure of so doing. Yet that is what is constantly said—that the Board of Admiralty constantly asks for money and that they do not think whether it is wanted or not; and that they do not think about the capacity of the country to find it, but simply ask for it
      1376
      because they want a great Navy. I have come fresh to the Admiralty and I think I can claim to be an impartial critic of what I find there. I can assure the Committee that there is no place where I find a more constant desire for economy and reduction of expenditure than in the Board of Admiralty itself. If that is true, and I can assure the Committee it is true, I think I may claim that this kind of criticism ought not to be addressed to it. I said just now that some people talked about demobilisation as if they seemed to think you could get rid of surplus men or anything else by a mere stroke of the pen. In regard to the Navy there is one important fact which has been constantly ignored by our critics, namely, that the Navy is, happily for us, a long-service Navy. Our men are enlisted for twelve years, and, therefore, you have not the power to do it even if you wanted to do it. You can only reduce your Navy by gradual, fair, and just measures. This means that your reduction must of necessity be slow. Yet I think the figures I am going to give the Committee now will show that, notwithstanding these natural obstacles, the reductions have been very great, and, if I may appeal to the impartial critic, I think I shall get a verdict in favour of the present Board and their policy.
      Our Estimates this year are just over £157,000,000. They are tremendous, no doubt, compared with any figures with which we were familiar before, but if you compare them with last year's figures there has been a reduction of over £167,000,000, which is an immense sum. The March Estimates were £8,283,000 less than those presented to-day, but that £8,000,000 is accounted for by increase in the pay of officers, £2,400,000; of men, £8,000,000; gratuities, £3,000,000; and there are other increases, which are explained in the statement I have circulated, amounting in all to £27,000,000, showing, therefore, that if it had not been for rigorous and very general economy the increase in our Vote would have been very much greater than it is to-day. I have said that we have these Committees examining into our financial affairs and recommending reductions. I have referred to the visits which I paid in conjunction with the late First Sea Lord, the Director of Dock-yards, and the Naval Secretary to the Director of Dockyards, when we went round the coast, and which resulted in the immediate closing down of a large number of

      1377
      naval establishments. In addition to that, the Naval Lords went exhaustively into the naval strength and ascertained what could be done there by way of reduction. This is what actually happened. At the Armistice the personnel was 407,000. Today is has been reduced to about 150,000. That is not an unreasonable or unsatisfactory reduction, bearing in mind the facts to which I have referred. As regards contracts for ships, at the time of the Armistice there were 1,005 ordered and under construction. Since then, in the time of the Minister of Transport and myself, we have cancelled 611; completed to 31st October, 319; leaving seventy-five to be completed. The actual approximate saving resulting from the cancellation of these orders amounts to no less than £46,400,000. Surely that in itself is not an unsatisfactory record of the work we have been able to do during the very anxious and laborious months through which we have passed!
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At what period of the year were they cancelled?
      Mr. LONG: I could not give the dates, but a certain number were cancelled by the Minister of Transport before the 1st January, some immediately after the new Board was constituted, and others gradually from then up till 31st October, but the, greater part of them in the early part of the year.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the cancellation of contracts amounted to about £46,000,000. Will he be able to tell us what were the total contracts, so that we can learn the proportion of the amount cancelled to the actual total of contracts?
      Mr. LONG: I have not that figure with me, but no doubt I could get it. I understand its importance. Following upon these reductions, there have been reductions in the requirements of fuel and stores of all kinds. A footnote appears in the Estimates calling attention to the fact that the whole question of the requirements of oil fuel storage is under consideration. The total amounts are given. It may be possible to reduce these, but I am sure the Committee will realise the great importance of the question. The use of oil as fuel is increasing by leaps and bounds, and its advantages are manifest from many different points of view. One of the most anxious questions
      1378
      which the Board of Admiralty has to examine and decide is what shall be the storage of fuel and the necessary provision made for it. I could not undertake that there will be reductions in our Estimates, but if it is possible to make them, reductions will be made.
      I gave the total figures in respect of cancelled ships altogether. Under Vote 8, the Vote for contract work, that stands at the very big sum of £41,885,000. I said these Estimates are abnormal and exceptional, and it will be seen in this relation how true that statement is, because of this large total all but about £2,000,000 represents expenditure entirely due to the War. The principal items are these: Payment in respect of cancelled contracts £2,650,000; payment in respect of ships which have reached an advanced stage of completion and considered desirable to complete, ships for sale, £4,750,000; ships requisitioned for the Navy, £17,450,000; reconditioning of hired vessels prior to return to owners, £7,900,000; fitting of mine protection for merchant vessels, drafting of unskilled labour to shipyards and extensions to shipbuilding yards, largely outstanding charges from the War period, £2,760,000; for non-recurrent services during the War, £4,100,000; a total of £39,610,000 out of the £41,000,000 which might be described as really war charges. Vote 11, for miscellaneous services, amounts to £6,106,000. This charge, which includes £3,700,000 for the hire of vessels, is entirely non-recurrent, and represents the cost of hired vessels taken up by the Ministry of Shipping for naval purposes, and trawlers, drifters, and other small vessels taken up by the Admiralty. The bulk of the vessels have already been returned or are in course of reconditioning prior to return. Over 1,900 of the trawlers and drifters in service at the Armistice had been returned by the end of November. At the Armistice the monthly payment for the hire of these vessels amounted to £200,000. By the end of next March that will reach the almost nominal sum of £8,000 a month.
      I will now turn to the dockyard question. Here the Admiralty were confronted with one of the most difficult problems which had to be solved. We had in the dockyards a much larger number of men than we had before the War, and a number of men surplus to our actual requirements. With the Fleet reduced to Peace proportions, it is not necessary to have the same dockyard service. Before

      1379
      the War, when there was a great deal of building work being done, much of it was done in private yards, while repairing and other similar work was done in the Royal dockyards. Our intention is, so far as possible, to confine all the work for the Navy to the Royal dockyards. Therefore, the real reduction will not appear in our ordinary figures, because it will be a reduction of the employment given in private yards. Still, even when we allow for the work we have to do in the Royal dockyards, it is evident that there were more men than could justly be maintained there, having regard to the work we had to do. We consulted with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Shipping. The Minister of Labour was quite confident that work would be found at once for all the men who were surplus to our requirements. The Minister of Shipping was very anxious that these men should he released, because he wanted them for the private yards. We set to work to try to secure this transfer of men from the Royal dockyards, surplus to our requirements, to the private yards, but an insuperable obstacle offered. While there was work in many of these Northern and other building yards, there were no houses in which these men could live, and I am sure the Committee would not for a moment suggest that we ought to have insisted upon turning these men off, to use a naval phrase, "putting them on the beach," and leaving them to get on as best they could, knowing that to tell them that there was work waiting for them in the Northern towns was to give them a stone when they were asking for bread, because men could not be expected to go and work in these places when they could not get a place in which to lay their heads.
      I wish to make an appeal to the Committee, and I am sure I shall not make it in vain. We had in this matter to consider not merely the pounds, shillings and pence aspect of the case. We had to remember that these men had throughout the War given the very best of their service unreservedly to the Admiralty and to their country and had allowed nothing to deflect them from the path of duty. They had worked splendidly. They had answered every call made upon them day and night by the Boards of Admiralty of that time, and to suddenly turn round and tell them we were very sorry but they were no longer wanted, would have been an act of disgraceful ingratitude.
      1380
      We tried many plans, and at last, taking advice from many quarters, not confined to Government circles by any means, we were advised that the best plan would be to bring forward some of the work we had intended to do in the spring of next year in the autumn and winter of this year and find employment for the men in this way, and it was suggested that would be better done in conjunction with working short time and losing one day in the week. We decided to ask the men to vote upon it, and it was put to them, but the proposal was not adopted, excepting in the case of Chatham, and the attempt failed. The Prime Minister, who had taken a very active interest in the question and given the Board of Admiralty invaluable assistance, received a deputation which came to him in London from the dockyards, and as the result a Committee was appointed, presided over by Lord Colwyn, representative of all the interests concerned, and it sat with as little delay as possible and reported with remarkable rapidity. The Report is now in the hands of the Board. It has been examined by members of the Board and by our officials, and it has been before a special meeting of the Board, which I summoned for the purpose and which sat yesterday, and a small Committee of three, representative of the Admiralty, has now been appointed to take up this Report and recommend how we can best give effect to it; so I think it will be recognised that we have exhausted every avenue which might lead to a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem, and we have done our best to save the men, to whom we owe so great a debt, from suffering and from hardship, and I have every reason to hope that in the proposals which Lord Colwyn has made we shall find a solution which will enable us to keep the men employed and give them the wages without which they cannot possibly live. Out of the net total Estimates of this year of £157,000,000, £80,000,000, or more than half is non-recurring War expenditure, so that really if our liabilities could have been discharged before last March the Estimates would have been £77,000,000. Further, of this sum of £77,000,000 the sum of £37,000,000 is entirely due to rises in rates of wages and pensions, and in the price of commodities. These are results entirely due to conditions brought about by the War, and it is not unfair to say that if the purchasing power of money

      1381
      had remained as it was in 1914–15, the Estimates for the current year's requirements would have been considerably lower than those before the War, notwithstanding the increased provision for such services as aviation and scientific research and experiment.
      I will now say a few words about the future. A full statement about another year will naturally and properly be made when the Estimates for that year are presented; but I do not think I should be doing my duty if I did not say a word in answer to some of the criticisms and questions addressed to us. We have been told that we ought to produce a definite policy. In connection with that, and included in it, is, of course, the future of the Navy, and it is natural that there should be some unrest in the minds of both officers and men, and that when they hear and read so much about all round reduction, they should ask themselves, "What is going to be my fate in the Royal Navy?" Reductions, obviously, there must be. It is quite clear that we do not want a Navy as big as we have now, but the reductions must be gradual, and certainly the present Board of Admiralty and the present Government have no intention whatever of making such reductions in the Royal Navy as would put us in a position of insecurity at home or to render us unable to do our duty by tire Empire. With regard to policy, is it quite reasonable to ask us to produce a naval policy now? What are the facts the case? Before the War the naval policy was framed in accordance with the two or three-Power standard as was decided at the time, and the duties of the advisers of the Board of Admiralty were to find out as best they could who were likely to be our opponents, what would be the probable or possible combinations against us, and the naval strength of all these opposing forces. Having done that, it was their duty to lay down what, in their judgment, was absolutely necessary for the security of this country and Empire.
      What is the position to-day? The great enemy which had thrown upon us such a tremendous burden of anxiety and expenditure has disappeared. It lies broken and destroyed as the result of the heroic deeds of our officers and men on sea, on land, and in the air. Therefore, that danger has been removed, and it becomes the duty of the staff of the Board of
      1382
      Admiralty to examine the new conditions from a new point of view, and to make their recommendations to us. It is quite true that that great enemy, which cost us so much, and which has suffered so much for its own sins, is destroyed, but this War has not alone led to great sacrifices and sufferings by us and those whom we have fought here in the West; it has practically convulsed the whole world. The result of this War is a new world. New conditions, and new problems have to be faced, and to ask us at the Board of Admiralty to produce a policy to-day would be to make a tremendous mistake. I have discussed this with the late First Sea Lord and the present First Sea Lord and all my advisers, and they are entirely of one mind. They are to-day and every day examining these problems with care and with anxiety, and when they see things in a truer perspective they will be ready with their recommendations, but I would say to our critics outside and inside this House, is it reasonable at tins stage, before we really know what the new conditions will be, or how the world will resettle itself, to ask us to commit ourselves to a policy which may turn out to be wholly mistaken and wholly unnecessary, and quite different from that which we might have to adopt?
      I can assure the Committee on my responsibility as a Minister of the Crown that these problems, and they are many, they are new, and they are varied, are under constant daily examination by a staff which is thoroughly competent for the work. Whatever may have been the case in the past, the Board of Admiralty is fortunate to-day in having a staff which is well constituted in every particular for doing its work. It is in a position not only to make its recommendations but to press them at the meetings of the Board, and in every way to take care that the policy of the Board of Admiralty is seriously conceived and properly pursued. That is all that can reasonably be asked of us to-day. Take one subject under this heading. We see it stated sometimes, on the authority of great and famous men, that the day of the capital ship is over and that it is to be destroyed. If I stand here and say I do not accept that view and am not prepared on behalf of the Board of Admiralty to adopt it, I shall be told by the superior critics that it is because I am a stupid old fogey who cannot think of anything new, and who lives entirely in the past. I do not mind if that

      1383
      criticism is made, because I am in remarkably good company. As it happens, the present naval members of the Board of Admiralty have the immense advantage, amongst many good qualities, of youth. They are singularly young men for the offices in which they to-day find themselves, and it really is not a, very sensible thing to say that these men, full of knowledge, full of experience, full of practical experience gained in the naval battles of this War, and keeping themselves fully informed by the constant study of these questions, are not ready to conceive new ideas.
      The Board of Admiralty are just as well aware of the fact as anybody else that we have immense possibilities before us. Who can say what is going to be the development of the Air Service in the future, and what is to be the effect of the Air Service? I was told to-day that the Air Service is going to be so effective that it will destroy the battleship, which is such a big target. That is the view of one side. I go to a great airman and I say, "I am told that our big battleships are not going to be of any use, because they offer such big targets for bombs which are heaven knows how many tons in weight, and which are to be dropped from the clouds on to the battleships." He said, "Some people will tell you that, but, speaking for the air people, I can say that as fast as they develop that attack we are developing a counter-attack and defence, and we shall have something to say before you abandon your big ship simply because an airship has been devised that is going to threaten you with bombs." There are the two sides to the question. I am taking neither side. We have to-day in His Majesty's Navy some of the most magnificent ships the world has ever seen, wonderful productions, and to destroy these vessels because we are told that the air is going to replace the Navy would be a criminal thing for any Board of Admiralty to do. Take the case of a submarine. We are told that because of the. submarine the big ship will not be able to move or to manæuvre, and that it will be of no use. Surely the answer to that is science, development, and invention. We are laboriously engaged on our scientific side in examining these problems, and I have not the smallest doubt that the greatest progress will be made in dealing with the submarine. Look at the wonderful strides that have been made in
      1384
      dealing with the mysteries of sounds below the water. Look at the power given to the commanders of the ships from this knowledge, which was entirely withheld from them before. The Admiralty, through the science departments, are working regularly and incessantly on these. scientific developments, and they believe that in these are to be found more probably the solution of the difficulties than in the abandonment of the great ship which has told, and will tell again, when it comes to great conflict, and when weight of metal is essential in order to secure the balance of victory.
      I only make these remarks because I do think it is unreasonable to ask us all of a sudden to abandon a. great portion of our Navy owing to certain assertions which are made, because to-day they have not reached a stage further than that. In regard to science and invention, I only want to say this, that there has been great work done at Shandon and other places in scientific discovery for the Navy. I have visited these places myself, and I am satisfied that the work that has been done is splendid, but there is a great deal of overlapping. There is a great deal of work done in different establishments which could be brought together and done some of it in one and some of it in another establishment. We have enormous advantage now in the presence as Lord President of the Council of the Senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who on this, as an many other questions, speaks with rare and exceptional authority. The Committee knows how devoted he is to all these scientific questions, and I am happy to say that he has consented to appoint a Committee, upon which we shall be represented, and the duty of this Committee will be to examine the present situation in scientific investigation and development, with a view to ascertaining how the work can best be done, and how it can be done without unnecessary overlapping and without undue expenditure. I have spoken of our staff. It has been said of the Board of Admiralty that they are hidebound and old-fashioned, and are not open to consider new ideas. One suggestion has been made more than once, and that is that there ought to be a staff corn-posed of representatives of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry, and that they should meet in order to discuss and consider the greater problems—I do not now mean the lesser problems whether you ought to land a force of troops here

      1385
      5.0 P.M.
      or send a ship there—but the greater problems, the world problems which we shall have to solve in the near future. This world has been entirely changed. The balance of. power has been transferred, and the problems connected with peace and war present themselves in a totally different form. These are great questions which the Navy cannot discuss alone for itself. They are also for the Board of Admiralty and all those naval and civil members whom we welcome. We are anxious that all should be joined up in a staff which should meet periodically in order that our plans may be completed.
      The Navy exists for the protection of this Island, dependent as it is for its existance upon outside supplies, and whatever may be the predictions of those who believe that in the future we can do without a Navy, the people of this country will continue to demand that there shall be a Navy sufficient to give us reasonable security. In face of the conditions existing before the War we had, in some cases, to prepare to meet the greater risk and run the minor one. In many cases the old desirable work of the Navy was curtailed, even abandoned. I mean showing the White Ensign in the various waters of the British Empire. I am satisfied that this was essential, not merely for maintaining the prestige of our Imperial name, but because—and I have had abundant proof since I have been at the Admiralty and at the Colonial Office—in the interest of trade and the prosperity of the Empire, it was essential that our flag should be shown and shown widely. That, we hope, we shall be able to do, and we mean to do. I have only to thank the Committee for the patience with which it has listened to me, and I hope that at the conclusion of this discussion it will give us these Votes to obtain the money which we require. The circumstances are abnormal, but they are not of our making, and it is essential that these Votes should be passed with as little delay as possible. I know that there is plenty of room for criticism. I do not doubt that we have made many mistakes, but the Committee Can be confident that the Board of Admiralty will try to practice economy effectively, so long as that economy is consistent with the security of our Empire and the efficiency of our Navy.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Everyone will join in the eloquent tribute which the First Lord has paid to the naval forces at sea especi-
      1386
      ally to those engaged in the dangerous occupation of mine-sweeping. I cannot imagine anything more trying to the nerve than sweeping up these deadly engines of destruction. I would like to join with him, too, in his word of admiration for the forces in the Baltic. There is acute difference of opinion with regard to policy, but that does not affect the men themselves. The Navy has to do its duty and go as the Government of the day directs it. If the policy is wrong, that is a matter for which you must attack the Government as a whole, and riot the Navy. My right hon. Friend has referred to the fact that he has given the administrative staff some rest. I am very glad of it. They were very hard-worked men. One of the complaints which we used to have to make at the Admiralty was that some of our best men were constantly taken away to other Departments. I remember one of the best men in the Admiralty being taken away for the II call h Insurance Department, and other very able and conscientious men with great experience of their work have been taken by other Departments, and I am sorry for it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon being the Minister privileged to increase the pay of the naval ratings. It is a reform that was long overdue, and, however much we may be economists—and I am one—the men who serve their country on the sea must be well and adequately paid. I congratulate the present Board of Admiralty on having effected a very necessary reform.
      I agree with the first Lord that you cannot take these Estimates as normal. If you could, then all I would say is, God help us! Naval Estimates of £157,000,000 naturally must include a large amount of war expenditure, and the Estimates, I am perfectly convinced from some experience in the framing of Estimates, must be largely conjectural. They could not be very accurate in the abnormal circumstances in which they were framed. But I think my right hon. Friend has stated that next year, at any rate, the Estimates will be normal. That will be seventeen months after the Armistice, and I think that we may fairly ask that the Estimates then may be brought down to something like normality. I think that we shall require then some idea as to the permanent policy of the Navy. It will have to be very clearly and well thought out. Imagination must be devoted to future problems, because war problems have been revolutionised in the present War. As my right hon. Friend said, some years ago we were building on a

      1387
      two-Power standard. That was against France and Russia. In recent years we were building against Germany; but there is one country which I shall always refuse to include in making comparisons of naval strength that might be employed against us. That is the great English speaking Republic of America. I wish to ask some questions with regard to the Air Service, which to-day has been placed under the War Office.
      Mr. LONG: The Air Ministry? The Secretary of State for War is also Secretary of State for Air, but the Air Ministry is quite distinct from the War Office at present.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I am a little fogged as to the various distinctions, but what I wish to say is—and I am sure that I shall incur the displeasure of every Army man present —that I do not think that the Secretary of State for War should at the same time be Secretary for Air, and I would go so far as to say that I do not like the new Air Ministry, because we have got a great many new Ministries and they are all apt to be extravagant.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think it better to intervene at once on this point. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the Act of Parliament which has established an Air Ministry as a separate Ministry. He has no right when we are discussing in Committee of Supply to advocate a matter which requires legislation. He would no doubt repeal that Act.
      Mr. LAMBERT: No, if you would allow me to go on you will see that I am perfectly logical, because the naval service of the country cannot be carried on without the Air Service. Naval power is the dominating factor in this country. It has always been so, and it will be so in the future. Therefore you cannot discuss this matter without some reference to air, because the Admiralty itself must have an Air Service, otherwise the whole Fleet is well,—at sea.
      The CHAIRMAN: All I want to make quite clear is that the advocacy of the repeal of the Air Service Act is not open to discussion on the present occasion, though on some other occasion it might be.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I quite agree, and I will not go into that.
      Mr. HOHLER: May I call attention to page 60 of the Estimates, which refers to aviation. Can we not discuss aviation?
      The CHAIRMAN: It is quite true that part of the Air Service is worked in connection with the Admiralty, and that occurs therefore on the Votes here. Discussion is open on that. All I am saying is that advocacy of the repeal of an Act of Parliament cannot take place in Committee of Supply.
      Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend has referred to some problems which I have had in mind. One is the problem as to whether the surface ship as it has been known in the Navy from time immemorial will be the naval ship of the future. We have had surface ships from the days of Alfred the Great but we have never had submarines in action until within the last few years. Those are points to which my right hon. Friend and his Board will have to direct their attention. He has told us very truly that we have got some of the finest examples of naval ships. There is the enormous ship the "Hood," which hurls a projectile weighing something like a ton, I should imagine, from a 15-in. gun, and which cost of.£6,000,000, and I believe that in the year 1916 four of these ships were ordered, thus representing a cost of £24,000,000. They are cancelled, I agree, but I put the point whether it is wise that in future ships of these dimensions should be built, because I cannot but believe that the "Hood," magnificent and powerful as she is, is vulnerable to submarines. She is certainly vulnerable to mines. Whether she is vulnerable front the air I am quite unable to say.
      A great problem which this country will have to consider is what the future of the Navy is to be, whether it is to be a Navy on the surface of the sea, whether it is to be a navy in the air may use the phrase—or whether it is to be a Navy under the water. I think the Board of Admiralty deserve time to make up their minds, but we must have a clear and definite policy as to what is to be the future method of offence and defence. To me it is hateful to talk of war after the terrible agony through which we have gone. But the Navy, if it is maintained at all, is maintained for War, and, therefore, must be of a character best adapted for that purpose. The "Hood" cost £6,000,000. The question is, will the "Hood" have to meet ships of an equal character in future? The very fact that you have to

      1389
      go into this question of naval construction brings with it very grave consequences with regard to other matters. I do not suppose I shall have a friend in any of the dockyard ports from the time I sit down. This question of the air must bring the Admiralty right up against the problem as to whether you can keep four great naval depots—Portsmouth, Devon-port, Chatham, and Rosyth—and whether they are in the right position. The strategy of the future is entirely novel, and, therefore, I ask myself are these great centres of naval population in the right strategic position for the Navy as it must exist in future, with all the possibilities of the air and of the submarine, which will he greatly developed?
      In the past, Chatham, so worthily represented by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hohler), was no doubt a naval port protecting London. But she cannot protect London to-day from aircraft. What will be the future of Chatham is a matter which will have the closest attention of the House and of the Admiralty. I quite agree with the First Lord that you cannot throw these men out upon the world without warning. It is very easy to say, "Oh, yes; get rid of the lot," but we have to consider that they have served their country during the War, that they have been brought there in pursuit of a great naval policy, and we must remember that they are beings with human feelings as well as ourselves. The Government must aid them in every possible way. I feel, however, that if we are to effect great economy, some of these great establishments must be closed. They are enormously expensive; there are always, of course, an Admiral and Admiral Superintendent and all the staff. There is an enormous amount of machinery and of stores collected, and all these require a corresponding number in the Admiralty to control them. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a question which the Admiralty will have to decide, and decide quickly, because it affects large centres of naval population. Take the question of the port of Plymouth. When in the presence of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) I am almost afraid to refer to a town in my native county. But still I have interests with the town of Plymouth, having been born and bred in Devonshire.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: As a farmer.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I suppose it is no disgrace to have been brought up on a farm?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; it is healthy.
      Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member seems to have some antipathy to me because I see things that are going to happen in regard to Plymouth. Plymouth is a port which, I know, had its commercial development defeated by the Admiralty for the good reason that you could not have a great naval port and a commercial port running side by side. But what is to be the future of the port of Plymouth? Will the Admiralty in future veto its commercial development? I understand that proposals have been made to the Admiralty whereby a large portion of the docks there would be utilised by a private company. I put it to my right hon. Friend that he will have to consider whether Devonport is a strategic centre to be maintained, and that, if any conclusion is arrived at, the greatest possible opportunity should be given to the Plymouth Corporation and all the people concerned to develop this into a great commercial port. My right hon. Friend knows full well that he has a very large number of men in the dockyards today who are. I may say, more or less redundant. Before the War I think there were in the outport shipyards something like 58,000 civilians. To-day there are 85.000, so that we are keeping in the dockyards to-day 27,000 more men than were employed before the War. You cannot throw all these people on the world at a moment's notice. It is easy for us in this warm and delightful atmosphere to say, "Throw them out," but we must remember that they have to live as well as ourselves. I am not complaining; but these things in the long run must come to an end, and no man must be engaged unless productively employed on the defence of the country. We have got to cut our garments according to our cloth, and we cannot go on spending money as fast as we are spending it to-day. We have had rather soothing assurances from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I must say that what gives me great cause for anxiety is the fall in the American exchange, which is raising the cost of living to every class in the community. No man should be employed by the Government unless for absolutely essential purposes, or when he can be spared for carrying on work in connection with our export trade, which might reduce the cost of living.

      1391
      May I ask some questions with regard to the cancellation of orders to which my right hon. Friend alluded? He has told us that he has cancelled a very large number of ships. That is perfectly true, but I want to ask him whether he could not have cancelled more. I have it here in his statement that he has cancelled three out of four big battle-cruisers. Of light cruisers twenty-one were under construction at the time of the Armistice, and only four have been cancelled. Was it necessary that only four should have been cancelled? I ask, because I find that some of these light cruisers were laid down in the middle of last year. There is the "Despatch," for instance, laid down in July, 1918. I should have thought that that cruiser could have been stopped. There is the "Diomede," laid down in June, 1918; the "Enterprise," laid down in June, 1918; the "Emerald," in September, 1918. Why were these gone on with? These four cruisers will cost from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000. They have to be maintained, they required to be manned, they will burn fuel. Have not we enough light cruisers without these extra four? There is another point in the Estimates, with regard to the time of building. When I was at the Admiralty a ship could be built in two years. Here is the "Wren," laid down in October, 1916, which apparently is not finished yet. I do not understand why. Then, as regards flotilla leaders, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that there were eleven ordered at the time of the Armistice, and only four have since been cancelled. I have looked into this, and I find that the "Keppel" is to be completed, yet she was laid down only in October, 1918. I cannot help thinking that that flotilla leader might have been abandoned. The "Rooke," another flotilla leader, was laid down in the same month as the Armistice, and is to be completed. I think we must have some explanation of that.
      With regard to destroyers, I think we must ask for explanations why out of ninety-seven ordered only forty were cancelled. Fifty-seven new destroyers are being completed, and one of these, the "Worcester," was laid down in December, 1918. It seems to the ordinary observer to be a waste of money to lay down destroyers or to complete destroyers which were laid down actually a month after the Armistice was signed. Then, with regard to the repair of ships. The "Repulse," a
      1392
      battle cruiser, is to be repaired at cost of £39,000. Is it worth while to spend so much when we have an enormous preponderance of these battle cruisers? Take the "Antrim." She is an old cruiser laid down in 1902, yet the Admiralty propose to spend £161,000 on repairing her. Why spend so much on a ship which is really obsolete? The "Chatham" is to have £139,000 spent on her. Then there is the "Himalaya," purchased in 1916. That ship is to have £274,000 spent on her. I think we ought to have some explanation why such sums are being spent on ships, when we have such a large preponderance of the type.
      I would ask my right hon. Friend. a question or two about our land stations. Land stations eat up personnel. They have all to be supplied with their little establishments, and each one of them has to have its corresponding number at the Admiralty in order that it may be controlled from there. Many of these land stations, which had during the War an actual fighting value, have very little today. My right hon. Friend has told us that it has been a very unpleasant duty for him to go round and say to these people, who have been doing their duty thoroughly well during the War, "You have got to go" I quite sympathise with him in that, but may I ask, in regard. to Vote 10, why it is essential to commence new Admiralty work? I observe that in West Africa there are to be erected new quarters for a wireless staff, at a cost of about £16,000. Are the Admiralty quite sure that a wireless station is needed on the West Coast of Africa? I, of course, cannot say, but I think it well that it should be considered. There is in the Estimate an item of £47,000 for oil fuel storage in Jamaica, to be commenced this year. Is it quite certain that this money will be spent to the best advantage? Then, again, there is an item of £195,000 for oil storage at Malta, to be commenced this year. It is true that only £25,000 is to be spent this year, and the rest carried on, but is it really the policy of the Admiralty to launch out into this expenditure at Malta before they have really developed their permanent naval policy? Then, again, the Holton cordite establishment has cost, I think, about £2,000,000 to put up, and now the Admiralty propose to spend £12,000 on housing there. Has there been any co-relation between the Admiralty and the other Departments with regard to the amount of cordite that

      1393
      will be required in the future? There is an enormous establishment at Gretna, and there are others at Queensferry and Enfield. Is it really wise to spend money on housing employés for a cordite factory when the Government have not made up their minds as to what they are going to do with the other cordite factories? I put these questions really from the point of view of inquiry.
      Then there is the case of Rosyth. It is quite impossible, as I have said, if the Naval Estimates are to be brought down, that these four great naval depots can be maintained. In the case of Rosyth there is an Estimate of £40,000 for residences, to be begun this year, for subordinate officers. If you are to provide money for subordinate officers, presumably Rosyth is to be a. permanent establishment. I am drawing my right hon. Friend's attention to these questions, because I have been accustomed to go through these Estimates. At. Bandeath, I observe, £35,000 is to be spent on housing employés, and:£28,000 on housing for the police. The new works are to be begun this year, and they will carry a liability for next year and the year after. I ask again whether these works are really essential? Then there are some other large items for oil fuel, amounting together to nearly £2,000,000. Four hundred thousand pounds is to be spent on the Clyde for storage of oil. Is the Admiralty quite sure that that money ought profitably to be spent on the Clyde, when the whole of our naval policy is more or less unsettled? At Plymouth, I see, £555,000 is put down for oil fuel—a new service entirely. At Portland, again, there is an item of £9,56,000 for a new service for oil fuel storage. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that all this storage will be required when the Navy of the future is developed? I cannot help thinking that, if we were in a different atmosphere, a good deal would be said about some of these items. I am placing them before my right lion. Friend because I know his difficulty, and I hope he will examine them critically before he allows them to be proceeded with, especially in the inchoate state of our naval policy for the future. I have thought a great deal about this matter of our future naval policy.
      Our food supply is dependent on the Navy—not only on the Royal Navy, but on the Merchant Navy—and the Merchant Navy must be protected by the Royal
      1394
      Navy. Being a farmer, as my hon. Friend opposite has reminded me, I do know. something about food production, and I know that it is quite impossible—and I am sure the First Lord, who also knows something about agriculture, will agree with me—for this country to produce sufficient food to feed its people; it would have to be brought from abroad. Therefore, one of the great problems of the future, since the submarine is in commission, will be, in the face of a future potential enemy, to get food into these Islands. If one thinks about the matter one wonders how the Navy were able to. cope with the submarine menace in these narrow waters as successfully as they did. There is a scheme which I would suggest to my right hon. Friend, and which, I think, has great strategic possibilities. It is not my own scheme; I have no original ideas on such matters. It is the scheme of a distinguished admiral, whom I am proud to count as one of my friends, but whose name, when it is mentioned, excites a storm—Admiral Lord Fisher. Lord Fisher suggested that it would be of great value to this country, not only from a commercial but from a naval point of view, to make a harbour on the West Coast of Ireland, at Blacksod Bay. It would reduce the time of the voyage between Halifax and Europe to about, two days, and it is a question whether, with the submarine developed as it will be, some harbour on that coast should not be established. whereby food might be brought into the country without coming through those narrow channels. My right hon. Friend has said quite frankly that the Admiralty were quite willing to go into a joint arrangement with any other Department as to the future defence of the country. Our Dominions came to our assistance during the War; has not the time come now when we might ask them to give us their counsel as to the future defence of the Empire, whether from a military or from a naval point of view—and, I am also reminded, from the point of view' of the air? The Army, the Navy, and the Air Service are intertwined in the defence of the country, and it seems to me to be a mistake to put them in antagonism one with the other. Therefore, I would ask whether some council of the Empire cannot be called together, with the very best experience, to decide what shall be the future of the Air Service, the Navy, and the Army. I know that, when you walk up and down the

      1395
      streets of London or any other of our large towns, it does not seem very apparent that Britain is very much poorer than she was before the War; but we cannot afford schemes that are not profitable, and, although there is, we hope, no immediate danger for the League of Nations, yet we must prepare for the future in the light of the past. I stand here as one who says frankly that the Naval Estimates must be reduced very largely next year, but I am not prepared to accept the pre-war standard of Naval Estimates, because the prewar standard was based upon the German menace. The ships of the Germans to-day he scuttled, by their own dastardly action, at the bottom of Scapa Flow. I know that there are people who will always conjure up dangers, but this country cannot afford to maintain a Navy larger than its security demands. My right hon. Friend has a very unpopular task, in which I do not envy him. I should not care to be First Lord of the Admiralty at the present moment; it is so easy to spend money, but it is mighty difficult to cut it down. He has got, if he is to fulfil his duty, to be a ruthless, remorseless, and relentless economiser. I hope that he will come down to this House next year with Estimates which will be based on a peace standard, for I am quite certain that, given security, economy is the greatest reform that this country can accomplish.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the First Lord on his lucid statement in opening this Debate. There are three questions to which I desire particularly to refer. The first is that of mine-sweeping. Every Member of this House, and every naval officer, who reads the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will agree that the work that these men are doing is beyond all praise. It is the most infernal work that a man can well have to do. In the second place, I was greatly pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's references to the care with which scientific research and experiment are going to be carried out in the future by the Admiralty. My third point is as to the development of a general staff, working, I hope, under the Imperial Defence Committee, or some such committee, and not on any account under any one man. I am sure the First Lord will
      1396
      get all the money he has asked for, although, if the Committee were to judge by the list of reductions which I myself have put down, they might think he possibly would not do so. Most of those, however, were put down pro formá, in order to give me the opportunity of bringing in, on several different Votes, the great question of a Naval Air Service. As I was warned that there was not going to be any general statement of policy at the opening of this Debate, I had to break up my arguments. and divide them over the different Votes. I understand now, by the ruling of Mr. Whitley, that I am free to develop the arguments for or against the present system under which the Royal Navy is served by a certain Air Force, and that is the first thing that I shall apply myself to. I tell the First Lord quite candidly that with regard to Vote 12 I have put down a Motion for the reduction to draw attention to the neglect of the Admiralty in not seeing that the Air Force associated with the Navy was efficient. In order to keep myself in order, I am going to work on those lines, and I say that the Admiralty have been negligent in respect to the Air Force associated with the Navy. I will put it that way, to avoid any question of policy.
      It is no use the Admiralty saying they are not responsible, because the efficiency of the modern Navy is bound up with the Air Force that serves it, and if the Air Force is not efficient then the Navy is not efficient, and that, of course, is the Admiralty's responsibility. In my opinion, any personnel working with the Navy as part of an Air Force must primarily be seamen. Aviation is only a means to an end, and that end in the case of an Air Service attached to the Navy is maritime warfare. The efficiency of the Navy, I say, is bound up intimately with its Air Service, and perhaps it would be well if I just mentioned to tie Committee what the actual duties are of an Air Force serving with the Navy. I have written them down rather carefully, so as to make no mistake about it. They are embarked in ships called carriers, such as the "Argus," which carry aircraft to operate at distances beyond the reach of those which he at shore bases. Such ships carrying these aircraft can accompany the Fleet, and the aircraft may be sent out as scouts for the Fleet, or they may actually take part in a Fleet action, when it occurs, by the use of bombs or

      1397
      aerial torpedoes, or they may be used with the same weapons against enemy fleets in their own harbours. They are embarked in fighting ships, battleships, and tile larger cruisers, as aids to efficient gunnery. There is the spotter, flying in a small machine, watching the fall of the shot, and there is the fighter, flying in another small machine, who has to protect the spotter from the enemy. The long-range fire of the Navy is absolutely bound up with this service of spotting and the protection of the spotter. They are employed at shore bases—coastal areas, I believe the correct term is— from which they defend the coastal waters against submarines and mines of the enemy, or they can be used from these bases for reconnoitring such distance as is feasible within their range of action, or they can be employed, again, with bombs or with Whitehead torpedoes, to attack enemy ships. In short, their duties are all forms of maritime warfare that can be effective from the air. That sounds rather paradoxical, but that is the actual fact.
      Every one of these duties is linked absolutely with the Navy, and they are purely naval matters. They must be under the command and direction of naval officers. The information, for example, which a Commander-in Chief requires as to the composition, the disposition, the course, and the speed of a Fleet, which has to be brought in, perhaps, by one of these scouts—I ask the House to consider, could any man but a man who has been educated in Fleets bring back intelligible intelligence to that Commander-in-Chief? If they are not properly educated in Fleets prior to their becoming aviators, then they may bring misleading and absolutely dangerous information to their Commander-in Chief. In my opinion, there can be no question whatever about it that the Naval Air Service must be formed of men who are part and parcel of the Navy, and no amateurs can effectively do the work. Herein lies the first blunder, if I may call it so, of the Admiralty. They started the Royal Naval Air Service as a separate Service, and on no account should they have dissociated the administration of that Service from the Navy itself; it should have been a part of it, and when they allowed the whole of this Service to be turned over to the Air Ministry they made a still greater blunder, because they were turning it over to people who did not appreciate the needs and duties
      1398
      of the Navy, and it was highly probable, therefore, that any progress in naval aviation would not be what it should have been.
      Let us see for a moment why they turned this Royal Naval Air Service over to the Air Ministry. At the outset of the War aircraft could be numbered, perhaps, by dozens. There were very few firms, and those only small ones, in the country who could produce them. Practically speaking, there were no fighting machines, and the manufacture of these fighting machines had to be done very hurriedly. There was great competition and rivalry between the two Services, and of course friction ensued. Neither party knowing exactly what they wanted, there were constant changes, and each party, the Army or the Navy, was demanding to be served first, and each wanted its own latest invention. All that occurred and led to the amalgamation of the two Forces, the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps, under an Air Minister. I am not criticising that, but only stating facts. I do not wish to touch on policy, but I say that in future no such difficulties as those will recur. There need be no clash of interests whatever, for the productive capacity of the country now is quite sufficient to meet every service, however distinct it may be. I speak as a manufacturer, and the firm with which I am connected has made every sort of aircraft and engine under the sun. I wish to impress on this Committee that the true lesson learned as regards air service during the War was this—that the duties of the Naval Air Service were very different from those of the land Air Service, required different material, different administration, and a different education for its personnel. What has happened? In a letter that he addressed to the "Times" the other day, the late Under-Secretary for the Air stated that following On this great reform—that was the amalgamation of the Naval and Military Air Services—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. and gallant. Member must remember that in Committee of Supply it is not in order to discuss the decision already come to by Parliament in setting up a separate Air Service.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I bow to your ruling at once, but I was only drawing attention, not to any policy, but to the neglect of the Admiralty. I am leadin

      1399
      up to that. They have been grossly neglectful about this Air Service, and I am trying to prove it, and my quotation from the Under-Secretary's letter is a very brief one and is not a question of policy at all. If you will allow me to read it, Sir, I think you will see that it is so. He said, "As a consequence of the amalgamation of the Naval and Military Air Force, the Air Force increased to an astonishing degree on the military side." That is all I wish to read, but I wish to supplement that statement, and my supplement is this, that I say emphatically that the amalgamation had a most prejudicial effect.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is not that just the very point we must not discuss?
      6.0 P.M.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I accept your ruling at once. Perhaps I might proceed on these lines, that if there has been a failure of progress, and it is due to neglect on the part of the Admiralty, it becomes my duty to say in what form this failure in progress has been shown. I will mention a, few facts indicating the lack of progress in the Naval Air Service. The first is that no aeroplane specially adapted as part of the equipment of a battleship for this spotting, and the fighting machine accompanying the spotter, has even yet been designed. What has been used has been a makeshift arrangement. Certain obsolete forms of land service aircraft have, I believe, been employed with certain air bags attached to them for the purpose of alighting on water. A proper machine is absolutely essential and should have been produced long ago. The second item I wish to refer to is this, that little or nothing has been done towards producing an armour-piercing bomb. An armour-piercing bomb is absolutely essential for the attacking of a ship that has a protective armoured deck. In not seeing that such a bomb has been produced the Admiralty have been neglectful. The third item that I refer to is that there is no such thing existing as a really reliable and accurate sight. It stands to reason that when you are aiming on a submarine from 5,000 ft. or 10,000 ft. in the air you must have a very accurate sight, and, owing to the movement of the machine, it is necessary to have some such thing as a gyroscopically controlled one. Two years ago such a sight was nearing perfection, and yet the Navy has not got it yet. The fourth item in which failure to make progress has occurred is this. Some five years ago there was actually fired from
      1400
      a naval aeroplane, or it might have been a seaplane, a Whitehead torpedo—successfully discharged from a craft in the air; but only this year, five years later, an attack has been carried out by such a craft with such a torpedo on a fleet with success I say that if the Admiralty had been doing their duty they would have had all these items completed long ago; and I would go so far as to say this, that, had the progress of the Naval Air Service been left in the hands of the Navy, the German fleet might have been destroyed is Wilhelmshaven long before the Armistice. That is rather a severe charge to make, but I think it is one that is justifiable. In view of what you have said, Sir Edwin, as to my not being able to refer to anything in the way of policy, I have to refrain from other remarks which I wished to make on this subject, but. I will conclude that subject by inviting the Admiralty to give far more attention to this Air Service than they have in the past, and if there is failure to make progress in consequence of the negligence of the Air Ministry, then it is the duty of the Admiralty- to bring it before this House. So much for the Air Service.
      There is the question of future policy. I am not speaking of the Air Service now, but of the Navy. It is most important that we should hear as soon as possible what this future policy is to be, and for this reason, that there is very grave unrest amongst the men of tire Fleet at the present moment, and I will say unhappiness amongst officers, too, in consequence of their anxiety arid uncertainty as to their future. This is of the gravest importance. I do not wish to use any strong language on this subject, and the Admiralty, of course, must be alive to what is going on; but I do repeat emphatically that there is most grave unrest abroad, and after five years of fatigue such as these officers and men have gone through, they are in no mood to brook any delay on the question of their future treatment. There is only one other question I wish to raise on Vote 1, and that is the pay of officers. In the summer we had the Vote on Account. It came almost simultaneously after the new rates of pay for officers, and I said that when the Estimates came before the House I should have something to say on the matter. I find now, on examination, that the younger officers in the Navy are at a most distinct disadvantage as compared with those of corresponding rank in the Army. The Army rates of pay have re

      1401
      cently come out, and we have only been able to judge of this within the last few days. The young lieutenant in the Navy is distinctly at a disadvantage compared with an officer of relative rank in the Army. Naval officers commence their lives as naval officers much younger. They have to bear responsibilities at a very early age, and their responsibilities later on are very much greater than those of their brothers of the same age in the Army. For instance, a young lieutenant at the age of twenty-five, who is officer of the watch in a ship such as the "Queen Elizabeth" on a dark night, or running in a fog, with the lights out, has—:3,000,000 of the nation's money in his hands. A collision may cause the loss of his own ship or the loss of a corresponding one. The responsibility on that young man's shoulders, so far as pay goes, is put as the equivalent of the responsibility of a young officer in charge of a platoon, or at the utmost half a company of an Infantry regiment. That is not the right way to look at it. The only way to look correctly at naval pay is by responsibility. But I understand that the Admiralty, in the arrangements of naval officers' pay, have considered the matter of age. That is not the Nr ay to look at it at all. Responsibility is the true measure.
      The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is the question of Income Tax. It will be remembered that in the Halsey Report the pay of the officers was put as the bedrock amount, and including Income Tax at the service rate. I understand that before the next Estimates are produced the Admiralty will be considering whether service rate Income Tax is to be charged or the full civilian rate. I urge them to adhere to the service rate. I have moved the reduction of this Vote, and I may say quite frankly that, on this question of policy, and in order to draw attention to the necessity for an immediate statement as to it, I purpose going to a Division.
      Major-General SEELY: I will not follow the gallant Admiral into the detailed question of how far what. he terms amateurs can efficiently perform the duties of airmen attached to the Fleet, for the very good reason that, sitting by my side is the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who did perform exactly those services, And performed them with such distinction that he received the most coveted decoration from his Sovereign. But I think everyone in the
      1402
      House conversant with the subject with agree with the gallant Admiral as to the enormous importance of the Air, and all it can do for the efficient conduct of the Fleet. I suppose it would be impossible to exaggerate the effect that development in the air might have on the future of the Navy. Men like Lord Fisher and Sir Percy Scott, who have been referred to in this Debate, take the extreme view that all surface ships have become obsolete owing to the possibilities of attack in the air, and certainly it is the case that the experiment to which the gallant Admiral referred, which took place a short time ago, did show that a great advance had been made in the possibility of destruction of surface craft from the air. Such knowledge as I obtained when at the Air Ministry convinced me that development along those lines had extraordinary promise, and might have the most astonishing results. I know full well that the First Lord shares these views as to the possibilities of the air, for, indeed, he has stated it publicly, but he will allow me to say that within the Admiralty there are a great many people who, though they are devoted public servants, are of a conservative character so intense that it is almost impossible to move them. Many years ago—I think about fifteen years ago—in this House I ventured to draw attention to the number of occasions on which the Admiralty had refused to adopt new inventions. There were six great occasions when the Board of Admiralty, or at any rate the Service members of it, deliberately decided to reject a new invention which many years afterwards they were bound to accept, and in the interval, of course, there was great waste of money, and, had we gone to war, there would have been great waste of life.
      At the present moment nothing like the advantage that might be taken of the possibilities in the air is being taken by the Board of Admiralty. On that I agree entirely with the gallant Admiral, although I differ from his conclusion with regard to a separate Air Service. But it is unnecessary to follow him on that point, not only because it would not, perhaps, be the proper moment to discuss it now, but also because in another place the most emphatic declaration was made by the Lord Chancellor a moment ago that there is to be definitely, so long as this present Government exists, a separate Air Force and a separate Air Ministry. We come to this, therefore, that when the

      1403
      right hon. Gentleman has overcome the conservative nature of some of his advisers, which is inherent in the Admiralty, then, in order to get these instruments which may completely alter the whole framing of his Estimates, and completely alter the fate of this country in the event of war, he must go to the Air Ministry. Now, the First Lord told us, I think, that it is now thirty years since he first went into a public office. of course, cannot claim anything like that length of service; but it is twelve years nearly since I first went into office, and I have served in four offices, and I know, therefore, how Government Departments work. There is never enough money or time for the many things one has to do, and therefore, this kind of problem must, and will, arise, and is no doubt arising now. The Army want aeroplanes for the defence of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks it vitally important that he should obtain seaplanes or aeroplanes of a particular type which may completely alter the whole dispositions of the Fleet. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very definite question. What does he do now? He must apply to the Air Ministry; in other words, he must apply to the Air Minister. He goes to him and he says, "I want you to turn your best brains, and as much money as you can spare out of your total, to the development of the naval side, for I believe that the safety of the State depends upon it." Whom does he find when he walks into that office? To whom does he really appeal? Be appeals to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee says, "I am not in a position to give you these things which you so vitally require for the safety of the Fleet and its efficient conduct." "Why?" asks the right hon. Gentleman. "Because I consider they are required for the Army," is the reply. "And why do you so consider?" "Because I interviewed myself five minutes ago, and so I decided." That is really opera bouffe; it is not Government. The right hon. Gentleman has never said it td me directly, but I am sure he must know it full well. It is not fair to either of the Services, and, above all, it is not fair to the Admiralty. It is gambling with the safety of the State when you have a Service dependent, as I think we all agree here, in an ever greater and greater degree, on the de-
      1404
      velopment in the air, to have that air development thwarted by the chief competitor masquerading as the Secretary of State. The definite question I have to ask my right lion. Friend opposite is, what defence he, as the First Lord of the Admiralty, can make for such a position? What is he going to do when he finds himself in that position? How long is he going to stand such an arrangement?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we are getting into the question of the Air Service. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we are in Committee of Supply, and it mould be quite out of order for any hon. Member to reply to the right hon. Gentleman by defending a separate Air Service. Therefore, I cannot allow a discussion on the question of a separate Service.
      Major-General SEELY: With deep respect, I bow to your ruling at once. I am not in the least quarrelling with the state of affairs. I am not raising the question whether there ought or ought not to be a separate Air Service in any degree whatever. That has been settled by Act of Parliament, as we know. But it has been truly observed, and I interposed to emphasise, assuming that there must be a. separate Air Service and a separate Ministry, the question comes, How is the Admiralty to ensure getting its due supply of air effort which it must have to make an efficient Fleet? That was my point. I fear I did not make it sufficiently clear. I think, Sir, you will agree that that aspect of it is very germane to our discussion, because the general discussion is concerned with the efficiency of the Fleet. What I claim is that you cannot have an efficient Fleet without an adequate Air Service. The question I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is, How does he suppose he can get an efficient Air Service for the Navy unless he can appeal to an impartial man, and not a man who must have the interests of competing Services at heart? The Services are distinct by Act of Parliament. The Secretaryships of State are united in one man. This is, of course, strictly legal, and in accordance with the Constitution, but the claim I make, to put it colloquially, is that it is gambling with the safety of the State and with the lives of men. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. who, I know, takes a keen interest in the air and who has a vision of its possibilities which I wish all others had, but I appeal to him to

      1405
      tell us quite frankly how soon he will put an end to a system which must have so evil an influence upon the future of the great Service for which he is responsible?
      Commander Viscount CURZON: May I congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the remark which he made in the opening of his speech, that he welcomed criticism? Any criticism which I may have to offer I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman is only offered with the idea of endeavouring to help the very best interests of the Navy, which alone I have at heart, in common, I am sure, with all other Members of Parliament. I was delighted to hear the last remarks of the First Lord on the distinguished officer who is commanding our naval forces in the Baltic. I personally have the very great pleasure and honour of his acquaintance. I know him, and know the esteem in which he is held by the entire Service. They hold he is one of the finest fighting officers that the Navy has produced, with the finest possible spirit, in the whole of the War. I also would like to congratulate the First Lord upon the fact that Lord Beatty has accepted the position of the Chief of the Naval Staff. I regard it as a most courageous act on the part of Lord Beatty, for it is an office which must be thankless to-day more than ever before, because of the naval reductions that are the talk of the day. Everyone is wondering how much money can be saved upon all the great spending services, of which the Navy is one. Lord Beatty must inevitably share any odium which may be incurred by anybody making these large reductions.
      However, I would like to come to the main purport of what I have to say upon Vote 1. First of all, I would speak in regard to the question of policy. I was very disappointed with what the First Lord was able to tell the Committee. At a recent date I was with the Atlantic Fleet. I had an opportunity of talking with officers and men in a great many ships and different classes of ships right throughout that Fleet. There was one thing which all the officers impressed upon me above everything else. That was that what was urgently needed from the point of view of the Navy was some declaration of naval policy which would enable officers and men to have some sort of idea of what is likely to happen to them in the future. The officers, for instance, are uneasy, for rumours are going through all grades and through all warrants as to how many of
      1406
      these officers, of various ranks and branches of the Service, are going to be, as the First Lord said, on the beach.
      With the men very much the same sort of uneasiness exists. I do not like to call it unrest, though I have heard it called by that name. I do not like to think there is unrest in the Navy. All the younger seamen want to know whether at the conclusion of their first period of twelve years they will be allowed to re-engage for a further period of twelve years. This is a question which, I hope, the First Lord will be able to answer in the course of his reply. I very much hope he will be able to give somewhat better indication, to both officers and men, what their future is likely to be under the reductions which have no doubt to be faced in connection with the Navy. Reductions, it is realised, have to be made. I think at a time like this, when it is so very difficult for men to get employment, when everybody, officers and men, as they are demobilised from the Army have to wait months and months before getting a job, it is essential at the very earliest possible moment to let officers and men of the Navy know that they have got to go—if they have to go—in order that they may make their own arrangements and endeavour to secure the means of livelihood in the future.
      We have seen in the newspapers criticisms by Lord Fisher and Sir Percy Scott. They have been even referred to in the course of this discussion. The principle that appears to animate Lord Fisher is that of "sacking the lot." I do most earnestly ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in face of these criticisms coming from this distinguished man, and receiving the publicity which they do, it does not draw attention to the fact that it is absolutely essential to make a declaration of naval policy as soon as possible? The, state of affairs at present is that these criticisms are being made, and they are not being answered, The country knows Lord Fisher and Sir Percy Scott as two most eminent sailors, and pays very great attention to what they say. The country at large does not know the Navy as do those who have been perhaps more intimately acquainted with it; and I do suggest it is advisable from the point of view of the Admiralty that they should be prepared with their proposals and policy at the very earliest moment, in order that false conclusions should not he arrived at by the people of this country in view

      1407
      of the rather light-hearted criticism—if I may say so—which has been passed by -these two distinguished officers.
      There is one other point which was referred to in a general way by the First Lard in his opening. I hope I shall be in order if I refer to it. That is the question of staff. There is one thing which we have to learn as a result of the War. That is that in various stages in the operations of the War there was no sufficient co-operation between these various services. There is the classic example of that in the Dardanelles operations. I saw something of those operations. I saw things that happened. I hope, at any rate, we shall never have to face a similar situation in the future. I am firmly convinced we never shall do so if we have a real and proper thinking Department which is rather, if I may put it so, outside the Admiralty, which is a more complete liaison with the other great fighting Services. Great naval reductions have to be made. There is the whole question of naval policy to be decided. All questions must come under review. Would it not be wise in respect to all these questions which come under review to rope in the representatives of our great Dominions and of the fighting Services, and let them put their heads together and thrash out schemes of national defence, put them on a really sound basis, at any rate, if they are definitely deciding upon great arrangements which must be carried out. The principle has almost been admitted by the Admiralty this year, when it became necessary to advise our great Dominions in reference to their naval defence.
      Lord Jellicoe was selected to go around the world. He went in a capital ship, in a most expensive ship. I do not know what the trip must have cost. It must have cost a considerable amount in coal alone. Lord Jellicoe went to advise our great Dominions on questions of naval defence. He apparently drew up a Report on his visit to Australia. I have addressed several questions to the Admiralty in relation to that Report. So far I have not been able to get very much of an answer, because, I dare say, an answer could not be given owing to the necessarily insufficient consideration so far given to the matter. At the same time the Report did say that Australia or ourselves should provide a squadron of eight battleships and eight battle-cruisers for service on the
      1408
      Pacific station. I should like to know what these sixteen ships are intended for If they are intended to fight the two greatest Powers in the Pacific the number is insufficient. If they are not intended so to fight, what other Powers are they meant to provide against? I suggest that this is only one instance where we could have with advantage a proper thinking Department, representative of all the great Dominions and the great Services here at home, centralised in at the heart of the Empire, to think out these great problems and co-ordinate the work of dealing with them.
      The Air Services are what I would next deal with. I feel some considerable difficulty in alluding to this matter at all, but I should like to say this much, that I do know there is a great deal of anxiety about it on the part of the Navy. I have had the opportunity of getting to know something about the matter, and it has been put to me that it is obviously very difficult for the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet to have to communicate at one and the same time with both the Admiralty and the Air Ministry upon various subjects connected, say, with the aviation services of the Atlantic Fleet. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is rather a difficult situation, and one which does not entirely make for efficiency. Vote 1 is concerned with the pay and wages of officers and seamen, boys, coastguards, and so on. In regard to the question of officers, I really would like to draw attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position that exists to-day. I have here some figures which compare the pay of the Naval officer and the Army officer. Just after the second Vote on Account was taken this year the new scale for Naval officers was brought. up, and the Vote on Account for the Army officers, and I was astonished that the Army scale, instead of being the same as the Navy or equivalent to it, was astonishingly higher. I will give two instances. A lieutenant of under four years' seniority in the Navy gets £310. His corresponding rank in the Army is a captain with £429.
      Mr. LONG: That is really a most misleading comparison, because the Noble Lord has omitted to mention that the basis in the case of the Navy is age and in the case of the Army it is rank. He is comparing a lientenant with four years' service with a captain in the Army, and he knows quite well the difference in age.

      1409
      It is quite a different question. If you consider age and fitness, the standard is a great deal higher in the Navy.
      Viscount CURZON: I am afraid I must entirely differ from the right hon. Gentle-man's reply. A lieutenant of six years' seniority may find himself officer of the watch in a battleship, and he has a responsibility which almost attaches to a brigade commander in the Army. An officer with six years' seniority may find himself officer of the watch on a ship costing £6,000,000, and his equivalent is captain in the Army with fifteen years' seniority, and the latter gets £119 more than the officer in the Navy. Opinion in the Navy is that the scales of pay should be fixed according to responsibility and rank, rather than paying all this great deference to age. I do not think the Navy under- stands why age should have been taken as the basis. Take a commander in the Navy, who receives £730; he is an officer of nearly thirty years of age. The equivalent position in the Army is that of lieutenant-colonel, and his annual pay is £867, in addition to which he gets a married officer's allowance of That brings the total up to £1,022, and therefore he gets £292 more than an officer holding an equivalent position in the Navy. That is not understood in the Navy, and I hope the right hon. Gentle-man will bear that in mind when he replies.
      This Vote also refers to the Women's Royal Naval Service. I put a question to-day on this subject. We were told on the last occasion when the second Vote of Credit was produced that the Women's Royal Naval Service was going to be demobilised completely by 31st October. The answer I got to-day on this subject was that 632 ratings had been re-entered on a civilian basis, sixty-eight had been discharged, and the number still serving is 564. I think it was hardly fair to tell the House that the Women's Royal Naval Service was going to be demobilised on 31st October if it is a fact that we still have 564 women who belong to it still discharging those duties under another name. This fact has become widely known on the lower deck, and has aroused a great deal of unrest and ill-feeling, because the men feel that ex-Service men are being kept out of the ships, and, therefore, I hope when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will address himself to this question, and explain why the undertaking
      1410
      which he gave that they would be demobilised by 31st October has not been carried out.
      I would like to refer to one or two remarks which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). With regard to the building of the "Hood," the right hon. Gentleman took great exception to the capital cost of this ship. I think we are in danger of losing our perspective in these matters. We must remember that money to-day does not buy what it did before the War, and to get a proper idea of the value of the "Hood," you ought to subtract 50 per cent, from it to get the value in pre-war figures. I know it is an immense sum, but still it gives you a better idea of what the ship actually costs, A great many people have questioned the wisdom of the Admiralty going in for the construction of such an enormous fighting machine, but I think, when the lessons of the War are studied, they will show that the menace of the submarine may very easily be exaggerated. During the War the Grand Fleet was able to move about the North Sea with comparative freedom, and was seldom subjected to attacks by submarines. Only on two occasions do I remember the Fleet, and I was in it for some considerable period, being in any way in contact with enemy submarines. With the progress of invention and the high speed of our ships and destroyers they have great protection. Therefore the menace to a big ship is not so great as many people seem to think.
      Another point I wish to mention is with regard to the naval history of the War. I hope we shall really have an authentic account of all the various naval actions which took place during the War. I gather that such an account is in course of compilation, and I hope it will give the information in detail, and include all the incidents of the War, that it will not hush up things or whitewash people, and that it will be a comprehensive and accurate account of everything that took place. Such a history would be of the greatest value, and would allay all future criticisms as to the movements which took place. I will conclude by asking the First Lord to go into this question of naval officers' pay. I know the opinion in the Navy about it, and I know it is an opinion which does not make for the good of the Service, but it makes for unrest, and I hate to see that in the Navy. I hope the First Lord will satisfy the naval officers on this point in the course of his reply.
      Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG:I listened with admiration to the eloquence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I listened also without conviction even through the most eloquent passages. I felt a sense of disappointment and a sense of the emptiness of the discussion in being left to the extent we were left without any more frank avowal as to the general tendency of the naval policy of the country. I urge most strongly that it is both possible and desirable that at the present time we should have a more uniform and intelligible lead in this matter than we have had. Nobody is so foolish as to expect from the Admiralty or the First Lord a full detailed programme or a scientific forecast as to what the future of the Navy is to be, but on the other hand I think it is possible at the present time that we might be given a finger post pointing out the general direction of the course of our path for the future.
      Before the War we always knew what the policy was because we had the power standard. Let me put it in this way: Is our naval policy of the future to be governed by a power standard, and if so, by how many powers? [An HON. MEMBER: "And which?"] I should not think of asking which? I contend now that it is possible to give us something in the way of information showing the general direction of naval policy though not a specialised programme. I contend also that that is most desirable because you cannot defend expenditure for which you cannot account. At the present time there is a vigorous and violent agitation throughout the country on behalf of economy, and it is beginning, as anybody can see who watches the course of opinion among the people, to point itself most dangerously towards the Navy. We are hearing a growing clamour for a cutting down of the expenditure of the Navy, and why? It is because people are not told for what purpose money is being spent in the general direction of naval policy. You cannot defend expenditure which you cannot fully explain the purpose of to the people. I am one of those who think that nothing is more vitally important than that there should be an adequate and full maintenance of the naval defences of the country, and I view with apprehension a condition in which the expenditure for this purpose is left open to attack owing to the country being left in ignorance as to the general course of our naval policy.
      Let me pass from those general consideration to a matter which some of us
      1412
      who have had experience in the Navy have come to regard as a matter of vital importance. I may say I listened with a sense of disappointment to the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the programme for the establishment of a scientific centre in London. Certainly we have come to think that if there is anything amiss in the general organisation, training, and intellectual life of the Navy it is owing to the lack of a fully-equipped and active central scientific establishment. No experience is more curious than that of the newcomer into the Navy who is in search of such an establishment and finds none. I thought, in early days, it might be somewhere at Devonport, or Plymouth, or Chatham, but in the long run I failed to discover it. During the War the need of it was emphasised, because here and there, in sheds and railway trucks, this work had to be carried on by ardent patriotic Inca of science brought in from the outside, assisted later on by highly accomplished naval officers. But that was not at all satisfactory. There was no adequate supply of highly-trained naval officers in the more advanced branches, and the lack of them was very much felt at the beginning of the War, when the need for more scientific instruments was so marked. We had to fall back for that work on employés of private firms, and although officers from the Services, with a high spirit of patriotism, gave their aid, it was by no means a satisfactory state of affairs. Scientific research is the very heart of the modern Navy, and one cannot. emphasise too strongly the urgent importance that the Navy should be provided with an adequate central scientific establishment. I would like to know what is the Committee to which the First Lord referred. Is it an advisory Committee?
      Mr. LONG: What Committee?
      Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The Committee to advise on scientific subjects.
      Mr. LONG: It is a Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to examine what work is being done for scientific invention, both for the Admiralty and for his own Department, and to see whether it is done efficiently and in the right direction, and that there is no overlapping between the Science Department and our own Scientific Department.
      Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Then I fear it is rather less in the direction than some

      1413
      of us were hoping; it is not to consider the centralised development of these matters.
      Mr. LONG: I thought I had made it clear that it is to examine into our existing arrangements, which is one of the things that is wanted. At present they are distributed in different places, and we want them concentrated. We want that the work done for the Navy, either in the way of scientific development or research, shall be work peculiar to the Navy. We do not want it done elsewhere. We do not want the two Departments both doing the same work.
      Lieut. - Commander YOUNG: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making perfectly clear what is the scope and intention of the inquiry which, I venture to suggest, is certainly in the right direction. I trust the labours of the Committee will come to a speedy and successful conclusion.
      Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: Instructive as the Debate has proved, it seems to me there is a proper muddle between the Air Force on the one side and the War Office and the Admiralty on the other, and I do not see any way out of it with our present methods. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say a few minutes ago that he advocated the formation of a Joint General Staff. I think that would remedy much of what we complain if only he has the courage to press for it. I hunted through the Estimate papers to see if I could get any idea as to the line of the new naval policy. I could find none at all. To be complete, to my mind, naval policy must be in close relation to land and air policy. They are all bound up in the greater policy of defence. The only indication in the papers which have been circulated were the references to Lord Jellicoe's visit to the Dominions, which, to my mind, is an extremely expensive, inadequate, and inefficient plan of carrying out any method of co-ordination. I see that a considerable sum is to be expended on the Air Service. But why confine that expenditure to the Air Force? There are a few lines in the papers on the development of the naval staff, but I should have been glad to have seen pages on that particular subject.
      I am of opinion that our first duty is to ascertain what our Imperial responsibilities are, and then to see that we get the most economical and efficient manner of meeting those responsibilities. At
      1414
      the, present moment I cannot see that we have any machinery for doing that. Everybody in this House during the last few months has been saying that it is necessary to cut our expenditure down within the limits of our revenue, and that nothing will stabilise—prices, wages, or the housing problem—until that is done. I do not see, however, how you are going to do it in a satisfactory way unless you regulate the expenditure of the three great spending Departments—the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry. Nothing will be satisfactory until those are regulated in a sane, co-ordinated manner as a whole. Naval policy is only part of the policy of defence, and the Admiralty must take this into account. At the present moment it seems to me we are carrying on in all three Departments in exactly the same slipshod way as before the War, a way which led to the inevitable consequences in the Dardanelles. In these newer times we want new machinery, and it will soon be too late to put it up. Everything is in the melting-pot just now, and if we are to have new machinery let us have it without a moment's delay.
      Everybody must recognise that our responsibilities just now are extremely great. Owing to the mandatory powers conferred upon us, our Empire is greater than ever, consequently there is danger at every point. There is a big imperial problem which has to be dealt not by the Navy alone, but also by the Army and the Air Force. We have to defend our trade routes and our coaling stations, and that is a duty not only for the Navy but also for the Army. The questions of the development of the services in the air, on and under the sea, and on the land are all combined, and the steps taken need to be, carefully controlled and directed Looking at it from another point of view, its Imperial aspect, it is essential that our Imperial bonds should be strengthened. We know that they may be strengthened either by patriotic or by sordid means, but defence bonds are what are needed. What we want is to improve the links in our defensive system, and if we have antiquated and slipshod methods for this it will be most reprehensible after our experiences in the Great War. We ought to take immediate advantage of those experiences to see that our defensive links everywhere are strengthened in every possible way.

      1415
      I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the only satisfactory method of doing this does not depend on him alone. I know it is a question which affects the Admiralty to a very great degree, but it is a question for a Joint Imperial General Staff. It is, in fact, the normal development of the Esher Committee, and I would like to read out to hon. Members what Lord Esher writes on this point:
      "I can assure you there is no conflict between this conception and that upon which the Esher committee based its policy in 1904. It is a perfectly simple evolution of a principle then laid down, which has worked with remarkable success in the War, but in the light of that War's experience requires to be further developed."
      The exception there referred to is the conception of a Joint Imperial General Staff as stated in my Resolution passed unanimously by the Army Committee. That is the idea with which Lord Esher originally started. It is clearly a development of the Committee of Imperial Defence. This committee never did function in any satisfactory way before the War, because it had not the chief military, naval and air experts always upon it. There is nothing new about this Joint Imperial General Staff. The idea was originated in 1907 at the Imperial Conference, and this is the normal and natural development. There has been some misconceptions about the committee, and I should like to point out what those misconceptions are. There was the misconception that the Committee of Imperial Defence was sufficient. It is not sufficient in any sort of way unless it has experts as permanent members. Secondly, it was suggested that it entailed a Defence Ministry. But it did nothing of the kind. The Joint Imperial General Staff can be established without establishing a Defence Ministry. There is also the idea that the Navy will be swamped. That is absurd, because the Navy will be adequately represented on it and will form an important part of it. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in pressing for this Joint Imperial General Staff to be formed at the earliest possible moment. I do not understand the situation at present. I believe the Secretary of War is in favour of some such staff, and we have had it from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he himself is in favour of it, The Air Minister resigned owing to the unsatisfactory conditions as regards the Air Ministry. Who then is it that is against it? It is some unseen force. Is it
      1416
      the Prime Minister? Is it the Labour party? I do not know, but I do trust that the difficulty will be got over as early as possible. Before the War our defensive task was clear. It was perfectly simple and clear to those who chose to use their eyes. But that task is not clear now. Each Service will tend to work in divergent directions, and I appeal for unity of thought between the three Services in carrying out a clearly defined policy.
      7.0 P.M.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not propose to detain the Committee more than a few minutes, but I want to take this occasion now that the Navy Estimates are before us to repeat once again the expression as far as I am able of the deep appreciation of those who sit in this House of the work of the Royal Navy and of the loyal manner in which it was carried out. These words, I know, come nowhere near the real meed of praise these men should receive. There is just one particular in the statement of the First Lord to which I want to draw attention, and it is the line "killed in action 22,207, wounded 4,877." Those figures tell their own tale. Thor proportion of killed to wounded discloses the risks which every man fully knew when he took his great and noble part in the War which has just been concluded. I must confess some disappointment at the statement of my right hon. Friend in so far as it lacks any disclosure of anything approaching a definite policy on the part of His Majesty's Government in relation to the future and the duty of the Navy in its world-wide task. The War has been over now about thirteen months, and, while making every allowance for the difference in cost—I think my right hon. Friend was well within the limit, and in fact almost too modest, when he said that the cost was twice as much; probably it will be considerably more than twice—and while making every deduction which my right hon. Friend has indicated in his speech and in his statement, we are still spending many millions more than this country was spending at the outbreak of the War, when our Navy was never in the whole of its history at greater strength or in a state of greater preparedness for whatever might befall the nation. At that moment we had Germany and all her allies confronting us. What is the position to-day? Germany has gone as a naval and, indeed, substantially as a military power. Austria has disappeared. Russia is in a state of internal chaos, and cannot for years to come produce anything approaching an

      1417
      effective Navy. A very powerful and important part of her Navy is at the bottom of the sea. What have we to fear from Turkey from the military point of view?
      Captain ORMSBY - GORE: Only the Navy can keep the Straits open.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I am quite sure that nay hon. and gallant Friend gives me credit for wanting the British Navy to be kept in being, and to be kept in effective being. That is the very basis of my position, as my right hon. Friend opposite knows. I have never let go of that. Does France threaten us? Does Italy threaten us? Do the United States threaten us? Where in the whole wide range of the world is there anyone who is a serious threat to us from a naval point of view? There is no one. That being the case beyond any real doubt, I invite the attention of the Committee to one of the tables which gives the revision of the shipbuilding programme, and especially to the two last columns setting out the ships completed on 31st October this year, and the ships still to be completed. Taking those completed on 31st October and those still to be completed, there are seventeen light Cruisers, one battle cruiser, seven flotilla leaders, fifty-seven destroyers, forty submarines, two aircraft carriers, twenty-five patrol gunboats, forty-four trawlers, thirty-three drifters, and twenty-eight boom defence vessels—I should like to know what is the necessity for still building boom defence vessels, when thirty-one were completed at the end of October—fifty-six tugs, and seven mooring vessels. I have left out one or two figures which bring up the total to 394 vessels of one kind and another completed on 31st October, and still to be completed. What is the case for them? No doubt my right hon. Friend will give some reply. I am sure he will admit that it is a proper question to ask in view of the complete disappearance for some years to come of any serious naval opposition in the world. I am, of course, excluding the possibility of a contest with America, as I think I am entitled to do. It is a serious question, and I must press upon my right hon. Friend to state, if he can in reply, or some time or other, what is the policy which His Majesty's Government are going to enunciate in view of the position which I have stated. Mr. Gladstone often reminded the country and this House that the real source of economy in the end could only be found by dealing with very close care with our defensive forces. We
      1418
      know that the Army, the Navy, and Air Forces constitute and must constitute—they certainly did in the past, though we hope that the position may be different in the future—the main sources or causes of our great national expenditure, and these are the occasions upon which the House, if it really means economy, should exercise the greatest watchfulness and care over the Estimates which are laid before it by the executive representing the Government for the time being.
      Of course, it is quite common form to say that we regret the absence of a large number of Members from the House when these important questions are being discussed. When I was acting as your junior in the Chair, it was always a marked feature—except when some personal question arose, and then, of course, the House was full—when we were dealing with large questions of policy. My right hon. Friend, whose Parliamentary experience has been very long and honourable, will agree with me that policy is framed in Committee of Supply. Our business is to check the Estimates and, as far as possible, get to know from the Government what is their policy, comment upon it, and, if we can, shape it according to the views of the majority of the Committee or the House. It is the most important function of Parliament. So far as my experience qualifies me to express an opinion. I say deliberately that the care and control of the administration of the Government is more important than the legislative side of our work. We have all the cries of party and prejudice affecting most matters of legislation. Administration is the thing, and here, of course, we have the usual appearance of the House of Commons when its most important function is to be discharged. It happens under every Government. I do not blame this Government any more than another. I wonder whether it is possible, in view of the seriousness of the situation, to awaken the House to its real function of criticising with all needed severity but with justice the methods of the expenditure of the nation's revenue!
      I want to make one suggestion to my right hon. Friend on this method of checking expenditure. I have not been able to give as much attention to this very interesting and lucid Memorandum with which Members have been favoured as I should have liked, but it shows the enormous figures which have been expended on the Navy since 1915 down to 1919, and it

      1419
      goes on to say that even these enormous figures do not indicate fully the steep curve at the height of which we stood in November, 1918. The weekly rate of expenditure on the Navy at the time of the Armistice was actually about £6,750,000, or at the rate of more than £350,000,000 a year. We all agree that it is our duty to watch these Estimates and this expenditure, and, in order to give the House an opportunity of seeing how far this reduction in expenditure to which my right hon. Friend has pledged himself is progressing, I suggest that there should be furnished to the House of Commons at least once a month a statement showing what is the average weekly expenditure on the Navy until such time as the new Estimates are made and we have an opportunity of knowing what is the future policy of the Government in regard to the Navy. That is a practical suggestion.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. macnamara): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, on a moment's consideration, that in some particular months for which we might have to submit that statement we should be liquidating liabilities incurred previously, so that that month's expenditure might really have no relation to the maintenance charged for.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: That would not satisfy a business man who wanted to know how a concern in which he was deeply interested was going on in regard to reducing expenditure.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what the right lion. Gentleman asked for.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I know. I mean that the reply of my right hon. Friend would not satisfy a business man, because in any particular week or month in which that occurred the fact might be stated. It is perfectly easy to say that in this or that particular week or month a certain thing has been done, which to some extent takes away from the accuracy of the figures which might have been furnished on a previous occasion, or which it was hoped would be furnished on a future occasion. It is the general tendency which the House ought to watch and to be informed of. Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said. I would again urge him to consider it, and see whether it is practical. I am sure that an account could be rendered in that way, with a reservation indicating the actual
      1420
      liability. Such a return would enable those Members of the House who are interested to check it as far as they can, and I am certain that it would strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend in keeping a guard over his Department.
      Mr. WILKIE: In the first place. I should like to say how pleased I was to hear the statement of the First Lord in praise of the men of the Navy. After all, it is the men behind the guns who matter. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told us more than once that we cannot pay in money What those men have done for us. To-day the discussion has been almost wholly from representatives of the quarter-deck. I should like to take it clown to the lower deck and the shipyard on the question of general policy. Members of the Government have for some considerable time-been urging upon the workers the necessity for increased production, but, surely, by paying off men from their own establishments they are not securing increased production. The unemployment benefit has just been ended, arousing strong resentment in a great many people. The Government have more than once promised to make an effort to provide employment for the workers, and thereby increase production. Of course, we may be told that they are endeavouring to reduce expenditure, but I think a better method would have been, instead of paying unemployment benefit, to take measures to provide employment, and I want to show how that could be done in their own dockyards. I have always thought that we needed an efficient Navy—not necessarily a larger Navy afloat, but an efficient one—and, apparently, from the present trend of the world, we require that just as much as ever. If some vessels are built and not utilised as they might be, that, nevertheless, is an insurance of the life of the nation. On the 20th May last I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the number of auxiliary vessels, such as colliers, oil tankers, troopships, store vessels, and also trawlers and drifters used as mine-sweepers and patrol boats, which were required to attend on the wants of the ships of the Navy during the War. The reply was as follows:
      "At the date of the Armistice, 11th November, 1918, the number of the principal auxiliary Vessels which attended on the wants of the ships of the Navy was 4,274. No troopships attended regularly on the Navy, but occasionally parties of naval ratings were conveyed to, naval bases in troopships."

      1421
      Here are 4,274 auxiliary ships. Some members of the Government tell us that they do not want to compete with private enterprise. Here at their hand are all the vessels necessary for the Navy, and they could build them, as they build their warships, in the dockyards of the country. They could do that without coming into conflict with the private builder. On the same date I asked another question of the Prime Minister, as follows:
      "Whether, in view of the number of vessels other than warships, required to attend on the ships of the Navy during the War, and the apparent necessity for the safety of the country to still maintain an efficient fleet, and in view of the sums expended on the national shipyards and the views of the trade union representatives of the National. Industrial Conference of the 27th February last in favour of the development of national resources under publicownership, he will consider the advisability of the Government retaining these yards for the purpose at least of constructing these auxiliary vessels required, and which need not compete with the ordinary yards, seeing that in the case of trawlers and drifters in ordinary times they could be utilised to reap the harvest of the seas and the fish so caught used to supply the needs of the men of the Navy and Army?"
      That, again, would not involve any conflict with private enterprise. The reply that I received from the Leader of the House was as follows:
      "All the points raised in the question were carefully considered by the Government, and we are not prepared to re-open the question."
      I understand that there have been several deputations from dockyards where the men are being paid off. I am not in favour of useless expenditure, but I do say that this expenditure will give us a return, whereas from the unemployment benefit we got no return whatever. We have been told that the outside demand is pretty well supplied for the time being, and therefore we view with dismay the discharge of these men from our dockyards in the South of England. A great many of them are getting on in years, and cannot leave their homes and their families and go to other places where employment might be found for them. I understand, from a reply which the right hon. Gentleman made to a question, that those discharges are now being suspended, and that other work is being speeded up. To my mind, and to the mind of the workers, that is a much better way of meeting the present difficulty than merely paying a dole. That is a point which I Should like to press upon the Admiralty. We have heard a great deal about general policy, but this is just as valuable to the nation
      1422
      as the general policy as to whether we shall have airships, submarines, or surface ships. We have no doubt that the experts of the Admiralty will see all that properly carried out.
      The other day I asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Fair-Wages Resolution is applicable to Government Departments, and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to apply it to the Royal dockyards by differentiating between wages paid on new and repair work, as is done by private employers? His answer was:
      "The Resolution referred to is still applicable. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the question of wages of mechanics in His Majesty's dockyards has recently been the subject of arbitration, on the application of the various societies, and that the claimants, in putting their cases, both to the Admiralty and to the Court of Arbitration, gave due prominence to the differences between the rates for repair work and for new work commonly obtaining for shipyard trades in commercial ports. The advance of 2s.per week awarded by the Court of Arbitration applies equally to men on new work and on repair work, and leaves the rates equal, as they always have been, in His Majesty's dockyards."
      The repair rate on the Tyne is £4 7s. 6d. per week, on the Mersey £4 12s., on the Thames £4 18s., and on the Clyde much about the same as on the Tyne. The dockyard repair rate is only £4 3s. 9d. Our members, after all these years of free education, can read this and digest it, and you can quite understand that there is considerable dissatisfaction. Further, in His Majesty's dockyards you have heard a lot about oil being used instead of coal. There have been deputations about that dirty and dangerous work, We have had a lot of men killed by explosions in the tanks. All the outside firms pay extra money. We are not raising this because we are antagonistic to the Government dockyards, but the men's clothes get dirty every time they go to the tanks, and ought to be burnt, and it is not safe to go near a fire. The right hon. Gentleman is always ready to meet us when we approach him. He has always been courteous. We did not get the substance of our demands, but it is something to have been met and to have them fairly considered.
      Another point I should like to raise is with regard to the dockyard workers' pensions. A great many of them who were on pension came back at the call of the Admiralty and went into the yard and started work when there was so much re-

      1423
      quired. We ourselves, at considerable expense, sent two or three thousand of our members from the private yards to help the Admiralty at the beginning of the War, and these men have a grievance in so far as their pensions were stopped, and when they were coming out the prewar rate was paid to them for their pensions and not the regular rate that they had been receiving, and they thought, having done so much for the country, that they ought to have received better treatment from the Admiralty, who admitted the valuable service they had rendered. I urge the right hon. Gentleman further, to consider these points with a view of carrying out Ins promise to make the Admiralty a model employer.
      Major Sir B. FALLE: A few weeks ago I put a question to the Financial Secretary as to the relative pay of the different ranks in the Army and in the Navy. I gave him certain figures and he said he was of opinion that they were misleading. He forwarded me four tables which explained very fully the difference in the pay of the two services I have been through them a good many times and they are very complicated. In urging the claims of the Navy I in no way wish to assert that the Army should be less well paid than it is, but the Navy pay should be placed at least on the same level as the Army pay. It is a dirty bird that fouls its own nest, and, as I served in the Army, it would very ill-become me to endeavour to run down the pay of the force. The statement made by my Noble Friend opposite is absolutely accurate. Note B, on the pay of the ranks, gives rather an amusing instance. It is the question of the Army ration. The Army ration is 2s. 1d.daily. The Navy victualling allowance is only is. 2½d. When the Admiralty is asked to explain that difference a private secretary or someone gets out the answer that the reason for the difference between the 2s. 1d. and the 1s. 2½d. is that the naval officer's allowance is for bread and meat only at Government prices and he can purchase many other commodities, and the two allowances are therefore considered as practically equal. I have gone into that, and the great difference is that the Navy officer can buy tea and soft sugar, and some people say even tinned rabbit, for his deficiency of 10½d. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I find that the men's savings are almost invariably taken in cash rather than in kind, and
      1424
      that is a complete answer to the statement that the two allowances are practically equal. They are in no way equal.
      One advantage that the married Army officer gets when his family is prevented from living with him is that, in addition to being provided with rations, food, lodging and light, he receives, if he is a lieutenant, £116, and if he is a captain, a major, or a lieutenant-colonel, £155, and this applies to all officers except those under thirty years of age and married after April of this year. This allowance is precisely what the naval officers asked for and which the Horsley Commission favourably commented on, namely, a married quarter's allowance to assist them in keeping up the two establishments which about 98 per cent, of the naval officers have to keep up. The Treasury refused the request, but promptly granted it to the Army officers. There must be some reason why they did that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why one man should get £155 a year for married quarters allowance more than his brother in the Navy. Unless the Admiralty promises a married quarters allowance, or tells us that the children's allowance is to be continued after this year, which is mere justice, the case of the Army officer versus the naval officer is fully proved. There is very little doubt that the Navy, in face of this pay sheet, and in face of what we have known during the War, has not been as well treated as the Army. I need not refer to the case of the men pensioners, who for years did not get their pensions paid, and, I believe, but for the very friendly interference of my right hon. Friend, we should not have that yet. No naval officer got his pension and his pay, but every Army officer did. Every single pensioned Army officer received his full pension pay and allowances, and not a single naval officer that I have been able to discover did anything of the kind. On the contrary, he was given 25 per cent. bonus, and that is very inferior to the proper pension. This affected most seriously all those gentlemen who had risen from the ranks and had not large private means.
      It is the more wrong when we consider what we owe to the Navy. Where we should have been without that Navy is a question which no man would care to answer. If we had had the German coast and the German Navy, and the Germans had had our coast and our Navy, where would they be now? Why, where they are—on the mud in Scapa Flow. We owe

      1425
      everything to those officers and men who protected us so gallantly and so wonderfully. It is the custom now to say we were prepared. We were not, but our Navy put up a marvellous fight and saved us. There would be no need for Housing Bills, Pensions Bill, or Home Rule if we had not had our Navy—for we should have lost all. It becomes us to do the most we possibly can for those officers and men who stood between us and absolute destruction, but instead of that we did not pay them their pensions, and we are not going to pay them their pensions. And now when it is a question of pay you are going to put them on a scale of pay which is distinctly inferior to the Army. I do not know that questions of pay entirely move men to join the Navy and the Army, but it must have a very considerable influence on many, and it means that instead of having, as we always have had, a majority of the best men in the Navy, we shall get all those to go into the Army, and the Navy must suffer. I will not say that if we had had that before the War we should not be where we are, but I do not think we should be where we are if we had not had the very best this nation could give in the Navy. The hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) touched upon the question of the dockyards, and said he was afraid that when he had finished he would not have a single friend among the dockyard members. Such is not the case. I am entirely with him, and I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that in future all the naval work would be done in the Royal Dockyards. That agrees with a little plan of my own. My idea has been that the whole of the Navy work of the Empire should be concentrated in one port, and, of course, that port should be Portsmouth. Chatham is provided for; by its situation it could be made a commercial port. Plymouth is in very much the same position. It is by nature a great port of call for both the American and West Indian trade. It could be easily made a great commercial shipyard. It has behind it a splendid hinterland. Portsmouth, which is by nature a wonderful port, and is the premier naval port of the Empire, has on its right hand the great commercial port of Southampton, and it is practically impossible for Portsmouth to compete as a commercial port, because it would be crushed by the vested interests of Southampton. It has no hinterland, but it is a splendid port, and it is a ques-
      1426
      tion of which course is best—three dockyards, all starved for want of naval work, or one naval dockyard doing all naval work and two Royal dockyards doing commercial work. And the one dockyard for the naval work is Portsmouth, which is by nature intended to be a great naval port, and should build all the Navy ships. I would not in any way hurt or damage the other ports. I would not take away a- single naval ship from them without supplying them ton for ton with commercial ships. I believe that could be done, and is going to be clone at Chatham, and therefore it only remains to make such arrangements that there will be sufficient work for one Royal dockyard. This arrangement would be an immense advantage to the Royal Marines, who would be concentrated at Portsmouth, and would not be scattered about in all the other naval dockyards of the country.
      My right hon. Friend the First Lord told us that he had every reason to hope that Lord Colwyn's suggestions would bear fruit. I was very glad to bear that, because, without being pessimistic, I had not that hope. There was one single sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which pleased me more than any other. He was dealing with the men of the dockyards who are now suffering. Many men are now out of work in the dockyard ports, and unless something is done there will be many more men out. There is no work for them, and especially is this the case at Portsmouth, where there is no commercial work of any sort. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "It would be a disgraceful act of ingratitude to dismiss these men if work can possibly be found for them."
      I trust my right hon. Friend will bear these words in mind and that full effect will be given to them.
      Captain HAMILTON BENN: I would like to express my great pleasure in hearing the remarks of the First Lord with regard to the operations in the Baltic and the work of the mine sweepers. I wish he had expressed himself much more clearly on the- question of policy. It is absolutely essential that some expression of policy should be made in the near future, and it does not seem to me that it is at all impossible to make a statement which would allay the unrest which exists in the Navy at the present time. There is great anxiety among both officers and men with regard to the future. The hon. and gal-

      1427
      lant Member for Norwich (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) expressed very well the position, in saying that the Admiralty and the Government should be able to make up their minds as to what standard it is proposed to work upon in the future. The necessity for a statement is all the greater when such authorities as Lord Fisher and Admiral Sir Percy Scott have so freely expressed their views regarding the capital ship. We have also heard speeches or seen references in the papers very much on the lines of the hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) where they begin again to talk about economy, economy, economy in regard to the naval and military forces of this country. If economy had not been the order of the day so frequently in this country the national debt would not have been what it is now. It is the constant cutting down of the essential military forces of the Crown which has at various times led us into war, and never more than in connection with the last great war.
      It would also do something to satisfy the unrest in the fleet if a statement could be made as to the position of the men of the fleet in regard to operations in the Baltic. Are they to get war gratuity for these services or a bonus of 25 per cent. on their pay, such as was given to the Army of Occupation? I have always noticed in regard to Britishers that they are quite content to serve under trying circumstances and for small pay if they think that they are getting "fair do's." That is a familiar naval expression. It is when they know that somebody else is being given better treatment than they are that they feel unrest and are inclined to grouse. On the question of pay I cannot accept the First Lord's view as regards officers. It seems to me quite an anomaly that men of equal rank—for they are admitted to be of equal rank—in the two Services should not be paid a proportionate wage. It seems to me that the great difference between the Army and the Navy is that in the Army the officer gets a marriage allowance of £155. The other advantages are not great. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) pointed out, it is very curious that during the recent War the retired Army officers who were recalled got their full pension and pay, while naval officers did not get it. I always thought that the Navy was the senior Service, and I do not understand why representatives of the senior Service should not get the full pay
      1428
      that is given to those of the junior Service. The question of age does not bear upon the matter, because naval officers go into the Service at a much younger age than Army officers. They certainly have a much more uncomfortable life. They are separated from their families for years at a time, and no one can say that life on board ship is comparable to life in the Army, or that they have the same amenities enjoyed by officers in the Army.
      8.0 P.M.
      I should like to deal with the question of aircraft, but I am afraid of incurring reproof from the Deputy-Speaker. It is rather difficult when we have items in the Estimate which apply to aircraft that we should be debarred from speaking on any matter of policy in regard to them. My view, and I am sure it is the view which naval officers hold, is that the aerial arm has been as much a part of the Navy as the submarine, that there is a portion of the Air Service as regards the Navy which is analogous to the submarine service, and that it should be manned by men with naval experience, who would do their time in the air work, and when they are too old to fly would revert to the Navy in the same manner that the submarine officers revert to the Service ship. These men would be of inestimable value to the Service, having had air training and experience in flying. There is another view of the subject, and that is that the Admiralty have produced the submarine service, a child of their own, and encouraged it in every way, and it has benefited by the traditions of the naval service. In a similar way, if the Navy were responsible for their particular section of the Air Service, that section would have the naval training and the naval experience which is necessary for sea warfare. I do not want it to be understood that I am suggesting the abolition of the Air Ministry, or any reduction or supplanting of the independent Air Service. That has been laid down as a policy of this House, and is not one which is open to question. I do not think that anybody either in the Army or the Navy would suggest that there should not bean independent Air Service. It is only that there arc certain branches of the Service which, in my opinion, should be manned by naval men. The War has disclosed great possibilities in the development of under-water and air attack, and therefore it seems to me that the Admiralty cannot allow a weapon such as air-

      1429
      craft to pass entirely out of its hands. We are faced with the capital ship costing £6,500,000. No nation can afford to build a fleet on that basis, and therefore it behoves the Admiralty, in my opinion, to lose no time in. investigating in every direction what is the kind of ship that they have to build. That can only be done by exhaustive experimental work with aircraft and submarines, and to my mind the Admiralty should abandon building any new ships at the present time, and apply all the money to discovering what kind of ship they have to build. I was very much interested in what the First Lord said about experimental research, but it seemed to me that the sum named in the Estimates —namely, £200,000—is quite a paltry sum speaking in that. sense. The best guarantee of efficiency is experiment as regards technical appliances and methods. At the close of the War there remained a vast quantity of experimental material. Many new weapons came into use during the War, and at the end of the War there were many weapons in an experimental stage which required to be carried on. The development of the hydrophone, for instance, was not nearly completed at the end of the War, and it certainly is a method of defence against submarines which requires further development and experiment. The direction in which we have to apply our minds is as to what type of ship has to be built in the future, and I think, as I have said, that the whole of our thought and experiment should he devoted to that end.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The greater number of the speeches to which we have listened in this Debate, and more especially those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite, have been directed against the speech of the First Lord, on the ground that he did not tell the Committee anything about the policy of the Navy. I put it to the Committee, How on earth could the First Lord come down here and tell us what the policy of the future is to be, when neither he nor anyone else can possibly know? We do not know what developments are going to take place in the Far East or in the Near East, and certainly we know very little about what is going to happen to the League of Nations. Only a few months ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) delivered an oration in this House, telling us that there was no need
      1430
      to build ships, that there was, in fact., no need for us to have a Navy of any kind. I am, perhaps, exaggerating a little, blithe said that there was no need, at any rate, for a large Navy, because the League of Nations was going to do everything that would be necessary, and to put an end, presumably, to war for ever. That speech gained for him an important headline in a paper called the "Daily Herald." I think that, after the speech we have listened to from him to-day, he may possibly get a similar reward to-morrow morning. Such a speech, from a right hon. Gentleman who has occupied such a prominent position as he has occupied in naval affairs, was most disappointing. He found fault with, and criticised, nearly everything that he could possibly criticise. He found fault with the budding of this ship and that, and asked why money was being spent here and why money was being spent there. In fact, in. a year or two, it we followed his advice, we should have no ships at all. It is no use whatever, either for the defence of the Empire or the development of the Empire, saying that you do not want a Navy, or that Your Navy is too small or too large, until you know exactly what is going to happen. I was glad to hear the First Lord say, at the end of his speech, that a strong and efficient Navy was, and always will be, necessary for this Empire. This Empire is scattered all over the globe. We have not alone to defend our own islands, but we have to defend India, the great Dominions overseas, and various other Colonies that are situated in between. We have not only to defend them, but to protect the. trade of the Empire; we have to guard the communications. Large as our Empire trade was before the War, we all, I am sure, hope that it will be immeasurably greater in the near future. Let us remember, too, that not only our trade, but the lives and freedom of' the British race, depend on the British Navy. Lord Beatty, speaking the other day at Bristol, told us very truly that the sea roads which join up the Empire are very long, and that a vast number of merchantmen is required to provide adequate service to link up the Dominions with the Mother Country; that the merchant navy is the chief source of Great Britain's prosperity, and that we have a greater stake on the seas than any other country, for the sea is the lifeblood of the nation. I think those words, coming from such an authority, are suffi-

      1431
      cient to warrant the First Lord in bringing forward such an Estimate as he has to-day, and assuring the country that he has sufficient ships on the stocks and building to secure the life-blood of this nation. I am sure that Lord Beatty, while he is First Sea Lord, will take care that the policy of the Admiralty is shaped in the direction of his speech, and as long as he does that I am sure he will be doing what every Member of the Committee would desire. I admit, that our Navy ought to be a real Imperial Navy. We should have a naval conference as soon as possible, at which our Dominions and India and the other parts of the Empire should be represented, and we should then form a truly Imperial naval policy, which before the War we never had. Before the War the Dominions, with the exception of Australia, only contributed a very small sum to the Navy. Australia had its own local navy, and it was said that Canada was going to have its own navy likewise; but when the War broke out Canada had not a ship, but she came forward and gave us a contribution. Contributions have been given by New Zealand and various colonies, and by India, but we want to know what they are going to do in the future, and whether there are to be local navies or an Imperial Navy financed by contributions from the Overseas Dominions. These questions have not been referred to to-day, but they are all important, and I have no doubt that the First Lord had them in mind, and more especially the question of a naval conference of the Empire, when he was framing his Estimates. No doubt he wants to Imo, as we all do, what the naval policy of the Dominions is going to be.
      I have heard the question of the Pacific referred to in this Debate. Many years ago I was out in the Pacific, and in those days we saw very few of our naval ships there. We did see one or two German ships, but only very occasionally an English ship. The late Prime Minister of New Zealand said, just before the War, that he thought the Pacific would be the storm-centre of the future. Whether that be so or not, it is certain that the Panama Canal has made the Pacific Ocean, formerly a practically closed sea, a popular highway, and as time goes on it will be more popular still. The United States have awakened to the fact that the Panama Canal affects several of
      1432
      their important centres, and they are determined to protect the highways to those centres. They are accordingly building a sufficient Navy for that purpose. I hope and believe that it is the intention of the First Lord to see that our Navy is sufficient to protect the highways across the Pacific. We know that Lord Jellicoe has been to the Dominions, and some lion. Members seemed to think that the ship he went in was too large, and that the expenditure incurred was too great. To my mind I cannot agree with that. I think that the larger the ship and the more expensive the whole thing could be made the better for the Empire, because in that way you get better value for your money. What you want is to show the Empire the greatness of the British Navy, and that you consider that your admirals, and the people who represent you, ought to be treated in a proper manner. I think that the sending of Lord Jellicoe in a great battleship is in keeping with the policy of this country with regard to the Navy. I should have liked to hear something about Lord Jellicoe's Report. It must be coining home now, because extracts from it have appeared in Australia and Canada, and we know that he has said that there will be a certain number of ships necessary for Australia in addition to the local Navy which Australia is building. I understand that he said the same thing with regard to Canada, and that it was understood that Canada also is to build certain ships for the purpose of a local Navy. That will mean expenditure, and it will mean great ships. When we know what ships are coming from Australia, from Canada, and from New Zealand, the First Lord will be in a better position to say what is to be the future policy of this country. At ally rate, we must have a strong Navy. Lord Jellicoe, speaking in New Zealand, said:
      "A strong Navy is the insurance of Empire."
      We must see that the premiums are regularly paid. It is no use looking to the League of Nations to pay those premiums yet. Lord Beatty said
      " He hoped that the power and influence of the League of Nations will provide that large measure of insurance necessary and that in due time we shall be able to limit naval armaments to a size proportionate to our liabilities and interest."
      "But,"
      he added,
      "we most remember that we are more dependent upon the sea and upon the protection of our great lines of communication with the outlying portions of the Empire than any other

      1433
      nation. Therefore we must expect to make greater provision than any other nation for our naval security."
      Speaking in the same strain at Colchester, Lord Wemyss said:
      "It is our duty to see that the Navy is not brought down to such an extent that it cannot perform its duties. No one can foresee the future. Human ambition will always crop up, and it should never be forgotten that our very existence depends upon our Navy."
      There is another admiral who talks in the opposite direction. I refer to Lord Fisher. His policy is to "scrap the lot"—ships, personnel, and dockyards. What kind of a Navy should we have left if that policy were carried out? To my mind, it is economy gone mad. We have had one example in my time of Lord Fisher's economy and we do not want another. Where were the destroyers when war broke out, and who was responsible for the destroyers? Lord Fisher. Was there a dock at Rosyth when war broke out, and how many times from the opposite side of the House did the late Lord Beresford and others, including myself, urge upon the Government to get on with Rosyth, so that it might be ready in case of emergency? The emergency came and Rosyth was not ready. Whose fault was it? Lord Fisher's. Lord Fisher has asked—
      "Whom are we going to fight? Is it the Chinese or Japanese Navy. Still more incredible is our fighting the United States."
      I think it is incredible that we should fight the United States. The late Mr. Roosevelt fully agreed with him on the principle of fighting, but what did Mr. Roosevelt say? Speaking at Springfield he said:
      "When peace comes let us accept any reasonable proposal, whether calling for a League of Nations or for any other machinery which we can in good faith act upon, and which really offers some chance of lessening the number of future wars and of diminishing their area; hut let us never forget that any promise that such a league or any other piece of machinery will definitely do away with war is either sheer nonsense or rank hypocrisy."
      Lord Fisher goes on to say that the American and English Navies can dominate the world at any time. That seems contradictory of his previous statement. We want no domination, least of all a domination of the world. That was Germany's ambition. Lord Fisher was all wrong in his premises. We have no idea of fighting anyone. The British Navy was built for defence, not for attack. Right away from the days of Queen Elizabeth, when Howard and Drake de-
      1434
      feated the Spanish Armada, through all the perils and dangers of four centuries of time, the British Navy has proved itself, and ever will prove itself, the surest and most' effectual safeguard against world domination. I am a believer in the League of Nations like the Prime Minister—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing foreign policy, but Estimates for the Navy.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I was commenting on naval policy as it has been, outlined, or rather criticised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. One was rather led to believe from their remarks that the policy, of the Government should have been de-dared by the First Lord in his speech to-day. I was endeavouring to prove that he could not possibly have done so, because we do not yet know what the League-of Nations may turn out to be. However, I bow to your ruling. I congratulate the. First Lord on the statement he has made to-day with regard to Lord Colwyn's Committee. Had it been possible for him to do so, I should have preferred a longer statement. We all know of the great sympathy he has with the men who have been discharged from the yards, and we-all know his great desire to see that these yards are used to their utmost capacity. I am sure he will wish to see advantage taken of those yards for commercial purposes, just as much as he is anxious to see advantage taken of them for naval purposes. The object of the deputation, which included some Members of this House and myself, with the Mayors of the various boroughs, was to impress upon the Admiralty the necessity of using the Royal Dockyards for commercial purposes. I am glad to hear the First Lord say that Lord Colwyn was able to come to conclusions, and that though he did not say they were in actual accord with the views expressed by the members of the deputation, he did imply that there was a desire on the part of Lord Colwyn to see these dockyards used for commercial as well as for naval purposes. If that is arranged, it will prevent a great number of men from being discharged, and we may take it that, at any rate for some little time, there will be no more discharges from the yards.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend knows that the discharges have been reduced to one-sixth. They will continue,

      1435
      though he and I hope that it may be for as short a time as possible. At the moment they are being continued on the scale of one-sixth.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We have heard something to-day about naval pay. I should like to refer to the pay of the naval schoolmasters. Notwithstanding that the Jerram-Halsey Committee recommended that naval schoolmasters be placed, as regards pay, on the same footing as other officers holding similar rank, as regards new rates of pay no improvement has been made in the pay of this branch, although the duties are heavier and more technical than they were before the War. The rate of pay is the same as on 1st February. 1919, when the ad interim increase was granted to all officers. The schoolmasters are placed in an even more unfortunate position because of the children's allowance being stopped after 31st December. While other officers of the same rank will be receiving higher pay to meet this deduction, the schoolmasters have nothing to compensate them for the loss. Other warrant officers are promoted to commissioned rank after ten years' service in the ranks; schoolmasters have to serve for twenty years before gaining promotion, so they take a longer time to reach the maximum rates, which by the present decision of the Government range from 8s. 6d. to 14s. a day less than the corresponding rate of other officers holding similar rank. Schoolmasters ask that the pay recommended by the Jerram-Halsey Committee be conceded, although even this scale does not bring them up to the level of other officers of the same commissioned rank. They ask that the revised pay be ante-dated, as in the case of other officers, to 1st February, 1919, that relative rank introduced in 1919 for the schoolmasters' branch be abolished, seeing that it is not applied to any other body of officers in the Navy, and that if continued it will always have the effect that schoolmasters will be regarded as a body apart and excluded from privileges granted to others.
      I want to refer to the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class "B." In view of the increased cost of living, and the general economic position, I would urge that the retainer of 6d. a day should be increased to is. 6d., and dated back to 1st October, 1918, that the bonus of £50 now received on reaching forty be increased to £150, and that,
      1436
      instead of the pension of £12 a year on reaching fifty-five years, they should receive a pension of £36 granted at fifty years. When I brought forward the case of the mechanicians, the Admiralty apparently did not sec eye to eye with me. I should like to know on what ground they refused the concession asked for. The mechanicians are men who do practically the same work as the engine room artificers, and they should be placed on the same footing. Then there is a question with regard to the naval cooks. That was a matter which I brought up some months ago. We have no answer yet. Surely the food of the Navy is a very important matter. These men cook for the men as well as for the officers, and it is really time that some answer was given to the request addressed to the Admiralty. I wish to refer also to surveyors of stores, agents. In existing circumstances, both established and hired men lose a portion of duty pay. I ask that full duty pay should be given irrespective of any trade rate to which they may be entitled. The scale proposed is 3s. a week for the first twelve months, 6s. for five years' service, 9s. for eight years' service, and 12s. after eight years. These men have not received any increase in duty pay for ten years, and in this respect their Department stands alone. The present system by which surveyors of stores agents muster by ticket is incompatible with their position and responsibilities. They desire to muster by signature as chargemen and recorders, and they desire also to be designated "examiners of stores" in lieu of surveyor of stores agents. It is a very small request, and I hope the Admiralty will see their way to grant these few concessions.
      I must say one word about retired pay. During the War the services were treated differently with regard to retired pay or pensions. On the military side officers called up had retired pay as well as active pay. On the naval side this was not allowed. Take the case of men who rose from the lower deck. After forty years' continuous service they find themselves deprived of their pensions, yet candidates are promised that for twenty-two years' continuous service of good conduct they will receive a pension for life. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and Mr. McKenna, when he was First Lord, both stated in this House that pensions are the legal possession of the men who earn them, and the answer of the

      1437
      Admiralty is: "We gave them a bonus." The Admiralty Order of the 1st of June, 1917, deals with the bonus, and it says:
      "It should be understood that the bonus of 25 per cent. on their full pay which is granted to retired and pensioned officers called out, is in lieu of their being allowed to count time so served for increase of retired pay or pension."
      Nothing is said in that Order as to the bonus being accepted in lieu of the pension itself, and yet the man finds himself called up for service and deprived of his pension. Take the case of Lieut.-Commanders retired. When called up they were receiving £200 per annum, or 11s. a day. The amount was suspended, and they were given full pay, plus 25 per cent., equal to 16s. 6d. a day. In other words, those men received only 4s. a day for their active service work, while the men in the Army were receiving full pension. There is a distinct difference in treatment between the Navy and Army, and this went on, I think, all through the War, and I have no doubt it is going on now. I really think this money ought to be refunded to them. It is not a very large amount, but it is due to them from the Treasury, and I would ask the Financial Secretary to represent that to the First Lord and to see if it is not possible to get refunded to these men what is their due.
      One word in regard to the findings of the Jerram Committee with regard to the pay of the men. I brought that up on the last occasion, and am very sorry to say that it did not meet with a generous response from the Admiralty. We ask, first, that the scales of pay should be ante- dated to the 1st October, 1918. Secondly, that the revised scale of pensions should be applied to all pensioners now on the rolls, and, thirdly, that the widows pensions, in certain conditions, should be granted and compassionate allowances to orphans of naval ratings be given. Why do we ask that? We ask in order that every man who fought in the War should have justice done to him. The decision of the Government means that 200,000 men are deprived of the advantages which other men have got. The Admiralty Order which was issued at the time when the ad interim bonus became operative was to the effect that the bonus was to be regarded only as a temporary increase, and that information was given to all the men who were then employed in the Navy. From this they naturally gathered that all the men serving at that date would be included in the new scales of pay, when
      1438
      they were promulgated. The Jerram Committee recommended it so, but the Government say 'No," and 200,000 men are wiped out. I say that is unfair. As regards the second point, men who have served their country are now absolutely starving because of this limitation of the addition to the pension. You give the addition to the pension to men who are under fifty-five and refuse it to men over fifty-five, who have now to live on a pension, many of them, of less than £1 a week, some of them 15s. a week, and others even less. I cannot understand why the Admiralty cannot see its way to assist these men by adding something to their pension. The Report says that the reason why they ask for the pensions to be added to was in consideration of the increase in the cost of living and the higher standard of comfort, and yet the Admiralty come in and say that this must only apply to men under fifty-five. I submit to the Committee that that is an arbitrary line to draw which never ought to have been drawn, and it is not right or fair. As regards the dependants of the men, I submit that they should be treated the same as the dependants of the officers, but the dependants of the officers arc badly treated and those of the men are unable to get any pensions at all. Then it is unfortunate that the pensions for the widows have not been sufficiently considered by the Admiralty. I mean the widows of naval men who have died in the service of the country before the War, and I think the Committee will be appalled when I tell them that the highest pension given is, I believe, 9s. 6d. a week. Is that not right?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You do not deny it. The right hon. Gentleman knows more about pensions than anyone in the House, and I am sure he knows that what I say is about right. I have just heard of a case of a woman, an invalid, with a pension of Os. 6d. a week, who lives in a back room, and for the last twelve months she has been unable to have fire, light, or clothes. By that I mean that she has been unable to go out because her clothes are insufficient to keep her warm. She has not tasted meat for many months, except when she visits her sister-in-law, who then gives her a meal. That is the position of the widow of a man who spent his life in serving the country, and I think every Member of the Committee will agree with me that the

      1439
      time has come when we must speak out and claim from the Admiralty something, at any rate, that will enable a poor woman like this to get at least her dinner once a week without having to beg of her sister-in-law. I thank the Committee for having listened to me for so long, and I will conclude with that one appeal to the Admiralty about the old pensioners, and especially the widows of the pre-war men.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I am sure the Committee have listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, which has ranged from China to Peru, and I think the Committee will agree with substantially all that my hon. Friend has said, and particularly as to the great Imperial duty that rests upon this Government to coordinate the Navy of the Empire as distinguished from what at present exists—the Navy of the 'United Kingdom and the separate Navies of the various Dominions. Nothing will bring about permanently and indissolubly the union of the Mother Country and the Daughter Lands so completely as the co-ordination of the Navy into one great Imperial Navy, manned by the sons of Britain from all parts of the Empire, and supported by the King's subjects, whether at home or in the Dominions, being thus one great means of Imperial defence and of Imperial union. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will continue in office long enough to see that consummation reached and that great reform carried out for the benefit of the Empire at large. I wish to say a word or two of hearty congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman upon the exceedingly lucid speech that he made in introducing these Estimates. He had before him a task which, after listening to the speeches that followed his, proved comparatively easy, and that was to defend the Admiralty and the Government against charges of extravagance and unnecessary expenditure upon the Navy. The analysis of figures which was given by my right hon. Friend was, to my mind at all events, and I think even to the minds of those who endeavoured to attack him afterwards, convincing and complete. It is true that the Naval Estimates just before the War amounted to only £53,500,000. It is equally true that the Navy Estimates now before the country amount to £157,500,000, but the dissection which my right hon. Friend was able to give so
      1440
      clearly showed that, whether it was upon the items of war expenditure still to be discharged, upon the items of a greater expenditure upon the personnel by reason of giving them greater wages and bonuses and pensions, or whether it was money's reduced power of purchasing, the whole of the increase upon the Estimates of 1914 was explained and, as I believe the Committee and the country at large will accept, was fully justified.
      What was the attack which followed the speech of my right hon. Friend? The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and the right bon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) reminded me somehow of Pope's words. Both of them were "willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike." The right hon. Member for South Molton read out a long list of detailed Estimates, but he had not the courage to say that this Estimate or that Estimate, with all his knowledge and experience of the Admiralty, was unwise or excessive or involved an. expenditure upon a ship which was obsolete No, he asked a question. It was all interrogation from beginning to end, so that he may go to the country and say, "I warned the Government against this wasteful extravagance." He has not the courage in this House to pledge himself that any one of the items is unnecessary. He confines himself in that regard to a suggestion that some, at least, of the dockyards should be closed. I sincerely hope that such a suggestion will never be accepted by any Government, and I do not believe it will ever be accepted by any Government that has the confidence of the country and of this House. Rather than close the dockyards, make them useful for the combined purposes of warship construction and merchant ship construction. I speak with some experience upon that matter, because I have had quite recently the duty of supervising large repairs in Portsmouth dockyard to a ship, it is true, belonging to the Admiralty, but used for commercial purposes, and I desire to testify from my long experience in these matters to the fact that the work done in the dockyards can be done, as we all know it is done, with the very perfection of workmanship, and if as applied to merchant shipbuilding it can be done with equal efficiency and equal economy, at least as compared with warship construction, in which the men of the Royal dockyards have the most experience, I very humbly

      1441
      and respectfully commend to the Admiralty the extension of that policy. I hope we shall know very soon what Lord Colwyn's Committee does report as to the extension of that policy, so as to keep the dockyards going by providing a larger tonnage than could be otherwise provided for the Mercantile Navy, and bring together still more the unity of the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Navy, which. as a result of this War are more identified than ever before, and more capable of working together, as I believe, both in regard to construction as well as in regard to navigation and ordinary service than they could possibly have been but for the circumstances which have arisen out of the War.
      My right hon. Friend the First Lord stated that he hopes next year to revert to peace conditions, that is to Estimates which should be reduced so as to be in accordance with the circumstances of peace and real preparation for defence. We all hope that that will be the result of the experiments and of the recommendations to the Cabinet, and here I should like to refer to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenwich (Captain H. Benn) and others have said as to the experiments which must be made in regard to the changes in ships of war. No doubt the whole idea of the construction of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines has developed and changed throughout the War, particularly by the use of airships by all navies. But it seems to me, with great respect, that we shall never reach that state when we shall be able to abolish the surface ships. Lord Fisher has suggested that the warship of the future will be amphibious in so far as she will be able to float on the surface, dive under the surface, fly above the surface, and even crawl up the beach for the purpose of an invasion of an enemy country. Such ideas, I venture to say with great respect, are quite chimerical. We shall probably have warships very much larger in size than the present submarines, capable of diving, but just as more powerful battleships or battle-cruisers were protected during the War very successfully in many times of danger against submarines by flights of destroyers cruising round, so I believe will it be found by experience that the airships of the enemy, which would jeopardise the very existence of the largest battleship, will be driven off by the airships which that large battleship will be able to carry to send up
      1442
      in defence of herself in exactly the same manner as she signals for destroyers to cruise round against submarines. You will never, I venture to think, safely abolish the battleship or battle-cruiser of large power and large size, although no doubt the type of that ship will be very largely what has been indicated by Lord Fisher as regards submersibility.
      Reference has been made, only by way of allusion, as I shall refer to it myself, to the League of Nations. The League of Nations will abolish war, we are told. I, for one, do not believe it. I believe in the maxim of Cromwell—" Put. your trust in God and keep your powder dry." That maxim, brought down to the modern interpretation, is, "Join the League of Nations, do all you can by agreement to ensure the peace of the world, but be ready for defence if the necessity should arise." So long as we have that policy, readiness and sufficiency of naval preparation, so long may we be sure of our safety, and so long may we join with confidence in the League of Nations or any agreement of that kind. Only upon a basis of physical force can the security of that League and its efficiency rest. So it is, I believe, notwithstanding that these Estimates are larger than expected, they will be passed by the Committee without a dissentient voice, as necessary only for the defence of the country, even after we have finished the terrible War, and are, as we hope, commencing a period of many years of peace.
      Mr. HOHLER: I have little to say in view of the fact that so much of the ground has been covered. But I do want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can, in the condition of things, give us any indication of the Admiralty policy in respect to the dockyards. The dockyard towns have been absorbed in this matter, in view of the fact that around them an immense population has grown up dependent entirely for their livelihood upon the employment in these yards. Grave considerations consequently arise. I realise that in the higher points of policy, as to the future of the Navy, there may for the moment be difficulties in saying anything, because unfortunately—as I think—by virtue of the difficulties created in America in the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and more particularly with regard to the League of Nations, it is very difficult to say what will be necessary to ensure the peace of the world if America falls out of

      1443
      the Treaty. Bearing in mind the vessels in hand when the Armistice was signed, so advanced that they have to be completed, we have sufficient naval vessels to last us for at least a year or two, possibly more. Therefore there is very little chance of real naval construction in the Royal dockyards for a period of at least one or two years. Substantially there is nothing in progress in this matter in the dockyards. Is the right hon. Gentleman at liberty to tell us anything in regard to the negotiations which have been proceeding as a result of the interview which the Prime Minister and he had some little time since with the representatives of the dockyards and Members from those towns to which I have referred? Can he say what is the policy of the Admiralty, whether it is a proposal to undertake the building of mercantile ships in those yards on the available slips, and also, if that is not the policy, does he know what is the policy? Do they wish to try and let, the yards, or any part of them, to private builders? That would be undesirable.
      9.0 P.m.
      What, however, I am really pressing for, and what we are anxious to know—for the matter involves many considerations in regard to building and other things in the towns—can my right hon. Friend tell us— is what is the policy of the Admiralty in regard to these Royal shipyards? This matter presses daily, and is always borne in upon me by the municipalities who govern these towns, and by our. constituents. What, too, is the policy in regard to discharges? I fully appreciate the fact, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it, for I think he has been largely a supporter of the view advocated that the discharges should be suspended until a later period—that is to say, in the spring. They have been suspended out of consideration for the men, and other difficulties that are obvious. Are we to look, as quite probably we shall, to a reduction to what is, in any case, a prewar standard? If so, I would suggest, in view of the fact that these discharges will occur, say, possibly in the spring, the Admiralty should establish some policy upon which they are going to proceed in regard to them, so that the men likely to go should be informed at an early period. They can then look for employment elsewhere. I suppose it is common knowledge that of the great number of men who went into the yards during the War
      1444
      —I do not think it is ungenerous to say this, for I believe it to be true—many of them went to avoid war service. I hope that when these discharges take place, regard will be had to the men who have served longest in the yard, and that these will be retained. I trust also that the apprentices, who volunteered and joined up during their apprenticeship will be retained, because of their whole surroundings, because their father is probably working in the yard, and other cognate circumstances. I trust also that consideration will be given to the class of work a man was employed in before he entered the yard. I have reason to believe there are a number who were in the building trade. There are agricultural labourers and other sorts of people who never were shipbuilders or connected with dockyard work until the War. I trust the policy of the Admiralty will be such as will do justice to the men in the yards who have been there the longest, and will also be careful and considerate to the apprentices, particularly those who have fought in the War.
      The yards have been closed for a period for half a day per week. I would like my right hon. Friend to apply his mind to the consideration of the question of the establishment. Under this comes the men who do not receive full wages, as do the other men, in that a reduction is made from their wages for the payment of the contribution in regard to the establishment, which at the age of sixty will entitle them to a, pension. The half-day rule applies very hardly to these men. In my view the Admiralty, and indeed the Government, have no right to say to the established men, "You shall work less than a full week." Under the terms of the engagement between the Admiralty and these established men they are entitled, I think, to ask the Admiralty to provide a full week's work. The men have most generously responded in this matter—
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear!
      Mr. HOHLER:—to help their fellow workmen, yet I do not think the thing should be carried too far. I would like to propose, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider it reasonable in the circumstances, that so long as the Admiralty is not working full time in the yards, these established men should not be charged in the way I have stated. Let the contribution be a Government contribution. Let

      1445
      the Government pay for that period instead of deducting it from the men's wages. These men have been doing their part—and more! They have accepted the position out of regard for their brother workmen. They are. doing more than their share when they forego their half- day's work, and I trust my right hon. Friend will carefully and sympathetically consider this point. I really believe if he looks into it be will feel it is only right that the Admiralty should do something so that these fellows are not put in a worse position than at the present moment. Turning to the matter which more concerns the pay of the officers and men, I want to know what decision the Admiralty have come to in regard to the sailors who have been disabled in the course of the War. I can give an extreme case. It is that of a man I know who served actually twenty-one years and 392 days, and is invalided for disability. He gets no long-service pension at all, and all he gets is a disability pension. That point was put in the general report, and the answer the Admiralty gave was that the matter was under consideration. Can the right hon. Gentleman announce to-night what the result of that consideration has been?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
      Mr. HOHLER: I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to bring this matter to a head. I submit that the decision of the Admiralty eau only be one way. They realise how unjust it was that these men who have been disabled are not receiving long-service pensions. Before the general report they had inaugurated a scheme, and they had given to these men some pension though they had not served for pension and so far had they carried it that they borrowed a bit from the man who had served for pension in the War and was disabled, and they tried to adjust the matter by the man who had served for pension losing a part of it in order to contribute to those who had been disabled before they had served for pension. I can give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse for it. I have raised this matter on the Admiralty Estimates before, and you cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The men have put forward their case themselves, and what did the Admiralty do? They gave them some service pension, but they took it away from the man who was entitled to his pension to the extent of 2s. a week in order to contribute to the other men. The Admiralty have recognised this
      1446
      case, and they cannot say "No" to it. I could settle the matter in half an hour, and it is only a question of how much. Really, it is not right that the Admiralty should hold this matter up. The men are complaining very bitterly about it. They are asking why they do not get any service pension, and the Admiralty reply that the matter is under consideration. Nine months is really too much for a simple point like this to remain undecided, and I press my right hon. Friend to get this point dealt with.
      Then there is the question of the change of the name of the commissioned shipwrights. I wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty stating that these men objected to being called ships' carpenters, and they want to be called constructive officers. An inquiry was held on this subject, and it reported in favour of the change of name to constructive officers, and what did the Admiralty do? The recommendation of this inquiry was turned down by the head of the naval constructors who has no position in the Navy except at the Admiralty, and who never goes to sea. This proposal was absolutely turned down by him. That is what I call a piece of real jobbery in the Navy. I raise this point on behalf of these men who have won their battle by honest merit, and it is something which is due to them. Why were the naval constructors consulted in this matter at all, because they are purely a civilian rating? The men will not accept this decision as final. The Admiralty may say that it has been officially decided, but I am confident that one day some person will see that justice is done to these men. I intend to protest against it every time I can gel, an opportunity. I shall continue to raise it, and I ask that it shall receive the attention to which these men are entitled.
      Sir T. BRAMSDON: If we have learned anything in the War it is the value of the Navy, and we know the influence that naval power has borne in history. But for the Navy the late War could not have been won, and I agree it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the defence of our country that we should always have an invincible Navy. The First Lord has pointed out what that Navy shall be. It seems to me that that is not a very easy matter to arrange. It is true that during the existence of the German Empire we had an aggressive nation opposite to us, and it was somewhat easier to be able to stipulate that there should be a Navy equal to two other Powers. It has been

      1447
      suggested that the policy of the Navy should be to be equal to any other two Powers, and someone very properly suggested, Which Powers? It seems to me if you are going to talk about a two-Power standard you must talk about which Powers. Under the present circumstances it is not possible to talk about a combination of two other Powers. What I believe is that this is a matter we might very well leave to the Board of Admiralty. I remember in 1909 I was called to order because I said that I thought the Admiralty could be trusted. The results proved that they can and that I was right in my remark. I cannot help thinking that still we can trust the Admiralty. We have at the head of affairs those in whom unbounded confidence can be placed, whether on the civil or the military side, and now we have Earl Beatty we may be sure he will not be a party to anything that will lead to a lowering of the standard in the Admiralty.
      We have heard a good deal about the amount of the estimated expenditure. We know very well the value of money. It is only half what it was before the War, and if we take the figures before us to-night as being £50,000,000 pre-war expenditure, we may safely put the expenditure daring last year at £150,000,000. I do not think it is too much to say if the £50,000,000 prewar expenditure is doubled it would then bring the expenditure of the past year to something like £100,000,000, and we cannot complain very much of the expenditure which has taken place when it represents £150,000,000 under the circumstances. But the utmost economy coupled with efficiency must be observed, and I think that the Admiralty have shown their wisdom and discretion in the economies which they have exercised during the past year. I represent a naval port, and suppose I approach the Admiralty as often as any Member of this House. I cannot help thinking there is a large amount of economy exercised. I know I do not get very much ahead in the demands which I put forward to the Financial Secretary, and let me here say, I do riot think any Department ever had a more true and loyal supporter than the Admiralty has in its present Financial Secretary. He is courtesy itself, he is anxious to meet us at all times, and there is one thing to be said, if he has a best eye it is always given to the Admiralty; the other comes to us. I have nothing but praise for the courteous way in which he meets the demands made
      1448
      to him from the various ports and dockyards, and I must say if he did not do. as he did we should go away very much more discontented than we do now.
      But there are still many things to be brought under the consideration of the Admiralty. Many of them have been talked about to-night, and I want to emphasise one or two of the points which have been dealt with with great power on these benches. It is true there is great discontent amongst naval officers at the scales of pay which have been awarded to them when they compare them with those granted to Army officers. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is most ingenious in the arguments which he uses in explanation, but, if I may say so, they would not do. Naval officers would not have them; they do not believe in them. I get a lot of correspondence—I am almost bombarded with it—on this subject, and I have before me at the moment a very long letter upon this particular subject which I hope I may be allowed to show my right hon. Friend, because nothing is too much trouble to him. He is always willing that we should send him matters for his consideration, and sometimes I wonder if I ought to send the things I do. I hope that, notwithstanding what has happened and has been said, the Admiralty will give due consideration to this subject of the pay of naval officers. There are many subjects I talked about on the last occasion when the Vote on Account was under discussion. I am the last man to wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. My right hon. Friend knows that I have corresponded with him on subjects connected with the Royal Fleet Reserve, the artificer-engineers, the engineering-room officers, the Royal Marines, the schoolmasters, the sick-berth attendants, the mechanicians, and many other grades. I hope due consideration will be given to all these cases, and that the men will get the reward due to them, because I do believe that in the Admiralty there is justice and we shall eventually get it, although some of us, may have to hammer away a good deal in reference to it.
      If there is one thing I always regret it is that the recommendations of the Jerram Committee and of the Halsey Committee were not carried out in their entirety. These Committees took evidence, considered the matter judicially, and made certain recommendations on their merits, and I think I am not going too far when

      1449
      I say that those recommendations were just, and that if the Admiralty could have carried them out it would have given universal satisfaction throughout the Navy. Of course, it is a question of money. But I suggest that the amount that the Admiralty would have had to find for these cases would not have been begrudged by the nation, because it would have been in the interests of the old salts who have done so much for the protection of our country. Perhaps later on the Admiralty may see its way to concede these points, and, if so, they will earn the gratitude and respect of all concerned.
      I was very glad that the welfare committees were set up. I do not know whether any concessions have yet been granted by the Admiralty as a result. These welfare committees were offered to the lower deck in order that they might constitutionally put forward their various grievances. They met, and it is to their credit that the committees were conducted in such a splendid, respectful, and honourable way. They appointed their chairmen—in fact, they almost reminded me of Whitley councils. They debated the matters brought before them very fully and at the same time very respectfully, and they duly made their report. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able soon to announce the results of their recommendations, and I suggest if they are given effect to it will only be in accordance with the spirit, intentions, and desire of the Admiralty in affording the men a. constitutional way of airing their grievances. I should like to deal with one other point which constitutes a very grievous matter in the Navy, and it is a question affecting the old pensioners. The Jerram Committee recommended that there should be an extension of the payments to old pensioners. There is a great deal of feeling and agitation in connection with this subject. My right hon. Friend arranged an interview with the Leader of the House on this question, and we were most sympathetically received. He heard the views of the old pensioners. So far as I recollect, it was practically agreed their application should be granted, but the difficulty was that it opened up not merely a naval question, but also one affecting the Army and the Civil Service, and it would involve a very heavy payment. The suggestion was afterwards made that if the full amount could not be granted a smaller sum might be allowed, and I believe the Navy people would gladly have accepted that, but up to
      1450
      the present time no suggestion has been forthcoming with regard to it. I do not know whether we shall hear anything today, but I do hope we shall be told that a decision has been arrived at, and, in my opinion, the decision ought to be publicly announced. Something ought to be done for these old pensioners who fought the battles of the country in previous wars and who now live on a mere pittance. Many of them are aged and infirm, and I am sure the nation would not be against giving them a further increase. If consideration can be given to these old men, I am sure they will be extremely grateful.
      I do not know whether I am correct in understanding that there is about £2,000,000 contract work unfinished. I do not know whether that unfinished work has been already given out to contract. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say. If it has not, it is not too much to ask him to be good enough to see that it is placed with the Royal dockyards only and not with private yards. Everybody knows that the private yards are swamped with work at the present time. Many of them cannot carry out the work that is open to them. There is almost a redundancy of work. There is work required that cannot possibly be carried out, and, if this work could be given to the Royal dockyards, it would be the means of keeping on men, who, if they are discharged, will be sent to places where they cannot get houses. I was going to raise another question, but the right hon. Gentleman is always open to approach, so I will see him personally with reference to it, and I feel sure that he will consider it.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I feel great diffidence in addressing the Committee as a naval officer upon naval matters after the many excellent speeches that we have heard to-night. I am sorry that the hon. Baronet (Sir Fortescue Flannery) has left the House, because understood that he was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) only asked questions and did not state facts when criticising the Estimates. I wish he were here, because I propose to make some criticisms, which I hope will be constructive and helpful. I think I am the Member of this House who was last at sea, and I am still on the active list. I am sure that the First Lord will understand that the criticisms I am about to make are meant to be helpful, and I hope that they will be helpful. The

      1451
      First Lord has declared that he is not In a position to state the policy. That is very regrettable. It seems to me that there are only two policies possible in the future—a third alternative. Any reduction of our Navy below a safe standard, I am sure, cannot be entertained for a moment. We all agree that the Navy, with the Air Force attached to it, is our first line of defence and must have first call upon our finances. The Army at the present time overshadows the Navy, and there is a danger of the Navy being starved for the benefit of the Army in the lean years to come.
      Mr. LONG: Why has the hon. and gallant Member formed that view?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: During the late War the Navy has been the silent Service. It has been impossible for the naval dispatches to be published. The Army, however, has been right in the public eye. Five millions of our race have served in the Army, and only 500,000 have served in the Navy. Every family in the country has had a relation in the Army. Therefore, as after the Napoleonic Wars, people will think too much of the Army and too little of the Navy. I foresee that danger. We have also embarked upon many responsibilities abroad which will call for great military resources; and the shortsighted uninformed democracy of to-day do not understand that our naval forces alone enable us to hold our Empire together at all. The Secretary of State for War, as a matter of fact, has talked of the bonds of Empire smouldering as an excuse for keeping on conscription. The danger of the Army overshadowing the Navy is very real indeed, and I hope that this Committee will take account of that view and correct it. The two policies are these: Are we going back to the jungle law with regard to the Navy, or are we going to work up to a great international naval policy with the Associated Powers in the League of Nations? Is it going to be a case of Britain building against the only two Powers that can compete against us at sea? Is it going to be a case of Britain building again in competition against America and Japan? Is it going to be a case of this country building against America and Japan combined, or against one of them, or against the biggest of them, or what is it to be? If that be the case and the challenge be taken up by the United States of America, we are
      1452
      going to be outbuilt or bankrupted in twenty years. That may as well be realised. On the other hand, are we going to work up for some limitation of forces by mutual consent? Are we, in other words, going to make the League of Nations a real thing? I have not seen much signs of the latter policy, which is the only sane policy, in the doings of the Admiralty or in the whole attitude of the naval staff which at present, under my right hon. Friend, controls naval policy. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would not mention policy, and not one word about any future international agreement or about the League of Nations was mentioned.
      Mr. LONG: Is not the hon. and gallant Member making a mistake in blaming the Admiralty? All that we have to do is to be responsible for the naval forces which can discharge the duties laid upon us by our own Government, and now the new responsibilities accepted by us as one of the nations coming into the League of Nations, supposing it matures? Is he not rather unfair in criticising the Admiralty because we do not formulate the policy of the League of Nations? We have nothing to do with it. As a member of the Cabinet—that is a different question. As a Government, we are responsible for our share in the development of the League of Nations, but surely it is not fair to blame the Board of Admiralty, because, as he says, we have no policy, when, as he himself admits, the whole policy of the League of Nations and of the Allies is at present a question in dispute.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had better remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of my previous ruling. We are only discussing foreign policy so far as the Admiralty are concerned in administration. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member will bear that in mind.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will take care not to stray any further. I do not think that I was a bit unfair to the Admiralty. If my right hon. Friend had been here—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty was here—when one of the hon. Members for Devonport spoke (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), he would have heard the lion. Gentleman reading out very recent extracts from speeches of the present Sea Lord and the late, Sea Lord, who has gone to another place. and who received such a well-earned eulogy from my right hon. Friend,

      1453
      in which those two very gallant and respected admirals almost ridiculed the idea of trusting to anything but our own strong right arm at sea. Members of this House have said the same to-day, and we heard at once cheers of approval. Therefore, we are going back to the jungle law at sea, and, that being the case, let us see how the Admiralty policy is shaping. To begin with, the North Sea is now a British lake, and therefore no expenditure should be incurred on bases or air stations or anything of that sort in the North Sea above a bare minimum. I fear that there has been unnecessary expenditure on purely North Sea defences. If I might make a prophecy, the great strategical point of the future will be the Straits of Malacca, and Singapore is the place where development should take place with regard to dockyards.
      The great flight to Australia, which has been so happily completed to-day, passed through Singapore. Singapore is not only a great strategical point from the naval point of view, but also from the aerial point of view. With regard to the dockyards, again referring to the jungle policy, I hope there will be no money spent on Jamaica. I regret to see that there is some allowance for oil tanks there. It will be impossible to hold Jamaica against the United States of America. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I hear hon. Gentlemen who arc greater strategical experts than I am say "nonsense." I at once bow to their superior wisdom. In any naval warfare in the Atlantic, with a hostile United States, Jamaica will be too far inside the enemy's territory, and could no more be held than Heligoland could be held against Germany in the late War. Hong Kong is also too far in the enemy's sphere of influence if we are going to fight against Japan, and any money spent there, I submit, could be much better spent with greater effect at Singapore.
      With regard to home bases, Chatham, to which big ships cannot go except at high tide now, is a dockyard which will have to be turned over to mercantile work in the future. For the same reason Harwich had better be a purely commercial port. From a strategical point of view, money spent on Harwich could be much better spent elsewhere. I hope that the policy of keeping obsolete vessels abroad for the purpose of showing the White Ensign will not be continued. At present there are sloops and
      1454
      gunboats in the East Indies which in war time would be death traps and in peace time are not fitted to carry the British Ensign with dignity. The democracies in those countries are educated, they have a vernacular Press and the sending of obsolete sloops and gunboats will not very much affect them. The fastest and most modern ships should be available for that service. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when replying to tell me whether it is intended in the future to keep up the expenditure of money on the present obsolescent vessels of the Royal Indian Marine? Many of those vessels have great historical names and have done great work in this War, but they are quite useless for modern warfare. The criticism I have to make of the £157,000,000 Estimates is that the real reductions will not commence, so far as I can gather, until the summer. For some months the Navy was kept in a state of suspended animation.
      Mr. LONG: No.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The First Lord has excused that—
      Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must forgive me for interrupting him, but it is the only way I can prevent unintentional misrepresentations. He will remember, if he listened to what I had the privilege to say earlier, that I stated that the reductions began two or three days after the Armistice, and were continued without interruption by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, followed up by myself, in January and, so far as I know, there has been no interruption since. The great majority of the reductions were made before June.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course I know that reductions took place because, the hostilities being over, the men began to be demobilised.
      Mr. LONG: It was before that.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps I am putting the case badly, but we know that the construction of certain ships was continued. Then apparently the policy was changed and the ships were not preceeded with. Take the case of airships. We were building as lately as 2nd July, six airships.
      Mr. LONG: They were under construction.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They were under construction at a cost of £2,200,000. I understand that we are now building only one. The policy, therefore, has been changed in that respect. The First Lord excuses this by saying that there was the danger of the Peace being abortive and the War breaking out again.
      Mr. LONG: No, no!
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understood that was the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. So long as that was a danger, that might account for keeping a sufficient number of men with the Colours, but if the War had broken out again with Germany after the Armistice, there was no German navy to fight. Therefore we could have gone ahead with our reductions at the beginning of the year at a faster rate, not only by taking out of the Fleet ships we now find to be superfluous, but by closing air stations and other stations round the coast. May I point out what I feel has been a failure with regard to naval policy in Paris. Was it impossible for us to insist on the legal abolition of the submarine as a vessel of war? Did we propose that whole-heartedly from our Admiralty I happen to know that the United States Admiralty was in favour of the legal abolition of the submarine, that murderous, cowardly weapon, especially when used against merchant ships. Did we propose that whole-heartedly, or were the arguments of the people particularly interested in submarines—who lived for the service, who brought. it up and who made the British submarine service second to none—listened to, and did we not with our full weight press for the legal abolition of the submarines? If we did not, a great opportunity was lost. If the opportunity ever arises again, I hope that with our full weight we shall press for that great international reform. Submarines can never be used for commercial purposes in peace time. We have a very good case for making them illegal on the ground of humanity and because it is in accordance with new world ideas. It may be said that submarines can be built in a very few months by some Power which could make all preparations beforehand, and then spring a war on the world. Although that is perfectly true, you cannot make submarine officers in under two years, because they do not get the practice of handling their ships and using their periscopes. Even if we were so unfortunate as to find
      1456
      ourselves engaged in war, we should have two years' breathing space at least in which to make our preparations for countering them, should the war last so long. It would mean a great saving in all the navies of the world if the building and maintenance of submarines were made illegal. It would be immensely to our advantage. Although certain of our continental friends might object to it, we have a great deal to offer them in exchange for it. This would be a favourable opportunity if the First Lord could say a word or two on that subject. It was a great disappointment to some of us to find that the submarine was not made illegal as one of the terms of the Peace.
      It is a pity that any encouragement should be given to the new small nations in Europe to build fleets. A naval mission has been sent to Poland. I believe they were declared to have gone in order to decide on the buoyage and navigation of the Vistula. But shortly after they were there, statements appeared in the Press that the Poles were going to have a Navy of so many cruisers, gunboats and destroyers. If we are going to send naval missions to Jugo-Slavia, Poland, and the other small States to encourage them to build navies of their own, although it may be very agreeable to the armament making rings of the world—they are international; I do not stigmatise any particular nation —these small navies may prove an infernal nuisance to us in the future, and we are making a great mistake if we encourage them to waste their slender resources —they are mostly on the verge of bankruptcy—in building fleets.
      I cannot refrain from saying a few words about one or two other items which I regard as wasteful. At present there are 116 motor cars for the use of the Navy. Before the War I do not think there were any —or perhaps. three or four. There were 162 motor cars on 1st November, 1919. I do not think these can cost less than £30,000 a year. These things all mount up. The greater part of these motor cars could and ought to be dispensed with, and it will be interesting to know why they have not been. Flag officers in commission are another great and unnecessary source of expenditure. On 1st May, 1914, we had thirty-two admirals on shore, and six commodores flying their flags. This was when the Navy was keyed up ready for war at twenty-four hours' notice with the second Navy in the world. On 1st November,

      1457
      1918, when we were at the culminating point of our naval effort, there were sixty-three admirals and twenty-six commodores. On 1st May, 1919, that is seven months after the Armistice, there were still fifty-five admirals and twenty commodores. These gallant admirals are a great expense. They are not only well paid, as they deserve to be, but they have allowances and large staffs, with flag officers on their staffs, and secretaries who are officers and clerical staffs, steamboats and motor-cars of their own in many cases, and they run away with a great deal of money. In the Atlantic Fleet at present there are ten battleships and no fewer than five admirals flying their flags. That means one admiral to every two battleships. That does not conduce to efficiency. In the ordinary course of events a captain has really a much freer hand, and can do his work much better when he is away from a flag officer. He is not always watching the flagship, waiting to see what to do. It encourages initiative. In the old days of the Channel Fleet, in which I served, there were thirty-two ships at one time, and we only had the same number of admirals as there are now in the Atlantic Fleet. The ordinary proportion before the War was four battleships, one admiral. You halve that now, and it is not only a great extravagance, but it actually interferes with the individual efficiency of the captains of the ships. It is, of course, rather a painful matter to deal with, but this officer question is a great source of expenditure. I would refer also to the fact that there is at present a great redundancy of officers. It is an unfortunate fact that there are some four hundred commissioned officers of the rank of lieut.-commander and above for whom there are really not posts in the Navy. Before the War we had 104,400 men, for whom we had 5,330 officers. I admit we were rather short of officers at that time. In the present Estimate we have 196,000 men, but we have 16,400 officers. That means that whereas the men have been increased in numbers since 1914 by 45 per cent., the officers have increased, and apparently are still increased, by 300 per cent. This accounts for what so many hon. Members have referred to as the uncertainty leading to discontent and almost unrest amongst so many officers in the Navy. They do not know whether they are going to be kept on or not, whether they are going to leave
      1458
      and when they are going to leave. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to relieve them of that uncertainty as soon as possible.
      May I inquire whether the men and officers who were sent to the Yorkshire coal mines in connection with the mining strike received the extra pay that was promised, because my information to date is that they have not? They were promised double pay, which I understood was to be found by the mining companies. Furthermore, is it a fact that the seamen, Marines, and stokers who were employed at the time of the railway strike did not receive any extra pay, and, if not, why not? Why did civilians receive £1 a day in many cases, and even, I am told, in the case of motor drivers, £4 a day, while the blue jackets who were sent to do the same work have not received extra pay? In many cases the blue jackets were not volunteers, but were told off for duty. In some cases they were volunteers, but I am told they volunteered because word was passed round at the barracks that those who volunteered would get better jobs, and if they did not they would be told off in any case.
      Mr. LONG: There were no volunteers at all.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to hear that. But volunteers or not, these men were employed on the same work as the civilian volunteers. It was not naval work; it was not the work they enlisted fur, and I believe a great many officers in the Navy agree with me that it was not work which they should be asked to perform, but, nevertheless, they were told off for it, and did it without any question, and they should receive at least the same extra pay as the civilian volunteers.
      I should like to say a few words about the operations in the Baltic and the Black Sea, which received a few paragraphs in the brochure. Has the First Lord completed his inquiries with regard to the ninety-three Royal Marines who are at present in Bodmin Prison under various sentences of penal servitude for, incredible as it sounds, I am told in some cases, cowardice in action? The Royal Marines, a regiment than which there is none better in the whole world; a regiment which was described by the late Lord Beresford as the sheet anchor of the Navy, men of wonderful morale, with great esprit de corps; men who have done wonderful work for the last three hundred years

      1459
      —it seems incredible that ninety-three of these men should be in gaol on a charge of cowardice and insubordination. It is an event unprecedented. Is it a fact that these men were disembarked from the ship and sent on leave with the instruction that they were going to be sent to the Army of the Rhine? Is it a fact that six hours after they had returned from leave, and before they were embarked, they were told that they were being sent to Russia? Is it also a fact that they were sent out there, and although they did not like it they went? Whether these men actually did refuse to fight or did show any sense of cowardice is very much questioned.
      Mr. LONG: I very reluctantly interfere, but I must ask your ruling, Mr. Whitley. I have said, in answer to questions, that these very serious charges against gallant sailors and Marines are now under investigation by the Board of Admiralty. They have been reported upon by various courts-martial. They have been receiving, and are receiving even to-day, the most careful examination by the Board of Admiralty. In other words, they are sub judice, and I submit that questions which are sub judice ought not to be raised in the House of Commons, where these questions can be asked, but where it is quite impossible for me as First Lord of the Admiralty to answer them, owing to the fact that they are still the subject of investigation, both here and on the spot.
      The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will see that in that case he ought not to pursue the subject.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can see that at once. I was really asking whether any decision had been come to. It was sub judice a fortnight ago, and I thought that a decision might have been reached. I did not put a question down because I intended to raise it to-day. In regard to the Baltic we are told that the Admiralty have sent out ships to guard the shores of Latvia and Esthonia, and that Admiral Sir Walter Cowan—in regard to whom I share fully the First Lord's admiration—has been sent to command that squadron. Admiral Cowan is first and last a fighting man. He would not mind my saying that he would fight anyone, anywhere, at any time. To send Admiral Cowan and to give him any sort of hint that there is a hostile squadron
      1460
      means that he will attack it. Was it quite policy to send him out to the Eastern Baltic to defend the shores of Latvia and Esthonia, and to order him to get into touch and to co-operate with the German General Von der Goltz, and to act with him against the Bolsheviks in December, when we were still technically at war with Germany but not at war with the Bolsheviks? Is it quite in accordance with the great and high traditions of the Royal Navy that we should have to collaborate with this German Junker, Von der Goltz? Was it altogether wise to send as his political adviser a Baltic baron? Was that likely to reassure the people whom he was sent to protect?
      The CHAIRMAN: These seem to be questions of common policy, which ought not to be pursued now.
      10.0 P. M.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I at once bow to your ruling. May we have some details about the lamentable death of nine sailors on board His Majesty's ship "Dragon"? This vessel was fired upon by Bermondt's artillery, and we know that nine gallant men were killed, blown to pieces, and one officer and four men wounded. She was delayed in getting away from danger, and was deliberately fired upon by the Russians who were supposed to be helping. Is it a fact that His Majesty's ship "Dragon" had both anchors down, and the cables were not even on the slips, when fire was suddenly opened on her? I do not want to pursue the question of the employment of the Navy any further, but I would like to say this: that from the time of its inception the Royal Navy has fought for freedom and liberty. It fought the Inquisition in the time of Elizabeth. It fought the Imperialism of Napoleon. It fought for the freedom of the slaves. Its greatest traditions and its greatest glory have been gained in fighting for liberty and freedom. Because it realises that on it rests the safety and security of the realm, because it is the Navy recruited for long service in all parts of the world, it behaves those who have the direction of it to think carefully on what service they send it, and that that service can bear full investigation.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I intervene for a few moments to express a few views from the Labour point of view. I join in the tribute of gratitude expressed by the First Lord to the officers and men for the splendid

      1461
      service they rendered during the War. I am in agreement with his statement that we should have a Navy sufficient to protect the country and the Empire. I was also very pleased to know that, in the Estimates he has made provision for higher pay and better conditions for the men of the Royal Navy. I fear that having noted these points of agreement, I have exhausted the points wherein the right hon. Gentleman and myself agree regarding the Estimates. These Estimates will be a serious disappointment to a large number of people. During the War we were frequently told that this was a War to end war; and our people were led to expect that upon its conclusion there would be a serious attempt made to reduce the burden of armaments. Instead of that, however, in the first year of Peace, we have the First Lord presenting an Estimate amounting to no less than £157,528,000, as against an expenditure of a little over £50,000,000 in the year before the War, something like three times our pre-war expenditure.
      Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend is not treating the Admiralty quite fairly. In the £51,000,000 expenditure in the Naval Estimates in the year 1914 there was no previous debt of any kind. That was expenditure for the upkeep and maintenance of the Navy for the year and prices of everything at that time were also very much lower. To-day out of our total Estimate no less than £80,000,000 is due to debts incurred during the War, so that if you deduct from the present Estimate the debts incurred before the War and the increased charges since the War the actual Estimates are actually lower than before the War.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I am much indebted to the First Lord for his explanation, but I cannot agree with him in the way he figures out the Estimate. Notwithstanding the increase in tie cost of materials necessary for the Navy, I am strongly of the opinion that greater deductions could have taken place in the present year. In the year before the War this country was faced with the ever-present possibility of a fight for its life with Germany. Notwithstanding that we spent roughly £50,000,000 on the Navy, which was then practically our sole arm of defence. To-day the German fleet is at the bottom of the sea, and the only other countries which have navies of considerable size are our Allies, countries
      1462
      with whom we are on the closest terms of friendship. Yet here we have this enormous Estimate, which is only 25 per cent. less than the largest Estimate which we had in the course of the War, for the Navy. That is a very serious position for the people of this country to find themselves in. The First Lord told us that before the war we had to provide for a two- or three-Power standard, but that our great enemy had now disappeared. He said there were, however, new conditions and difficult conditions surrounding us, and that he was examining the new conditions with his advisers. I would ask him in the course of his examination to take into consideration with his advisers several important points.
      The first is that any fleets of any considerable size in the world are those of our Allies with whom we are endeavouring to cultivate terms of the closest friendship and that consequently there is not the same necessity for us to continue to have such a large fleet as in prewar days. The next point is that nine out of every ten of our people were of opinion that the first step after Peace was declared to be taken by ourselves and the Allies would be to reduce greatly the armaments which constituted such a serious burden not only to ourselves but to other countries. Unless this is done we may tempt other countries again to build up big navies, and that will bring us into the same position as we were in before the War began. Unless this is done there is great danger of the world being overwhelmed with the enormous burden of defence. This is a question that cannot be left entirely to the officers of either the Army or the Navy, but a question in which the whole of the people of this country have as much interest as these two sections, and on which they have a perfect right to express an opinion as to our future procedure. The third point to keep in mind is that this nation at the moment is faced with a national debt of £8,000,000,000, and in order to meet the interest on that national debt and our other standing charges, we are continuing to spend more than we are raising, and are creating fresh debt. The most important question for our people at the present moment is whether we are going speedily to recover our solvency as a nation.
      The next point is what influence the League of Nations is going to have upon the future peace of the world and cones-

      1463
      quently upon the necessity of continuing to have either a large Navy or a large Army. Whatever ideas the First Lord may have regarding the League of Nations, the working classes of this country are determined that this League will be used to its utmost capacity for the purposes of settling our international difficulties on the basis of arbitration, instead of by the arbitrament of the sword. The First Lord pointed out in reference to the discharge of men from the Royal dockyards that the Admiralty had exhausted every avenue with the object of finding employment for these men. I disagree with that statement. He pointed out that these men had given their services unreservedly to the Admiralty. With that I am in agreement, but my colleagues and I are strongly of opinion that there is an immense amount of work to be done in connection with the Mercantile Marine and the reconditioning of the ships which have been under the control of the Admiralty, work which ought to be given to men in the Royal dockyards, and so keep up the volume of employment there. I have heard it stated that at Devonport—and I assume it applies to other dockyards—some suggestion was made that commercial work could be undertaken if orders were received. Does the First Lord really expect that private shipbuilding firms and shipowners are going to give orders to the Royal dockyards and so lose the profit that they could secure by doing the work themselves? Such a suggestion is not worthy of consideration. I make bold to say that, apart from building merchant ships for the State, in the interests of the State—a thing which clearly ought to be done, in view of the present scarcity of shipping—the Admiralty could put in hand the reconditioning in the Royal dockyards of the vessels that have been under their control, and so ensure full employment for the men in the dockyards. I understand that with respect to the reconditioning of ships alone many millions of pounds require to be spent, and if that work was given entirely to the Royal dockyards, as it should be, there is no doubt that the men will have full employment.
      We agree with the First Lord's statement that the difficulties which our men have had to face in the Baltic have been great. We disagree with him as to the necessity of the men being there. We think that the Government are pursuing a mistaken policy in Russia. That is all I am
      1464
      going to say about that. I know, as well as the First Lord, that I am on dangerous ground. The point I wanted to make is that there is strong indignation existing in this country as to the treatment of the ninety-three Royal Marines, and I think the First Lord will be well advised to have that matter gone into very closely at the earliest possible moment.
      Mr. LONG: We are looking into it.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I trust that these men will be treated not only justly but as generously as their service to the country demands. I do not want to take up any more time. The First Lord has yet to reply, to the criticisms made. We do not want to see a single step taken that would endanger the safety of the country, but at the same time we are strongly of the opinion that under existing conditions there is no necessity for continuing to spend such large sums either on the Army or on the Navy and that the time has arrived when not only the Government but this House and the country will require to face seriously the financial position in which we find ourselves. If we are to do that, if we are to recover our solvency and remedy the serious position in which we are to-day, it can be only by large reductions in the Army- and Navy and in other State Departments.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Before I come to the points raised since the First Lord's introductory statement I should like, if I may, to make one or two general observations upon these Estimates. At the time of the Armistice everything was in full blast, full steam ahead, so far as we were concerned. Our war production effort at the time was at a crescendo, at its highest point at that moment. Hostilities had not ceased because of exhaustion on our part, it was the other way round, and had it been necessary that crescendo on our part would still have gone higher. As it happened we were making provision for eventualities which never arose. But, of course, the work of slowing down and cancelling and abandoning under those circumstances is not so simple as if we had been in a state of exhaustion. Now we have been charged, in common with all other Government Departments, as the First Lord said earlier, with having drifted on, recklessly 'spending money long after the necessity had ceased. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) thinks so, too, and not only that, but altogether unmindful,

      1465
      as he would say, of the straitened condition of the national purse as a result of the strain of war. I do think that the First Lora's statement shows how unjust and ill-founded that charge really is. I hope I may be allowed just to enforce his repudiation that we have been wasteful and allowed things to drift on after the moment of necessity. I hope I may be allowed to do so, particularly because I think the country owes a debt of real gratitude to the body of public servants who passed at once and without intermission from the grave anxieties and strain of over four years of war to a task as difficult and as complex as anything they experienced in the War, and applied themselves loyally and faithfully to the task of bringing down the tremendous and increasing momentum of this great and complicated machine to what I may call slow time with as little delay as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said we began too late. Nothing of the kind. I remember the morning of the Armistice I heard the guns booming outside and the hells ringing, and we were sitting at that time, while the people were rejoicing at the Armistice having been signed, in an emergency meeting of the Board of Admiralty to consider how we could at once slow down, reduce, cancel, and abandon. That is not the middle of the year, but the 11th of November, 1918.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then why did you wait for five months before stopping the waste on the building of ships and airships?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I say that so far from waiting for the middle of the year the very moment the Armistice was signed the Board of Admiralty was at work, as it was in duty bound, on seeing how it could avoid unnecessary expenditure. What is the result? The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. In 1918–19 the expenditure was round about £325,000,000 and in the year after 1919–20, the Estimates now before us, and a year a third of which had actually passed before Paece was signed, and a year the whole of which saw very considerable obligations on the Royal Navy in several seas, we have got that £325,000,000 down to £157,000,000. Of that £157,000,000, the First Lord has said earlier in the day that quite a considerable amount is non-recurring war liabilities, not contributing to the maintenance of 1920 at all, deadweight liabilities which
      1466
      we had to meet, and, more than that, there are millions of this—and no one in the Committee or outside of it will object —which represent well-merited permanent improvements in pay and conditions of service for the officers and men of the Fleet; and, further, let me say that all the' Store Votes are double as high as they were in 1914, because everything is twice. as dear. I am prejudiced in favour of it, of course, but I know the day-by-day and the hour-by-hour labour and watchfulness-which has produced this result. I do not pretend that either the officials of the Admiralty or myself or the First Lord are infallible; I do not pretend that every penny of expenditure has automatically ceased at the moment when it is no longer necessary; certainly not, but I do know, from the beginning, day by day, that unremitting watchfulness has been bestowed upon this, and the figures before us are, after all, the best witness to that fact. I think it right to say that, if only in justification of officers at the Admiralty who, after the' long strain of the War, continued without intermission, have brought the momentum of this great machine down to slow time so admirably. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) suggested that we should publish once a month a series of Statistical Tables showing the course of expenditure. I interrupted to point out that that would be entirely misleading, because in any given month payments might be unduly coming in, which would make that month appear to be one in which we had spent a good deal more than we really had, and the Statement for that particular month would really bear no relation whatever to-the actual expenditure of the month. That is my experience front going into my- own figures in my own way, pretty much on the lines the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. Nevertheless, we will look into that and see whether it will not be possible —although it will certainly be very difficult—to produce sonic Returns which will show the country that we are not quite the wasters that a good many people suggest we are. It will be difficult, but at any rate it shall be considered.
      I will now turn to some of the more detailed points which have been raised during the Debate, and if I do not cover all the points which have been urged—and I take leave at once to say that it is physically impossible to do that—let me assure hon. Members that all the points made in the Debate to-day will be

      1467
      referred, as they always are, for information and consideration to the Departments and superintending Lords concerned, and if necessary, reported and brought up to the Board. As regards the interesting comments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Shettleston Division (Rear-Admiral Adair), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenwich (Captain Hamilton Benn), in regard to the question of the relations between the Navy of the future and operations in the air, that, obviously, is a matter of high policy. It is a question for the Board of Admiralty in the first instance, and then for the Cabinet. If I do not discuss that now, my hon. and right hon. Friends will see that is a matter for a higher authority than I possess, but that again will be a matter which, as I have said, will be referred to those responsible for its consideration. The First Lord stated that during the Armistice we had 1,005 craft of all sorts, mainly small craft, under construction, and that we cancelled over.600, and by that cancellation we saved £46,000,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles asked for information as to the cost of building all the others, so that it might be seen what proportion of what otherwise would have been expended, was saved. I tried to get the figures. I could make a shot, at them now, but I do not want to do that. Some vessels were in the dockyards, some under contract, and some under time and line. It would be very difficult to get the total figures. But if my right hon. Friend will put a question down—and I will suggest it to him tomorrow when I see him—I will try to work it out and show to what we were committed, and what would have been the cost if we had gone on with everything in the ray of shipbuilding from the moment of the Armistice, and what would have been the cost of the ships that would have been completed since. Then he asked why we were going on with two boom defence vessels, as we had apparently a lot already. They were so far completed as to make it expedient and good business to finish them. But they are being completed now to be used when completed as two barges, and no doubt we shall get our money's worth for them.
      1468
      In the course of the Debate a number of hon. Friends have pressed for a definite statement regarding permanent post-war naval provision and policy. It is impossible for me, or anybody else, not to sympathise with one of the grounds upon which that request has been put forward, namely, that the officers and men of the Fleet desire to know at the earliest possible moment what is to be the future of the Service to which they belong, and they are naturally anxious and apprehensive as to their own future. I say that is a ground as to which everyone must sympathise, and it is undoubtedly our duty to them, and it is the least we can do, to make delay as unavoidable and as short as possible. But my hon. and gallant Friends and the officers and men of the Fleet will, I am sure, realise the position in which the Government finds itself. It is not at this moment, having regard to the information in its possession., and the circumstances in which it finds itself, in a position to determine finally the future policy, but it will be compelled, so far as I can see, to determine the standards of the immediate future in a very short period of time, because in a very short time we shall have to get to work in the preparation of the Estimates for 1920–21. These must be submitted in about three months or so, and I imagine it will be for the First Lord in submitting them to go much further than he has gone to-day in regard to the future policy which determines naval strategy. Then the matter—on the submission of the Estimates—can be carried to a much more definite conclusion than to-day. There is nothing for it in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I am afraid, than that, my hon. and gallant Friends, and those whose interests they represent so ably, should possess their souls in patience till the Estimates are submitted.
      Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that that policy will be announced in three months?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: What that policy shall be—certainly not!
      Viscount CURZON: in regard to the personnel?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say more. But you cannot submit the Estimates for 1920–21 without some clear idea of what your immediate future is; that is perfectly obvious. Officers and men of the Fleet will be in a much better position then to

      1469
      answer the anxieties and apprehensions which naturally fill their minds than to-day. Various hon. and gallant Gentlemen pressed—and quite rightly!the anxiety of the men in regard to re-engagement for pension. In this desire which has arisen out of what I may call the policy of free discharges, naturally the man finds himself anxious as to what would happen to him if he stayed in the Navy. Men have come, say, to a period when they might fairly reasonably expect to be allowed to go on and get further time for pension. I take this opportunity of stating—and I am glad I have been given that opportunity—there is no ground whatever, so far as I can see, for the anxiety which appears to have arisen as to what will happen when the time for re-engagement arrives. There is no intention of restricting re-engagement to complete time for pension of the man whose record has been satisfactory in all respects.
      The next question raised, very influentially, relates to pay, particularly in respect to a comparison of officers of the Navy and the Army, to the great advantage, as I gather from the speeches, of the new Army scale, especially from the point of view of the family allowance. I wish time permitted me to go into the comparison. It does not. One thing I would say: I do think we want to examine the case of the lieutenant (ex-mate). There is a case there. Under this approved scale of salaries an officer who has four children, and the children's allowance is withdrawn, will, as a matter of fact, be a loser to the extent. of £4 15s. in the year. Under the Halsey-Jerram recommendations no other officer would lose at all. This is a case that requires looking into. As a matter of fact, we have it before us. The question of naval schoolmasters has been referred to, but their case was dealt with by the Jerram-Halsey Committee, and the Government decision on the matter was, briefly, that as the pay of the naval schoolmasters has been considered and increased at the end of 1918, and as they had received the ad interim increase of the 1st of February, 1919, their rates compared favourably with the salaries of teachers in civil life. It is true that a number of temporary schoolmasters who had been serving during the War were asked to offer their services with the Navy permanently after the War, and it is quite true that the response to that invitation has not been very reassuring. I may say, however, that the views expressed
      1470
      to-day will be very carefully considered by the Board. I have no authority to go beyond that, except to say that I have been impressed, not only to-day, but with the case made out from the point of view of those who put it that some consideration should be paid to these men. With regard to the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, representations have been made to us by members of the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, and hon. Friends interested, and on the 14th November a deputation representing these men was received at the Admiralty by the Fourth Sea Lord and myself, and a full opportunity was given to the men to state their case. The requests put. forward have been referred to a conference of the Admiralty Departments concerned, and the decisions reached will be communicated to the representatives who attended at the earliest possible moment.
      So far only one small point has been settled. Members of the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve, when up for annual drill, will be paid provision, lodging, and subsistence allowances at the rates payable to active service ratings. For the rest, I am afraid they must await the decisions. With reference to the pensioners over fifty-five, I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the decision which has already been stated, and I have no authority to vary that decision in any way. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport gave a sad case of a woman who was eking out a bare existence on Ds. 6d. a week. I know of no naval fund that can render assistance in this case, but if there is any means of getting further assistance from other sources, I will see what can be done. Then there is the case of Article 48 of the Jerram decision raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham? What are the facts as to this? Pensioners, under Article 51, are men who have done twenty-two years' service, and their basic rate was raised. But men who have not done twenty-two years, but have been invalided, had a pension which was partly service and partly disability. The sum for the service part previously had borne a certain proportion to the basic rate. When the Jerram Committee recommended it, the Government raised the basic rate threefold, but they left untouched the service part of the pension received by the man with a disability pension. Naturally, the Jerram Committee suggested that something more should be done for the

      1471
      men invalided out under twenty-two years' service by way of bringing the service part of the pension up to something approaching the new basic rate. It was recommended that men invalided should be awarded a pension in respect of length of service apart from any award in respect of disability. That announcement was made months ago in the White Paper. We prepared a scheme which had to go first to the Pensions Ministry and then to the Treasury, and it is with the Treasury now. All I can say is I regret I am unable to advance it beyond that stage. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend it is a long time since we gave the undertaking that the Admiralty would examine into the question with a view to a further announcement, but I hope we may be able to hasten the decision.
      Now I come to the Welfare Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) pressed me about this. The Committee consists of officers selected by the Admiralty and presided over by Admiral Sir Martyn Jerram, to whom we owe so much. It is assisted by an Advisory Committee of men representing the various branches of the lower-deck ratings elected by the lower-deck ratings themselves.
      Mr. J. JONES: Soviet government.!
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The elections were held at Chatham, Portsmouth and Devon-port in September last, and a meeting was held at each port to decide what questions should be brought forward. A comprehensive programme was finally drawn up at Portsmouth. The method of conducting the elections and the meetings was left entirely to the men, and at the conclusion of the meetings at Portsmouth the decisions were forwarded to the Welfare Committee at the Admiralty on the 2nd October last, and after they had been sifted and summarised by the Committee, the eighteen advisory members, who were drawn in equal numbers from the three ports, were summoned to London.
      The first meeting of the complete Committee took place on Tuesday, 14th October, and since then I am advised it has sat from day to day, and is still sitting. I understand that the Advisory Committee may conclude their labours within the next fortnight. The requests of the men contain a great many details which necessitate close investigation, and I am afraid
      1472
      that no date can yet be fixed for the completion of the Committee's work. Their-recommendations will, of course, receive careful consideration by the Board when they come to us. The hon. Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) referred to the fact that we had said in this House that the Women's Royal Naval Service had been demobilised, but that in reply to a question put it had been admitted that 564 were now in our service, having been entered again as civilians.
      My hon. and gallant Friend, in effect, says. "Do you think that it is necessary to keep all these girls engaged upon this civilian work, telephone operating and clerical work, when so many ex-sailors and soldiers have no work to do?" I have every sympathy with that request. In the great majority of cases the employment is purely temporary, and, where practicable. ex-Service men are being substituted. I go further than that, and I know that I carry the First Lord with me. These girls have done very good work indeed during the War. They are very keen and efficient, but, things being what they are, if there are any of them who have a good subsistence at home, if their parents will keep them for the time being. then, though not wishing to prejudice them at I do think that, without being ungrateful for the services that they have rendered, they ought to go home and give place to ex-Service men, many of whom undoubtedly ace unemployed. We shall, we hope without inflicting any hardship upon anybody, do what we can, as I said in my answer, to find employment for ex-Service men in these posts wherever practicable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieutenant Commander Kenworthy) said, "What about the men who went down and helped in connection with the miners' strike? Why have they not had the extra pay that they were promised?" Here is the answer I gave on 22nd October:
      "Instructions were issued in August last of these officers and men to receive extra pay at double the rates laid down in the regulations whilst employed in the Yorkshire mines, in addition to their ordinary naval pay and allowances (including, separation allowances where these are issuable). The colliery companies concerned are being asked to refund to the Crown a sum equivalent to the civilian wages for which they would have been liable had the pumping stations, etc., been manned by civilians instead of naval personnel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1919, col, 2, Vol. 120.]
      Do I understand that these men have not been paid?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked if they had got the pay. I am told they have not.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not any doubt about it, but the first thing that I do when I leave this bench will be to find out.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Thanks; that is all that I want.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that there is much doubt about it.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said that the railway people had not got their pay.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) mentioned particular ships in which certain sums had been spent in repair work. The suggestion, I think, was that we were spending money repairing ships for which there was no necessity. What were the ships? The "Repulse," a battle-cruiser, laid down in 1915 and completed in 1910. Is he going to scrap her? If not, why are we asked why we are spending money repairing that ship, a first-class ship? Then he mentioned the "Chatham," a light cruiser, completed in December, 1912. Certain necessary alterations and repairs were made in her to fit her for the post-war fleet. The "Himalaya" was purchased in 1916. She was converted into an armed merchant cruiser and has now been converted into a transport ship for troop service. That is why we are spending money upon her. The "Antrim," the fourth ship mentioned, is being fitted as a signal training ship. She was completed in 1905 and is not required to fight. She was specially selected for the purpose of a signal training ship because she was the most suitable vessel, and the only alterations that are being carried out are those which are to fit her for her duties, which are very important.
      Reference was made by the First Lord in the first instance and by other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen Later, to service in the Baltic—an exceptionally arduous and trying service in any case, but particularly so coming after the long strain of the War without intermission. Everybody in the Committee and in the country will endorse the First Lord's praise of the way in which that service has been performed. In reply to an inquiry which has
      1474
      been made, I may say that a clasp for war service in the Baltic will be issued, and—it is a small matter, but I state it in reply to a query that has reached me, if not from the Committee to-day, at any rate from other quarters—extra leave to the extent of one day for each two weeks' service in the Baltic, up to a maximum of seven days, will be given. Several of my hon. Friends have asked questions about the Royal Dockyards and their future. The First Lord at the outset of the. Debate explained what pains we had been at to mitigate the hardship of discharges. I am glad to say that the immediate discharges are on a very small scale. They are not wiped out altogether for the moment, except in Chatham, where we have agreed to go on short time and which has only had one half-day. It did nut have any half-day last week, and it might not have, although this I cannot promise, a half-day this week. Other reductions have been reduced to a very small number, although they are all additions in each case to a very large number of men already unemployed, particularly in Portsmouth and Devonport. The Committee has heard that we received the Report of Lord Colwyn's Committee last Thursday, or, rather the First Lord had then received it and others of us had not. The First Lord at once introduced au informal discussion upon it at the Board on Thursday. Another Board was held yesterday, at which the matter was carefully discussed, and a Committee of three has been appointed by the Admiralty to look into Lord Colwyn's proposals, and to see in what way practical effect can be given to them. Certainly we shall not allow the grass to grow under our feet in carrying into effect whatever is practicable in that Report. Nothing would give us deeper satisfaction than to find as the result of Lord Colwyn's inquiry that discharges need not farther be carried out, at any rate during the hard time of the winter and the early spring. I believe I have now covered most of the points which have been raised.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about motor cars?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: How many of them are there?
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: One hundred and sixty-two.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That is 162 over the whole world. I am informed that they are

      1475
      very well employed, and I have no reason to doubt it. I would appeal to the Committee to give us this Vote and the others, for this reason: Our first Vote on Account of £60,000,000 was to have carried us to the middle of July, when we hoped to be in a position to submit these Estimates. It did carry us through till that time, but we were not able to submit the Estimates, and we asked for another Vote on Account, which we hoped would carry us up to between the 8th and the 15th December. That is what has happened, and unless we get the Vote to-night, not to put too fine a point on it, we may find ourselves rather hard up.
      11.0 P. M.
      Major-General SEELY: May I press the First Lord for an answer to the question I put earlier in the Debate, Whether he is satisfied and can defend the present arrangement under which the necessarily competing claims of the Navy and the Army for air equipment and air service are referred not to an impartial Minister as between the two, but to the Minister who is the head of the Army; and, if he is not satisfied with that arrangement and cannot defend it, what steps he proposes to take to put an end to an arrangement which is obviously so prejudicial to the naval service?
      Mr. LONG: I have no hesitation whatever in answering my right hon. Friend's question, as far as it is possible for me to do so, although I might take refuge, if I chose, in the very ordinary Parliamentary reply that the whole of his question is hypothetical, because really it centres in his conclusion, what course shall I take as First Lord of the Admiralty if and when I find that the present arrangement does not conduce to the efficiency of the Navy? My right hon. Friend and I are too old friends to quarrel, but if I wanted to quarrel I might say he must leave it to me to say what course I take when I do not feel it consistent with my honour and credit to remain a member of the Government. That is really the answer to his question. When he asks me about the present situation, that is a totally different question, and, as we have discovered to-night, it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to answer it within the very narrow limits which we are allowed in this Debate, owing to the fact that we have to accept the existing condition of things under which the Air
      1476
      Board is a Ministry by itself. My right hon. Friend is an enthusiastic supporter of a separate air administration. My hon. and gallant Friend (Rear-Admiral Adair) does not share my right hon. Friend's views. He does not approve of the existing state of things, but he still more disapproves of a separate Air Ministry, and wants a reversion to the original condition which existed before the Air Minister was appointed.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR: It should become a part of the Navy.
      Mr. LONG: That is exactly what it was before the Air Board was appointed. The Board of Admiralty and the War Office were each responsible for their respective air branches. Owing to the very unsatisfactory state of things which arose during the War public opinion became very excited, and the opinion of this House was not only unanimous, it was more than that. No Government could have resisted the pressure of Parliament to get rid of this dual control, by the two military Departments, and to substitute a separate Air Ministry. Therefore, it would be kicking against the pricks to attempt, even if you believe in the old system, to go back to it now. Parliament deliberately arrived at this conclusion. I was a member of the Government at the time, and I know how great the pressure was. The Air Department was created, and up to the constitution of the present Government it was under a separate head. The Air Department is now under a Secretary of State, who is also Secretary of State for War. My right hon. Friend (General Seely) thereupon rehearses to the Committee an imaginary conversation between myself and the head of the Air Board I was unable to recognise either myself or the head of the Air Board in the conversation which was rehearsed with artistic skill. He asks me, "What are you going to do when the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air, Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this dual political personality, tells you that having discussed the matter with himself he cannot give you at the Admiralty what you want for the air, because he has already given it to himself at the War Office "? I do not want to take refuge in the hypothetical, but I think I may pray for mercy and say that we have plenty of other difficulties to deal with. We have had a most interesting debate. Everybody who has spoken has criticised the Admiralty and

      1477
      the First Lord, and has attacked us and abused us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, at any rate, the majority have. Ninety-eight per cent. have, and the other 2 per cent. that have praised us have done it more in the sense of favours to come than of favours received. At the end of the Debate, with my bruised ribs, and in my exhausted condition, I find myself being asked what I shall do in a hypothetical situation, when the Secretary of State for War says that he has consulted the Secretary of State for Air, and the Secretary of State for Air cannot give to the Secretary of State for War all that he wants, and therefore the Secretary of State for War cannot give the First Lord of the Admiralty all that he wants. That state of things has not yet arisen. As a matter of fact the chief of the naval staff, who is the First Sea Lord, and the chief of the air staff have been in constant communication. I do not say for a moment that I am satisfied with what the Air Board has done, but I have no reason to believe that this is because the Air Board has surrendered itself to the War Office. I am not at all sure that it is not the case that the Air Board take a different view of what we want than we take ourselves. It may be that my combat in the future will not be with the Secretary of State for War, but with the Air Board, who may take a different view from what we take of naval requirements. All I can say is that when the moment arrives when I find—if I am still First Lord of the Admiralty—that the Navy suffers, the first thing -I shall have to do will be to discover whether the culprit is the Air Board or the War Office, and the second thing will be to decide, having found the culprit, the course to take in regard to my own position. I do mot think I ought to be asked to state in advance what course I should take. My right hon. and gallant Friend has taken his own course. He has, in accordance with a long and honourable Parliamentary position, resigned the office he held, because he felt that he could no longer serve the country in that capacity. He may rest assured that I am not likely to hold my office one moment longer than I feel I can hold it consistent with my duty to my country.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR: As the First Lord has given us an assurance that in three months we shall know the numbers
      1478
      for next year, 1920–21, no useful purpose will be effected by going to a Division—
      Mr. LONG:To-day is the 10th of December, and I have never given the assurance that within three months, to a day or a week, this shall be done. What I have said is that the new Estimates for the coming year must be presented within about three months, and at that time I shall certainly make a definite statement.
      Rear-Admiral ADAIR.: That is quite sufficient. No useful purpose would be served by going to a Division, and I, therefore, withdraw my Amendment I must say one word as to the Air Service. In the Navy we look to the Admiralty and not to the Air Ministry, for the Air Service which is absolutely essential for the efficiency of the Navy.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.

      VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2,385,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Victualling and Clothing fur the Navy, in-eluding the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st claw of March, 1920. in addition to a sum of.£7,623,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is any item in this Vote going to provide clothes and food for the naval prisoners of war in Russia? Whether we agree with those operations or not—and I certainly do not, for I consider that those gallant officers were sent on a wild adventure which no Government was justified in sending them on—we are all agreed that those very courageous and gallant officers were only doing their duty. In view of the apparent collapse of the Conference at Copenhagen are any steps being taken to supply these officers and men with the clothes and food which they require?
      Mr. LONG: This Vote covers all supplies for clothing and victualling. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that anything which the Government can do to avoid suffering by these gallant officers and men who are prisoners of war as a result of the part they played when doing their duty as fighting men will be done by us. How much we can do I do not know, but what we can do we certainly will do.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: desire to ask questions on two points, and, as it is a constitutional right to redress grievances before granting Supply, and this is the only opportunity for a private Member to raise these points, I make no apology for keeping the Committee a few moments. In Chatham Barracks there are complaints as to the food supply. There are 2,000 ratings, and as men are always away on leave the Admiralty does not need to expend the whole of the victualling allowance for the whole of these men. The money is the savings of the men, and what I want to know is, if there are economies in this way, do they go to the Treasury or, as we in the Navy think they should go, to the men. Then there are complaints, about the preparation of the food, particularly in Chatham Barracks. It is a grievance which the men have brought forward in the ordinary way, but there has not been much improvement. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that that is the case, in order that he can put it right. Another matter is that there has been great delay in the decision as to the uniform of petty officers. Ever since I have been in the Navy, petty officers have been asking respectfully and appealing loyally for the new uniform similar to that of the chief petty officers and known in Navy parlance as the fore-and-aft rig. It has been approved, I understand, but the decision has not yet come out. These men are in this condition — that when they want new clothing they do not know whether to purchase the old petty officer's rig or the new rig not yet 'sanctioned. Finally, may I hope that better steps will be taken —I believe it is being done—for the comfort, in the way of fresh provisions and canteen supplies, of our gallant forces in the Baltic! The countries there are swept clear of food, everything is at famine prices, and they have been deprived of the usual depot ships that ought to accompany light flotillas wherever they go. Presumably it was thought that the ships would be in that neighbourhood for a week only. Some ships are staying for the winter at Copenhagen and other ports. I hope the Admiralty will take steps to see that depot ships and proper canteens are sent out, and that there is a proper supply of provisions.
      Sir T. BRAMSDON: Has any decision been come to with reference to the Royal Marines hat, which is so much like a German hat, and is objected to by them?
      Mr. LONG: Some of these questions have taken me a little by surprise. There has certainly- been 1no decision about the Marine's hat. With regard to the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), I understand that he has written about some complaint concerning the catering at Chatham. The complaint certainly has not reached me. I was not aware that there was any well-founded grievance. It is not difficult to find people who will make complaints in any mess or in any barracks, but certainly no serious complaints have reached me. If there are any complaints which have reached the hon. and gallant Member, and he will be good enough to send them to my right hon. Friend (Dr. Maenamara) or myself, I will undertake that they will at once be inquired into. With regard to the surplus funds, I know nothing about it. Before I could answer I must know whether it is a question of the canteen mess, in which case, of course, the men would be, entitled to the surplus money, or whether it merely means that there are not as many men as we are supposed to feed, in which case the Treasury would be entitled to the money.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the general mess.
      Mr. LONG: If the hon. and gallant Member will communicate the facts to me I will inquire into the matter. With regard to the Baltic, it is true that in the early part of the year there was an unfortunate failure, for which no one was directly to blame, in supplying satisfactory food to the ships there. It has long ago been put right. I have ascertained that at the present moment, beyond all question of doubt, everything is thoroughly satisfactory, and I can assure the Committee that every station, at Copenhagen or any other port in the Baltic, will be amply provided for, and we will take every precaution to see that the men serving in these difficult conditions are well fed and well clothed, and that the ships have every reasonable accommodation.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £150,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Medical Services, including the cost, of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad,

      1481
      which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £479,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on a000unt a Navy Services generally."

      CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum not exceeding £118,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Civilian employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending ion the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £378,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the, sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to refer to the case of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the grievance which is felt in connection with women being employed on clerical work in the Naval Barracks at Chatham. Those were posts held by Writers or Naval Clerks, and after some years of war those men looked forward to being beside their families in these depots, and instead they are given to women. No doubt the Women's Royal Naval Service did good work during the War, but the matter is not simply a matter of discharged soldiers and sailors but one as to naval writers, and affects not only Chatham but other naval writers.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I really thought I had covered that point, but I observe there is this difference in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, and that is that the writers in the Navy think these posts should be theirs. I looked at it from the point of view of the discharged service men; but I will now look at it from my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £99,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £318,000 to be, allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000.000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the Admiralty are tackling the whole question as to education, and will they, when the Estimates are brought up in March next, be prepared to give some idea of the policy which they are going to pursue in future years in regard to the education of officers, and particularly public school cadets?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is most unfortunate that the Naval Staff College has been retained at Greenwich. I believe most of the present staff, and particularly the junior officers, would prefer it to be at Camberley. Greenwich is too near London, and at Camberley it would be in touch with the Military and Air Force, and you would get that clash of mind which is desirable.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the first question as to the education of naval officers and our position, there is no proposal whatever to depart from the special entry system. I do not know that I can say anything more upon the matter than that. As to Greenwich we do not propose to change the college.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £353,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000.000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

      ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £109,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £350,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Viscount CURZON: I would like to ask one question with regard to the Royal Naval Reserve. Can the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as possible, give some indication of the policy of the Admiralty with regard to the future of the Royal Naval Reserve, if not now, when the next Estimates are produced?
      Mr. LONG: I can assure my Noble Friend that the inability of the Board of Admiralty definitely to state what the policy shall be in future is not due to want of consideration or of appreciation on our part of the natural inconvenience to both officers and men of the state of ambiguity in which we now are. It is really inseparable from the world conditions, and if we were to act hastily now I am certain the first people to condemn us hereafter would be the very hon. Gentle-

      1483
      men who are now urging us to a, hasty conclusion. At the earliest possible moment we will announce, either here in Parliament, or, if Parliament is not sitting, by other methods, what the policy is with regard to the members of the Navy and the future of officers and men and of the Reserve.
      Captain HAMILTON BENN:I desire to press the subject of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and to emphasise the necessity for doing something about it. at an early date, but I recognise that at this time of night it would not receive the sympathetic hearing that I wish it to have. Therefore, I propose only to ask the right don. Gentleman whether he will give this matter his very special attention. It does not depend upon the post-war policy of the Navy. It is a Reserve of men which can be obtained without any large expense and which will always be required in every circumstance, and there is no reason for withholding the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to them. There are something over 50,000 of these, officers and men, who have been demobilised in the past year, and something should be done in regard to training them.
      Mr. LONG: Nobody has a better right to represent the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve than my hon. and gallant Friend, who has rendered magnificent service during the War and who is fully entitled to hear that their services shall be remembered in any reconstruction that may be before us. I do not think he is quite right when he says it is not a part of our general policy. I can assure him that it has not been lost sight of and that we are anxiously considering how we can organise a system for the future which will give us the Navy that we actually require for our protection here and throughout the Empire, and a system which is capable of rapid development, so that we may take advantage of those Volunteer associations which have rendered us such splendid service during the War and whose record is one which will secure the certainty of their being included in any scheme which may be developed in the future.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum not exceeding £2,862,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expense of
      1484
      the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £9,146,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      I do so to draw attention to two extraordinary items that have appeared. Before doing so, may I remind the Committee of one of the many descriptions given in the eighteenth century of a gentleman? It was that he was a person who was used to sitting-up at night. May I now proceed with the items in question? Attention, I think, was quite rightly drawn in the Debate to the "Antrim" as being an extraordinary ship on which to spend £161,292. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has stated that the "Antrim" is going to be used as a signalling school. The "Antrim" was built in 1902, and is quite obsolete, one of the class of coal-eaters and quite useless in modern warfare. Why oil earth £161,000 should be spent on this ship as a signalling school passes my comprehension. It is a waste of public money. The second item is that of the "Highflyer," an even more venerable cruiser. She never bad a speed of more than 19½ knots, and I suppose could make 17 now. She has done great service as a flagship on the. East India Station for longer years than I have been a sailor. This ancient and obsolete ship is being repaired at a cost of £95,141. I would like to know what is the particular fancy service for which she is being fitted out. These are two examples which, I think, require some explanation. Many of the ships built for particular service in the late War, such as the "Kil" type of gunboat, and many of the sloops and motor launches will never see another shot fired. They are obsolete. It is recognised by the Board. Are we going on spending money on keeping up and repairing these ships? I am not saying that we should have a small Navy—quite the other way about. But the money could be better spent on modern up-to-date vessels.
      Mr. LONG: Anybody who is as industrious as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, with the splendid volume of the Navy Estimates under his hand, can without much trouble devise a whole series of questions to keep us here till early morning. So far as these two ships are concerned, I have no reply to make. I do not

      1485
      know precisely the object for which they are intended. All I know is—and I am afraid it is the only answer I can give—that all these ships are most carefully investigated by my Naval advisers at the Admiralty. For the present I prefer to rely upon their advice and take their opinion than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
      Really that is the only possible course for a First Lord of the Admiralty, for he cannot pretend to know all the details of the repair work that is going on in all parts of the world. That would be an impossible position. If my hon. and gallant Friend really believes we are wasting money, if he has a good case, he knows perfectly well that he has only to see me at the Board of Admiralty, or write to me, and the case will be at once gone into.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave notice of this matter to the right hon. Gentleman, and I really must refute with indignation the suggestion that I am wasting the time of the House. This is a matter of a question of a quarter million of money. [Interruption.] These are two cruisers twenty years old. [Interruption.] I gave notice of my intention to raise the matter, and with all respect the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is unsatisfactory. [Interruption.]
      Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £2,861,900 be granted for such Service.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 173.

      Division No. 147.]

      AYES.

      [11.40 p.m.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

      Hirst, G, H.

      Sitch, C. H.

      Barnes. Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

      Holmes, J. Stanley

      Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

      Bann, Captain W. (Leith)

      Lunn, William

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Bromfield, W.

      Malone, Col C. L. (Leyton, E.)

      Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

      Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

      Newbould, A. E.

      Wood. Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

      Davison,.J. E. (Smethwick)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton)

      Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

      Robertson, J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — Lt.-

      Grundy, T. W.

      Rose, Frank H.

      Commander Kenworthy and Mr.

      Hartshorn, V.

      Short. A. (Wednesbury)

      Swan.

      NOES.

      Addison, Rt. Non. Dr. Christopher

      Curzon, Commander Viscount

      Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

      Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.

      Allen, Colonel William James

      Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

      Hinds, John

      Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

      Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

      Hope. James Fitzalen (Sheffield)

      Astor, Viscountess

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Hope, Lt.-Cot. Sir J. (Midlothian)

      Atkey, A. R.

      Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

      Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Davies, T. (Cirencester)

      Hopkins, J. W. W.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

      Howard, Major S. G.

      Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

      Dixon, Captain H.

      Hudson, R. M.

      Bonn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

      Dockrell, Sir M.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish

      Doyle, N. Grattan

      Inskip, T. W. H.

      Betterton, H. B.

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Bird, Alfred

      Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

      Jones, Sir Edgar H. (Merthyr Tydvil

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

      Elliott, Lt.-Cot. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

      Eyres-Monsell, Commander

      Jones,.J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

      Bramsdon, Sir T.

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

      Breese, Major C. E.

      Forrest, W.

      Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Foxcroft, Captain C.

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow)

      Brittain, Sir Harry E.

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

      Broad, Thomas Tucker

      Gange, E. S.

      Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

      Bruton, Sir J.

      Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

      Lister, Sir R. Ashton

      Buchanan. Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

      Gardiner, J. (Perth)

      Locker-Lampsan, G. (Wood Green)

      Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

      Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)

      Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

      Burdon, Col. Rowland

      Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      Lorden, John William

      Carr, W. T.

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Loseby, Captain C. E.

      Casey, T. W.

      Glyn, Major R.

      Lowe, Sir F. W.

      Cayzer, Major H. R.

      Goff, Sir Park

      Lynn, R. J.

      Chadwick. R. Burton

      Greame, Major P. Lloyd

      M'Guffin, Samuel

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.A. (Birm., W.)

      Green, J. F. (Leicester)

      M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

      Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

      Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.

      Gregory, Holman

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Macnamara, Rt. Han. Dr. T. J.

      Clough, R.

      Guinness, Lt.-Col, Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)

      Maddocks, Henry

      Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

      Gwynne, R. S.

      Mitchell, William Lane-

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Hallwood, A.

      Moles, Thomas

      Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

      Hanna, G. B.

      Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

      Courthope, Major George Loyd

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

      Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C

      Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

      Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

      Morden, Colonel H. Grant

      Cozens-Hardy, Hen. W. H.

      Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

      Mosley, Oswald

      Rodger, A. K.

      Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

      Murray, Hon. G. (St. Reilex)

      Rogers, Sir Hallowell

      Sutherland. Sir William

      Murray, William (Dumfries)

      Roundell. Lt.-Colonel R. F.

      Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

      Nail, Major Joseph

      Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

      Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

      Neal, Arthur

      Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

      Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

      Nelson, R. F. W. R.

      Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

      Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

      Parker, James

      Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Thorpe, Captain John Henry

      Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Seager, Sir William

      Townley, Maximilian G.

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

      Seddon, James

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon, John

      Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

      Pickering, Col. Emil W.

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

      Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

      Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

      whale. Sir William

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

      Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

      Pratt, John William

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

      Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

      Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

      Haw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Remer, J. B.

      Strauss, Edward Anthony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

      Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

      Sturrock, J. Long-

      Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

      Resolution reported,
      "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the better housing of the people, to authorise the acquisition of land for the development of garden cities or for the purpose of town-planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of public authorities and bodies and with respect to the

      1497
      securities issued by them, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

      (a) in making grants, not exceeding in the aggregate fifteen million pounds, to persons constructing houses in accordance with approved schemes;

      (b)when exercising the powers of a local authority in connection with the conversion of buildings into separate tenements; and

      (c) in contributing, by way of increase during the period ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, from thirty per cent. to fifty per cent. of the grant towards annual loan charges, to costs incurred by public utility societies, housing trusts, and county councils."

      Resolution agreed to.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—MATERIEL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, riot exceeding £2,546,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £8,139,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I think if the Committee till recognises its control in financial matters, we should not allow an item of this character to pass practically unchallenged. No reply has been given to the question relating to an item of £739,000 for alterations to the battleship "Repulse," and I think the Committee ought to be told upon what this sum is being expended. Was this ship a failure, and is this sum required to make good the mistake?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have named the ship, but I cannot go into the details. The expenditure in this case was thoroughly well justified.
      Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: This amount of £739,000 is a very serious item, and as it cannot be for repairs we must press for some further explanation.
      Mr. LONG: I quite admit that this Vote raises a direct issue, but I can only reply as I have done before that we have done this work on the advice of naval advisers of the highest standard. Every one of these cases is most carefully investigated. The precise alterations to the "Repulse" I ought not to state here because obviously it is not desirable to do so. On all these matters we rely upon the advice of our expert advisers, and I present their recommendations to the House.
      Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: With very great respect I do not think the explanation just given by the right hon. Gentleman is sufficient. We have no desire to detain the Committee, but in this respect we are suffering the same as other hon. Members. Practically all the reply of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to is, "We are advised that these sums are necessary, and if you want any more information you must go to the Admiralty." We have a right to get some intelligible explanation from the responsible Minister. Now we come to the item of £739,000, and all the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty replies is that he has named the ship. The right hon. Gentleman informs us that the experts say that this expenditure is necessary but I submit that these replies are not at all respectful to the Committee, and it is not the sort of information which we are entitled to have. What is the use of talking about scrutinising expenditure when we are going to vote £739,000 on the ipse dirit of the First Lord of the Admiralty? If my hon. Friend presses his opposition I shall certainly go to a Division, and I shall consider I am justified in doing it. [A laugh.] I do not see that the right hon. Gentleman strengthens his argument by inarticulate ejaculation. I shall go to a Division on the merits of the question because I hold it is not treating the Committee of Supply with due respect to ask it to vote this sum without saying a single word about what is going to be done with the money.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC. —CONTRACT WORK.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum not exceeding £9,975,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of

      1489
      March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £31,880,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Here, again, I do not think we should pass this Vote without further explanation. I wish to refer to Section (3), Sub-head K—a sum of £850,000 for the purchase of ships. I feel the Committee is justified in asking for some information as to what this sum has been expended on, and if necessary I shall move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      Mr. LONG: This particular Vote represents one of the ordinary transactions of the Board of Admiralty in the purchase of fleet auxiliaries. The hon. Member knows as well as I do—and indeed better, because he has served with distinction in the Royal Navy—that it is the business of the Admiralty to find certain auxiliary vessels for the Fleet—to purchase or hire them. It is an item always included in the Estimates for the ordinary services of the Admiralty. I am quite confident that if the hon. Member had not had a desire to expose the Government to certain criticism he would have been quite able to supply himself with the information he has now asked for.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      NAVAL ARMAMENTS AND AVIATION.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum not exceeding £3,763,100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expense of Naval Armaments and Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £12,027,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

      WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum not exceeding £1,336,700, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £4,331,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On this important Vote, which is for over £5,500,000, I desire to raise the question of airship sheds—the great buildings of steel
      1490
      erected for the accommodation of the R34 type of air vessels. One of these airship sheds at Rosyth—the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the case, because he has received protests from that part of Scotland — has been abolished, and I understand that its place will be taken by an airship station at Howden, Yorkshire. There does not seem to have been much clear thinking in this case on somebody's part. In my remarks on the Vote pointed out that the North Sea is now a British lake, and it is likely that lighter-than-air ships will not be used at all there because it was found at the end of the War that the North Sea was too unhealthy for airships on account of the development of the aeroplane. They may be required, however, for the broad spaces of the Atlantic. This station, which, with its accessories, is to cost £1,000,000, is on the wrong side of Great Britain. It ought to dominate the Atlantic. The total amount we are asked to find merely for the sheds of these airships is £4,265,000. I understand we are keeping only one airship in commission. The others have been scrapped or are going to be sold to America. The airship policy and the great cost of the sheds required are matters well worthy the attention of the Committee.
      Mr. LONG: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. and gallant Member wants from me. He knows very well, as other hon. Members know, that the whole question of the part which the airship is to play in the future is in its infancy. We have one airship. We hope soon to have a second. They are ready for experimental work. What is known by the expert advisers of the Admiralty in respect to this question is at present of a very limited character. I do not think it matters from the point of view of economy or of practical usefulness where the sheds are. The actual position does not signify anything. The hon. and gallant Member knows that distance in these matters is really of no importance. It does not signify whether the sheds are on one coast or another, so long as they are most economically provided where they will be suitable for the purpose for which they are designed. I do not know whether we are right, but my advisers think that the location at Howden is the best. We do not dogmatise on this subject at all at present. We are engaged upon an anxious examination of the whole question. It is experimental work. No doubt it is expensive, but having regard

      1491
      to developments, and the part this service will play in future warfare, we think our experiments are justified.
      Mr. HOLMES: Are they going to transfer the air sheds from Scotland to Yorkshire, and if distance is no object, what is the reason for transferring?
      12.0 M.
      Mr. LONG: Again, without notice, I really could not answer that question for certain. I do not want to claim any immunity from questions, but to cross-examine Ministers on every single detail of immense Estimates like those for which I am responsible, and then to found on my answer the sort of charge made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is stretching both the practice and the courtesy of Parliament.
      Captain W. BENN: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to be intentionally discourteous. I had no such desire. I rise to ask another question on a matter of great importance. I understand from his reply that the Admiralty is continuing in these sheds certain matters of aeronautical research or experiment, that they have one airship and are going to have another for the purpose of research. Is it the fact that the Admiralty has any buildings or ships for continuing any further aeronautical experiments? We understood this was being handed over to the Air Ministry in toto.
      Mr. LONG: No, the Air Ministry is responsible for their provision and has supplied them for the Board of Admiralty.
      Mr. HOLMES: I do not want to be discourteous, but I understood the airship stations were going to be transferred from Scotland to Yorkshire, and if distance is no object I wanted the hon. Gentleman to tell us why they were going to transfer them from one place to the other. Surely a matter of that sort must come to him for his decision and he must know, moreover, why he made the transfer. It cannot be the act of a subordinate official; it must be the head of the Department.
      Mr. LONG: I never suggested that the hon. Member was discourteous. I was referring to the charge made against me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I said in answer to the hon. Member's question that I cannot answer it; but I will make inquiries to-morrow. The suggestion that it came before the First Lord of the
      1492
      Admiralty is not well conceived. My work lasts from 10.30 to 7, with a great many extra, hours of work thrown in, and if every one of these individual charges, made for good reason but not many of primary importance, were brought to the First Lord the Board of Admiralty would discharge its duty. It is only by a wise process of devolution that any Government Department can be carried on.
      Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Is it a fact, that there is already an airship station and shed at Howden?
      Mr. LONG: Certainly there is.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £4,651,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

      ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding.£453,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £1,447,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Mr. ACLAND rose—
      HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
      Mr. ACLAND: I wish to ask the First Lord a question of some importance.
      HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!
      Mr. ACLAND: I speak as Chairman of the—
      HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!
      Mr. ACLAND: If hon. Members are rude, I shall speak for half an hour.
      Captain ELLIOT: Is it rudeness, Mr. Whitley, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak up so that we may hear what he is saying?
      The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to hon. Members that we are discussing these Estimates under very exceptional circumstances this year, and allowance should be made for that fact. It shows the neces-

      1493
      sity as soon as possible of getting back to our normal custom in Supply. Then all these things can be discussed in the old manner.
      Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark and apologise?
      Mr. ACLAND: I said if hon. Members were rude, should speak for half an hour. I speak as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has considered the first Report of the Public Accounts Committee delivered in July, which went into some detail in regard to the financial organisation of the Admiralty. I have a question to the Prime Minister to-morrow, but I have not given notice to the First Lord, and therefore he will not have prepared anything to say. If he states that the matter will be dealt with to-morrow, I shall be satisfied; but as it has been before him for five months, and it is a serious matter, I feel sure he will wish to state whether it is being dealt with or not.
      Mr. LONG: I have no hesitation in answering the question. In the Report of the Committee to which the right hon. Member refers it is suggested that there were some weak points—to put it mildly—in the internal financial administration of the Admiralty. I have not been responsible for the Admiralty financial arrangements which led up to this Report, but I regard the Report as a direct imputation upon the efficiency of the Board of Admiralty, and I have no hesitation in recommending the Prime Minister and pressing upon him that immediate steps should be taken to appoint a proper body to investigate and report whether these charges have any foundation.
      Mr. ACLAND: Thank you very much!
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave notice two days ago that I would raise the question of the organisation of the Admiralty Staff. In the last Navy debate the right hon. Gentleman said he was always willing to receive any hints or opinions from naval officers in the Service. Here may I say that everyone I have met during the last few months speak of the willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to hear all sides of a case, and of his sympathy and courtesy towards the naval officers
      1494
      with whom he comes in contact. I am now speaking as a naval officer who has been on the Admiralty Staff; therefore, I may be able to make a few helpful suggestions in the way of constructive criticism. At the present time in the Admiralty, in addition to the Chief of the Naval Staff and the First Sea Lord, who is one and the same person, there is a Deputy - Chief of the Naval staff and Assistant - Chief of the Naval Staff. Both of these are Admirals. They were appointed to meet a particular set of circumstances during the War. These circumstances have now passed and should not arise again. These two officials divide the branches of the staff between them. For example, one has operations and the other has the intelligence side. There you have one of the worst forms of diarchy which was so much criticised in connection with the India Bill. You may get these two Staffs, which ought to work together, under different heads, and liable to work against each other.
      Mr. LONG: Which sides?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The department of the Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff and of the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff, which was temporarily appointed during the War. Now that we have passed that I would suggest respectfully that it is an unsound principle, and in any case these two under officials are not so necessary in peace time as in war time. Economy could be effected by doing away with one of these high staff offices. Another economy could be effected at once by merging the trade division in the operations and intelligence division. The trade division consists of two parts, one operations and the other intelligence. The intelligence division should be under the Naval Intelligence Department, and the operations division under the Operations Department. By reducing the number you would obtain economy and get greater efficiency. Then the local defence division I understand does not deal with strategy but only with material. It is most essential that this work should be correlated with the strategical side of the staff. With regard to economy the Naval Intelligence Division is out of all reason. Before the War it consisted of sixteen officers and fifteen civilians, who were presided over at various dates by Prince Henry of Battenberg and other distinguished

      1495
      officers, including Lord Jellicoe. On the 1st of August, this year, there were 42 officers and 120 civilians. It seems to me that reduction there has not been carried out with rapidity. I recommend that to my right hon. Friend as a case where there could be economy. I was told—I do not know whether it is true, though I believe that it is—that fifteen officers and fourteen clerks, practically the same number as the whole prewar intelligence staff, are writing the history of the department. If that is so it seems to show a great need of attention on the part of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. LONG: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman may be divided into two categories. The first, in reference to the new naval staff, raises questions of great importance which I freely admit are deserving the earnest attention of the Board of Admiralty, and are receiving it. He tells us that the chief of the naval staff has under him a deputy and an assistant. His knowledge is so accurate and so complete that he will remember that the chief of the naval staff had in addition to the two officers another admiral who was assistant to the First Sea Lord. In reconstituting the Board of Admiralty we have abolished that office, and it is quite possible that in a short time it may be found that we can dispense with the assistant chief of the naval staff. I would appeal to the Committee not to rush us into committing ourselves upon this question now. One of the most controversial questions, one which has been more urgently pressed on the Admiralty than any other, has been the constitution of a really qualified Naval Staff, with assistants under them, able to do their work consistently and efficiently. To begin by cutting down that staff until we are quite certain that we have completed the duty and made the necessary arrangements wisely, I think would be a very great danger. There is really no waste of money. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman works as hard from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. as the members of the Naval Staff do, he may be quite satisfied that he has done his duty. There is no waste of time. As regards the division of the subordinate departments, I am sure he will agree that that ought to be left with the Chief of the Naval Staff, who has the whole thing under consideration. Next, as to the history. Here, again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not
      1496
      attack the Admiralty. The Government —not this Government, but the preceding Government—decided that the naval history of the War should be written. The War has its naval side as well as the other side, and we are bound, whether we like it or not. The work must be done by competent officers. If he does not believe that the history ought to be written I would ask him to address himself to the Prime Minister and not to the First Lord.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      HALF PAY AND RETIRED PAY.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £308,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £988,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

      NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £11,527,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

      CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £171,800, be granted to his Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £547,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
      Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL, Deputy Chairman, in the Chair.]
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health how far he intends to proceed to-night? When the previous Housing Bill was in Committee the right hon. Gentleman showed himself to be very conciliatory, and had as his reward the fact that he got his Bill through more easily almost than any Bill passed during the last few years. Some Members of the House have actually worked in the House for over thirteen hours—since eleven o'clock — and we have got here five pages of Amendments, and I think some manuscript Amendments.
  It is an extremely complicated measure, financially and otherwise. I believe when the Government decided to take the whole of the Committee stage, they thought that the Naval Debate would come to an end by dinner-time, and a Member of the Government told me it would probably be over by eight o'clock.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It may have been a fond hope.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite sure no Member of the Government thought it going on to half-past twelve o'clock. I hope my right hon. Friend will not try to take the whole of the Committee stage to-night, because it really is an outrage. The Amendments are not
  1498
  obstructive, and if he were to say he would take four Clauses, I am sure that in the end it would be better for him.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member rose on a, point of Order, but it did not turn out to be so, but to be an appeal to the Government. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee for the Minister to reply, but may I point out that there is no question before the Committee?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I appreciate very much what the hon. Gentleman has said and I hope he will find that I am still actuated by the same conciliatory spirit. I do not think the questions raised are really very complicated or technical and many of the Amendments are repetitions. The necessity, however, which drives me is that if this Bill is to be on the Statute Book before the rising of Parliament it must get the Third Reading on Friday and if the Committee stage were continued till to-morrow night there would not be time to have the Bill reprinted and to take the Report stage and Third Reading on Friday.
  I appeal to the Committee to let us try to get the Bill to-night, as there are not many very big points involved, and I think I shall be prepared to make suggestions which will smooth the way.

  HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provision for Payment of Money to Persons Constructing Houses.)
    " (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Minister of Health (in this Act referred to as 'the Minister') may, in accordance with schemes made by him with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of moneys provided by Parliament to any persons or bodies of persons constructing houses for the working classes.

    (2) Grants under this Section shall be made only in respect of houses—

    (a) which comply with the conditions as to construction prescribed by the Minister;

    (b)which are certified by the local authority of the area in which the houses are situate, or on appeal by the Minister, to have been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner;

    (c)the construction of which is begun within twelve months after the passing of this Act and which are completed within that period or such further period not exceeding three months as the Minister may in any special case allow: Provided that a proportionate reduction of the grant shall be made in respect of any house which is not completed within the said period of twelve months.

    Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to grant a certificate under this subsection in respect of any house may appeal to the Minister, and if the Minister is satisfied

    1499
    that the house has been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner he shall certify accordingly.

    (3) In so far as the provisions of any building by-laws are inconsistent with the conditions prescribed by the Minister under this Section, those provisions shall not apply to any houses which comply with those conditions.

    In this Act the expression 'building by-laws' has the same meaning as in Part II. of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.
    (4) In this Act the expression 'local authority' means the local authority within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890."
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words" persons or bodies of persons," and to insert instead thereof the words" local authority or public utility society."
    It seems a very late hour at which to begin the Committee stage of this Bill, and I would like to observe that if some of us had our way this House would meet not later than 12 o'clock in the day. However, I do not know that I need talk on this Amendment at great length, because we discussed it on Monday, and also a week last Friday, but we want to insert these words because we are opposed to the principle contained in the Clause. We believe the workers of the country as a whole are opposed to the principle of subsidising private individuals. The Bricklayers' Association have passed resolutions opposing this principle, and we oppose it chiefly because we do not believe it will produce the houses that are so much needed to-day. We believe that houses built by private speculators are only built for selling, and they will not build houses to let or to rent, because it will be impossible to get an economic rent, notwithstanding the subsidy that the Government propose to give, and believing they can only build houses to sell, I think it is reasonable to think they will build only two or three here and there, and then see how they can get them off, so that there will be no big building project in force anywhere. We think that if the Government had turned their attention to the weaknesses in the Housing Act already passed, and which have been made apparent in the course of the few months since it has been on the Statute Book, we should be very much nearer getting houses than under the scheme proposed in this Bill.
    Some say that this will be all right in the rural areas. I do not agree with that, because, as far as my knowledge of rural areas goes, there are even fewer people
    1500
    prepared or able to buy houses in rural areas than in the urban areas. I venture to think there are very few workers in the urban areas who will be able to pay the price for houses which they will cost under present conditions. It has been said that if a man is at work he has no time to make money, and there is a good deal of truth in that. Very few people of the working classes will be able to buy houses even if they are erected. I think this stands in the way of the local authorities, who, to my mind, are the proper people, and the only people, who will be able to build houses in the numbers required. I was opposed to public utility societies before, on the ground of my belief that public money should not be handed over to be administered by public authorities; but there is something to be said for the public utility societies, because I venture to think that in that way twenty, thirty, fifty, or possibly 100 men would get together and form such a society and build that number of houses; but I do not know anyone in the country who is in favour of the work being done by private individuals. I have had a letter from an urban authority in my Constituency, which proposes, or did propose, to build—I do not know whether the question of the seven years has prevented them, but I think it has caused them to halt and consider—they intended to build 1,000 houses, and they asked me to oppose this scheme, because they believe it will be a hindrance to housing in this country. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. I think it right to say that, if it is not agreed, to, we shall have to go to a Division, because the first Clause of this Bill cuts at the very root of what we consider to be a right principle. We think the subsidy should go only to public authorities, and we take in the public utility societies because they were recognised in the Act which has already been passed only a few months ago.
    Dr. ADDISON: With great respect, I think it would have been more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. This Amendment really strikes at the very root of the Bill. If this Amendment were carried, it would mean that the grants here proposed would only be available for local authorities or public utility societies, whereas the whole object of this scheme is to enlist the aid of private individuals. The local authorities will be

    1501
    financed and assisted in other ways to a very generous extent, and public utility societies also will be financed under another Clause of the Bill. It is also provided, and I am sure rightly, that you cannot doubly finance any one house. If you finance the building of a house by the public utility society scheme, you should not also finance the building of that same house by a subsidy, but if this Amendment were carried it would have that effect. I think the whole of this question turns on whether we do or do not want to carry into effect the principle of the Bill which was accepted on the Second Reading, namely, that we should endeavour to bring in the aid of persons, or bodies of persons, other than local authorities or public utility societies. The opinion of the House manifestly was that we should. The Second Reading was carried without a division, and to discuss this Amendment further would only be to repeat a Second Reading debate. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am sorry that a division was not taken on the Second Reading of the Bill. This Amendment means that, if a man, or more than one man, put up 10 houses, so long as they comply with the conditions and regulations that are made by the Minister of Health, they are entitled to £150 per house. I differ from my hon. Friend (Mr. Edwards) as regards the selling of those houses. I believe that in urban districts they would be sold as quickly as they are put up. That means that a house erected, it may be, for £450, will probably be sold for £600, that is to say, at a profit of £150 on the erection of the house. On the top of that the Government propose to give 2150. What is wanted is a reduction in the cost of the materials required for the building of houses, not a subsidy to the builder. I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the biggest societies connected with the building trade has determined to insist upon payment of full wages for all time lost through weather.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is to insert the words "local authority or public utility society" in place of the word" person or bodies of person," and I think we must confine the discussion to the alternative suggested
    Mr. WILSON: I was trying to show that the adoption of this Amendment would be in the best interests of the community. At any rate, if the Amendment is accepted and the local authorities are even subsidised twice over, the money paid to the local authorities would go into the pockets of the whole of the ratepayers of the district in which the houses are erected, whereas if the money is paid to individuals it goes into the pockets of those individuals. Therefore it is bad economy to subsidise in the way the Government propose. I believe that more houses would be got if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment than if the private builder were subsidised. The local authorities can employ the private builder to erect the houses. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in that case? Is he going to subsidise the private builder, or is he only going to pay the local authority under the provisions of the Act which has already been passed?
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, he will see that that point is dealt with. We cannot pay the subsidy twice on any one house.
    Mr. WILSON: If the local authority gets the subsidy the private builder will have to put the house up at a contract price. If this Amendment were adopted more houses would be produced than under the Bill, and it would be sounder finance.
    Mr. LYNN: I understand that the object of this Bill is to get houses. As one who knows something about municipal authorities, it strikes me that private builders can get the work done more quickly than municipal authorities, and also more cheaply, and therefore, as we want houses quickly and cheaply, I oppose the Amendment.
    Sir W. SEAGER: I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. The great need to-day is that houses shall be put up quickly. In my own district people are prepared to build, and there are people who will buy the houses. The object of this Bill is to get houses built quickly by private enterprise, and passed over to those who are waiting to occupy them. Already in the Cardiff area arrangements have been made to build twelve houses, and there are buyers for those twelve houses now.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I agree with this Amendment, but the question, unfortunately, was settled on the Second Reading, and therefore I do not propose to traverse the subject again; but I may suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. Edwards) that, if he and those with whom he is associated had supported my Friends and
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for the working classes" ["constructing houses for the working classes"].
    This Bill does not pretend to be a Bill for the working classes only, and my reason for moving that these words be left out is on account of the conditions
    myself in dividing against the Second Reading, their protest would have been more effective.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 129, Noes, 20.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES.

    12.40 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Allen, Lieut. Colonel William James

    Glyn, Major R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Atkey, A. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Pickering, Lt.-Col. Emil W.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gwynne, R. S.

    Pratt, John William

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Hailwood, A.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Benn, Capt. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Hanna, G. B.

    Raw, Lt.-Colonel

    Betterton, H. B.

    Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)

    Remer, J. B.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Rodger, A. K,

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield)

    Roundell Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney).

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Buckley, Lt. Colonel A.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Seager, Sir William

    Carr, W. T.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Seddon, James

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Sonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Lorden, John William

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford).

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Moles, Thomas

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Morden, Colonel W Grant

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Whitla, Sir William

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C, (Tavistock)

    Forrest, W.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Foxcroft Captain C.

    Neal, Arthur

    Wills, Lt.-Col, Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Young, Lt.-Com, E. H. (Norwich)

    Gange, E, S.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Colonel Sir J.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Parker, James

    Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Lunn, William

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Newbould, A. E.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Robertson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Tyson Wilson and Mr. Davison

    Grundy, T. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    governing the grants to private builders. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that, according to the condition as to superficial content laid down in the White Paper, the grant of £160 will be made in respect of a house of which the superficial content is 920 feet, and will not be made in respect of a

    1505
    house of which the superficial content exceeds 1,250 feet. I am going to suggest that, even if these wards were left in, I cannot see that any harm would be done by extending that figure of 1,250 feet to 1,500 or 1,600 feet. That would give an opportunity of making larger rooms. I do not suggest that there should be more than four bedrooms, but I do suggest that many of these rooms should be larger. That would be an advantage all round, while it would not affect the question of expense, because the expense of larger rooms or larger houses would fall entirely on the builder or the person erecting the house. When the Bill was in Committee I suggested that the subsidy should be dealt with in the way now proposed, and I then gave instances of houses which it was proposed to erect under similar conditions. I had the cubical contents of those houses taken out, and I have now had their superficial contents calculated. I find that the one type of house comes out at 1,095 feet, and the other at 1,134 feet, which is very close to the maximum. Then I found that the double-tenement house, for which some provision will have to be made, comes to 2,014 feet. That is for two families.
    Dr. ADDISON: That is two houses.
    Mr. LORDEN: If you deal with double-tenement houses as two houses, and are going to give,£300 for them, I am inclined to think that that is a much better plum than was contemplated. I would point out that that is a favourite way of building houses round the suburbs of London, in the form of two self-contained flats, and it has very great advantages, in that it would allow a great many more families to be housed at less expense to the State.
    Mr. J. JONES: Warehoused!
    Mr. LORDEN: You may put it in that way, but many of us would be delighted to live in some of those flats, and if the working classes are not satisfied with them they will be satisfied with nothing that is at the back of my mind. I have brought this Amendment forward at this early stage, as I saw no other place in which I could bring in these figures. I press upon the Minister that it would be an advantage to the community and to those people who want houses to enlarge materially this figure of 1,250 feet, so as to give an opportunity of erecting these large double houses. The double-tenement houses come to 2,014 feet, or 1,007 feet on each
    1506
    floor. If the Minister will say that they will be dealt with as two houses, I have nothing more to say, and shall be very pleased to have his assurance on that point.
    Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree that this was the most appropriate place to raise the question which my hon. Friend has raised. The limit set in the White Paper is, however, the limit which I am advised we ought fairly to set to any class of house which comes within the intentions of Parliament in dealing with this matter. I find, as we found in the Committee stage, that it is much easier to define a house than it is to define a tenant, and in the Regulations nothing is said to lead anyone to suppose that we are attempting to limit the operation of the Section. We naturally fell back on the definition as to the type of house, and that is why the method indicated in the White Paper has been adopted. It would not apply to houses with more than four bedrooms and a certain superficial content. In the case of double houses, or two flats one above the other, I am advised that they would be treated as two houses, and the superficial area of each taken. It is quite clear that all kinds of modifications will have to be dealt with in a practical fashion. Clearly that would not be one house. I should be very reluctant to raise the limits now for any one house above those which have been laid down. If that were done, there would be no limit as to how far you could go, and I think it would defeat the object of Parliament and would not be in accordance with the views of the House when it passed the Second Reading. I will consider the very practical point raised by my hon. Friend, but I am not prepared to raise the limit for the class of house to which this subsidy should be applied.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I did not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to consider the deletion of these words. I support the Amendment, for reasons quite different from those which inspired the hon. Member who moved it. I do not know that I entirely agree with his reasons, but I put down a manuscript Amendment to delete these words, not knowing that the hon. Member's Amendment was on the Paper. Under the Regulations in the White Paper—which will become statutory Regulations—this grant cannot be given in respect of any house which has more than four bedrooms or of

    1507
    which the superficial content exceeds 1,250 feet. That entirely meets the views of those who desire, as we all do, that houses for the working classes shall be built under this Bill. When these Rules become statutory, this grant can only apply to working-class houses. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, agrees to that. If that is so, one asks, What is the advantage of putting in these words, if you once admit, as everyone must, that this grant can only be given to working-class houses? There is never any advantage, on principle, in putting unnecessary words into an Act of Parliament. It is dangerous and always undesirable. I suggest that any builder who puts up a house and applies for the grant under this Clause is impliedly undertaking that he will not let the house to anyone who is not a member of the working classes. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is obvious that the builder is impliedly undertaking, and he takes the grant on the understanding, that he will not let the house except for occupation by a member of the working classes.
    Dr. ADDISON: I would ask what is in the hon. Member's mind. Would he say that a widow living on a pension or some such allowance was not a member of the working classes, and was excluded?
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend only illustrates the difficulty to which I am drawing the attention of the Committee. I could not have asked for a happier illustration of the difficulty created by these words which arc quite unnecessary. It is an admirable illustration. Let me give him another. Would the Committee desire to exclude a poor curate who is, perhaps, earning £120 or £150 a year, or an officer's widow with a pension of £150? It is not desirable to exclude those persons, and if the grant can only be given for a four-roomed house, why put in those words? They will only lead to litigation and are bound to cause trouble and anxiety, not only to the general community, but to the builders. I do trust that my right hon. Friend will realise that he is thoroughly protected without these words and that there is grave danger in inserting them.
    Major BARNES: I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman should not pass without some reference to the con-
    1508
    cession he has made with regard to the houses upon which this subsidy is to be paid. If I understand him rightly, it is intended to grant this subsidy not only upon self-contained houses but on houses containing flats, and to regard each flat as a separate house. That is a very serious statement, and I should not be surprised if in the course of this Debate that is not the statement that will receive the most attention from the public in the morning. It means that the Government are not only going to subsidise houses, but the very worst class of houses to the very greatest extent. I come from a city where there is a very large number of these flats, and nothing more desolate can be imagined than the condition produced by them. Every effort has been made in the city which I represent to break away from them and get into the direction of self-contained houses. Yet, the principle conceded by the right hon. Gentleman tonight will have the very reverse tendency. There is no reason also why houses should stop with two flats. The inducement will be to build houses with three flats or more. That means that you are going to defeat the whole. object of the Bill, or, rather, the larger Bill, which limited the number of houses per acre in order to do away with congestion. This new principle entirely reverses that policy, and it will tend to the erection of a type of house which I think most of us hoped would disappear. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some further explanation that will relieve the apprehension of every house reformer in this country.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think the hon. Member has been unfair to me.
    Major BARNES: It was quite unintentional.
    Dr. ADDISON: It might be assumed from what the hon. Member said that we were looking forward to the provision of tenement dwellings, whereas everyone knows that we are endeavouring to promote the provision of proper self-contained dwellings. At the same time, we know very well that our citizens do not all live in the green fields.
    Mr. J. BROWN: They should do.
    Dr. ADDISON: Let us deal with the facts of life. We have in the County of London a number of proposals by the county council itself, in some cases by

    1509
    the city council and by borough councils, where in consequence of people having to be near their work we have to agree to the provision of a certain number of tenement dwellings, which we secure shall be of a very good type. We do know that as a matter of fact, under the conditions of life in great centres of population, you are in various places compelled to accept that type of provision. It is so, and we have to deal with it. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that we have no intention to depart from our old policy, but there may be cases in which we would agree to the erection of two-storeyed flats, and I would ask him not to put hypothetical questions as to what we should do in such cases. Where such cases occur one would not be tied too definitely at this stage. The various conditions will have to be modified in particular cases. The only guide we could accept would be the contents of each separate dwelling. I do not think you can expect any other standard. How that will have to be qualified in the case of tenement dwellings will have to be carefully considered, but there is no doubt that in some instances very good cases will be put forward for the erection of suitable tenement dwellings. Therefore, we must not rule them out of consideration. But I have no doubt that the vast majority of proposals under this Bill, as they are now all over the country, will be for separate houses of an approved type.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Whatever the proposals may be, up to the present the building trade all over the country did not understand until it was intimated by the Minister of Health in the course of this Debate that there would be a double subsidy.
    Dr. ADDISON: There will not; there cannot be a double subsidy. The subsidy will be calculated upon the superficial area of the habitable part of the dwelling as one unit.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I still understand the Minister of Health to state that there will be two subsidies paid on a double-fronted house if both tenements have the necessary superficial area.
    Dr. ADDISON: Not necessarily of the same size; they must provide the necessary accommodation.
    Mr. ADAMSON: It must be that the accommodation is provided, but I think the effect will be that there is a double subsidy, one for each flat. That is the first time this instruction has been given to the building trade. It is subsidising the building trade with a vengeance, and giving encouragement to the building of flats. That is one of the types of dwellings that the working class are not in favour of. It is one of the types of dwellings that no section of this Committee will look upon in a favourable light. Here there is a deliberate case of giving encouragement to that type of building. There is not a shadow of doubt that it will be more profitable for the building trade to build that type of dwelling if they are going to get a double subsidy.
    Dr. ADDISON: We should certainly not grant the subsidy in such a way as to make it more profitable to erect an undesirable type of dwelling.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In our opinion this is an undesirable type of dwelling that we are discussing now. You have intimated that a double subsidy will be paid if the accommodation is provided on both flats. I am sorry that the Minister of Health has given way on this point. We thoroughly dislike this principle of subsidies in any shape or form, but this suggestion is making the thing far worse. I hope the Minister will see his way to change his mind again on this point. We cannot consent to it. It will be against the principle of the Bill to give the subsidy for a large number of flats.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think we are all agreed that the building of flats on a big scale would be contrary to the best interests of the working classes, but we cannot have absolute uniformity of construction all over the country. We want to provide what the people do really want, and it is often forgotten that there must be variety. The conditions of the people show great variety. Some wish to live near their work in the towns. Others wish to go further a field, and to get self-contained houses with a little garden. That cannot be done in every case. There must be a certain amount of liberty. It seems to me that the real protection is the right which is retained by the Minister only to grant the subsidy when he has approved of the plans. If, in a particular case, it is proved to him that it is desirable that two or more dwellings should be built together and he agrees to that. I am sure hon.

    1511
    Gentlemen opposite would not wish to prevent that. I ask the Minister to give them an assurance—I understand he has given it already—that the construction of tenement houses is not going to be encouraged.
    Mr. ADAMSON: May I intervene? The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment described this as a double grant.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We really want to get this discussion on practical lines. We do not want to fight unnecessarily. The building of a pair of cottages is quite a common thing in the country, and there should be the £300 subsidy where that is done. And the same thing should be done in the town. It may be desirable to build one on the top, or one by the side of another. [An HON. MEMBER: "One foundation for both!"] We should see that the people get what is wanted. Why not, if we get what is wanted? This provides for a little variety where the Minister thinks it is desirable. The hon. Member near me has just said that these words, "for the working classes," were quite unnecessary. They would create a limitation which is not in the White Paper. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should leave these words out.
    The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir J. Tudor Walters): We have really got away from the straight track of the discussion. The Amendment deals with the words, "for the working classes," and reference has been made to the White Paper and the conditions of the subsidy. We are not discussing the White Paper.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Minister has made certain promises during the discussion.
    Sir T. WALTERS: The Regulations have been issued, and there is nothing in them about tenements or flats. There are cases, even in London, like the pairs of cottages, two houses side by side or two cottages one above the other. If it is desirable to make provision for houses of that description, I think we may wait to consider it when the proposal is made. But it is quite clear that the subsidy will not be paid to such an extent that a person erecting buildings of that particular type will get more than he would for building an ordinary house. The subsidy will be graded on the basis of the living accommodation. A distinction will not be made so that one would get an advantage over
    1512
    the builder of an ordinary house. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said a 'double subsidy.'"] If he did say "a double subsidy," he also said there would not be a larger sum paid, according to the Regulations, for that class of dwelling. The builder would not get twice as much, but probably a smaller sum. Therefore there is no point in that; the grant for each flat would be a grant for the house.
    Mr. LUNN: The whole idea of the Bill is that we are to provide houses fit for heroes to live in. There are these tenement houses in all the large towns, and they are not what the people want. You have them in London, and I know them. How is it possible to live a human life in the flats of London? I lived near Leeds, and I know that the flats and tenement houses in that city are a disgrace, and some of them are opposite the parish church. Such tenemented houses should not be allowed under the Bill.
    Mr. INSKIP: Is it in order to discuss tenemented houses because an hon. Member has suggested that a two-flatted cottage is two houses? Is it in order to discuss whether a tenement is not a house of a different character?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion arose in the Debate on the Amendment before the Committee to leave out certain words, and for that reason it would not be in my power to prevent further references to it. At the same time, I am considering how far I ought to allow it to go on and how soon I could bring the discussion back to the actual words of the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it a not unusual practice on an Amendment of this kind, which raises the same point as other Amendments, to allow a general discussion on the definite understanding that the points are not raised again on further Amendments?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can take such a wide view as that. I hope the general discussion is coming to an end. I think the Committee thoroughly understand the Amendment. I hope it will not be necessary to prolong the discussion on it, otherwise, if there is any further tendency to prolong the whole discussion on the lines of the tenement flats, I shall have to rule more strictly on the words of the Amendment?
    Mr. LUNN: A number of speeches have been made in support of the statement of the Minister of Health.
    Dr. ADDISON: What statement?
    Mr. LUNN: The statement which I understood you to make was that the subsidy would be given in the case of flats where they were self-contained. I am afraid that this is likely to encourage local authorities in urban areas to adopt it. Many large towns have housing schemes, and permission has been given to them to go outside their areas to buy land for these houses, to build separate houses, and, to extend. their boundaries. This is extending the lungs of these cities, and to-night we are to be told that perhaps such schemes may be dropped, and the idea adopted of going up into the air with houses in the districts in which these people live. I sincerely hope that will not be encouraged for one moment; if people are going to be urged to build separate houses, separate cottages, and separate homes for the people; if we are going to house them properly. I am astonished that, at this stage, we are to see a complete surrender of everything we had hoped we should get in the shape of houses in the present Parliament.
    Dr. ADDISON: There has been no departure from policy of any sort or kind. We have done more in the last six months to promote the provision of improved separate dwellings in this country than has ever been done before. We have no intention of departing from this policy. What I said was that there might be cases—and I believe there have been cases—in centres like London where flats might have to be provided. Where that happens some form of subsidy would have to be calculated, and it would be fairly calculated, actually on the basis of each unit of accommodation, and it must be so calculated as not to place a premium upon any undesirable class of accommodation. We propose to pursue our policy, and not the reactionary policy proposed by my hon. Friend. It was never suggested by any remark I made, and, so far as the words are concerned, I quite agree that the matter is really safeguarded by the class of houses to which we allow the subsidy to apply. It may be immaterial whether the words are here or not.
    Sir E. COATES: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. If the flats are to be built, two flats under one roof,
    1514
    how will they be counted so far as houses on the land are concerned? I understand that, under the housing scheme, so many houses are to be placed upon an acre of land, or upon a certain area of land. If we are to count one of these double flats as one house, and presuming you are allowed to build twelve houses to an acre, I take it that, if you build six of these flat houses you are only to be allowed to have six houses on the acre, because you cannot crowd the land with these double flats simply to put the people in. I can understand that we must have the lungs round these houses. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether these flats will be counted as two houses, so far as houses are counted per acre of land?
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish the right hon. Gentleman could give us a little more guidance on this question of flats. I understood that so far no question had arisen under the Act as to the possibility, of any sanction being given to flats. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman as to whether the Grant should, or should not, be made to cover a, flat and come before tins House, and whether the House can express au opinion on this question? Reference has been made to the White Paper. I should like to ask when this White Paper will come before the House, or when the House will have any say on the, conditions shown there? The Paymaster-General made reference to the experts at the Ministry of Health. We have the greatest respect for experts, but I respectfully submit that a question of principle as to whether or not a subsidy should be granted to tenement houses is one that should be settled by this House and not by the most experienced experts in housing. Experts differ considerably on this question. I wish to join in the chorus of protest against the type of flats being perpetrated. They are injurious in the best interests of the health of the people who have to live there.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I understood him to say that the subsidy, such as would be paid in the case of flats, would be paid on the basis of the cost of the flats. Am I to understand that the Minister of Health is going to take the basis of payment for subsidies from the payment of these different flats contained in a house towards the cost of the erection of the flats?

    1515
    Question put, "That the words 'for the working classes' stand part of the Clause."

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES.

    [1.30 a.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hen. Francis Dyke

    Hirst, G. H.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Lunn, William

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Newbould, A. E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Robertson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Davison and Mr. Tyson Wilson

    Hanna, G. B.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Parker, James

    Alien, Colonel William James

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Atkey, A. R.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goff, Sir Park

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Gwynne, R. S.

    Pratt, John William

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Hailwood, A.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Betterton, H. B.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Luton, Beds.)

    Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. P.

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Ramer, J. B.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Rodger, A. K.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield)

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Seager, Sir William

    Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Seddon, James

    Carr, W. T.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Casey, T. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Lorden, John William

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, Capt R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Moles, Thomas

    Thorpe. Captain John Henry

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Walters. Sir John Tudor

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Whitla, Sir William

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Murray, Hen. G. (St. Rollox)

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Forrest, W.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wills. Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Neal, Arthur

    Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Gange, E. S.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Colonel Sir J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson to insert words at the end of Sub-section (1) is in the wrong place here. It ought to be a new Clause. His Amendment to insert a new paragraph (a) in Sub-section (2) is all right.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word"houses" ["in respect of houses"] to insert the words
    "(a) in respect of which application has been made to the Minister before their construction is begun and the Minister has agreed that grants under this Section shall be made in respect thereof if the other provisions of this Sub-section are complied with."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 119.
    I move this Amendment in order to try to get the Government to explain what exactly is going to happen under this Grant of £15,000,000. I do not see myself how it is going to work, and I hope the Government will be able to explain one or two difficulties. Under Clause 2 the Government have power to expend £15,000,000 in grants of £150 each—that means about 100,000 houses—and my point is this: I suppose the builders will begin laying down their foundations almost immediately in the hope of earning the grant, and it is quite conceivable that the foundations of these houses, and, in fact, the houses themselves, will be in excess of the number of 100,000. When the builder

    1517
    has finished his house, or half-finished it, and comes to the Minister for a grant, the Minister may say, "I am very sorry, but we have expended already the £15,000,000 which was allowed us by Act of Parliament, and I cannot give you anything." Surely the builder ought to know, before he starts building a house under this Act, whether he is really going to get the grant or not! Surely it is very unfair that builders should set about building houses believing they are going to get the grant and find, on finishing the houses, that the £15,000,000 has been already expended and that they will get nothing at all! The Amendment I have put down has been put down with the object of meeting that difficulty. It ensures that before starting to build a house a builder may be able to find out from the Minister whether he will gel a grant or not. I take it that the machinery would be that the Minister would keep a very exact account of the number of premises he had given grants to, and the amount of money he had already expended, and when he had got to the end of his £15,000,000 he would tell any other builder that came to him that the sum was exhausted. I have not heard this point made before on this Bill, and I should very much like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it.
    Dr. ADDISON: As my hon. Friend recognises, this is a question of administration rather than of legislation, and the procedure we propose would be this: A person proposing to build a house has to submit his plans to the local authority in any case, and he would be advised that his plans would be passed, and a certificate given for the payment of the subsidy, on the conditions being complied with. He would be notified by the local authority of those conditions, and the certificate would be given him when the plans were passed. He, therefore, would not build a house and then be uncertain as to whether he was going to get the subsidy. I am afraid that people would not be likely to begin under these circumstances; they would want to know whether they were oil were not going to get the subsidy, and that would have to be settled when the plans were passed. I wish I could think that more than the number of houses would be applied for and built within the time stated. It would be a great relief to the housing situation. I am afraid, however, that I am not quite so sanguine, but the
    1518
    point is quite an easy one to meet. Every local authority has, in its scheme, provided a programme of the requirements of its area, and we have worked out for every area what will be the annual housing requirements. Now that the surveys have come in we are able to know at any time what the requirements are in any area, and, therefore, it is a simple matter of administration to inform authorities of the limits as to numbers which apply to them. The returns come to us monthly, and will, if necessary, come more frequently, and therefore we shall know at any time what progress is being made, and it will be easy to keep within the allocation which we have provisionally made. We shall know a long time beforehand whether an authority is approaching the limit of its programme or going beyond it, so that, as a matter of practical administration, there really will be no difficulty such as my hon. Friend suggests. It is very important, of course, that the arrangements should be such that, when a person's plans are passed, he should be informed of the conditions which he has to comply with, in order to get his certificate entitling him to payment of the subsidy, when the House is passed in accordance with the provisions of this Clause.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. DAVISON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "houses." ["Grants under this section shall be made only in respect of houses—"], to insert the words,"(a) which, when erected, are not withheld from occupation until they are sold."
    The primary object of this Amendment is to prevent the builder from erecting houses, and, having secured the dole, holding the houses and not allowing them to be occupied, in order to take advantage of a rise in the selling price of the houses. That has been illustrated even with regard to houses that have been unoccupied during recent times. A great number of landlords have withheld houses from occupation, by reason of the fact that they can secure from persons applying for them a bonus, and, as I see nothing in the provisions of this Bill which deals with that point, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not myself think that the contingency forecasted by my hon. Friend is at all likely to arise. I think that, except in the case of people who build for themselves or for definite parties, the house, where any uncertainty exists, will not be built until the man thinks he is going to be able to sell it. Therefore I think it extremely unlikely that houses would be held up in the way suggested, but, if it does seem likely to arise, I should be quite prepared to consider it when it arises. I should like to see a. few tens of thousands of houses erected first, and then I think it will be time to consider such an eventuality, if it occurs, rather than to impose a number of detailed conditions at this stage.
    Mr. DAVISON: If these words were inserted, the object would be attained.
    Dr. ADDISON: There are all kinds of legal questions that would be raised. There is plenty of time to consider it, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it now, but will let us get on with the business, rather than impose conditions which will frighten people and which they will not be able to understand.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is being done. In my own town of Barnard Castle, two exactly similar houses were sold. One was sold empty, and brought over £900, while the other went for something under £500. That shows what can be done by people who are willing to keep people out of houses for the sake of getting money. These houses were built for £250 or £300 originally. I do hope the Minister will accept this Amendment, because, after all, it is essential that some protection should be given.
    Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree as to that, but it is impossible to do it in this way. I shall, however, be prepared to consider it as the case arises. In the meantime I hope that the measure will not be shackled with conditions which, as I have said, people might be afraid of and might not understand.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word" houses" ["in respect of houses"], to insert the words, "the letting of which is placed in the hands of the local authority of the area in which the houses are situated."
    1520
    The object of this is to protect the working classes. If, as we believe, the private builders will build to sell and not to let, then it appears to me that it will only be people who are comparatively rich who will be able to buy these subsidised houses. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill; the intention is that houses should be built for the working classes. If this Amendment were accepted, and the letting was in the hands of the local authorities, they would be the people who would have the information as to who needed the houses most. They would know exactly where the worst conditions of overcrowding were and where it ought to be relieved first. We propose this Amendment with the object of relieving overcrowding where it exists in the worst form, and we say that only the local authorities are the people who know that, and not the people who build the houses.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend as to how the fact that the letting was in the hands of the local authorities would deal with the question of overcrowding. The important thing is the number of houses available. That is what we want to obtain. I would suggest that my hon. Friend is really seeking to defeat the whole principle of the Bill which we accepted on the Second Reading. It is quite evident that no person or persons would undertake the building of these houses if when they built them somebody else was to deal with them. Nobody would start business on those terms. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment. Having accepted the principle of the Bill, I must try to make it work.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word" houses" ["in respect of houses"], to insert the words
    " (a) In respect of which an undertaking is given that the rental, exclusive of the rates and taxes ordinarily borne by the tenant, shall not exceed thirty pounds per annum for a period of twenty years after completion."
    I think that is a very plain Amendment, and does not need arguing. If the rent is not limited there is no guarantee that it will not go up by leaps and bounds until the working classes will be unable to pay. We propose in this to limit it to £30 per annum, that is over 11s. a week. Surely that is a very decent rent, and I think it is safe to say that for twenty years at least we shall be in the same abnormal

    1521
    state of housing as we are to-day. We are not going to get these thousands of houses which are talked about. I look forward to many years when we shall be in the same position as to-day.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, a distinguished member of the Labour party, should be guilty of such false economics. I always understood that it was one of his principles that people ought to receive sufficient wages to enable them to pay an economic rent for the houses in which they lived. If you accept any other principle it is bad both for wages and housing. To stereotype rent for twenty years, as this would do, would be to kill the whole provision of houses. I am afraid I must keep to first principles, and, if wages are not enough to pay an adequate rent, wages should be put up until they are enough. That is the proper principle and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: If a guarantee were given that the people who are to live in these houses would have a wage to enable them to pay anything from 18s. to 25s. a week rent we might be satisfied, but we know that that will not be so, and it is not going to deal with the question of overcrowding at all. What will happen is that on account of the rent when the houses are erected two families will live in a house where only one family should live. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way now to limit the rent to be charged for the houses he will, before the Bill becomes law, make a statement saying what rent it is intended should be charged.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Minister of Health has told us that if the wages of the working classes are not sufficient to pay an economic rent wages ought to go up. Generally speaking, I could agree with that dictum if we found it easy to get wages up, but our difficulty up to the present has been that we have been unable to get wages up to enable the working classes of the country to pay a rent in excess of the sum mentioned in the Amendment. I do not know if the Minister for Health would be in a position to assist us to get our wages up to the point that would enable us to meet a higher rent than £30 a year, but I know that what has happened up to the present has been that when the working classes have taken extreme steps in order to get their wages
    1522
    increased we have generally found that the same men who are giving such a cordial assent to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we should get wages up are very much against the working classes taking any extreme step of the sort. The sum mentioned in the Amendment is a very reasonable one. Wages will have to rise to a much higher figure than they are today if the working classes are to be able to pay a higher rent than £30. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that this difficulty of housing accommodation will not pass away as quickly as some members of the Committee seem to imagine. The shortage of houses will be with us for years to come, and the working classes of the country will find themselves in a difficulty in securing adequate accommodation. The Minister of Health would be well advised to have a proviso of this kind in the Bill. It would stop the rent of houses being rushed up to an extreme figure. If no condition of this kind is imposed there is no doubt that after a certain time rents will rise, possibly to an extent that would be far beyond what the working classes could meet from the limited wages they have been able to secure.
    Mr. INSKIP: I hope my hon. Friends opposite will regard this Bill in a slightly less suspicious manner. There is a good deal of sympathy on both sides of the House with regard to the apprehensions as to the use to which the houses will be put, but my hon. Friend seems to be in the position of a man who wants to get to the other side of a river but will not jump for fear of getting wet. If we get the houses, conditions will cure themselves. If my hon. Friends would be a little less suspicious and a little more sanguine as to the future, I am confident we will make progress.
    Mr. LYNN: I take it that the object of this Bill is to get houses. If the Amendment is carried we will not get houses, and for that reason I am opposed to it. It is easier to get wages up than to get houses up. I hope the hon. Member will try to get houses up, and then he will get wages up.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. J. JONES: I have listened to an economic Daniel come to judgment. We have been sitting all through the Debates, and have been told that the great difficulty is to build houses at a rent which the working-classes can pay, or can afford to

    1523
    pay. That is the great stumbling-block, and yet, when it is proposed to fix a limit of rent, we are told it is economic nonsense and unjustified.
    Mr. LYNN: You will not get the houses.
    Mr. JONES: These people will not build houses because we cannot pay the rent they demand. It is a matter of L.s.d. with them, not a question of housing. All these arguments make us more determined to carry out our policy. Houses ought to be built for people to live in, not for people to draw rent from. We have conceded something to you; we cannot give much more. You have taken nearly all we have got. We have conceded something; we are willing to go up to £30 a year. The time may come when you may be glad to compromise with us on something less than. £30 a year, and when we shall object to pay you anything. We will only agree then to pay you something less than £30 a year. At present we are prepared to be generous, and we suggest that the ordinary working man, even the skilled worker, the highest class, if he pays £30 a year rent, is making a considerable inroad upon his income. I live in a flat which is suitable for me—flats for flats. I live in one of those desirable houses. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members cannot be humorous even if they try.
    An HON. MEMBER: Not at two o'clock in the morning !
    Mr. JONES: In the East End of London, take the casual worker, one of those at the docks; he is lucky if he gets 36s. a week in normal times. In the schemes already debated we cannot give him a house at an economic rent of less than 15s. a week. That is the rent according to the Housing Bill now being debated. Where is an ordinary casual labourer going to find 15s. a week for rent in normal times? You may talk about the necessity of better housing, but what is a rent like that going to lead to? You have got to house the people, but this will lead to overcrowding in order to pay the rent. Although tins may be a limitation, some limitation of rent is necessary. That is admitted, if the individual private builder is to build the houses. It is the duty of the people to build houses for themselves if the individual does not build. That is why we ask for some limitation of the rent.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I think the limit of a maximum is likely to become a minimum in every case. If you put this figure into the Act of Parliament, everybody who builds a house will think he is going to get £30 a year for it. What has happened in the agricultural districts? The wages boards fix the rent for a cottage at 3s. a week, and now 11s. is suggested by the Labour party. Nobody expects that the builder is going to get 11s. a week in the agricultural districts. To put a figure like this for rents of a particular type of house in the Act of Parliament, and not to deal with the whole question of rent and what an economic rent ought to be, is absolutely detrimental to the whole principle of the Bill, apart from any advantage that might result. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DAVISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "houses" ["in respect of houses"] to insert the words
    "(a) which are built in areas where the local authority has not at the date of the passing of this Act submitted a scheme for the housing of the working classes in accordance with the Housing Acts, 1890–1919, or where such a scheme has been submitted the construction of which is certified by the local authority of the area as not likely to interfere with the ratified completion of the scheme submitted."
    The principal object of moving this Amendment if the principle of the subsidy is to stand, is to show that it is essential that the local authorities should be protected from the absorption of labour and material by the private builders, who would be getting a subsidy, which would be detrimental in its effect to housing schemes carried out by the local authorities under the powers in connection with the Housing Acts of 1890–1919. If the Government opposes the Amendment it will mean that the private builder will produce houses at any cost or any rent, assisted by the subsidy, while the local authority, with its schemes at a reasonable rent, will be left in the lurch. The 1919 Act. will be really repealed and the local authorities will not be able to get the labour or the materials they want while the builders will rush to get these necessaries and the labour. It must be obvious that the local authorities should be given some protection.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not think the hon. Member or the House clearly understands what would be the effect of this Amendment. There are 1,800 local authorities

    1525
    concerned, and it would mean that these houses are only to be built either in the areas which have not yet submitted schemes—the backward authorities—or have built one or two houses, or where the authority is not likely to interfere with the scheme. The hon. Member drew a picture, wholly inaccurate, of the way in which people are flocking to the contractors. I may say that we have the Joint Industrial Council on Building Construction and everything is being done to increase the supplies to the local authorities. I see no reason for accepting the Amendment. Does my hon. Friend want any houses or not? If he does not, well then, let him do this kind of thing. What is the good of trying to exclude a considerable number of areas from the operations of the Bill; the houses are wanted everywhere?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: We all know that.
    Dr. ADDISON: Then what is the purpose of this Amendment?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: This Bill is going to prevent the houses being built.
    Dr. ADDISON: The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the areas to which this Bill applies. I say with great respect that at present the shortage of houses is so great that if we are going to use this Bill at all we must have the houses where they are wanted. Therefore to limit the areas serves no useful purpose, and curtails very widely the operations of the Bill.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I want the members of this Committee clearly to understand that the Amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend and myself are not put down for the purpose of delaying the building of houses. We are as anxious for houses to be built as any member of the Committee. As a matter of fact, many of us were agitating for houses of a superior class to be built for the working classes in the country long before some members of this Committee knew anything about houses at all. I see my hon. Friend the Minister of Health for Scotland shakes his head. The trade union movement in Scotland was agitating for building houses long before he knew that there was a housing problem in Scotland, and the same thing broadly and generally applies all over the country.
    1526
    Our only anxiety in putting forward these Amendments is that we might have the houses provided under proper conditions. We do not disguise from the Minister of Health and the other members of the Committee that we are strongly opposed to public money being given to private individuals for putting up houses. We believe that if public money is to be expended in the provision of houses it should be done through the local authorities, and through the local authorities alone. If the Central Government of the country is going to spend money on the provision of houses, those houses should remain the property of the people, and should not pass into the hands of private individuals. Hence the reason for some of the Amendments. It is not the case that we desire to prevent the building of houses. We wish to assist in the building of houses by every means.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a Second Reading point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words "comply with the conditions as to construction prescribed by the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "are in general accordance with the conditions as to the average number of houses per acre and the standards of construction prescribed by the Minister for the guidance of local authorities carrying schemes into effect under Section one of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1916."
    I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment. The reason I hope he will do so will be found quite clearly in the speech of the hon. Member, the Paymaster-General, which he made on Monday night. He told us that
    "It was then decided that we should lay those standards for houses. I am proud of those standards. I did my part in assisting to frame them. I regard the little work I did in that direction as the best work I have ever done in public life. I would never do anything, or take any steps, that would undo that work, or lower the high standard, or make it possible for us to revert to the old haphazard and chaotic methods of the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1919, col. 1037.]
    If that means anything it means that you are going to insist that the new houses that have been built by private builders under this Bill shall not be inferior in quality to the standard of the houses that are to be built by the local authority. In this connection I think that the Minister

    1527
    of Health, speaking yesterday, about the way public money is being spent, said that if a proper standard is maintained it applies equally to the houses that are being built with public assistance by the local authorities and to the houses that are being built by private builders with the subsidy. The Amendment I move is drafted quite widely; it is not meticulous; it does not wish to tie down to petty details, but it does include the main points of the standard that must be built under this subsidy, and the limitation in the number of houses, the number agreed, and the standard of construction prescribed by the Minister. I do not wish to tie the public builder down as to bylaws under the particular local authority. I want to leave it so that the standards considered good enough by the Minister of Health shall be allowed to prevail, and that we should not be absolutely tied down by some very meticulous by-laws. The reason why it is important to have this in the Bill is because there is a great deal of loose talking going on, both outside and inside the House. I take the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sir R. Thomas) last night. He said, "Any sort of house is better than no house at all." That is only half true. If he had said, "Any sort of temporary dwelling is better than nothing at all, "I should say that there was something in it. But if you are going to build houses that are going to last forty or fifty years or more, you have got to set a higher standard than we have had hitherto. If you are going to have houses they must be good houses. It is no use spending public or private money on bad houses. If you want temporary dwellings to overcome the serious emergency such as we are in, do not think that they are houses. They are not houses; they are merely temporary makeshifts; and the sooner we get rid of them the better, and get proper houses in their place. It is absolutely essential that it should be put clearly in the Bill that there is to be no relaxation of the standard, which I am perfectly certain that this House and all housing reformers in the country want to see maintained—the new post-war standard throughout the county. The two main points to get into the Bill are the limitation of the number of houses per acre, and the general recognition standard that the privately-built houses should be the same as those to be built by the local authorities.
    Dr. ADDISON: I find myself in agreement with all the aims of my hon. and gallant Friend, and the Manual which we have issued for the guidance of local authorities is sufficient proof of our desires and intentions. As he says, we want to keep up the standard, and, I think, to improve the general standard; it is the general desire of all persons. I have considered very carefully his Amendment and a number of other Amendments which follow on the Paper, right down to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip), and two or three others which really relate to the same topic, with an honest desire to see how far I can accept them, remembering that in the case of local authorities we have laid down our standards in our Manual, and that we have recognised, in the case of the local authorities, that you must interpret them in a common-sense manner. This Amendment ties things up in a way which I think must be undesirable and impossible in working. At the same time. we want to have a good standard, and if my hon. Friend and those who are associated with him will listen, I will read the Clause as it would appear after the inclusion of two Amendments:
    "Grants will be made under this Section only in respect of houses which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister and are in material accordance with the conditions as to the number of houses per acre and the standards of structural stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme carried out by the local authority under Section one of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919."
    That means that you get a good standard of sanitation and stability, and that you do not allow them to be crowded on the land. It meets all that is required in a practical way, a way we can administer with fairness. I will read it again. [The words were repeated.]
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: What is the meaning of the words "material accordance"?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not mind whether it is "material" or "general." It is quite immaterial to me. I thought the word "material" was the better word for the purpose, but I do not mind if you have "general."
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I am very glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's alternative words, and thank him for the way he has met me. I should rather like to see these alternative words in print, and if I might safeguard myself on the

    1529
    Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment now and consider it again then.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) will be covered by this suggestion. Does he desire to move?
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), after the word "to" ["with the conditions as to"], to insert the words "situation and."
    I should like to be satisfied on this question. I notice that the provisions of the White Paper, which hitherto has been regarded as the standard, for the houses to be subsidised vary very considerably from the Manual. I understand that in substance the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the conditions of that Manual, issued under the July Act of this year, and that the Amendment he had suggested should be put clown, would require a similar standard for houses receiving the subsidy. In the White Paper there is no reference whatever to bathrooms.
    The CHAIRMAN: That point can be raised later.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2, a), leave out the words "as to construction."
    After the word "Minister" ["prescribed by the Minister"], insert the words
    "and are in material accordance with the conditions as to the number of houses per acre and the standards of structural stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any schema carried out by a local authority under Section one of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, a), to insert the words "and which in urban areas contain a bathroom." Is the right hon. Gentleman going to accept that?
    Dr. ADDISON: As a matter of fact, that is covered, and I would much rather not have the Amendment in, because that is a condition applying to the houses in urban areas. If you mention bathroom you will want to mention stairs, and all that is exceedingly undesirable.
    Mr. THOMSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I only sug-
    1530
    gested that the Amendment be put down after reading the White Paper, which I am again glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman has practically thrown over, because that contains most inadequate safeguards for health, and the fact that he has accepted the other Amendment based on the Manual raises the standard of the subsidised houses to that which had been approved in the Manual for the local authority, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-sectivon (2 c), to leave out the word "twelve" ["within twelve months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six." That would make Sub-section (2) read, "construction begun within six months of the passing of this Act."
    Hon. Members will notice that the Clause goes on to say that they must be completed within twelve months, with an option of extension for a further three months if the Minister allows it. I submit that it is impossible to finish a house within twelve months if it is not started within six months of the passing of the Act. The whole purpose of this Act is to get on as quickly as possible with housing. Having admitted the subsidy, we are all anxious that as many houses should be put up as possible, and as quickly as possible, and it is surely desirable that the time should be made six months rather than twelve months, in view of the fact that it would be impossible to finish the houses in twelve months if they are not begun within six months.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think this would seriously curtail the facilities for building houses under this Act. Allowing for the necessary time to get matters started, only about four months would be left, and it would be impossible to begin every house by the 1st June. Therefore we have had to devise conditions in respect of houses that may not be completed for certificate at the end of the twelve months, and that is better than saying they must be done by a certain date. The effect of this Amendment would be to shut out the very best time of the year.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2 c), after the word "Act" ["begun within twelve months after the passing of this Act"], to insert the words

    1531
    "or within six months after the passing of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919."
    The object is to bring within the scope of the Bill houses begun since the passing of the main Act in July. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very inconsistent to exclude from the benefits and advantages of this Bill houses which have been built or begun under that Act. I have heard of cases where this result will accrue, and a situation has arisen in which it would actually pay those who have begun houses, and spent a certain amount of money on them, to scrap what they have done and start afresh in order to get the subsidy under this Bill. Obviously it would be very undesirable to encourage that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) put the point quite clearly on the Second Reading when he said:
    "I think there is a case for people who have already begun to build under exactly these conditions, and who have not waited to be offered a subsidy. Under proper safeguards they should not be deprived of assistance, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider that question."
    It is in order to bring in that class of case under this Bill that I move this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
    Dr. ADDISON: Although I agree that it is very hard-hearted, I am bound to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. If we do this in respect of houses that have been begun now, where are we to start from? We shall be pushed back and back.
    Mr. BETTERTON: This is quite definite.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am quite certain that if I accepted this I should have to go further still. People who have begun to build houses have, I suggest, done so because for some reason or other it was worth while. The object of the Bill is to get additional houses, and therefore I do not think it really is reasonable to expect me to ante-date in any way the operation of the Act. I would not mind, however, including houses begun up to the 1st December, 1919. I would go as far as that, but to date it back would be impossible, and would defeat the object, which is to get additional houses.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. He is prepared to concede the principle, and
    1532
    put it back to the 1st December, but that really would do practically nothing. This applies largely—in fact, I think mainly—to rural areas, where people have seen how very grievous is the need of houses; and, having begun to build houses for labourers on rural estates, where they will be let at a low rent of about 3s. a week, and for the purpose of providing, to the national benefit, houses for workmen, I think it is very hard that they should be deprived of this assistance if the work has been begun since the original Act was passed. I think that, as my right hon. Friend is already prepared to go back to the 1st December, it would be only reasonable and fair that he should go back to the earlier date suggested by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and thus link up this Bill with the previous Act, of which, after all, it is only an amending measure. I think there ought, as I suggested on the Second Reading, to be safeguards, but that the Minister, where he thinks the circumstances justify it, should give the subsidy in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Major BARNES: I find myself so much in accord with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) that, opposed as I am to subsidies, I think this is a case in which I would agree to subsidise those persons who had had the pluck to start building before there was any mention of such assistance. If the subsidy were limited to people of that kind I would support it.
    Mr. INSKIP: It is almost cynical—although the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is the last person in the world to be cynical—to say that, as these people have begun to build houses, and the only object is to induce people to build houses, they are not to benefit by the Grant. I had a letter only to-day from a man who is trying to erect cottages in a rural district on the borders of Essex and Hertfordshire where houses are very much needed, and he is struggling with shortage of materials and continual increases in cost. He cannot keep his workmen together because he cannot get materials, and he will not be able to get this subsidy unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, which, I submit, is reasonable, dealing, as it does, with the operation of the principal Act.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. There

    1533
    must be a line drawn somewhere, and if I put the line back there would still be a few hard cases of people who came in before, and so it would go on. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his great experience of administration, would not like to tackle it himself. I think the only practical and businesslike way is to take a date, and not to ante-date it. I was inclined to go as far as the 1st December, but the course of this Debate shows me what will happen, and that it would be impossible.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, c), to leave out the words "not exceeding three months."
    I hope the right hon Gentleman will be able to see his way to accept this Amendment. Supposing a strike takes place, or for any other reason a man is not able to complete a house, I do not see why you should not give the Minister discretion to add any period necessary for completion, so long as it is not the fault of the man who has built the house.
    Dr. ADDISON: I recognise the importance of this matter, and it has been represented to me by other hon. Members. I would rather like to take power to deal with special cases by two Amendments. I think there will certainly be cases in which twelve months may not be enough. That would land us in the middle of next winter. Our object is to get houses built, and I should propose to insert four months instead of three. The point of my hon. Friend is that there may be a strike or a prolonged frost or difficulties in transport, or various other things over which a man could have no control. In those circumstances it would be hard to penalise him. Therefore I suggest that the word "four" [months] should be substituted for "three." Further, after the words "twelve months" in the next paragraph of the Sub-section I should propose to insert the words "unless the Minister is satisfied that the failure to complete the house within that period is due to circumstances over which the person constructing the house had no control." That would enable him to escape the loss of the subsidy in these special cases.
    Mr. LORDEN: I have two Amendments down on somewhat the same lines. I suggest that the three months should be extended to six, and further that a pro-
    1534
    portionate reduction of the grant should be made only if a house is not completed within a period of fifteen months. Do I understand the Minister to suggest that the three months should be altered to four months?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is right.
    Mr. LORDEN: The difficulty I am in is the very difficulty the Minister has raised. The next two months are not good for building. Then, if you take twelve months, you are landed into November and December of next year. You have practically two winters in the twelve months. Even the four months suggested by the Minister is not sufficient. If you are to subsidise people, surely it is reasonable to give them a reasonable time to carry out the work. You have great difficulty at present with material. Anyone interested in the building trade knows that at the present time you cannot get building material, and particularly you cannot get it in proper sequence. You are nearly always hung up. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to consider whether he cannot extend the period to fifteen months before any proportionate reduction of grant will be made.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The words suggested by the Minister would be much better inserted at the end of the proviso providing for the payment of the subsidy in the case of houses built within twelve months after the passing of the Act, and not after the proviso allowing for a. proportionate reduction. That would really cover the case, because the delay might occur through strikes or delays in transport. The difficulty is that here is a cast-iron rule which no one can alter without a fresh Act of Parliament. We are not living in ordinary times, and there ought to be power in the Minister to extend the period if the delay is caused through no fault of the individual. In this ease one party to the contract is sure of his consideration, namely, the house, and the other party to the contract might be deprived of his consideration—the subsidy—through no fault of his own. That does not seem right, and it seems to me that it will largely prevent people starting the building of houses at all. I would not like to undertake to build a house if I knew that the subsidy was dependent on the completion of the house within twelve months and that the Minister might be unable to fulfil his contract through no fault of mine.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot decide on the point now, but I will carefully consider it. I am anxious that we should not give anybody an excuse for delaying operations, and I will look into it with that object and leave it for the Report stage. I am afraid that if we extend the period of twelve months there may be a possibility of extending it to sixteen or eighteen months as a general rule.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, no!
    Dr. ADDISON: I think it would be a possibility. A person might start building when it was a physical impossibility to complete it in the time. I want to make them start as soon as possible. The Amendment is quite bonâ fide, but if I accepted it now I would qualify it with a reduction of the subsidy; however, I would not like to accept it without further consideration, because it might delay the commencement of building.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would point out that nobody can build a house except on a certificate granted by the Minister. Obviously he would only grant it in view of a particular date. If the house had been begun and through no fault of the person who was building it could not be completed, he would be entitled to some consideration. I am sure the Minister would not grant a certificate if there was not a reasonable expectation that the house would be completed within the time. There would be no delay caused, for it would not be the fault of the man who was building the house. If he did not complete it in a reasonable time, he would not be given the subsidy.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am afraid there might be a case of a house which would not be completed in a certain time. That would happen under this Bill, and the excuse would be given that the builder could not get workmen. They cannot get workmen now. Then others might start to build more houses than they were capable of erecting. The foundations would be put in and at a certain stage they would say they could not get the men and they could not complete them. I hope the Minister will not make any further concession.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite satisfied with the promise.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have also an Amendment about the subsidy, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it.
    1536
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2,c), leave out the word "three, "["not exceeding three months"], and insert instead thereof the word "four."
    After the word "months" ["the said period of twelve months"], insert the words
    "unless the Minister is satisfied that the failure to complete the house within that period is due to circumstances over which the person constructing the house has no control."—[Dr. Addison.]
    3.0 A.M.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, c), after the word "months" ["the said period of twelve months"], to insert the words
    "and provided that no grant shall be made in respect of any house which shall be erected on a site acquired after the passing of this Act if, in the opinion of the Minister, the consideration paid for the site was in excess of the value that could have been realised in the open market by a willing on the date of the passing of this Act."
    I am moving this Amendment purely as a business proposition. I think it is common ground that the effect of the Bill will be to enable people to build who otherwise would not build. Thus the demand for land will be increased, and the value of the land and the price of it will be increased. I do not think the Government wants to increase the price of the land against the local authorities by the provision of Government money. Nor does anyone in the Committee desire that. The landowner is entitled to the increase in the value of his land as well as the owner of any other commodity. But it is not part of the purpose of this Bill to bring about a situation in which, by the granting of money to private individuals, the price of land is raised to the local authorities who have to pay more. Unless a provision of this kind is inserted that will be the effect. Some of the local authorities have proposed to acquire land in their areas, which is partially developed. Under this Amendment they will not go into the market against a limited number of buyers of land. Other buyers will be brought in against them, and these people will get the assistance of public money. Local authorities may have desired such land for the purpose of tidying up their towns, and therefore they want this undeveloped land. They would have to bid against people who had the assistance of this public money. That is exactly the state of things. During the last week or two I had an opportunity of addressing a meeting of surveyors in one

    1537
    of our towns on this Bill, and one of them was an agent to a landowner and he said that up to the present they had been told there was no market for building land; there was nobody in the market for building sites except the local authorities, and the land was being sold at a low rate. The effect of the subsidies, he said, would be to increase the value of the land, and they should be able to get a higher price. I am quite sure the Government does not desire to bring about that state of things by the Grant of £15,000,000 of public money to private individuals. They would be able to give higher figures for the land than they otherwise would have given. There is nothing in the Amendment to impose any artificial figure as the value of the land. Under the Amendment the market value of the land would be obtained, whatever that value is to-day. The Amendment provides that, "No grant shall be made in respect of any house which shall be erected on a site acquired after the passing of this Act if, in the opinion of the Minister, the consideration paid for the site was in excess of the value that could have been realised in the open market by a willing seller on the date of the passing of this Act."
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that I cannot consider the Amendment at all favourably. We have now nearly 7,000 site applications which have to be sanctioned by the Government and the valuer. But this has already been dealt with. There will be 20,000 different sites as to which, under the Amendment, I have got to satisfy myself—and how I am to do it I do not quite know—" that the consideration paid for the site was in excess of the value that could have been realised in the open market by a willing seller on the date of the passing of the Act." And it might be half an acre of land. With great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think that is a fair proposition at all. We want to get the houses quickly. So long as I get houses of the right standard I shall have to pay the subsidy. We shall save no money by this proposal. There would be no public saving at all in any way, and it would be an enormously costly piece of administration. I do not know what, staff would be required, but I am certain it would require some hundreds of people to carry it out.
    Major BARNES: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not quite do him
    1538
    self justice in his reply. He betrays a very considerable amount of ignorance in the way he is carrying on at present. He can carry out the procedure of my Amendment without adding a single member to his staff.
    Sir T. WALTERS: No, no!
    Major BARNES: If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed, I think I can convince him of that fact. At present the right hon. Gentleman has very wisely availed himself, in respect to the purchase of land by public authorities, of the services of the Valuation Department. I think I am correct in saying that his staff has not been increased—or to a very small extent only—except by the transfer of members of the Valuation Department to his staff.
    Dr. ADDISON: The amount of correspondence that would be required, and is required now, to aid the land valuers is enormous. The appeals and objections are enormous, and I do not believe for one minute that you are going to save sixpence to the public. You will delay the getting of houses. I really do understand what I am doing.
    Major BARNES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that no single one of these sites can be transferred without coming under the notice of the Valuation Department! It would be the simplest matter for the district valuer to give to the right hon. Gentleman a statement, without involving any of the clerical assistance he speaks of. With regard to not saving anything from the public money, if the effect of this subsidy is to raise the whole value of the land acquired by the local authority and by the private individuals, that would be a very considerable expenditure of public money. I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate to the full extent the opposition that exists to the payment of these subsidies on the part of hon. Members near me, who represent a large number of the working classes in this country who will have to use these houses. If there is an impression that the main effect of this subsidy will be to increase the cost in the price of all land, and thereby make houses more expensive, I think that supposition is correct.
    Sir T. WALTERS: With great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I must say that there is nothing of subsidy in this point at all. The land which is now being dealt with is land is the centre of a

    1539
    town, or in close proximity to a town. The proposal will impose an intolerable burden, and will not bring the remotest advantage in any shape or form.
    Mr. H. SMITH: I am astonished that the hon. and gallant Member should have thought fit to make three speeches in support of his Amendment. I never in my life heard of an Amendment which was so unnecessary and so likely to deter the building of houses. Let me point out to the Committee what the proposal of the hon. Member is. According to his Amendment the Minister is to decide. According to his speech the decision rests upon the District Valuer and not upon the Minister at all. If a decision has to be taken it must be a decision of the Minister, and, if so, it is equally obvious that it will entail all that work and trouble and expense of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has spoken. Let me ask hon. Members how long they think all this will take. Within twelve months the foundations of these houses must be erected, they must be built, and I want to know how long it is going to take for the questions to be decided? Does the hon. and gallant Member really want houses at all? [HON. MEMBERS"No!"] Or is he endeavouring to wreck the scheme, because if he really wants houses I would ask him to consider the matter.
    Major BARNES: Is the hon. Member inviting me to make another speech?
    Mr. SMITH: If the hon. Member means by that that he cannot answer the question without making a speech, my answer to his question is in the negative, because I do not desire him to make another speech. But I am entitled to ask him to consider whether he really thinks he is expediting building by a proposal of this sort. A builder may buy land for thirty, forty or fifty houses with the grave risk that when he has bought it and committed himself some Minister is going to say: "You have paid a price which is above the market price." If he thinks that is going to encourage the builder, I think he had better go and consult once more that strange body of surveyors with whom he was speaking the other night.
    Mr. LORDEN: I think this Amendment will be largely unnecessary. There will be very little land purchased. It will be persons owning estates or owning land who will put houses or cottages upon
    1540
    them. Therefore the difficulty will arise only in a very few cases. The Amendment is unnecessary, and would keep a lot of people from building even on land that they have already got.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The purpose of the Amendment is that the whole £150 should go to the tenant, the occupier of the house, and that none of it should go to the landlord through any accretion of land value due to the passing of this particular Bill. Land in the centre of towns, owing to the inability of ordinary builders to build, and owing to the local authority not being prepared to pay high prices, is not getting the price that has been asked for it in the past. The purpose of this Amendment is that this Bill should not give an accretion of value to the land, and should not put into the pocket of the landlord a value which apart from the passing of the Act it would never have had. With regard to what the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) said about its being a ridiculous proposition, under the Bill the Minister is every day acting on the advice of the valuers in giving his decision, and he could do it equally well under the Clause the hon. and gallant Member has proposed.
    Mr. LYNN: I think the hon. Members opposite have learned nothing from the Finance Act of 1909. That Act did a great deal with regard to the taxing of increment of land, and but for the passing of that Act we would not be sitting here this morning dealing with the question of houses. That Act is really at the bottom of the whole trouble.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, c), after the word "months" ["the said period of twelve months"], to insert the words
    "and provided that no grant shall be made in respect of any house where the wages paid and conditions of employment do not comply with the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clauses in Government contracts."
    The purpose of this Amendment, again, is to provide that the£150 should go to the benefit of the person who is to occupy the house and the labour of those employed on it. In all Government contracts and in all contracts made by the local authorities under the main Act this Clause has to be put in, and I do not think that in these enlightened days any argument is required in support of the contention that the Fair-

    1541
    Wages Clause ought to be put in a contract where public money is expended. It is put into every agreement for the building of houses by the local authorities, and it is only right and reasonable to ask that these houses, subsidised by public money, should have the same safeguard put in.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is another Amendment which would mean a great deal of administrative work, arid is not asked for. In the present condition of the building trade, and with all these thousands of houses being built, where will the cases arise where it will not be possible for the workers to obtain proper conditions, and to get good wages? I do not believe those cases will exist. We have always secured that the district rates of wages shall be observed, but this will mean that in every case I have got to have a certificate from somebody or other that the wages were paid and the conditions of employment observed. We ought to leave this to the proper machinery of the trade. Surely it is not fair to ask us to set up an elaborate organisation to get this done elsewhere? That would be only paralysing the work. With the shortage of labour that exists it is only fair to suggest that these houses will be built under as good conditions as any other houses, and I have no doubt the trades unions will see after that, and they are quite competent to do so. And there is this practical point, that a large number of these houses will be built by small village builders—the type of man who employs, perhaps, his son or his nephew, and works himself. I will consider whether it would be practicable to get a statutory declaration attached, but I do not think that is in the least necessary. I am perfectly certain the trades union organisations, with whom we are in the closest working association, will see to that. If anything is necessary to secure proper observation of these working conditions I will support it, but to impose on me the statutory obligation of doing this for every house will shatter the whole scheme. I do not want the houses built under improper conditions; and I will do everything I can to see that proper conditions are observed, but that is quite different from asking me to accept this.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Is it not possible, when granting a certificate to a builder that is to guarantee his subsidy, to put in a condition that he must, observe the rules and regulations of the trade?
    Dr. ADDISON: I said I would consider the question.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Minister" ["and if the Minister is satisfied"], to insert the words "after hearing and considering any statement of the local authority."
    I submit that this is a reasonable, common-sense Amendment, free from all suspicion or any limiting ideas such as we have been charged with before. The Clause permits the Minister to grant a certificate to a man who has built a house, if the local authority has refused it. I cannot conceive that any Minister would grant a certificate when the local authority has refused it, and I cannot conceive that any local authority would withhold a certificate, either at present or for many years to come, unless there was some very good reason.
    Dr. ADDISON: What my hon. Friend wants is obviously and necessarily included in the procedure which must be followed. The Minister must be satisfied, and, therefore, he must have something which will satisfy him. If he is applied to for a certificate which the local authority has refused, he must, in. order to be satisfied, have the two statements before him.
    Mr. EDWARDS: If that is intended, what is the objection to putting these words in? The builder himself might satisfy the Minister. There is nothing to say that he shall appeal to the local authority, and these simple words cover that point and make it plain.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "conditions" ["comply with those conditions"], to insert the words
    "Provided that, as regards the administrative county of London, the Minister shall not prescribe any conditions inconsistent with the provisions of any building by-laws in force in the county except after consultation with the London County Council on the general question of the relaxation of such provisions in connection with housing schemes."
    I think this Amendment clearly explains itself. I would only mention that similar protection was given to the London County Council by the Housing Act of this year, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be willing to give the same protection in this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    1543
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out "II." ["Part II. of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919"], and insert instead thereof "I."—[Mr. Locker-Lampson.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words "which in the case of the county of London shall be the London County Council."
    The London County Council is the authority under the Act of 1890, but under the Housing Act of this year the borough councils are made the authorities within their boroughs, so far as regards the provision of housing within the Metropolitan boroughs. The question, therefore, is as to which authority is to be the authority for the purposes of this Bill. I do not think both the central authority and the local authority can act, and I suggest, having regard to the necessity for uniformity of control and action throughout the country, that it is desirable that the central authority should act in this case. The London County Council is the Building Act authority, and it would certainly seem as though it ought to exercise the powers under this Bill, or that, at any rate, it ought to be made clear who will exercise those powers.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is a very important Amendment, and I should like to consider it and bring up an Amendment for discussion on the Report stage. There are certain Sections of the Bill under which the county council must be the authority, but there are one or two others. I will bring up an Amendment for the Report stage which will meet the point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 1.
    Mr. H. SMITH: On a point of Order. Would you accept an Amendment of that sort, having regard to the fact that the Second Reading has been passed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have just put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and that is the point under discussion.
    Mr. WILSON: In my opinion, and in that of hon. Members with whom I am associated, this Clause is bad in principle, and we do not think that it will have the
    1544
    effect that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will have. We do not think he is going to get the houses by the subsidies which this Clause authorises. There has been trouble with the Employers' Association and the Workmen's Association—
    Dr. ADDISON: No, they are working most excellently. That is a kind of statement which works a great deal of mischief.
    Mr. WILSON: I understand that they refused to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. ADDISON: They did nothing whatever of the kind.
    Mr. WILSON: I was informed by a member of the executive council of one of the societies—
    Dr. ADDISON: In common fairness to myself, I must say that it is only right to expect that the hon. Member should inform himself of the facts. What I know is in his mind is a question of certain gentlemen not coming to a meeting to which they were invited—not a meeting with me, but with somebody else—a meeting which has not yet been held. They came to see me to discuss the matter with me. That shows the kind of relation in which we stand—the friendliest possible relation. They came to me to discuss this question of a future meeting, the date for which has not yet arrived. There has never been any question of their not wishing to meet me. Statements of that kind do a great deal to interfere with the progress of housing.
    Mr. WILSON: I said I was informed by a trade union official that trouble had arisen.
    Dr. ADDISON: Why do you not find out?
    Mr. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman takes the opinion of his advisers.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not a question of advice; it is a question of fact.
    Mr. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman makes inquiries and he has to accept the statement given to him. He is aware that two of the big unions at any rate are considering already whether they shall make demands with regard to their share of the subsidy; that is that they shall be paid full wages for all time lost owing to weather and shortage of material. It is very probable indeed that steps will be taken in connection with the

    1545
    building of subsidised houses which will really interfere with the building of houses. Strikes have been going on in the building trade for many weeks now, and there is no country where workmen in the building trade come out more readily than in Ireland. I do say the right hon. Gentleman is not going to get the houses he expects, and what is more, the houses which are to be erected in the first instance are not houses which will be good houses. The right hon. Gentleman has already suggested a reduction in the strength of cement and mortar used in the erection of the houses. He has also suggested, in order to reduce the cost of the houses, that the skirting should be three inches deep. Any practical builder knows that houses built under those conditions will not be comfortable houses. They are not houses that will be a credit to the building trade. Therefore, I say that the Government is not setting about the building of houses in the right way. Other schemes have been submitted to the Minister which have been turned down. I appeal to him at the eleventh hour to consider whether he should proceed with the Bill or not.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I have a certain uneasiness about the standard and type of houses. Is anything to be laid down about the cubic space or the number of rooms?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: We ought to have that quite clear. If I can get an assurance that it will be done in the Regulations, I will not take up the time of the Committee. If the White Paper is to be the form of the Regulations, they will require considerable enlargement. When we have the Regulations set out, I hope it will be made quite clear what standard is to be maintained.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In offering opposition to the Clause, I do not want to deal with any question that may be of an offensive character to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Our objection is a fundamental one. We do not believe in the system of doles to private individuals.
    Mr. INSKIP: Not even unemployment doles?
    Mr. ADAMSON: We have as little love for unemployment donations as any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House. What we demand is employment.
    Major NALL: This Bill will provide employment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Employment at which they can earn wages, and we say that in the last event the State is entitled to find employment. I did not intend to depart from the discussion of the Bill until the interjection was made from the other side. Our fundamental objection to the Bill has been strengthened by the concession granted by the Minister of Health to an hon. Member in the earlier part of the evening, when he intimated that under certain conditions it will be possible for a double subsidy to be paid for one building.
    Dr. ADDISONindicated dissent.
    Mr. ADAMSON: We do not intend to go over that ground again. I think the position was made perfectly clear in our former discussion. That has strengthened our fundamental opposition to the Bill, and if my hon. Friend who has moved the rejection of Clause 1 cares to carry his objection into the Division Lobby I shall join him.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I should like to be clear that these subsidised houses will not merely be as strongly built as the houses under the Manual, but that the height of the rooms, cubic capacity, and general conditions will be equal. Under the impression that that was so, I withdrew Amendments which I had down, and I should like to be quite satisfied on that point, and that the miserable conditions put forward in the White Paper will be scrapped.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think we should have the assurance that no house will be subsidised that has less than three bedrooms.
    Mr. J. BROWN: And a bathroom.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There is always an idea that two-bedroomed houses are enough for young married couples, but we know that things happen which involve the use of three bedrooms. When we are subsidising, I do not think it would be wise to subsidise any house with less than three bedrooms.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is clear that the superficial area of the accommodation is very important, and I indicated before that it is an essential condition of the grant. I do not agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Thomson). You must give us

    1547
    credit for a reasonable modicum of sincerity. We propose to have a reasonable standard of housing accommodation.
    Mr. THOMSON: The question of superficial area in the third Clause is shown in the Manual.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think there is something of this kind in the Manual. I think that is the effect of the figures that are taken. We have not taken inhabitant capacity but have taken superficial area, because that was the better basis. I would like to consider the point which has been raised. We want to get a small percentage of the local authorities to build two bedroom houses because we find a shortage of houses of that kind. That would assist many people. We would only allow a small percentage. I will consider that. I am sympathetic with the view which has been expressed that no subsidies should be granted except on lower scales for the smaller houses. But I would not like to make any promise now, in view of the promise which has been made to local authorities.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The words of the Manual show that the subsidies are for
    a standard of structure and sanitation. That is why the subsidies have been granted, and the intention obviously was to obtain suitable sanitation. We want to be sure of that.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will look into it. The word "construction" does not include sanitation, although it is an important point. I thought the other words were better. It will be given for habitable floor areas. That is the test. We thought that this was better from all points of view.
    Major BARNES: We have heard a lot about sanitation, and I do not think that the Department should agree to a lower standard of house. That, however, is part of the problem. We quite understand that the Minister is working under great pressure, and that he only accepted this Clause because the emergency justified it. We have to consider the feeling which exists against the principle of a subsidy, and though we want a standard house it is very difficult to define it. I quite agree that we are all anxious to get the highest possible standard of house.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 19.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle; E.)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Newbould, A. E.

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Robertson, J.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Tyson Wilson and Mr. Lunn

    Grundy, T. W.

    Clause 2 (Aggregate Amount of Grants) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to Expenses under s. 16 of 9 and 10 Geo. c. 35.)
    (1) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under Section sixteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, in connection with the conversion of buildings into separate tenements shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:
    Provided that such part of any such expenses as would have been borne by the local authority if they had been expenses incurred in carrying out a scheme to which Section seven of the said Act applies shall be payable by that authority and shall be recoverable from that authority as a debt due to the Crown, and the certificate of the Minister as to the part of the expenses to be borne by the local authority shall be conclusive.
    (2) The provision of money for the payment of any amounts payable by a local authority under this Section shall be a purpose for which the authority may borrow under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.
    (3) The Minister may make Orders containing such provisions with regard to the vesting in the local authority of any buildings converted into separate tenements under the provisions of the said Section sixteen and such consequential and supplemental provisions as the Minister may think necessary, and any Order so made shall be binding on the local authority.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
    "Provided that a local authority shall not be compelled to take over as part of their housing schemes any buildings which the Ministry shall have acquired under the provisions of the said Section sixteen after being informed by the local authority that in their opinion the property in question was unsuitable for the purpose."
    I regret that we should again have inserted in this Bill, our old friend, legislation by Order in Council. Therefore it is necessary, in my opinion, that local authorities should receive protection on the lines indicated by the Amendment. The local authorities are certainly the people who are the best judges as to whether any particular house is suitable for reconstruction and conversion. As proposed in Section 16 of the principal Act, if the local authority, with their knowledge of the local circumstances, have formed the opinion that certain premises are not suitable for conversion, then, under this
    1550
    Order in Council, the Minister can say that the particular premises which they think unsuitable can be vested in them. Some little time ago a kind of panic seized the Ministry, they thought things were not getting on fast enough. They were to be sympathised with, but some gentleman from the Ministry was sent round to a number of the boroughs in London, apparently scheduling empty houses wherever he happened to see them. Where houses are isolated, a quarter or half a mile apart, the local authority can not administer the houses. If houses are to be administered by the local authority there ought to be some two or three of them together, or else the cost of management becomes prohibitive. The main point is that where the local authority has, after taking all the facts into consideration, decided that in their opinion a house is not suitable for conversion, it should not be able to be vested in them by Order in Cuncil.
    4.0 A.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think my hon. Friend has asked me who would be responsible for these houses in the country? The necessary powers to assist the local authorities in carrying out their schemes have been deliberately provided. The hon. Member says, quite truly, that a certain amount of work has been carried out in the Metropolitan area. He made the objection, that when a house was two or three hundred yards further away, the, local authority might have to send a special rate collector a few hundred yards further to collect the rent. That is neither here nor there. What would be the position of the Ministry if, having done this in respect of local schemes, they are to act as rent collectors at a miscellaneous assortment of houses? It makes no difference to the local authority, and surely, housing, so far as it is undertaken, whether constructed by the local authority or by the Ministry and their Department, in any area, must be administered by the housing authority in that area. We only step in, with great reluctance, to remove the pressure and to limit the extent, and it is clearly necessary that the provisions

    1551
    so made must be a part of the local scheme, and that is all we seek power to do. It was a loophole which was inadvertently left in the principal Act, and which I am now seeking to fill up in the only way in which it can be filled up.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 (Amendment of Section 7 and Section 19 of;9&10 Geo. 5, c. 35, with, respect to Amount of Annual Payments) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Prohibition of Building Operations which Interfere with, Provision of Dwelling Houses.)
    (1) Where it appears to a local authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation within their area is or is likely to be delayed by a deficiency of labour or materials arising out of the employment of labour or material in the construction of any works or buildings, and that the construction of those works or buildings is in the circumstances of the case of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the authority may by Order prohibit for such time and on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe, and either in whole or in part, the construction of those works or buildings.

    (2) Any person aggrieved by an Order made by a local authority under this Section may appeal to the Minister, and on any such appeal the Minister shall have power either to annul the Order or to make such Order in the matter as the local authority could have made, and the decision of the Minister in the matter shall be final and not subject to appeal to or review by any Court.

    (3) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an Order made under this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and if the offence is a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for each day during which the offence continues, and where the person guilty of an offence under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his consent or connivance.

    (4) In any action or proceedings for breach of a contract to construct any works or buildings, it shall be a good defence to the action or proceedings to prove that due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of an Order having been made under this Section.

    (5) In this Section the expression "construction of any works or buildings" includes the making of alterations or additions to existing works or buildings.

    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word" area" ["within their area"], to insert the words
    1552
    "or the repair of any dwelling-houses therein which are not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation."
    We have now reached the Clause which deals with the prohibition of building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses. But it seems to me equally important that the repair of dwelling-houses which have become unfit for human habitation should not be interfered with. It would be a great pity to tie the hands of local authorities so that they can only stop unnecessary building when it is actual new building. If any existing houses are out of repair and unfit for human habitation we ought to say that we will not allow unnecessary building to take place until those dwelling-houses have been properly repaired.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think the words are quite unnecessary. The "provision of dwelling accommodation" would cover the repair of dwelling-houses when repair was necessary in order to allow them to be occupied. That would be the provision of dwelling accommodation. What we are seeking to do is to limit—shall I call it luxury building?—so as to get labour for dwelling accommodation.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If any right hon. Friend assures me that that point is already covered, I have nothing more to say, but I did not know it was covered.
    Amendment., by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word" buildings" ["any works or buildings], to insert the words" or dwelling-houses."
    We had some doubts in our minds whether the word "buildings" would include" dwelling-houses," or whether it might not cover the erection of large houses—luxury buildings, if you like.
    Dr. ADDISON: I deliberately did not put in the words "dwelling-houses" there, because if I had done so I should have committed myself to distinguishing between different classes of dwelling-houses. I think, too, that if you consider the trivial amount of effort that would be involved in what the hon. Member has in mind, it really is neither here nor there. Houses with more than four bedrooms are urgently wanted, and though we give them no financial assistance, we do not want to prohibit them from being built. It is very desirable that they should be built. What. I want is to prevent the erection of un-

    1553
    essential house and buildings. I think the word "buildings" is as far as you can fairly go.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "of less public importance," and to insert instead thereof the words "less urgent."
    It is difficult to decide the relative public importance of two things, and it is very easy to determine which is the more urgent, and I suggest "urgent" is the better word.
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will accept it, I would like to add after "importance" the words" for the time being." I think that really meets his point.
    Mr. INSKIP: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that better, he may put it in as far as I am concerned.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "importance" ["public importance"], insert the words "for the time being."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "shall" ["the Minister shall"], to insert the words
    "refer all such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister, consisting of three persons, two having technical knowledge or training with an independent chairman who shall."
    I wish on appeal to substitute a tribunal for the Minister. I do so for two reasons. The first is that the Minister will never be able to deal with these matters himself, because in London alone you will get 5,000 appeals a week for the first five or six weeks. Nobody will be satisfied in the first instance with the decision of the local tribunal, and it is felt that there should be some tribunal set up that should deal exclusively with these matters. I think the Amendment would get rid of something that would be an intolerable nuisance to the Minister, something he could not possibly attend to personally, because there would have to be some evidence in these cases. The tribunal I am suggesting is the same as the tribunal of appeal with regard to the London Building Act. That would be a very simple method of dealing with it. Further, there is this other objection. The local authority are obliged to get, and are desirous of getting, houses. They are a prejudiced authority with re-
    1554
    gard to houses, and, therefore, no doubt, in their area, these new buildings would get no opportunity of being built if there were any housing scheme within the area. The Minister is in exactly the same position. He has said repeatedly that he is desirous of getting houses, and it seems to me that this is a matter which he could not deal with in a judicial way at all, even if he had the time. I have suggested a way in which the matter might be dealt with. I would limit it to reference of such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister. I think such a. tribunal would have to sit almost continuously for some time in order to deal with these cases. I will not press the question of the constitution of the tribunal, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the principle, leaving it to him to carry out the details.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am entirely sympathetic with the purpose of my hon. Friend. I am perfectly certain that the Minister himself would not be able to deal with these cases, and that he would have to set up some machinery. I have already contemplated the setting up of a small tribunal to which such matters would be referred, and I have no objection to putting it in the Bill. I would accept the Amendment with the alteration that the tribunal should consist of five persons. I do not think it can be done with fewer than five, and I have already been considering the question of discussing it with the Joint Industrial Council of the Building Trade. Certainly two members will be required to represent them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after word "shall," insert the words
    "refer all such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister, consisting of five persons, who shall."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. SEDDON: A manuscript Amendment has been handed in, in the name of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) and myself, dealing with this point.
    The CHAIRMAN: When there are two Amendments dealing with the same point, it rests with the Chairman to decide which he shall take, and I thought it was right to take the one that was on the Paper.
    Mr. SEDDON: The Amendment I am referring to deals with another point, although it also involves the one to which

    1555
    you refer. It is the question of the authority that shall be responsible for the appointment of the five persons.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that, if the hon. Member desires to amend the present proposal, he must do so later, on Report. The Committee has already accepted the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "Minister" ["and the decision of the Minister in the matter"], and insert instead thereof the words "tribunal of appeal."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
    The law at present is that, if, owing to a supervening law, any contract becomes impossible of performance, performance of it is excused. In so far as this Clause is concerned, it merely states what is the law applicable to every contract But, unfortunately, it does not state the whole law. It has become very familiar, during the War, for the whole basis upon which parties have contracted to be altered, and then either party is excused from performing the contract. That has generally arisen in connection with some Order the duration of which is uncertain, as, for instance, where the Minister of Shipping has stopped the building of one ship in order that some other ship might be proceeded with. It rests with the Minister, or with someone else, to suspend the Order or bring it to an end, and its duration is uncertain. In such a case the whole basis of contract has been altered, and performance ought to be excused. If in the present case it is desired to codify the, law in respect of breach of contract by reason of supervening impossibility by the operation of law, the Clause ought to codify the whole law, and I respectfully suggest that it will be a serious blot in this Clause if an attempt is made to codify inaccurately and incompletely the existing law with reference to contracts. If it were intended to alter the law with regard to these particular contracts, there might be some sense in having a special Clause, but it is not, as I gather, intended to alter the law, but merely to state the law. I suggest that the law is perfectly plain and well known, and that it is undesirable to make an inaccurate statement of it. I therefore move to omit Sub-section (4). The Courts will give effect to it precisely
    1556
    as if it were there, but its omission will leave the Courts to administer the law in a well-understood manner.
    Dr. ADDISON: I have some hesitation in replying to my hon. Friend on a point of law, but my legal advisers tell me that it is necessary to have this Sub-section in the Clause. We ought to give people all the proper safeguards that we can in carrying out contracts. Therefore, I should be reluctant to run the risk of any misunderstanding arising from the omission of any such words as these in this Clause. At all events, an additional safeguard will not do any harm.
    Mr. INSKIP: It will do harm if it is incomplete, because the effect will be to deprive a contractor of a protection which the law at present gives him by implication, because it states half the law as if that only would be a defence in all action. May I state how it will work? Supposing a local authority exercised its power to make an Order for such time as they thought fit, and the builder does not know where he is. He dismisses his workmen and takes his plant and materials away. Then the local authority cancels its Order, whereupon it would be impossible for the man to prove that the performance of the contract was rendered impossible. He ought, to have the defence that the fundamental nature of the contract had been so altered that it was inequitable to ask him to proceed. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to state the whole of the law so that these people may be protected, then I agree.
    Mr. H. SMITH: On the Second Reading of the Bill I criticised the wording of this Clause and I still criticise it, but I think the difficulty can better be met by an Amendment than by striking out the Subsection. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the putting in of this Subsection does not in the least excuse a person who has broken a contract. I would ask him to take particular note of that. It is purely a question of fact for the Court as to whether any action taken under this Section has rendered the contract impossible. That is a question of fact, and a very difficult one. The question immediately arises, Has the contract been ended or merely suspended?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This is an important point. We ought to have the advantage of the advice of one of the Law Officers,

    1557
    and I hope my right hon. Friend will reserve the point for the Report stage. More important litigation has arisen on the question of contract and the breaking of contract than on any other subject. My right hon. Friend knows that in some cases under the Defence of the Realm. Act there has been litigation of a most important and expensive character. This being a temporary and emergency Act it would be very unfortunate if expensive litigation were to follow through any lack of time in drafting this Clause more carefully. I would ask him not to come to a decision without definite advice from the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will gladly accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. As a matter of fact, I was prepared with a form of words, but I shall be glad to have the whole matter over again when the Law Officers are here. I am advised that it might be well to delete the words "due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of" in Sub-section 4 and to insert the words "non-fulfilment of the contract was due to."
    Mr. INSKIP: I do not press my Amendment. I think that the Law Officers should consider this, because it really is an important point. It has been found most difficult, in practice, to codify the law and state in four or five lines the whole of the law. On the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the Government proposal to be moved?
    Dr. ADDISON: I was waiting until I should hear the proposal of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Smith).
    Mr. H. SMITH: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "impossible," to insert the words" or that the contract is fundamentally altered."
    I did not want to ask the Minister to come to a conclusion to-night, but if he is to take fresh legal advice I might in a sentence get in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reason why I suggest the words "or that the contract is fundamentally altered." I do this in order that the Law Officers may see my point when they consider this question. If the Committee will turn to Sub-section 1 of Clause 5 they will observe these words—and I leave out the irrele-
    1558
    vant words—" the authority may by Order prohibit either in whole or in part the construction of those works or buildings." I invite the attention of the Committee to the words "in part." If the authority has prohibited in part the construction of these buildings it imposes a very serious difficulty if you are asking the Court to say that the whole contract has been rendered impossible, particularly in respect of contracts which are called measure and value contracts with a percentage. The hon. Member will See the difficulty with regard to this kind of contract. A great many people take the view that the contract is not broken. I suggest that the words in the Amendment should be carefully considered. This question came before the Courts since the Defence of the Realm Act came into operation, and the Lord Chancellor, in a learned, considered judgment, held that the question was whether the contract was ended or suspended by reason of the Regulations under that Act. He said that they had to ask whether the contract was fundamentally altered.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am putting in amending words, but I should like to consider them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words" due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the nonfulfilment of the contract was due to."
    Mr. H. SMITH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press these words.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It would be better to leave to over.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "Provided that tins Sections shall not apply to buildings, alterations, and addition to buildings or premises used for commercial and industrial purposes, nor to dwelling-houses not exceeding two hundred pounds per annum rateable value."
    I think that the word "only" on the Paper is a misprint in my Amendment, and I leave that word out. In regard to the latter part of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat modified his Clause. It seems to me that the dwelling-house for the middle classes is £200 rateable value on a basis of £100 pre-

    1559
    war. Many people want these houses, but they would have to pay at the rate of £200 for a house which before the War was rented at £100. You are forcing people to go back into these houses unless there is some latitude allowed. I do not think that the Minister wants to stop building for industrial and commercial purposes. If that were done, you would bring about unemployment because it would affect not only the building trade, but other trades. In London there is a large number of commercial houses which have had to take hotels in order to get the accommodation they want. I think you will find that many new factories are badly wanted not only by the firms but for the sake of the people working in them. Therefore I do not think it can be the intention of the Minister to stop all this sort of building. If it were done, we would get into a terrible impasse, because there would be unemployment for want of factories and of houses for the people.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget what the Clause is based upon. The local authorities are at present dealing with the housing conditions in their areas, and we do not want to do anything that would delay the work, or divert labour or material from it. Under present conditions I fear there must be a certain scarcity of labour or material. That, however, is a condition precedent of our proposal, and I do not think that we would deal with it in such a way as to hamper really important building and cause unemployment. That would be entirely wrong. It seems to be impossible to imagine that any building of that kind would come under the Clause. We must have all kinds of new buildings as far as possible, but I ask the hon. Member to read the words of the Clause, and he will find that it allows for that. If there was any essential industrial building, clearly it would not be interfered with. That is an essential preliminary to any action we would take. Then there is the appeal which is the real safeguard. But what we regard as of most importance is to facilitate the progress of housing. There are many other minor things which can be dispensed with. I think that, in view of the Second Reading of the Bill, which gave the preference to housing, we should not interfere with the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    1560
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to refer to the words of the Clause, which particularly contain the provisions for an appeal. How would a person stand upon an appeal, assuming that the person who appealed was carrying on the work? Would he have to stop the work until the appeal was decided?
    Dr. ADDISON: I should consider that he would not, but I world like to look into it for further consideration.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I was anxious that it should be made clear, as it might lead to litigation.
    Mr. J. TAYLOR: May I ask if the provisions of the Section apply to cinemas, which may be in a state where the plans have been put in but building operations have not begun? My reason for asking this is that, in one of the towns in my Constituency, a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed because plans have been passed. The local authority could not refuse to pass them because they were in order. There is, however, a great need for housing accommodation, and the town is up in arms because this building is being built. If my right hon. Friend can assure me that the local authority has power in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the plans have been passed, I shall be quite satisfied.
    Dr. ADDISON: That would be so, I think.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Prohibition on Demolition of Dwelling house.
    If any person at time after the third day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, without the permission in writing of the local authority within whose area the house is situate, demolishes or uses otherwise than as a dwelling-house any house which was at that date occupied as a dwelling-house, and which in the opinion of the local authority was reasonably fit or was reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each house demobilised or so used to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "or" ["demolishes or uses"], to insert the words "closes or."

    1561
    It is quite possible that if the medical officers we-re to say that a, house was unfit for human habitation and wanted repairing, the owners would close it. As there is a very urgent need of houses, I think the local authority should also have the power to refuse permission to close.
    Dr. ADDISON: I sympathise with the intention of my hon. Friend, but I think that the words would make a great deal of difficulty with regard to administration. There may, for instance, be a house in which there is a, Closing Order, but in which we have not suggested that there should be any penalty applied. There would be a large number of cases, quite incidentally, in which houses would be closed. You may have a house somewhere in the country, very likely for sale or to let, or else left empty. If these words are put in, there would be a penalty for leaving that house closed. It would be punishable on the landlord, and we do not wish it to be that.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The matter would be in the discretion of the local authorities, if any good reason could be shown why the house should not be closed.
    Dr. ADDISON: If you are going to bring a lot more houses into the Bill it would be worth doing, but I do not think you will. There is the house which is closed, which is unfit for human habitation. That is right. If a man kept a house closed there would have to be exceptional circumstances. The Amendment would not apply to any great bulk of houses. There are cases where you may have hardship. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. H. SMITH: I beg to move, after the word "house" ["any house which was"], to insert the words "or building."
    Perhaps I might call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that I think my Amendment entails two subsequent Amendments. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the word "house" ["is situate, demolishes or uses"] should be followed by the word "building," and that the word "house" ["demolished or so used"] should also be followed by the word "building." Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give that matter his attention. I desire to include within the powers of this Clause any build-
    1562
    ing such as an hotel or cinema. I would like to press my further Amendment to exclude the words "which was at that date occupied as a dwelling-house, and." For the moment, however, I will merely move this Amendment on the grounds that it is to extend the powers in the case of the local authorities certifying that it is desirable that a house should be closed. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: While I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's Amendment, I think it would be a little dangerous in agricultural cases. Take, for instance, harvest and hopping times. Sometimes, in those seasons, barns and other agricultural buildings are temporarily used for human occupation. That is unavoidable, and also necessary. It is quite harmless. After a time, of course, those buildings are not so used. I think that the Amendment might have the effect of making a man who temporarily allows his building to be occupied for human habitation liable to a penalty.
    Mr. SMITH: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong. He will find that, in the Clause, the date given is the 3rd of December. "If any time after the 3rd day of December," the Clause reads. Surely such a building would not be occupied as a dwelling-house after that date?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I was not thinking of demolishing it: I was thinking of using the building otherwise than as a dwelling-house. If any person has a barn which he allows to be occupied as a dwelling-house, he will be under a penalty if he uses it again as a barn. The Clause is perfectly harmless as it stands, but what my hon. Friend is proposing is to add the words "or building" to the word "house." The effect of the Clause would then be that, if any building which was occupied at any time as a human habitation and was afterwards occupied for any other purpose, that would be a breach of the law.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot accept this Amendment, because in some places it would be a great hardship. I think that the words "or building," in their wide definition, would create a vast amount of difficulties and would not help us in solving the housing problem at all. In various cases, in town and country, houses would be pulled down to make room for shops or cinemas. The Clause will enable us to deal with such cases.

    1563
    The number of houses in the aggregate is not great, and therefore I think we should limit the cases to houses which are demolished or put out of use as houses. That is what we want to prevent, and that is what the Clause does. If you put in the word "building," it might mean a warehouse or a factory, and it would create a lot of difficulties without diminishing the evil we, are seeking to prevent. While I am very sympathetic towards the Amendment, I think on the whole it would do more harm than good.
    Mr. SMITH: I am sorry again to intervene, but I had got the idea that my right hon. Friend was going to accept this word "building," and therefore I did not press it as I ought to have done. May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Captain Pretyman) that, as I think, he is wrong in the reading of that Clause? It shows clearly that it refers to any person who uses otherwise than as a dwelling any house or building which was at that date occupied as a dwelling-house, and it is impossible for this Clause to operate unless on that date, namely, the 3rd of December, it was occupied as a dwelling-house. I think, on reflection, he will see I am right in that. That is the difficulty I feel in leaving the Clause as it is. Are you going to interfere with large hotels and flats which have been occupied by Government Departments? Take the Buckingham Palace Hotel. Whereas you may not pull down the adjacent house or flats which have not been used by a Government Department, anybody can come and pull down that hotel or, as they are doing now, turn it into offices, and under this Section you cannot touch them. Under this Section you cannot touch any building which on 3rd December is occupied by a Government Department unless it is used as a dwelling-house. That is a most narrow power for a Government to take, and it ought to be extended. I hope the Minister will consider the acceptance of these words. I have very grave doubts whether the words as they stand include hotel at all, and I tell him so, not without a little knowledge, because in several Acts "house" may include a dwelling-house and in other Acts it does not. Will my right hon. Friend go so far as to include "hotel" or define "house"? In one part of the Bill the word" house" is used and in another part "dwelling-house" is used. If he will define the word
    1564
    "dwelling-house" I shall be satisfied with this Clause as it stands, but I would ask him to consider that.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will consider that. I am afraid we did put in the word "dwelling-house" deliberately.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "occupied as a dwelling-house, and which."
    I have been asked to move this Amendment by the London County Council. The object of it is to extend time prohibition to dwelling-houses which are actually unoccupied on 3rd December. There are a large number of empty dwelling-houses in London, and for a long time there has been an urgent demand that they should be used for the purpose of housing people who are urgently in need of house accommodation. Therefore it is suggested that the power of prohibiting house being demolished should be extended to houses which were actually unoccupied on 3rd December.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think this does add to the purpose of the Clause. On the whole it is an improvement and I will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "was" ["was reasonably fit"].—[Sir H. Harris]
    Mr. H. SMITH: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "and if the offence of using is a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for each day during which the offence continues."
    I think I have very good reason for adding these words. Under Clause 5, dealing with the prohibition of building operations, these words, or words to this effect, are to be found in order to punish a person who continues deliberately using a building when he ought not to do so. I had a case come within my professional knowledge of a very large company who, under an order from the Ministry of Munitions, were prohibited from erecting a building exceeding the value of £500. They had started to build and had, in fact, completed the first two storeys of an enormous building, and they used it during the whole of the War, and the utterly inadequate penalty in that case was a fine of £100. I would point out, further, that the penalty of imprisonment

    1565
    is quite inoperative when the offender is a company. If a company has broken the law the penalty of £100 is quite inadequate.
    5.0 A.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not quite understand what is the object of the words "of using."
    Mr. SMITH: The reason for those words is the presence of the words "demolished or so used." It is obvious that demolition could not continue, and therefore the words "of using" must be added, as was done in Clause 5. It is obviously only to the use that the word "continuing" can apply.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. The case has been referred to of a firm which erected a building during the War and was fined £100, but I am thinking of the case of a man who has got a building, and may use it. I think a fine of £100 is far too high.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: An Amendment ought not to be accepted in manuscript form which involves a fine of £50 a day on citizens of this country. At least it ought to be in print on the Paper, and I should vote most strongly against a proposal of this kind.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think we are too much in the habit of lightly putting heavy penalties upon people, without looking carefully into the matter. In my opinion, no offence, other than a wilful offence, ought to be the subject of penalties of this kind. I do not think we ought, at this late hour, to pass a Clause subjecting people to these penalties. I would rather subject myself to an extra attendance here. If we look at this Clause we shall see that the offence to be punished is that of doing a certain act without the permission of the local authority, and I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that that act might be quite inadvertent, in that it might be the simple use, otherwise than as a dwelling-house, of some house which has been occupied as a dwelling-house on the 3rd December. By the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend who speaks for the London County Council (Sir H. Harris), that is to be extended still further, to cover unoccupied houses. That would mean that an individual who happened to own an unoccupied house, and happened to use it for some private purpose, quite
    1566
    inadvertently, otherwise than as a dwelling-house, would be liable to a fine of £100 and to imprisonment for three months, That is really ludicrous, and we cannot do things in this light-hearted fashion. It ought only to apply in the ease of a willful offence. I do not much object to the principle of a continuing penalty where a wilful offence is continued after due notice has been given, but there is no notice provided for here, and, at any rate, we ought to have some Amendment, which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider before Report, to provide that the penalty should only apply to cases in which the Act is done in defiance of a law passed in this House. But there should be notice given, and attention should be called to the fact that things are being done which are subject to penalties. Whatever my right hon. Friend may do in regard to increasing penalties, I hope he will very carefully consider this Clause before Report, so that people may not be subjected to penalties for acts which may be quite innocently committed.
    Mr. SMITH: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) can have read his Bill very carefully, because these precise words have already been passed in respect of a previous Clause. I do not think he need be embarrassed by this manuscript Amendment, because the words are already in Clause 5, and I am asking that they should be added also in Clause 6. This penalty will only be imposed if a person has broken the law, and not if he has done something merely by accident, and, moreover, it is a maximum penalty. No one imagines that a penalty will be inflicted for a merely inadvertent act; it is only where a person has deliberately broken the law, and continues to use a building, that such a penalty will be imposed; and it is only where a fine of £100 is grossly inadequate, and not calculated to stop a person from pulling down a building in defiance of the law, that the Bench would have power to convict him of the offence of continuing to use it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Powers of Borrowing for Purpose of Housing Acts.)
    (1) A local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, borrow any sums which they have power to borrow for the purpose of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, by the issue of

    1567
    bonds (in this Act referred to as "local bonds") in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

    (2)A county council may lend to any local authority within their area any money which that authority have power to borrow for the purposes of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, and may, with the sanction of the Minister and irrespective of any limit of borrowing, raise the money required for the purpose either by the issue of local bonds under this Section or by a loan subject to the like conditions and in the like manner as any other loan raised for the purpose of their powers and duties, and subject in either case to any conditions which the Minister may by general or special Order impose.

    (3) The provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to local bonds.

    (4)Where on an application made by two or more local authorities the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient that those authorities should have power to make a joint issue of local bonds, the Minister may by Order make such provision as appears to him necessary for the purpose, and any such Order shall provide for the securing of the bonds issued upon the joint rates, property and revenues of the authorities.

    The provisions of any such Order shall have effect as if they were contained in a Provisional Order made under Section two hundred and seventy-nine of the Public Health Act, 1875.
    (5) Any local authority by whom any local bonds have been issued may without the consent of the Minister borrow for the purpose of redeeming those bonds.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to make a final appeal to the Minister on behalf of the local authorities, who are handicapped considerably in regard to finance. Local authorities whose rateable value amounts to £200,000 are excluded from applying to the Public Works Commissioners. There is a division in one of the York shire mining districts which, although technically an urban area, consists of an aggregation of comparatively small towns or large villages, where there is no one big town in the whole area, and yet the total rateable value may be over £200,000.
    Dr. ADDISON: Places of that kind can organise or join with the county council, and I do not think any hardship would result in that case.
    Mr. THOMSON: My point is that the issue of bonds in such a district would fail, because, although the rateable value is over £200,000, they have no one centre which has more than a very small population or which itself has any considerable rateable value. I therefore hope that the
    1568
    right hon. Gentleman may consider some means of reviewing the position of such districts, which is very difficult and a serious handicap to the progress of the work.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to oppose the Clause. We believe that it is impossible to raise these loans locally. From the beginning, local authorities whose rateable value is over.£200,000, were told that they must raise loans locally. Some I know have tried and failed. I do not think there is a single local authority in this country that has raised a sufficient loan to carry out its building projects. I do know of one that raised sufficient money to purchase the land, but from then they have paid not a single halfpenny, and the councillors tell me that as far as they can see, it is impossible to do so unless they can get the money from somewhere else. We had this question up yesterday at the Trade Union Conference, where about 5,500,000 people were represented. Many of the people at that conference are members of local authorities, and it was stated by more than one that their experience was up to now that it was practically impossible to raise the money. That Congress called upon the Government to raise a national housing loan, so that all authorities, whatever their rateable value, might be financed from the same source. The object of leaving out Clause 7 is that the Government should be asked to raise the money because we believe that if it is left to the local authorities no houses will be forthcoming.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Sub-section (2) of Section one of 6 & 7 Geo. 5, cap. 69, to be Perpetual) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Acquisition of Land for Purpose of Garden Cities or Town-planning Schemes.)
    (1) Where the Minister is satisfied that any local authority (including a county council) or two or more local authorities jointly, or any authorised association, are prepared to purchase and develop any land as a garden city (including a garden suburb or a garden village), or for the purpose of a. town-planning scheme for the area in which the town is situate, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, and have funds available for the purpose, he may with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Transport, acquire that land on behalf of the authority or association either by compulsion or by agreement in any case in which it appears to him necessary or

    1569
    expedient so to do for the purpose of securing the development of the land as aforesaid, an may for that purpose exercise any of the powers of a local authority in relation to the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, and may do all such things as may be necessary to vest the land, so acquired in the local authority or association.

    (2) In this Section "authorised association" means any society, company or body of persons approved by the Minister whose objects include the promotion, formation; or management of garden cities (including garden suburbs, and garden villages), and the erection, improvement or management of buildings for the working classes and others, which does not trade for profit or whose constitution forbids payment of any interest or dividend at a higher rate than six per centum per annum.

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "town" ["in which the town is situate"], and insert instead thereof the word "land."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 10 (Application to Scotland), 11 (Application to Ireland) and 12 (Short Title and Duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New CLAUSE.—(Increment Duty.)
    In estimating the increment or reversion value under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the additional value given to any site by the erection of a house or houses under this Act shall not be taken into account.— [M r. Hopkins.]
    Brought, up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to move," That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of this new Clause is to exempt the buildings to be put up under tins Bill from the Increment or Reversion Duty under the Finance Act of 1910. If this Clause becomes part of the Bill there will be no other Clause that would do so much to stimulate building. It is well known to anyone who has taken any interest in building, particularly in the building of cottage property in England, that the unfortunate result of Part I. of the Finance Act of 1910 was most seriously to diminish—by at least 50 per cent.—the provision of small houses. The effects of that Act were more serious than the War on building, and if we honestly want these houses built we ought to lay aside our prejudices and predelictions about the Finance Act of 1910 and remove that handicap in the way of building. I should like also to see the exemption applied to buildings which are to be put up by the local authorities, but they are not so important, as local authorities do not rely to the same
    1570
    extent on private banking facilities. The great trouble was that after the passing of the Finance Act of 1910 the builder was faced with the uncertainty of not being able to get funds from his banker to carry on building operations. It is quite possible that it would have been better to have dealt with this subject on a broader basis instead of in this Bill, but it will be better to do it in this way and help building on under this Bill than not to do it at all.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I am quite sure that this is not an Amendment that could wisely be accepted. Whatever be the meris or demerits of the Finance Act of 1909–10, this is a question which ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive way and not in a Bill of this kind. If these land taxes, on which I express no opinion, had the effect of discouraging building, it seems to me it would weaken the case for their repeal if they were to be dealt with in an isolated way of this sort. There is no reason also why they should be perpetuated in other cases and exempted in this case. I think, therefore, the proper time to deal with them would be when we get the Report of the Committee now considering the whole question, when no doubt new legislation, if it is recommended by the Committee, will be undertaken. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press this Clause to a Division.
    Mr. LYNN: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has taken the line he has adopted, because there is no doubt whatever that but for the land taxes in the so-called People's Budget of 1909–10 we would not have had our present building troubles. Let me give as an instance the case of my own city. At the time of the passing of the 1909–10 Finance Act we had 7,000 vacant houses. On 31st March of the present year we had only 164. I believe our case is typical. In Manchester and other large cities it is declared that the principal reason for the cessation of building was that Budget, which shows the folly of people trying to upset the law of supply and demand. I hope the Government will change their mind on this subject, because, after all, municipal authorities and Government Departments can never provide houses. If houses are to be provided they must be provided by private enterprise.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Many people in this country are under the impression that the shortage of houses was caused by the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No 1!"] Owing to the

    1571
    War houses could not be erected because workmen could not be spared to build houses. Now we learn that it was not the War but the land taxes imposed by the Budget of 1909–10 which has caused the scarcity. I think the Committee will sum up the situation a great deal better than that.
    Mr. INSKIP: I am sorry that the hon. Member (Sir Tudor Walters) takes the view he does. I thought that every member of the Committee would be agreed that we have to do something to get houses. The only argument the Minister of Health used in answer to the many Amendments moved from the opposite benches was that we want houses. That is the case for this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would leave out many unjust cases, which would not be dealt with even if the Amendment were accepted. It hardly meets the case. But we are not discussing finance. It is a great emergency, and we want to get the houses built. If you tell a man that you are going to put a tax upon the value of the land if he puts a house upon it, he will be less likely to build than if he is to have no tax upon it. The very small loss to the Revenue should be given up in the interests of this great cause of the housing of the people.
    Lieut.-Colonel PINKHAM: I would like to show what is the cause of the shortage of houses. I remember when there were eight or nine builders in one London district. Within twelve months after the passing of the Increment. Value Duties, there was not a builder left on a certain estate, and there was no house-building in progress. That estate had been laid out on very good lines, seventeen houses to the acre. But the result was that the building did not go on, and of the eight builders two went into the Bankruptcy Court, and the rest, I believe, are now back again working at the bench.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The shortage of houses, we are told, has been responsible for the making of the Coalition Government, but we now see that one section of the Coalition is trying to upset legislation which was passed by the other section. Before the Coalition took place this legislation was passed, and now we have men in the Coalition trying to upset that. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are entitled to do that!"] The hon. Member skipped very lightly over the difficulties raised by the Amend-
    1572
    ment, and I observe that the Minister of Health is keeping a discreet silence upon it. I hope, however, he is going to remain firm.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot help saying one word. I will not discuss the merits of the question. Everyone knows my opinion about it. If we want the houses built the sooner we abolish these duties the better. A partial relaxation would not be so effective as a complete abolition. I should like to hear a statement from the Government that in the next Budget these duties would be removed. That would facilitate housing very much. I do not think these duties have got now very many friends. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to have a hesitating and sneaking regard for them which is shared by some other Gentlemen. But I do not think that really in their hearts they believe that the retention of these duties in their present form is any good to anybody. The Committee which has been considering the matter is not sitting now. I should rather regret that by the Housing Bill we should in this way give a particular privilege to the building of houses over any other work of the kind, but it would be better that these houses should be built and that they should not have to bear this burden of the Increment Value Duty. I think a considerable portion of the subsidy might as well be withdrawn, because it would be liable to assessment for the Increment Value Duty. A statement from the Treasury Bench that these duties would disappear would be the best way of dealing with the matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was afraid that this Debate would lead to a discussion which would be outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member must not pursue it on the present line.
    Major BARNES: I should like to join in an attempt to settle this vexed question of the effect of these duties on the housing problem, and I would like to ask for a Return showing what number of houses has been erected for a considerable time year by year. That is a sporting offer, and I hope someone will take it up. Even if such a Return is in existence I think it will be found that there were considerable periods of fluctuation. I would also like to get a Return showing the number of empty houses in all those periods. We ought to get all these particulars classified.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot pursue this point, which has been ruled out of order.
    Major BARNES: I do not wish to pursue the point, but I think it is rather hard that I should be cut off in making a reply. I would like to join in pressing this Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman, and expressing my wish that he would insert it. It would give a great deal of innocent pleasure to hon. Members opposite, and would not impose a serious limitation upon the operation of the Finance Act. It is an example of the talk which we hear from some who believe they know a good deal about the Finance Act, whereas there is very little known about it. In estimating the increment value any additional value given to a house under this Act cannot be taken into account. In regard to reversion value, no consideration at all is given to the State. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly safe in accepting that Amendment.
    Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) was intensely amused by one section of the—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    The CHAIRMAN: Domestic quarrels are best settled out of court.
    Mr. MOLES: May I ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order? Do you rule that it is permissible for the Leaders of the Labour party to make representations, irrelevant to the Debate, and to preclude the other party from replying?
    The CHAIRMAN: My duty is td intervene when things go wrong.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Trustees to Invest in Certain. securities Issued by Local Authorities.)
    Section one of the Trustee Act, 1993 (which specifies the securities in which trust funds may be invested) shall have effect as though there were included therein local bonds issued under this Act and mortgages of any fund or rate made after the passing of this Act under the authority of any Act or Provisional Order by a local authority (including a county council) which is authorised to issue local bonds under this Act.
    Brought up; read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    Notice had been given by Mr. LYNN of the following

    New CLAUSE.—(Valuation of New Buildings.)
    (1) For the purposes of valuation under the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1862, or of any re-
    1574
    vision of valuation under Section 29 of that Act as amended by subsequent Acts the net annual value of every building of which the erection was or shall be commenced after the thirty-first day of December, 1914, shall be deemed to be an amount to be determined in accordance with the provisions of that Act, but on the basis of the rent for which the same might in the year ended on that date have been reasonably expected to let from year to year if the erection of such buildings had been completed in that year.

    (2) The owner of, or any person liable to pay rates in respect of any such building as is referred to in this Section, of which a valuation has before the passing of this Act been made under the provisions of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, shall be entitled to exercise the right conferred upon ratepayers by Section 4 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment Act, 1854, for the purpose of securing a revision of such valuation so as to accord with the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Section.

    The CHAIRMAN: This Clause does not come within the scope of the Bill. It deals with the Land Valuation Bill.
    Mr. LYNN: Surely a question dealing with houses which are going to be built cannot be outside the scope of the Bill? It is a question of vital importance, because you may have one house paying twice the amount of rates that is being paid by another house. Therefore I suggest that the Clause is of vital importance to the Committee in dealing with the question of raising houses.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have made the acquaintance of the Irish Valuation Act of 1852, and have also consulted the Irish Law Officers. They confirm my judgment that the Clause is quite outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. LYNN: Personally I have never seen the Act, and I do not know anything about it, but that is one of the greater reasons why we should discuss it.
    Mr. MOLES: I think there is a great deal more to be said on this point than has been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General gets this information from me. This specific point is laid before the most eminent Parliamentary counsel in London, who advises that this is a competent Amendment. Who submitted this to the Attorney-General, and who disputed it? I should like that point reconsidered.
    The CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary counsel are not always good draftsmen. It is the Chairman of the Committee who has to decide this point, and I rule that the Clause is outside the scope of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Regulations to be Laid be/ore Parliament.)
    Provided that all schemes, Orders, or Regulations, in which conditions are prescribed, made, or issued by the Minister under Sections one and three of this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as they are so made or issued, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such scheme, Order, or Regulation is laid before it, praying that the scheme, Order, or Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the scheme, Order, or Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Mr. G. Locker Lampson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I do not want to spoil the harmony of our proceedings during the last hour and a half, but I set very great store by this Clause. It is moved in order to ensure that these Orders and Regulations to be issued by the Minister shall be laid on the floor of this House, so that hon. Members may gee them and may have an opportunity of discussing them. I want hon. Members to realise that if this Bill goes through without the addition of this Clause, they will have no opportunity of discussing the schemes, Orders, and Regulations, that will be issued by the Minister under this Bill. The opportunity passes directly this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I think that this Debate has shown that it is essential that this House should see the Regulations and the schemes, in order to judge of the houses tat are going to be built. These schemes are going to contain conditions imposed upon the people who are going to build these houses, and it is essential that this House should have the opportunity of seeing and discussing them. There is a precedent for this, for when the Housing Act of this year was passed we specially included this very provision upstairs in Committee, and it was accepted by my right hon. Friend.
    Regulations under the Town Planning Scheme of this Act, and the other Regulations not issued in connection with the Town Planning Scheme, are to be laid upon the Table of this House. Therefore, I am not suggesting anything new, but something that is entirely and directly according to precedent. There is one more thing I should like to say, that is, that the other day, owing to the valuable provision inserted in the Housing Act, we
    1576
    had a most interesting Debate in the early hours of the morning upon certain Regulations to be issued by the Minister of Health. Hon. Members will remember that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) raised the whole thing on the Address to the Committee. My right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) attended the Debate and listened to the arguments in the most conciliatory manner, and he came to the conclusion that these Regulations might be withdrawn and brought in in a modified form Therefore I say that, in the same way we ought to have the Regulations under this Bill laid before the House, so that, if it is thought necessary to move an Address to the Crown, hon. Members may have the opportunity of discussing them on the floor of the House. My right hon. Friend may say that it will cause delay. I submit it will not cause any delay at all. Supposing an Address to the Crown here is successful, and the House decides to nullify the Regulations, nothing done under those Regulations up to the moment of nullification will be rendered invalid, and by taking the precaution to add to the words on the Paper the following further little proviso—
    "Provided also that any such scheme, Order, or Regulation shall not be deemed to be a Statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893."
    you ensure that there will be absolutely no delay whatever. My right hon. Friend may issue his Regulations and Orders whenever he likes. They will be valid so long as this House desires that they shall be valid and it will give an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss them. I look upon this as one of the greatest privileges now left to private Members. It was shown to be a great privilege the other night, more especially a privilege from the public point of view, and I set great store by this Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is a Clause to which a Minister is apt to find himself in opposition by the very nature of the case, and perhaps sometimes he will be in opposition to the general sentiment of Members; also, by the nature of the case, he is often suspect. Having said that, let me take the argument of my hon. Friend. The other Acts to which he has referred in the course of his speech are Acts in perpetuity. This is a Bill limited to twelve months. [HON MEMBER: "Two years."] No; twelve months, with a possible extension for other purposes. It is all very well for my hon. Friend

    1577
    to say that all Orders and Regulations will be valid up to the moment when they are cancelled, but the Regulations are to lie twenty-one days on the Table of the House, and then would be subject to alteration. Would anybody put his money into building under those conditions? Of course he would not. How can you expect any man to put his money into this business on the strength of getting a subsidy under certain conditions until he knows that those conditions will not be altered? The House will adjourn in the course of a few days, and, we all hope, will reassemble in February. Then there would have to be twenty-one days during which the House sits. That means five Parliamentary weeks probably, and would bring us to the end of March. No man could set about doing anything with any confidence until the last week in March; and yet the whole Act is to operate for twelve months only. I say that would not be reasonable. Nobody would move an inch. What private man is going to spend his money on any of these schemes? Not a single man in the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Minister of Health can himself annul his own Regulations.
    Dr. ADDISON: Very likely. That is a different thing. When a Government Department issue Regulations they do not go and annul them without very good reason and very great care. But under this proposal all these schemes, Orders, and Regulations which are proscribed, made, or issued by the Ministry, have got to be on the Table of the House twenty-one days during which the House is sitting. I say my contention is unchallengeable that private citizen could be fairly expected to spend a single 6d. on building houses under this Bill till, at the earliest, the last week in March. If this condition were to be applied you might as well scrap the whole thing. Unless we can be trusted to act with common sense do not trust us at all, and find somebody else to do it. The whole Act is to last only twelve months, and yet it is proposed to cut three months out of the twelve by a proposal of this kind; and, further, so far as I know it is not in accordance with any precedent.
    Mr. HOPKINS:I confess I do not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman when he says that nobody would invest any money in building if all his Rules and Regulations had to lie on the Table of the
    1578
    House, because those Rules and Regulations, on which a man might base a contract, are not annulled, they do not become of no effect, for any purpose—
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, they do. That is exactly the point.
    Mr. HOPKINS: But they do not become of no effect for any purpose for which they have been used up to the date on which they are annulled. Therefore a man who chose to put money into building would not in any way be prejudiced because they are annulled. I could make very good arguments for not accepting the Clause, but I do not think the one the right hon. Gentleman used is the right argument.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Act is only for twelve months, but I would venture to point out that though the Act is only for twelve months, the houses built under it will be for a large number of years—
    Dr. ADDISON: Oh, no! Sections 1 and 3 say the houses must be begun within twelve months and built within sixteen.
    Mr. THOMSON: My point is that the houses, which are begun within the twelve months, are expected to last for fifty or sixty years, and therefore any mistake during that twelve months is a mistake which will be repeated throughout the whole life of the houses. Therefore I submit that it hardly meets the case to say that it is an Actonly lasting twelve months, because the houses will be built during the twelve months.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is only one subsidy, and the question is, Is a man going to get the subsidy?
    Mr. THOMSON: I take it the whole point of this Clause is to protect the standard of the houses which are being built.
    Sir T. WALTERS: Surely you can let us look after that simple matter!
    Mr. THOMSON: With all due respect to the Paymaster-General, I doubt whether we can. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Why has there been this change in policy which has taken place? Why have the Government given way upon the high standard they took up earlier on? Who is moving behind the scenes? We have had considerable discussion

    1579
    earlier as to whether buildings should receive the subsidy, and we were referred to the White Paper. It has not come before the House; it has not been laid on the Table, and this House has no control whatever over it. We are told that buildings can be erected and subsidies granted. This is a question of fundamental principle which this House ought to decide, and no expert at the Housing Department ought to have the final voice about it. I submit that there is a great deal of substance in the provisions of this new Clause, to the effect that this House shall decide such fundamental questions as the standard with which these houses will have to comply. Any schemes undertaken under Orders already given by the Minister would be carried out, and the subsidies paid under them, even though subsequently those Orders were annulled, so that houses could not he built in future under the same conditions.
    Mr. LYNN: I have pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health complained that Orders will have to lie on the Table for three weeks. Why, we cannot get a reply from one of the Government Departments for three months. I do not think there can be any difficulty whatever about laying the Regulations on the Table of the House. The only thing is that, if the Regulations be laid, hon. Members who know something about building and housing generally will see to it that proper Regulations are issued, and not Regulations that have to be scrapped a day later. I hope the Committee has not reached the stage of giving itself body and soul to Government Departments. Government Departments have not done so well in the past that we can commit everything to their care. When they want the work of a shoemaker done they get a tailor to do it, and to look after the building of houses they get a man whose business it is to build up the health of the people. We ought to have people who know something about building, and to have these Regulations laid on the Table of the House before they are passed.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I think the Minister of Health might meet those of us who are anxious for something of this kind. He may say that under the exceptional circumstances of the Prorogation of Parliament twenty-one days is too long, but I think, in view of what has happened
    1580
    this evening on the question of flats, it is absolutely essential that the House should see the Regulations before they become final for the whole twelve months. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Clause as drafted would, if any of the Regulations were subsequently annulled by the House, involve forfeiture of the subsidy or any other hardship on individuals that have begun work before February, I think that might be met by an Amendment of the Clause making it perfectly clear that no subsequent annulment would have that effect. It is essential that, wherever Orders and Regulations are issued by Ministers under Bills of this kind, full Parliamentary control should be retained, and that is a principle which this House ought always to assert on an occasion of this kind. It is quite clear that the final form of the White Paper, and the conditions under which the subsidy is to be given, have not yet been finally decided.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the reply given by my right hon. Friend is really not worthy of his abilities. He treats this question as if it were entirely new, but in nearly every Bill that has passed this House during the last year this proviso has been inserted. It was put into the Health Act, the Housing Act, the Electricity Act, and even into the Treaty of Peace Act. Why should my right hon. Friend say now that he does not want it?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it is not what I want; I do not mind a bit. As my hon. Friend knows quite well, I raised no objection in regard to the other Bills he has mentioned.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman opposed it, and we divided against him.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not recollect that. In this case there is no objection to the House having control. The question is the building of these houses within twelve months. It is twenty-one days during which the House is sitting, and that would bring it to the middle of March. We should, in fact, lose three months. My objection is only on the ground of the delay, which I think would be fatal to the whole scheme.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely unsound. The period of twenty-one days tells against the House of Com-

    1581
    mons, not against the right hon. Gentleman's housing scheme. I agree that it prevents the House of Commons from looking as closely at these Regulations as they might like to look at them, because the work begun under the Regulations would

    Division No.151]

    AYES.

    [6.0 a.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Robertson, J.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Betterton, H. B.

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

    Lorden, John William

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—

    Glyn, Major R.

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    T. Thomson,

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Allen, Col. William James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Raw, Lt. Colonel Dr. N.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Ramer, J. B.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hailwood, A.

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Hanna, G. B.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. P.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield)

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Seager, Sir William

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Seddon, James

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Moles, Thomas

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    Neal, Arthur

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Parker, James

    Whitla, Sir William

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Williams, Lt.-Corn. C. (Tavistock)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Forrest, W.

    Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.

    Gange, E. S.

    Pratt, John William

    Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Loans for Scottish Land- owners.)
    Section 18 of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, shall not have effect in the case of landowners in Scotland making applications for loans for the construction or reconstruction of houses for the working classes."—[Sir J. Hope.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is designed to remove obstacles in the way of the erection of houses in Scotland. I apologise for bringing it up at this hour of the morning, but it is rather important to Scottish Members, and they have not so far intervened much in the Debate. When Scotland was under the English Board of Agriculture, heirs in tail desiring to build houses and
    hold good until they were annulled. There has been no answer to that.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 72.
    to get loans for the purpose were allowed to apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners or to public statutory companies. When the administration of the Board of Agriculture was moved to Scotland, and Scotland had its own Board of Agriculture, the rule was enforced that heirs in tail in possession could not borrow money without going through the form of a long process of appealing to the Court of Session. This costs money, and has the effect of deterring landowners from borrowing money in order to make improvements of various kinds. I submit that no obstacle should stand in the way of private enterprise in building houses, and this is a mere technical point which the Government can easily remove by agreeing to this Clause. It would hurt no one, but would save some money in legal expenses. There is no question of

    1583
    public money involved. It is merely removing a technical reading of the law which at present is different in England and Scotland. I quite understand that it may not be possible for the Government to accept. this Clause to-night, as the Law Officers for Scotland are not in the House, but I hope they will give the Clause consideration, and be, able to accept it on the Report stage.
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY for HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): My hon. Friend has made an excellent suggestion, but it could not be decided this evening, or rather this morning. Perhaps it had better be carried forward to the Report stage. As he has indicated, it is an important subject, but as the proposal is not on the Order Paper I have not had an opportunity of considering it. On the Report stage, if he bring it up, I will undertake to give it full consideration.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Local Bonds.)
    1. Local bonds shall—

    (a) be secured upon all the rates, property and revenues of the local authority:

    (b) bear interest at the rate of 5½ per centum per annum or at, such other rate of interest as the Treasury may from time to time fix as regards any bonds to be thereafter issued:

    (c) be issued in denominations of five, ten, twenty, fifty, and one hundred pounds and multiples of hundred pounds:

    (d) be issued for periods of not less than five years.

    2. Local bonds shall be exempt from stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1891, and from the duty charged by Section eight of the Finance Act, 1899, as amended by Section ten of the Finance Act, 1907.

    3. The provisions of Section one hundred and fifteen of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which relates to composition for Stamp Duty), shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply in the case of any local authority by whom local bonds are issued as if those bonds were stock or funded debt of the authority within the meaning of that Section.

    4. Local bonds issued by a local authority shall be accepted by that, authority at their nominal value in payment of the purchase price of any house erected by or on behalf of any local authority in pursuance of any scheme under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919.

    5. The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make Regulations with respect to the issue (including terms of issue), transfer and redemption of local bonds, and any such Regulations may apply, with or without, modifications, any provisions of the Local Loans Act, 1875, and the Acts amending that Act, and of
    1584
    any Act relating to securities issued by the London County Council or by any other local or public body.

    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (1, b), to leave out "5½," and to insert instead thereof "5." I think the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept this Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: Some people, it appears, think that the value of money ought to be not less than 5½ per cent. Of course, the rate is very important. The hon. Member wants to enable people to borrow at a different rate. I will suggest the words "such rate of interest as the Treasury may from time to time fix." That would mean that some words should be omitted at the end of the paragraph, and the omission of the word "other."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "at the rate of 5½ per centum per annum or."
    Leave out the word "other."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1, b), to insert the words "Interest on bonds of denominations not exceeding one hundred pounds to be paid without deduction of Income Tax at the source."
    Dr. ADDISON: I know the object of the hon. Gentleman, but I would ask him to let it stand till the Report stage. Two or three other questions are inevitably mixed up in this matter, and I must give it consideration and consult with the Treasury. I will consider it as far as I can.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This involves the practice of taxation at the source. It is an important matter, which may come before the Income, Tax Commissioners. I am sure they will feel strongly anything which jeopardises that practice. It is a rather dangerous proposal, because the £100 bond might be held by a person who was liable to Income Tax on the highest scale. It is the whole income of a person which is taxed. The particular value of any sum invested is not considered. This £100 might be held by a very wealthy person. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be very careful on such a dangerous matter.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: In asking leave to withdraw, I would like to say that this is one of the recommendations of the Committee on Housing Plans. It is intended to facilitate small investments.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In paragraph 2, leave out the words "from the duty charged by" and insert instead thereof the words "no duty shall be chargeable under."
    At the end of paragraph 2, insert the words "in respect of the issue of any such bonds"—[Dr. Addison].
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported."
    Mr. MOLES: I wish to speak against the Motion that the Bill be reported.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of the merits of the Bill arising on that Motion.
    Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

  SUPPLY [9TH DECEMBER].
  Resolutions reported,
  SUPPLY [9TH DECEMBER].

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1919–90.
    1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£32,644,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916.

    2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,488,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services.

    3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain

    4. That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge
    1586
    which will come in course of payment during: the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the erection of a permanent replica of the Cenotaph in Whitehall.

    5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,161,125, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and of the Food Production Department, including certain Grants in Aid and Special Expenditure in connection with the Purchase of Pickled Herrings.

    6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for His Majesty's Foreign and, other Secret Services.

    7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding, £103,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin.

    8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding. £849,329, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

    9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid.

    10. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £506,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants in Aid).

    11. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of Building Materials and of the purchase and adaptation of Houses for the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales."

    Resolutions agreed to.

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Thursday).—[Major Baird.]

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; to authorise the Treasury to borrow money by the creation of securities for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer and the application of dividends or interest on the capital acquired."
  I should like to say that this is the first stage of the Financial Resolution upon the passage of the Report, of which the Bill will be presented to the House and introduced. I venture to suggest to the Committee that, at this hour, it might be for the greater convenience of the Committee if they would give me the Committee stage now, and I will undertake to give a full explanation, which will have to be gone into at some length, of the Financial Resolution, on the Report stage, which shall
  1588
  be taken this day at a more convenient hour. I hope that will meet the wishes of the Committee. Most of us would like a little rest. [Some HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, you have not to get to your office at ten.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  Resolved, That the Draft of the Ministry of Health (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency, Transfer of Powers) Order [presented 17th November] be approved.— [Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEARER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after 6 o'clock a.m. (Thursday).

  SPIRITS IN BOND.
  SPIRITS IN BOND.
  BANK HOLIDAY, 27TH DECEMBER.
  BANK HOLIDAY, 27TH DECEMBER.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
RUSSIA.
  ARCHANGEL GOVERNMENT (ADVANCES).
  ARCHANGEL GOVERNMENT (ADVANCES).
  SOVIET EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
  SOVIET EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
  NATIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILLERS' OFFALS.
  MILLERS' OFFALS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  RESTAURANT CHARGES.
  RESTAURANT CHARGES.
  ST. DUNSTAN'S FAIR.
  ST. DUNSTAN'S FAIR.
  POULTRY.
  POULTRY.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  IRISH FAT STOCK.
  IRISH FAT STOCK.
  CORN INSPECTORS.
  CORN INSPECTORS.
  MILK SHORTAGE, GLASGOW.
  MILK SHORTAGE, GLASGOW.
  SEAMAN'S ACCOUNTS.
  SEAMAN'S ACCOUNTS.
  JENNINGS AND COMPANY, BRISTOL.
  JENNINGS AND COMPANY, BRISTOL.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
BRITISH ARMY.
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING.
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING.
  MILL HILL HOUSES (WAR OFFICE OCCUPATION).
  MILL HILL HOUSES (WAR OFFICE OCCUPATION).
  ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).
  ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).
  POTATOES (ARMY PURCHASE).
  POTATOES (ARMY PURCHASE).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  BEAULIEU AERODROME.
  BEAULIEU AERODROME.
  COLONIAL OFFICERS (VENEREAL DISEASE).
  COLONIAL OFFICERS (VENEREAL DISEASE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TELEGRAPHISTS (WAR GRATUITY).
  TELEGRAPHISTS (WAR GRATUITY).
  INTERPRETERS (GRATUITIES).
  INTERPRETERS (GRATUITIES).
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  GRANTS (INCREASES).
  GRANTS (INCREASES).
  BRITISH AND COLONIAL TROOPS (PENSIONS AND TRAINING).
  BRITISH AND COLONIAL TROOPS (PENSIONS AND TRAINING).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
MUNITIONS.
  GOVERNMENT LORRIES (SLOUGH).
  GOVERNMENT LORRIES (SLOUGH).
  GRETNA FACTORY (FARMED LAND).
  GRETNA FACTORY (FARMED LAND).
  LICENSED HOUSES (CARLISLE AND GRETNA).
  LICENSED HOUSES (CARLISLE AND GRETNA).
  SPIRITS (RETAILING).
  SPIRITS (RETAILING).
  ALUMINIUM WORKS, DOLGARROG.
  ALUMINIUM WORKS, DOLGARROG.
  COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  EX-SERVICE STUDENTS (GRANTS).
  EX-SERVICE STUDENTS (GRANTS).
  DEBTOR PRISONERS (SEPARATION ORDERS).
  DEBTOR PRISONERS (SEPARATION ORDERS).
  CORNISH MINE DISASTER.
  CORNISH MINE DISASTER.
  STRIKES (VOLUNTARY WORKERS).
  STRIKES (VOLUNTARY WORKERS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (DISMISSALS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (DISMISSALS).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  OFFICE RENTS, LONDON.
  OFFICE RENTS, LONDON.
COAL PRODUCTION.
  SMALL CONSUMERS.
  SMALL CONSUMERS.
  HOUSEHOLD COAL.
  HOUSEHOLD COAL.
  PRICES (DYEING AND FINISHING INDUSTRY).
  PRICES (DYEING AND FINISHING INDUSTRY).
  SUPPLIES, WALTHAMSTOW.
  SUPPLIES, WALTHAMSTOW.
  PIT HEAD STOCKS.
  PIT HEAD STOCKS.
  REFUSAL TO RELEASE, BRIERLEY HILL.
  REFUSAL TO RELEASE, BRIERLEY HILL.
  WOOLLEN AND COTTON GOODS (PRICES).
  WOOLLEN AND COTTON GOODS (PRICES).
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (PENSIONS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (PENSIONS).
  EXPORT OF HORSES.
  EXPORT OF HORSES.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  CEMENT (IMPORTATION).
  CEMENT (IMPORTATION).
TRANSPORT.
  ROADS (MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR).
  ROADS (MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR).
  HAY.
  HAY.
  WAGONS.
  WAGONS.
  TELEPHONES (RAILWAY STATIONS).
  TELEPHONES (RAILWAY STATIONS).
  INLAND AVIGATION.
  INLAND AVIGATION.
  PASSENGER FARES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
  PASSENGER FARES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
  CHURCH MANORWAY HALT.
  CHURCH MANORWAY HALT.
  WEST QUAY, SOUTHAMPTON.
  WEST QUAY, SOUTHAMPTON.
  MAIL SERVICE, LONDONDERRY AND STRABANE.
  MAIL SERVICE, LONDONDERRY AND STRABANE.
  ENGINEERING APPRENTICES (PAY).
  ENGINEERING APPRENTICES (PAY).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  UNEMPLOYMENT, HULL.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, HULL.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CIVILIAN APPLICANTS).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CIVILIAN APPLICANTS).
  S.S. "IMPERATOR."
  S.S. "IMPERATOR."
  GRAIN (BLACK SEA PORTS).
  GRAIN (BLACK SEA PORTS).
  RAILWAY FERRY STEAMER, SOUTHAMPTON.
  RAILWAY FERRY STEAMER, SOUTHAMPTON.
  EDUCATION GRANTS, SCOTLAND.
  EDUCATION GRANTS, SCOTLAND.
  READING UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.
  READING UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.
  ALLOTMENTS, STOCKPORT.
  ALLOTMENTS, STOCKPORT.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  RECLAMATION SCHEME, RIVER WASH.
  RECLAMATION SCHEME, RIVER WASH.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE RESIGNATION OF MAJOR- GENERAL SEELY.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the recent resignation of Major-General J. B. Seely, M.P., the Minister specially in charge of the Air Ministry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before alluding to the Motion on the Paper, might I be allowed to refer to the very remarkable feat which has just been accomplished in the flight from England to Australia. Captain Ross Smith and his brother have reached Port Darwin, a distance of 11,294 miles from their starting point, in just over twenty-seven days. It is interesting to note that the time taken is about twenty-four to thirty-six hours less than the fastest journey ever accomplished by the short route viâ Marseilles and the fastest steamer to Australia. It marks another epoch in the development of the Air Force, as both these officers served with that Force during the war, and it is a triumph for aviation which even the most sanguine could not have anticipated.
My object in placing this Motion on the Paper is two-fold. First, to inquire as to the reasons which led to the resignation of General Seely, an event which naturally alarmed those of us who were more than confident in his power and ability to administer the Air Force; and, secondly, to inquire whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to revert to the former system—a bad system—by which the Air Force was separately under the Admiralty and War Office. The principle involved is as to whether there should be an independent Air Force.
I am sure the Government will have no objection to a short debate on this subject if it makes clear the future of the Air Force. The independence of the Air Force and its administration is not in any sense a political question. It is a subject on which there must be more than one opinion; and speaking for myself and
820
some of my friends, many of us were at one time uncertain as to whether there should be an independent Air Force or whether it should be under the Admiralty and the War Office. Experience has proved, however, that it is very desirable that there should be only one administration.
Before going into the question of principle I would like to ask the Government to explain, if they can and as far as they can, the reasons which led to the retirement of General Seely. I am quite certain that they must have been fairly serious in character. I know he was immensely interested in the work. He flew more miles in the air, if that is a recommendation, than any former Secretary for the Air Force, and he had practical experience in the war and afterwards of the value of the Air Force. I say frankly that some of us are afraid that his resignation means that there has been an attempt by the Government to go back to the bad old system of dual control, or that the Government are considering that question. I know that both the Admiralty and the War Office have never accepted with any great cordiality the independence of the Air Force. That is no secret. I do not say that officially they have not accepted it, but many of the most powerful and distinguished Admirals and Generals think that the Air Force is one which should be a subsidiary arm to the Navy and Army. There are those who think with me that the Air Force, probably more than any other force, can stand on its own basis and is by no means dependent on the Army or the Navy.
Disquieting rumours reach me also that, in the Cabinet itself there is a section which has never accepted the principle of the independence of the Air Force, and that constant efforts have been made in the past, and are still being made, to return to the former system of dual control. The question of single or dual control is one susceptible of many arguments. As far as I can make out, and from reading the speeches of various members of the Government when the original Air Ministry Bill was introduced in this House in November, 1917, it is quite clear that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and Lord Crawford, who introduced the Bill, were of opinion that it was not only a war measure but a post-war measure. I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that it was looked upon as a permanent arrangement.
Whatever arrangement and form of administration you may have, there are really only two points to be considered. The first is, what is the best way of training the Royal Air Force as a fighting force in war; secondly, what is the best method of administering the Royal Air Force in peace as well as war. The second of these two points—its administration in peace—is not so important as its administration in war. I hold strongly, however, that, if you do not have a sound system of administration in peace, when war comes and a strain is applied, the administration will break down unless it is capable of being enlarged and expanded to meet the necessities of the war. I remember when I was on the War Air Committee that all kinds of interesting strategical questions were discussed. There was one question which, however, was never answered except in one way. It was the question what single force was responsible for repelling air raids from across the Channel, and what force was responsible, naval or military, for carrying out independent raids. That is a question which was never answered until the establishment of the independent Air Force.
It would be ridiculous to say that in an independent Air Force you should have no special training. I fully admit that, however independent the Air Force is, you must have special training to enable it to work with the Navy and Army, and probably training for long distance bombing raids, where the aeroplane really becomes for all practical purposes a long range gun besides being a flying machine. I admit that there is something in the naval contention that an officer trained for work with the Fleet must have some knowledge of naval work, but that does not militate against the fact that above all it is essential to have one single Minister responsible for the Air Force and to be responsible for all work in the air.
Take the question of raids. In the old days, under what I call the bad old dual system, the seaplane or aeroplane operated by the Navy was supposed to keep off an enemy until he reached the coast, and the work was then taken up by a machine under the control of the Army. I do not think anybody could defend that system to-day. After all, the air is one element. There are no frontiers or boundaries. The air goes round the earth, there is nothing except height and depth which matters,
822
and there are no artificial boundaries which make any difference. From that point of view I think that every strategical consideration is in favour of the maintenance of the Air Force as an independent organisation. Then, again, I must point out this, that it is almost inevitable that if you are to divide the Force and if you are to put it to a certain extent under the War Office, I see no reason why the Admiralty claim to put a portion of the Force under the Admiralty is not justified. If the two Departments are to divide the Force, who is to carry on the general work of research and of superintending civil aviation? In time of peace civil aviation is becoming more important than any other question, and we are advancing with considerable speed towards the time when aviation will be used for the mails between distant parts of the world. The organisation and control of all those developments cannot be undertaken by the War Office, or the Admiralty, but must be by an entirely separate and distinct Ministry.
Then take the case of the Air Force in war. In war, and especially at the beginning of war, everybody knows that nothing is more valuable than the element of surprise; and I maintain that to-day, with the ramifications of commerce and communications between countries, the Air Force is the only force which can be used with ally success as an element of surprise. There is nothing to prevent a large force being concentrated in a Continental country and suddenly attacking this country. Equally there is nothing, if there ever was a desire to surprise an enemy, to prevent an Air Force of our own being concentrated in and flown from various aerodromes near the Channel, and concentrated upon any point on the Continent. The only force which can operate without any assistance from the Navy or the Army, and without a single man crossing the Channel or a single ship leaving our ports, is the Air Force. That is a very remarkable new condition of things, and the working out of the problems connected with the element of surprise in air warfare cannot in my humble judgment be done except by a War Air Staff, in consultation with a Minister for the Air and a distinct Air Ministry.
I know it may be said with regard to this that any change which may be contemplated or may take place has been dictated not by reference to war and peace but in

823
the cause of economy. As far as I can see, the only economy in doing away with a separate Ministry would be the saving of the salaries of a Minister of the Air, because whatever department you attach the Air Force to, you would have to have liaison officers between whoever represents the civil and military heads of the Air Force and other Departments. That would mean greater expense than you would save by not having a separate Secretary of State. I doubt in any case whether there would be any advantage, because you must have one single person responsible for the efficiency of the Air Force. Either in this House or in another place, if you want to criticise the Air Ministry you have someone to answer you. The noble Marquess who answers for the Air Administration in this House is always here in his place when occasion arises, but in this House and in the other place if matters had to go through the War Office it would be a distinct disadvantage, and I am not sure that the Admiralty would not claim to reply to questions with regard to seaplanes. I think the mere elimination of the salary of a Secretary of State or Under-Secretary cannot be seriously considered as a contribution towards the reduction of the great expenditure of this country, and I should be surprised if the Government even claimed to base the alteration on the ground of economy. Even if there was any great economy, it seems to me that it would be better to have a small Ministry costing, not possibly £50,000,000, which I understand is proposed for the Air Force this year, but £10,000,000 or even less—it would be much better to have a small Ministry independent and separate, rather than place the force under another Department.
Then again I ask—it is a rather personal question with regard to Mr. Churchill, but we all know his energy and ability—there is no member of the Government who works more diligently at his office—is it in the power of any Minister, even so energetic as Mr. Churchill, to give real consideration to air problems, with all the enormous pressure of work that he has to undertake in connection with the War Office in these days of demobilisation, etc.? It seems to me quite impossible for any Minister, though he be a combination of Hercules and Solomon, to give adequate consideration to matters connected with the War Office and problems relating to the Air Force. I believe that General Seely devoted the whole of his time to air
824
matters, and now that he has gone I do not doubt that the noble Marquess opposite does what he can; but it seems to me that unless you keep the Air Force entirely independent, with a separate Air Minister to represent it, there will be danger of neglect, and if there is neglect other great Powers will soon come abreast of us—because I think we can legitimately say we are leading to-day—and then we shall have to fight to regain our supremacy.
The Government may say, in reply, that while in war a separate organisation is needed, it is not needed now. My Lords, in the speeches of Ministers on the introduction of the Bill in both Houses they both laid stress upon the fact that it was a post-war as well as a war measure. Since then T think the necessity of an independent Air Force and Minister is more evident than ever. The progress that we have made lately shows that aviation is going to be one of the biggest developments of the coming decade, and I think it must inevitably force itself to the front to such an extent that an Air Minister, if he is not appointed this year, will in a year or two have to be appointed.
I ask your Lordships to look at what has been done within this year. The Atlantic has been flown four times, first by an American aeroplane, secondly by a British aeroplane, and finally both ways by a British dirigible. We have going on practically every day our London-Paris air service, in which the record is nothing short of marvellous. About 95 per cent. of the journeys undertaken have been accomplished, and the average speed has been over 100 miles an hour. There have never been more than two or three cases of engine trouble during all this autumn and winter with its strong gales and severe weather. That is an extraordinarily fine record, and it is a record which, compared with any of the other great developments of locomotion in the world, is superior to any of them. In the early days of the railways in the late 'thirties and 'forties you started out from stations and you sometimes got to your destination. We know also about early steamships, and how they had always to carry a full complement of sails because their engines were constantly breaking down. Coming to 20 years ago, when the first motor cars were on the road, some of your Lordships will remember when there was a procession from Northumberland Avenue to the

825
Metropole Hotel at Brighton. I believe that about fifty cars started and less than half arrived within reasonable time. Compared with all these experiments in the development of other kinds of locomotion the success of aviation stands out most favourably. This, I think, tends to show that it is far too big a subject to be handled by any Department which has other matters to attend to, and that one single brain should be responsible for it.
When the Prime Minister formed his Government a year ago many of us acquiesced in the arrangement by which the two seals of office were held by the present Secretary of State for War as a temporary post-war arrangement, but many of us are alarmed to-day at the seeming permanence of this arrangement. We have not so far had any light thrown on the future policy of the Government in this respect. I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is going to reply, and I hope that he will be able to give us some inkling of what the Government propose in this respect. It is a curious circumstance that since the formation of the independent Air Ministry four years ago it has—I will not say suffered from numerous heads, because they have all been able—had no less than four separate heads. It first had Lord Cowdray, then Lord Rothermere, then Lord Weir, and then recently as a sub-head General Seely. I do not believe that a single one of those Ministers would differ from me in thinking that the Air Force should be independent.
I would like to read to your Lordships one or two of the most salient passages in the debate of two years ago in order to refresh your Lordships' memories as to what was then said by the Government. The Air Force Bill was then introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and he said—
"Aircraft can no longer be regarded as a sub-Department of the Admiralty or of the War Office. The air is one. It is a unity far more than the sea is, and a hundred times more than the land is; and the conditions of fighting in the air are similar even though the airman be attached to the naval or to the military side of the Air Force."
That to my mind describes exactly the true position. Then Lord Cowdray, who afterwards became the First Secretary of State for the Air, said—
"If the Air Forces are to remain—which God forbid—as units only of the two great fighting Services, then the proposed legislation is not necessary. But if your Lordships agree with me in realising that an independent Force is needed
826
and that one must be formed forthwith with full powers, complete organisation, and equal in rank with the Navy and the Army, then the Bill before the House will receive your Lordships' full approval."
With those sentiments I entirely agree.
I will pass on to a more important declaration made by the noble Earl the Leader of this House. He stated then that he was a firm supporter of an independent Air Force a long time before that day. Referring to a previous time at which he had spoken he said—
"I said on that occasion that there were many, of whom I was one, who would gladly have seen an Air Ministry created at that time."
He went on to say—
"I see before myself before many years have passed—it may be even sooner—I paint to myself a dream of a single Service, under a single head, under a single roof, with a single organisation. Such a unification I cannot believe to be beyond the administrative genius of our race."
Later on in the same speech he said of dual control—
"It is an invaluable thing to have got rid of that by this Bill."
He was referring to the friction between the two Departments, and he went on—
"And if for no other reason than the cessation of departmental friction this Bill would be a most valuable thing in itself."
The noble Earl concluded by saying, and to this I call your Lordships' special attention—
"He (Lord Haldane) told us that this is not only a war measure but a post-war measure too. Nothing could be more true than that remark."
I echo that sentiment—"Nothing could be more true than that remark." The noble Earl proceeded to say that this Force must be permanently a necessary part of our Imperial organisation. I have ventured to quote those passages in the noble Earl's speech because they so entirely fit the position to-day, and are so completely the sentiments that I would wish to impress upon your Lordships now.
It may be asked, What are other countries doing in the matter I have been at some pains to collect statistics about that, and I will shortly explain that in France a separate Department has been formed, reporting direct to M. Clemenceau as Prime Minister but not as head of the War Office. In Germany a separate Department has been formed, and great attention is being devoted to civil aviation; how much attention can be gauged from the fact

827
that over thirty new civil companies have been subsidised. In Italy the intention so far revealed is to have a separate Ministry. In regard to the United States, the Report of a very able Commission is in your Lordships' hands in the form of a White Paper, which shows that they were strongly in favour of a separate Air Service, but at the moment Mr. Baker, the Secretary for War, opposes the separation of the Services because some officials of the Admiralty and War Office resent the change. That is what happened here. You have, therefore, all the great countries of the world almost unanimously working in the direction of a separate Service.
I often think that the real difficulty lies in the fact that it is very difficult to get the individual soldier or sailor to think of aircraft in terms of the air. They are always thinking of aircraft in terms of the Navy or in terms of the Army as subsidiary machines to those great Services. There are a great many passages in the American Report which are very appropriate to what we are discussing to-day. The Report says that without a separate department no sudden creation of aerial equipment to meet a national emergency already at hand is possible. That is a subject I have already dealt with. Then they go on to say that in the future, as in the past, if the aircraft activities remain dispersed among the several Governmental Departments, it will be impossible to get decisive action. The Report is well worth reading and contains arguments better than I can put them in favour of an independent, united air service. That Report was the Report of a special Commission which went all over Europe, and I think the very fact that it reported unanimously in favour of an independent air service so recently is a very strong argument in favour of our retention of such a single air service.
Before I conclude I should like to say one word about General Seely himself. I feel certain from my knowledge of him that it must have been something serious which compelled his resignation. I know that loyalty to the Government and to his Office would very likely make it impossible for him to reveal the exact points on which he differed from them, but I hope the Government will be able to tell us the real reason for the difference of opinion and the real reason for his resignation. All of us who are keen on this question and have
828
studied it are most anxious to help the Government in the study of this most difficult problem. We admit that the problem is by no means easy, but better have a small Ministry, independent and responsible for progress in the air, than have it attached to and under the control of any Department, however powerful, and however well presided over by the ablest of Ministers. I have raised this question to-day with the fullest sense of the importance of the issue, but I feel certain that your Lordships will agree with me that it is desirable that the Government should let us know what their policy is and, if possible, reassure those of us who think that an independent Air Service is a vital necessity for this country.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this question has confined himself almost entirely to its military aspect. It appears to me that the military or the naval aspect of this question is but a very small part of the great problem that has been opened up by what is called the conquest of the air, and the action of air forces in military operations is a very small matter indeed as compared with the immense functions that will be performed by aviation and a general aerial service all over the world. It appears to me, therefore, that my noble friend by confining himself to one particular aspect of the question has hardly impressed your Lordships with the necessity of the Government's considering (though I hope the Government have already considered it) what is going to be their policy with regard to aviation generally as a great world-power. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour this point, but I will ask this one question—What would have been our position in the railway world had our forefathers grasped the idea of what railway locomotion was going to be? I think we might have found ourselves with a Department of Railways, and possibly we might not have had to face some questions which are before us at the present time.
Then with regard to the other—what I will call, with all respect, the narrower—aspect of the question, namely, whether the control of aviation should be in the hands of the military and naval or the air authority, I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will remember, and some of my other friends who were in the other House with him, will remember the

829
position I always took up in discussing Army Estimates, namely that it was impossible for the House of Commons ever thoroughly to discuss either military or naval questions because they were separated from one another and put in watertight compartments. It seems to me that all the elements of defence or offence which this country possesses should be controlled by one great Department—possibly it might be called a Department of Defence, or something of that sort. That does not in the least prevent a separate administration of each of these arms, but it would co-ordinate and correlate the preparation which has been made by the nation for great emergencies such as we have just gone through.
I am sure that when the history of the late great war comes to be written and examined from the point of view of its causes and the condition of our preparations beforehand, the critics will fasten upon that absence of any correlation between our great defensive forces. I hope that the noble Lord on the Woolsack when he replies will give us some indication of the view of the Government on both these points—the future of the great problem that is opened up by the international movement which will take place through the air and the control of the various elements that go to make up the defensive forces of this country.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I ask your Lordships for that indulgence which it is your custom to extend to one who addresses you for the first time. I desire to enter a special plea on behalf of the Navy that they should be allowed to have their own Air Force, in contradiction to the arrangement which is at present in force. At the beginning of the war heavier-than-air craft were in such an experimental stage that no method had been found of using them in co-operation with the Fleet, but they are now an integral part of the Fleet and just as much a weapon of the warship as is the gun. I would ask your Lordships to consider that although in those times when they were still in the experimental stage it may have appeared a superficial reason for amalgamation—they had to be lent to the Army which was then short of aircraft—that condition no longer exists.
The training and work of the Air Force in the Fleet would be simplified if they were under one head. I would rather
830
consider the position of a captain of a special aircraft carrier attached to the Fleet who has his ship's company composed half of members of the Air Force and half of members of the Royal Navy. He cannot possibly have in those circumstances that close control over the Air arm which is so necessary on board ship—while the whole upbringing and training of that portion is foreign to the training and upbringing of the Navy. Such a system does not make for unity. The noble Lord who has put down this Question dealt with the matter on the broad grounds of strategy. There is one fact about strategy in the air which I think must be obvious—namely, that, with the possible exception of bombing raids on civilian towns, all aerial activity must be directed towards some naval or military objective. If that is the case, then surely the direction of that activity should be in the hands of the Naval and Military authorities.
If you take design and supply, it is suggested that design would be co-ordinated by having one Air Force, but if the aeroplane and the airship are to be weapons to assist the land and the sea Forces then they are in the same position as the gun. No one would suggest that the gunnery arm of the Navy or that the Royal Field Artillery should be independent Forces. The question of design is got over by the Ordnance Corps at Woolwich being officered by personnel from both Services. They ensure that all arms are provided with the proper weapons. The supply difficulty was got over by the Ministry of Munitions and by liaison between the two Services. As far as the development of civil flying is concerned, surely this is a matter which should not be mixed up with the fighting Services. It has never been successful when the fighting Services have become mixed up with commercial matters, and there were one or two cases of that during the war. The status of civil aviation, I suggest, is. somewhat similar to that of the mercantile marine, which latter is not definitely under the orders and control of the Admiralty. If you consider the peace time organisation and the war time organisation, I submit that there is more complication in having three Services instead of two, as well as a considerable increase in expense.
Lord Montagu talked about liaison. Three lots of liaison would be required instead of one lot; where you have one

831
liaison between the Navy and the Army you would require three. As the Air Force becomes more and more independent it will be increasingly difficult for the very close liaison work which will be required between the Air Force and the other two Services to be carried out. The Army and the Navy can co-operate only on certain specific occasions, but it will always be necessary to have close co-operation between each of them and the Air Service. You will, therefore, considerably increase this liaison work, increase such things as paper work (already an evil in the fighting Services); there is bound to be overlapping; and I submit that the expense will be more than merely the salary of the Minister in question. There are such things (to use a commercial phrase) as overhead charges. That really means that with a separate organisation you require extra things which are a duplication of things in other Departments, and which are bound to be expensive. You will require three Intelligence Departments and three Operation Departments. That type of work, if the Services had their own Air Force, would still be done by this Department.
It is primarily on account of the Navy that I have advanced this plea; because the Navy works on a separate element, and it is an element to which everyone is not accustomed in the same way as they are accustomed to the land. Although you may say that the air covers both, the base of operation from which they work is not the same. There is all the difference between taking off from and alighting on the deck of a ship and taking off from and alighting on a flying ground; just the same difference as looking for a hostile submarine and looking for a hostile column of troops. Although it may be important with regard to the Army it is far more difficult with regard to the Navy; and since the Navy has always been our greatest weapon I submit that it should have its own Air Service.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I desire to say only a word in part reply to the speech to which we have just listened. I was a member of the first Air Board, at a time when the two Air Services were independent—one under the Admiralty and one under the War Office. That state of things was inconceivably deplorable, and I am convinced that this division in the early part of the war to a great extent
832
hampered our operations during the war. More might have been done if there had been an earlier amalgamation. If it is absolutely necessary that the Air Service should be placed under one of those Departments of State I agree that it had better be under the Admiralty; because, though I do not admit that there is any affinity between the Air Force and the Army or the Navy, such affinity as exists is closer to the Navy than to the Army. I hope that there will never again be a separation of the Air Service into two parts. If the inside history of the earlier years of the war ever came to be written I think you would be surprised at the mistakes made and at the competition which existed between the two Services at that time. I maintain, as Lord Montagu does, that a Service which has to fight in three dimensions is a Service distinct in every possible way from the Services which fight in only two; although, of course, the submarine may be said to fight in three. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to assure us that the change with which we have been threatened is not to be brought about.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am sorry that your Lordships should have to listen to me so frequently, but the Leader of the House is unable to be present to-day as he has important public business elsewhere; and as the matters raised are of importance and relate to a Cabinet decision it was thought desirable that such answer as must be given here should be made by a Minister who happens to be a member of the Cabinet. If any question of detail arises, or any suggestion that administratively the present arrangement does not work well, no one is more competent to deal with the matter than my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who so efficiently replies for the Department of the Air, and he will gladly supplement, with a greater knowledge of the detail, the few observations that I have to make.
I think my first duty must undoubtedly be to congratulate a new and a young member of your Lordships' House upon having made to-day a maiden speech of great interest and promise. Your Lordships always welcome here with pleasure the representatives of the fighting services; and while I am unable, for reasons that I will presently give, to assent to all the views expressed by the noble Lord, his

833
speech did give vigorous and intelligent expression to a point of view which was head by a very great many people and is still held by a considerable number.
The Question which is addressed to me by the noble Lord who moved for Papers relates, in the first place, and indeed almost entirely, to the reasons which led General Seely to resign, and the noble Lord asked whether there was not some more serious cause than that which had hitherto been made public. I have no reason to suppose that these is. I myself very much regretted General Seely's decision. He is a very old friend of mine, and everybody in this House admires both his character and his distinguished record in the war. Certainly no one will refuse assent to the claim made by Lord Montagu, that he showed a high degree of efficiency during the period that he was at the Air Ministry.
No; we must not look for an explanation to supposed Cabinet dissensions or to real reasons in the background, whereas unreal reasons are ostensibly put forward. We must look, and that alone, to the explanation which General Seely himself gave when he announced to the House of Commons that he intended to resign his position. I have General Seely's speech here, and I may perhaps summarise very briefly my understanding of the grounds on which he based his resignation. He said that when he was offered the position he appreciated clearly that a difficulty might arise because there was duality of control; control, that is to say, was shared between himself and. the Secretary of State for War, though, of course, the more influential position—greatly the more influential position—was enjoyed by the Secretary of State. General Seely, however, accepted the Office, though, I rather gather from his speech, with some misgivings because of that situation, and, having had some months' experience of the Office, he came to the conclusion that this duality of control was injurious to the public service, and thereupon asked to be relieved of his Office, and was so relieved.
I think the noble Lord may take it that there is no other explanation at all which would repay search in order to account for what took place. I am in agreement, and the Government is in agreement, on the issue which has been raised, with the views put forward by Lord Montagu. In other words, we definitely
834
took the view, and this House definitely took the view some two years ago, after long war experience, that it was desirable that there should be a single and an independent Air Service. Lord Vernon stated considerable reasons to the contrary, based upon his naval experience. All those considerations were put forward with very great force by experienced and distinguished Admirals before the decision was taken. Similar arguments were put forward by many representatives of the War Office. All those arguments were weighed in the balance, and it was decided—and decided with a degree of unanimity which in these circusmtances is not; very often attained—that the balance of advantage in war time enormously inclined to the establishment and maintenance of a separate and independent Service.
Lord Montagu is perfectly entitled to point out that the speeches that were made by myself, who assisted to pilot the Bill through the House of Commons, and by the Earl of Crawford and Earl Curzon and others in this house, made it quite plain that the decision reached was not merely to establish during the war an independent and separate Air Service, but that it was to maintain that independence and that separation as a permanent part of our defensive arrangements. The anxiety felt by the noble Lord who moved is, I imagine, occasioned entirely by the circumstance that at the present time the same Minister holds the seals of both Offices, and he sees in that circumstance a ground for apprehending that the independence and the separation of the Air Force are to be abandoned. I say in the plainest way that the policy of the Government is to maintain the separate and the independent character of the Royal Air Force.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You may take it that it will be so maintained in peace as distinctly as it was in war. Every step that has been taken in the course of the present year has been taken with that end in view. There is no question at all of subordinating the Royal Air Force either to the Army or the Navy, or of splitting it into two and dividing it between the Army and the Navy. In order to emphasise the distinct and the independent character of the Service

835
uniform and ranks and titles have been deliberately differentiated from those prevailing in the Army and Navy, and only Service men know how important are matters of that kind, which sound relatively insignificant. The whole organisation of the Air Force as a separate Force, and of the Air Ministry as a separate Ministry, has proceeded since the Armistice was signed without interruption.
A complete scheme for the post-war organisation has been elaborated during the past year and it is already very considerably advanced. When the Estimates for next year are introduced it will be possible to lay before the House in full detail the steps that have been taken, and it will be seen that all the varied functions of the Royal Air Force and its complex organisation have been fully provided for, including its work with the Army, its work with the Navy, and its work as an independent strategical factor. We have aimed, or the Minister has aimed, throughout the year, at creating an entirely separate permanent Air Service, which affords as good a career and as good opportunities of advancement to officers and men as either the Army or the Navy.
Now the question may be asked—in fact, it has been asked—Was it in these circumstances a wise or defensible arrangement that the seals of this independent and separate Service should be held by the Minister who is at the present time head of the Army? and your Lordships will expect that I shall explain the circumstances in which this decision was taken. The Prime Minister reached the decision—it is, of course, for him to decide whether or not two Offices can usefully and wisely be taken over by one Minister—he reached the decision, in forming the present Administration, that the scale, size, and cost of the Royal Air Force in the years immediately following the war would not be sufficiently large to justify the appointment of a separate Secretary of State.
Many arguments have been used to show the importance of restricting as far as possible the number of Ministers who form the Cabinet. Already the complications of necessary business and the increase in the number of Departments have raised the total number to a point which many critics consider to be undesirable. A separate Cabinet Minister for a Force which cannot in the immediate future be in size
836
or cost more than a sixth or a seventh the size of the Army or Navy would not be justified, and certainly this, I suppose, is clear—that you could not possibly justify the exclusion from the Cabinet of the Minister who would be able to speak with special knowledge and authority on aerial problems. The choice was between the appointment of a Minister who already had a portfolio and the appointment of a separate Secretary of State with Cabinet rank on behalf of this new and relatively small Force.
No one must suppose that a decision has been taken which binds the Government in the future or necessarily for a very prolonged period. It may well be that in the years to come the importance of the Air Force will grow at the expense of the other two Services. The noble Lord has reminded us how unwise it is to make predictions in these matters; how deceived those who went before us were by the swift and incredible development of railways, and how mistaken even many of us were as to the rapid development in the efficiency and reliability of motor cars. I certainly should not be willing to be treated as one who was excluding even the most amazing developments in aviation in the future. There are many who think, and give good grounds for their opinion, that within the lifetime of those of us who are not particularly young the time will come when the air will take the primary place in our defensive organisation. Therefore it must be assumed that the decision which has been taken is one which is taken for the moment. If circumstances alter, the present arrangement will lapse; and I especially ask the House to notice that nothing has been done which is inconsistent with an immediate separation of the two Offices. If events decide that it is expedient at a given moment that a separate Minister should be created for the air, that separate Minister could go into his Office the next day and find absolutely nothing compromised by the temporary association of the Office with the War Office.
The importance of economy and moderate establishments during the next few years is well known, and certainly members of the Government would have no excuse if they were not aware of your Lordships' strong views in this direction. The admonitions which so often have been addressed to us on this subject certainly point to the Air Force being restricted to

837
limits which quite clearly do not justify a separate Secretary of State, and to appoint such an Air Minister and include him in the Cabinet would create a most anomalous position in regard to at least half a dozen other Offices which, for practical purposes, have just as great weight and importance at the present time.
There are two other very important reasons, special in the present year and the next, which render a combination of the Offices desirable at this moment. Your Lordships will not forget that the demobilisation of the Army and the Air Force necessarily proceeded simultaneously. They were intermingled in the fighting forces in every theatre of war, and their general demobilisation problems were completely identical. Uniformity in practice was indispensable in dealing with these demobilisation problems. A difference in practice would have multiplied the already large but inevitable list of grievances and the hard cases which the processes of demobilisation in so many different theatres of war had entailed. The Navy in this respect was in a different position. It was not mixed up with the Army, and the expansion of the Navy during the war was relatively moderate. The Navy was entirely self-contained and the difference of practice in regard to demobilisation did not cause hardship and complaint to anything like the same extent as in the Army and the Air Force. Even so, some difficulty has been experienced. That is the first special and peculiar argument which is deserving of consideration.
In the second place, we have not only to demobilise the Army and the Air Force, but we have to reconstruct and redistribute the fighting forces by which our Empire is maintained. The garrisons of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and India have to be reconsidered from the point of view of the new technical inventions which the war has produced and the general advance in the science of war. This is a problem which cannot be studied in separate departments; it must be studied in its integrity. If we are to derive the economies in man-power and consequently in expenditure which should follow an increase in the power of scientific weapons, especially from the great usefulness of aeroplanes in maintaining order and suppressing revolts in large Oriental regions, it is essential that the problem of the new distribution of our fighting forces both on land and in the air
838
should be considered as a single problem in the period which lies immediately in front of us.
It must therefore be assumed that the view taken by the Government has been determined by the considerations which I have attempted shortly to summarise. It must by no means be assumed that a decision has been reached which may not be modified and would not be modified by unexpected developments in the actual situation. No one, not even his strongest critics, has ever denied to the present Secretary of State for War extraordinary capacity and an unparalleled degree of industry, and those who know him, however much in other respects they may differ from him, know the conscientiousness which he brings to the discharge of his public duties and will be satisfied that, if he found himself unable to carry out his own high standards of industry in these matters, he would not consent to hold the seals of the two Offices for a day longer.
I have one further observation to make in regard to the speech of the noble Lord who spoke second in the debate. He dealt with the great question of civil aviation and expressed anxiety lest under the existing arrangements this important branch of the enterprise might be overlooked or neglected. I am sure the noble Lord is aware of what has already been done in this direction. He knows, I am sure, that there is at the Air Board a department to which has been exclusively assigned the field of civil aviation. At the head of it is a most distinguished member of the Air Force, General Sykes, who is surrounded by able assistants; experiments are carried on, and the importance of the subject, great as it is, is certainly not under-rated. The noble Lord must not think I am claiming that as much is being done as might be done under circumstances which justified expenditure more readily. I am making no such claim, but I am attempting to bring the facts in relation to this part of the case and in relation to my main argument that the Service is not suffering in any way in this respect by the arrangement which I am attempting to explain, and that more would not have been done if a separate Minister represented the Air Force than has been sanctioned under the existing arrangement.
Lord Vernon made an interesting observation

839
in this connection, and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. He said it would be right, or perhaps he said it is right even now, to look upon civil aviation much in the same way as one looks upon the mercantile marine in relation to the Navy, namely, civil aviation is to combatant aviation as the mercantile marine is to the Royal Navy. I am not sure there is not a great deal to be said for that. I am not certain that its adoption would be beneficial to the Air Service; but I suspect the noble Lord is thinking that the day will come in which the Board of Trade will assume control and responsibility for civil aviation, much in the same way as it has by long practice assumed control over the mercantile marine, and then no doubt the position of civil flying craft in relation to military and naval flying craft, will be identical with that which now exists between the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy.
I have only one other observation to make, and it is this. Many acute critics—I pronounce no opinion upon it myself, because I have no great knowledge of the proper strategical considerations—are most strongly of opinion that the interests of this country would be best served by having some kind of amalgamation for defensive purposes of the three great Services on whose joint efforts the safety of these Isles ultimately depends—namely, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. They point to the prospect, and they allege the desirability, of a great Joint Staff, which would bring to the problems of war and to the problems of defence not a partial and limited knowledge, either of the air, or of the land, or of the sea, but bring to a reinforced and a much more fully-informed Staff the special contribution which it would be in the power of each to afford. Whether that scheme is one which will ever be realised I do not know, but it is at least worth recollecting that as long as this arrangement lasts we can bring to bear upon immediate problems which confront us, and which seemed likely to produce rather territorial situations in which we shall be involved in small wars rather than great ones—that we have at least produced from this arrangement a system by which the best brains of the air and the best brains of the Army will be readily marshalled in council, in order to apply all the resources both of the air, and of the Army with the greatest precision and the greatest degree of unanimity.

VENEREAL DISEASE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the prevention of venereal disease by the method of immediate self-disinfection, particularly in view of the Note on Prophylaxis against Venereal Disease by the Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee on Infectious Diseases in connection with demobilisation. To ask the Ministry of Health what steps they are taking to instruct the public in the proper application of immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to infection; what steps they are taking to provide for delayed disinfection at early treatment centres; and to move for Papers giving information as to the yearly incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared to the rest of England; and for Colonel Keble's reports and for the Hilsea Hospital records giving information as to the relative frequency in Hospital of men who have used immediate and delayed disinfection respectively.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not make any excuse to your Lordships for calling attention again to this extremely important subject. It is one which, as your Lordships are aware, vitally affects the health and the life of the race, and we cannot study it too closely or avail ourselves too persistently of every possible means of trying to stamp it out. It stands very high on the list of what Dr. Saleeby describes as racial poisons. Sir William Osler, for instance, said, I think before the Royal Commission, that it stood third or fourth in the great killing diseases of the world, and was responsible for blindness, sterility, locomotor ataxy, and general paralysis of the insane, and had all sorts of hideous effects, not only upon those who ran the risk of infection but also upon the innocent and unborn. The worst of it is that venereal disease has increased and is increasing, and your Lordships will agree with me that it ought to be diminished. In support of this we read in The Times of December 8 that there is a 60 per cent. increase of venereal disease in the London hospitals.
I am bringing forward this Motion for Papers this afternoon, and I feel sure that the Government will help those for whom I am speaking by granting this Motion;

841
but if they do not I shall ask your Lordships to divide upon it, because I consider it to be of the very greatest importance. I am bringing forward the Motion with the object of ensuring that the general public may know the truth with regard to immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to the risk of venereal disease. Last April your Lordships were kind enough to listen to what I had to say on this extremely important subject, and I ventured to prophesy on that occasion that we had not heard the last of this matter of self-disinfection. We have had no official answer to that debate except the publication of the Departmental Committee's Report which I refer to in my Question, and which Committee was presided over by Lord Astor. But as a matter of fact it seems to me that apart from the lectures given by the National Council, which are admirable in their way as far as they go, no real progress has been made in trying to stamp out this disease.
Lord Astor's Report is a very interesting document, but the whole trend of it is dead against the policy which. I have come here to recommend to you this afternoon. It is dead against the whole idea of immediate self-disinfection, although rather curiously it admits that drugs and medical preparations may be relied upon to remove or destroy the germs of venereal disease. That is a very valuable admission, but in spite of this the Report appears so incomplete and so unsatisfactory from the point of view of some of the most prominent and learned venerealogists in the United Kingdom, that they have formed themselves into a new body called the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, the object of which is at once evident to your Lordships. Our objects are to protect the health of the race, especially women and children, by instructing the public in the first instance in immediate self-disinfection as a means of prevention, without any prejudice whatever to all the other means that are available, some of which we consider to be of the greatest importance. The Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, with which I have the great honour to be connected, is charged with recommending nothing but what is called the issue of prophylactic packets. That is a loose statement, and I should like to examine it for a moment
If your Lordships will read the correspondence that took place in The Times
842
when the Society was first formed, you will see that it declined to be tied down in its policy to recommending the issue of prophylactic packets in the sense that they were issued to His Majesty's Forces. What we intend to recommend is that the general public shall be informed as to the proper application of disinfectants, and that if they wish to expose themselves to risk and provide themselves with disinfectants, they shall know what to ask for and how to use them. Of course if what they ask for—as they can ask for it at any chemist's shop—is done up in a parcel, and I suppose it must be, and if that goes under the name of a packet, then it is indeed a packet. What I particularly wish to disclaim is that I am here on behalf of those for whom I am speaking to recommend the free issue of what are called prophylactic packets, because I am strongly of opinion, if any individual wishes to expose himself (or herself) to risk and at the same time chooses to take a disinfectant with him, that he ought to do so at his own expense and not at the expense of the general public.
I think that your Lordships will agree with me that in this regard prevention is very much better than cure. The cure of venereal disease, as we agreed the last time that we had a debate on this subject, presents an exceedingly difficult problem. It is quite true that since the discovery of Salvarsan the cure of syphilis has become more absolute than ever, but at the same time the cure of gonorrhea in the sense of the complete sterilisation of the patient and rendering him or her innocuous to others still remains a desperate public problem. Either sex may be carriers of the micro-organisms of this disease. Even when the symptoms have disappeared and they think they are perfectly clear from it, they may still be in a condition to communicate it to other people. I do not say for a moment that for this reason the scientific discoveries with regard to the cure of the disease should not be proceeded with. It is a self-evident proposition that they should be, and it is to be hoped that they will be more efficacious than they are at the present moment.
In the meantime it does seem to me that we should address ourselves to prevention. You can only prevent the spread of venereal infection by two main methods. One is by universal continence, and the other is by disinfection. These are the

843
two main channels into which the prevention of the disease naturally falls. We do not wish to speak of those who are advocating universal marital continence with anything except profound respect, but even the most sanguine of them must admit that continence of that kind is not yet, and that it will take a good many generations before it operates to eradicate venereal disease. But disinfection is here and remains. Disinfection is available, and it is, I submit, the scientific way of dealing with the matter. Disinfection is the acknowledged practice with all contagious diseases, and venereal disease is a contagious disease just as are other diseases such as surgical fevers and skin diseases. Disinfection is the guiding principle of the whole of modern surgery. It has enabled us to proceed to so satisfactory a result with regard to the treatment of other diseases that we naturally can hope for success in the case of venereal disease, particularly as that is a disease in which disinfection is so easy, because the microorganisms of the disease at the time they are communicated are so deposited that—and I have this on the highest medical authority—they will yield very readily to the application of a disinfectant. They are not particulary strong microorganisms in themselves, and it is not a matter of very great difficulty to apply a disinfectant to them in such a manner that they disappear. This is particularly true with regard to the male.
The last time that we, had this debate I was asked why we did not say anything about the self-disinfection of women. That, my Lords, is a difficult subject. The disinfection of women in the sense of using disinfectants in the way we recommend that men shall use them is a difficult matter, because woman is not structurally suited to receive the disinfectant with the same case as man, and there are perhaps other reasons, which I will not go into, why the disinfection of women presents greater difficulties. But there is this to be said for it, that so far as we know the results of the disinfection of women have been efficacious in preventing venereal disease, because it is acknowledged by everyone who knows anything about it that most of the cases of venereal disease—something like 70 per cent.—have been communicated to men by the amateur and not the professional prostitute, and the reason why the professional prostitute on the whole has been safer than the amateur is because
844
it is a well-known fact that these women have taught themselves how to disinfect, and for that reason the disinfection of women if properly carried out is probably a success.
We will, however, with your Lordships' permission, address ourselves to the disinfection of men. In doing so I am only following Colonel Harrison, whom I shall quote in a moment. There are two known methods of disinfection. No. 1 is slow or delay disinfection; No. 2 is quick or immediate disinfection. The National Council for Combating Venereal Disease has apparently accepted the principle of disinfection, and the Ministry of Health have gone so far on the road to disinfection, after a considerable amount of hesitation, that they are prepared to advise the construction of a number of what are called early treatment centres, which means the provision of ablution rooms at the public expense where those who have exposed themselves to risk may repair, if they will do so and if they know where they are, as soon after having connection as possible in order that they may be scientifically treated by a skilled attendant.
I should like to direct the attention of the noble Lord who is the head of the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease to this. He knows how to frame his own phraseology much better than I can teach him, but I should not call them treatment centres. It is not treatment, it is disinfection before the symptoms declare themselves, and if you call them treatment centres I suggest, with great respect, to the noble Lord that it does encourage the public to think, when they go there, that the disinfectants they find there are really efficacious for treatment and not only for prevention, and that they may try to treat themselves with these same disinfectants in an amateur way, supposing the symptoms arise.
But in regard to the early treatment centres there is a good deal more to be said than that. I should be very anxious to hear what progress is being made with their provision. The whole case against the early treatment centres is so well put by the Medical Officer of Health for Portsmouth that I shall ask your Lordships to listen to him for a moment—and I shall read no quotations that are not authoritative. He was writing to the Borough of Portsmouth with regard to putting up

845
auxiliary centres, which is the same thing as what are known as early treatment centres, and he says—
"Medical men generally are unanimous in the opinion that the greatest safeguard against the contraction of venereal disease after exposure to disinfection is the destruction of the germs of the disease by the immediate application of a disinfectant. But to endeavour to secure the adoption of this practice by the provision of auxiliary centres in various parts of the town appears to me to be clumsy, extravagant, and futile. To mention one fatal objection only. It is said such places should be inconspicuous. In the first place, it is practically certain that the character of the place will become known, consequently persons would not care about being seen to enter them; in the second, if it were possible to render them so inconspicuous as to escape public notice they would also be so inconspicuous that persons who wanted to resort there would not know where to find them. Speaking as your Medical Officer of Health, whose principal duty is the prevention of disease, I am bound to state that in my opinion the most effective weapon for the prevention of venereal disease is the instruction of the public in a knowledge of those simple measures, the adoption of which is recognised as an almost certain protection against venereal disease."
And I am informed that the London County Council has stated its inability to provide these early treatment centres. But supposing the London County Council did provide them. Who is going to use them? How is everybody to know where these places are? Will they repair there quickly enough after having connection to do any good? Because it is a proved scientific fact that the micro-organisms of the disease begin to get a much greater hold upon the organs every minute after they are deposited, and that any delay after one hour very often is prejudicial to success. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how many of these early treatment centres are wanted and how many you have got already.
There is another thing about these early treatment centres. For the first time in the whole history of venereal disease there is a danger, if it has not already reached beyond the point of danger, when men coming back from the war will bring these diseases into rural districts, and it is quite impossible to have an early treatment centre in a village in the country. The thing would be watched, everybody would know who went there, and it only needs a moment's consideration to see that the project would be futile. In addition to that, I could well imagine that in urban districts people might easily be subject to espionage, and private detectives might be employed to watch people who were going in there, and it might very easily open the
846
door to an elaborate system of blackmail. I think that this question of what is called early treatment centres requires a great deal of careful examination before it is adopted. And, after all is said and done with regard to disinfection, it is time that is the whole essence of the matter.
I should like to say a word or two about quick or immediate self-disinfection, and by that I mean the state of things by which those who expose themselves to risk carry with them the necessary disinfectants and apply them themselves a few seconds after the exposure to risk. I think that the authorities at the War Office and the Admiralty know something about quick disinfectants, but everybody agrees—even those who do not agree with me in advocating it publicly—as to its efficacy if it is properly carried out. I should like to quote from the speech that Lord Sydenham made in your Lordships' House in answer to some remarks of mine on a former occasion. He said—
"It is perfectly well known that any effective disinfectant, if used deliberately and skilfully and properly, can prevent infection."
He goes on to say that unless more information is given than appears in the Lancet it is impossible to accept the figures which the writer put forward. Later in his speech he said—
"Self-disinfection before or after exposure to risk, and after exposure to risk if there is not too long a delay, which might be one or two hours—"
Rather dangerous—
"and it is applied with care and deliberation and promptness, will probably in most cases be perfectly effective."
The noble Lord then goes on to say that in some cases (which is perfectly obvious, and perfectly true) it will first fail because those conditions cannot always be fulfilled, but, with regard to the efficacy of it, if the proper conditions of its application are fulfilled surely, there cannot be more than one opinion.
This whole system of disinfection is based upon the exceedingly valuable discoveries of Metchnikoff with regard to some experiments which were conducted by him conjointly with M. Roux, who was the Director of the Pasteur Institute in 1905. First of all monkeys of different kinds were taken by Metchnikoff to be experimented upon, and they were experimented upon with admirable results;

847
and these results appeared to be so certain and positive that an experiment was made upon a human being with very great success. All the possible safeguards against failure from the thing not being properly undertaken were used. I have it all written down here from an authoritative source, but I will not trouble your Lordships with it because it might take rather too long to read. The reason I bring this forward is that, as far as I can recollect, in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Venereal Disease the point was not brought out that the experiments of Professor Metchnikoff—who is the father of disinfection as a prevention of this disease—on a human being were not stated at all, I think, and that the Society confined itself to stating his experiments upon the monkeys.
I am sorry that I have had to read so many quotations to your Lordships, but it is absolutely necessary to establish what I have to say. I should like to quote one or two sentences from Colonel Harrison because he is a particularly valuable witness. I understand that Colonel Harrison is one of the guiding spirits of the National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases, who are not prepared to go nearly as far as we are in advocating self-disinfection. Colonel Harrison has also had a great deal of experience in the Army, and he was a member of the Department Committee which had issued the Report I have ventured to criticise. I am rather disappointed that Colonel Harrison is not a member of the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, because if he were it would accord exactly with a certain lecture he gave not very long ago at the Royal Institute of Public Health. Colonel Harrison says that he looks to the breaking of the chain of infection before it has become well established; that the reason was not far to seek because the microorganisms of the disease were the most delicate organisms in existence, they were planted on an exposed situation and easily liable to removal by urination or ordinary ablution. When natural agencies were assisted by prompt application of antiseptics it can easily be proved that the chances of infection were reduced to an infinitesimal amount.
He then gives some powerful statistics in support of this view with which I will not trouble your Lordships; but later in t his very interesting lecture—which is a
848
perfect justification of everything that this new Society is advocating—he says—
"The ideal method is undoubtedly that in which the man submits himself to treatment by a skilled attendant within an hour of exposure; but promptitude is vitally necessary to success, and if the man is situated where he cannot obtain skilled assistance he should have the means of self-disinfection with him."
I have quoted this passage before, but I have taken the liberty of reading it again. I do not think anything could be clearer than that. I quote Colonel Harrison at some length as he is now claimed as the principal opponent of the view I wish to put before your Lordships.
No one has contributed more to the cause of self-disinfection with greater success than Sir Archdall Reid, and it will be necessary, for those of your Lordships who have not read his letters in the New Statesman and elsewhere, to trouble you to listen to what he says, because this is absolutely first-class testimony by one who has deliberately tried it and has seen the results. He says—
"In a large area—"
I think this refers to the Portsmouth area, about which I am asking for Papers—
"served by a single venereal diseases hospital both quick and slow disinfection has been extensively practised. For quick disinfection nothing more was found necessary than to tell the men to swab themselves with permanganate of potash (or any other active antiseptic) immediately after exposure. No 'packets' were necessary, but the men were given the antiseptic if they asked for it. At the time of my last inquiry, of all the hundreds who had passed through the hospital nearly every man had practical slow disinfection and not one had practised quick disinfection. At a later period the method of quick disinfection was more extensively applied in this area; thereafter almost the only case of disease that occurred within it arrived with men joining station from outside and bringing their infections with them."
In the remarks I was allowed to address to your Lordships last April I gave you the results—which were fairlywell published and studied, and which were well known to all who took an interest in this subject—with regard to Sir Archdall Reid's and Surgeon-Commander Boyden's great and marked success with regard to teaching their men in the Army and in the Navy to use immediate self-disinfection. As these statements of what Sir Archdall Reid and Surgeon-Commander Boyden actually achieved have become so much a part of the public controversy on this subject, I need not weary your Lordships with repeating them; but they are telling in the extreme.
I will now give an extract from them as quickly as possible. Sir Archdall Reid was in charge of a rapidly changing body of men in a large sea-port—I am quoting from the British Medical Journal of February 1919—where the average number of men was about 2,000, and he estimates that 40,000 must have passed through his hands during the war. Venereal disease was common amongst them in spite of moral lectures and early treatment. In 1917 he instructed immediate personal prophylaxis. Each man who applied was given an ounce of potassium permanganate solution (1 in 1,000), a swab of wool, and careful directions. During 1917 and 1918 about 20,000 men passed through the station, and only seven cases of venereal disease occurred. The man who acquired syphilis carried no disinfectant with him, and used it only two hours afterwards. Of the six cases of gonorrhea, two were contracted from the men's wives, two others were drunk, one took no precautions, and the sixth only after an hour's interval. Surgeon Commander Boyden tells practically the same story.
I am aware that in producing this testimony, powerful as it is, I shall be told that statistics equally powerful can be produced in support of a contrary view. The point which I wish to put to your Lordships is that although statistics may be produced to prove that self-disinfection has not always had the same success as when it was recommended by Sir Archdall Reid, the reason it has been unsuccessful is that it has not been systematically, regularly, and properly applied; and however many statistics you produce on the opposite side with regard to the failure—or the alleged failure—of self-disinfection, you will never be able to produce statistics to prove that disinfectants do not disinfect if they are properly applied.
In support of this view I should like to quote a word or two from the very remarkable testimony of Miss Ettie Rout, who is an authority on this subject whom it is permissible to quote. She is the honorary secretary of the New Zealand Volunteer Sisters, and has made a special study of this subject ever since the war began; she has been to practically every area occupied by our troops. The whole of her testimony goes to prove what they all have experienced. She says it has been proved time and time again that whenever disinfectants are supplied adequately in
850
proper form to soldiers, and confidently recommended, venereal infection practically ceases. In this regard it is a rather pet phrase in Lord Astor's White Paper. He alludes to a carefully organised packet system in the Army. It is exceedingly doubtful whether, except in certain areas presided over by certain commanding officers and by those who took the same point of view as Sir Archdall Reid, there was ever any carefully organised packet system. Just listen to this report from a lady, who says—
"In June and July this year—"
that is 1919—
"I visited most of the Australian and New Zealand camps in England and lectured to some 25,000 or 30,000 soldiers who voluntarily attended at my personal invitation. I put the test question to several audiences as to whether they had ever gone on leave without instructions and packets being given to them. On the average not more than 10 per cent. of the men had received packets. The vast majority of the audience held up their hands as having gone on leave without packets during the previous few weeks. When I asked how many men had ever gone on leave without packets, practically the whole audience held up their hands."
I have here one or two very interesting and important figures taken from Paris, and then I shall have very nearly done with these quotations. From June to November, 1918, in a period of five months, when abundant disinfectants were given individually to the Anzacs for the purpose of immediate self-disinfection, the number of infections recorded at the Paris Medical Report Centre was only twenty, whereas in November and December, 1918, during a period of five weeks, when the supply of disinfectants was temporarily cut off, the number of Anzac infections recorded at the Paris Medical Report Centre was twenty-four. That is very remarkable, and these figures can be fortified over and over again by other quotations of the same character, with which I will not now trouble your Lordships, though I can assure you they are very telling.
The fact that self-disinfection, if properly applied, is effective has not been impugned. Nobody in authority has attempted to contradict, or can contradict, the fact that, scientifically, the case for immediate self-disinfection is proved up to the hilt. It is perfectly easy to urge that the improper use of it is unsuccessful. That applies to all remedies. If anybody brushes his teeth, for instance, in a perfunctory manner and so suffers as the

851
result of not brushing them properly, that is not an argument in favour of abandoning the brushing of teeth altogether; and I say that, having got a scientific fact upon which everybody agrees, it is the duty of the Government to give this fact every chance and to try to make it a success. I believe that so far those who do not care perhaps, to go so far as I should like to go in the instruction of the public, will have agreed in the main with what I have said up to the present moment.
What is the issue between the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease and those who support them and the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease? I do not believe there is really any very important medical issue at all, because the medical men on the National Council must know what are the properties of calomel ointment and permanganate of potash. At the same time there is a rather important difference between us, and I think that difference may best be described as being a difference in frame of mind. Different frames of mind will give a different answer to this question—How far is it ethically or morally justifiable to withhold or to promulgate the teachings of science? That is where I believe we may part company. The most rev. Primate, in the courteous reply which he gave to the remarks I offered to your Lordships last April, said that I skated rather lightly over the moral issue.
I will put two questions to the school of thought which perhaps the most rev. Primate represents. I should like to ask whether they admit that exposure to risk of catching venereal disease is likely, before universal continence prevails, to control the sexual instinct in such a way that there is no promiscuous intercourse between the sexes, or that, while all this is going on, the consequences of venereal disease are still likely to proceed? The second is this—If you answer this question in the affirmative, are you prepared to let your fellow-countrymen share in the latest teachings of science so as to protect them and their innocent and unborn descendants from these results?
Some people would seem to go only part of the way, and some would seem to say that there is nothing really very immoral in going round to what is called an early treatment centre an hour or two after the connection has taken place; but that there is a difference between the
852
morality of doing that and using certain disinfectants at the time of exposure to risk. I myself cannot see any great difference between these two processes. If immediate self-disinfection is really a success, is it that people are afraid of the consequences of making the intercourse between the sexes too frequent? I submit to your Lordships, with great respect, that real true morality ought to be free from, and independent of, the fear of catching venereal disease. At best those who say that the fear of catching the disease prevents promiscuous intercourse are really using an argument which could be used the other way.
If you say to people that you are going to run the very grave risk of catching this disease unless you disinfect yourself properly, then I can imagine a state of things where, if there is indeed a fear of catching it, those who are afraid of so doing would refrain from intercourse supposing they had not got the necessary disinfectants with them. If it comes to a question of morality I submit to your Lordships that it is a very doubtful remedy to try to suppress the truth. Not only that, you cannot suppress it. The truth with regard to immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to risk is out. It is here. Disinfectants and instructions how to disinfect have been supplied to thousands of men on demobilisation, and at this moment, in spite of the law, packets are being sold. They may or may not be of the right strength. If they are not of the right strength it is because they are not properly supervised by the Government and not made up in the proper way, and nothing in the world can be more dangerous than the sale of unauthorised packets by ignorant people to ignorant people. The Society of which I am a member intends to publish the fullest and latest scientific information by every means in its power. The Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease contains on its list medical men, scientists, and venerealogists whose authority and opinion cannot possibly be ignored. Those gentlemen intend to press forward with the campaign for enlightening their fellow-countrymen.
I appeal to your Lordships, and to the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease, that as this knowledge is getting out it would be much better, instead of trying to suppress it, to direct it scientifically in such a way as to be valuable to the public. I call for this information because

853
I believe we shall get some valuable facts which the public is not in possession of in regard to the Portsmouth area. I ask the other questions because I believe the health of the race is the very best guarantee for its moral tone. I intend to press the Motion to a Division. I have sufficient confidence in my fellow-countrymen to believe that we shall do no harm by telling them the truth. Let us place them in the possession of the latest teachings of science, and leave it to them to choose for themselves.
Moved for Papers giving information as to the yearly incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared to the rest of England; and for Colonel Keble's reports and for the Hilsea Hospital records giving information as to the relative frequency in hospital of men who have used immediate and delayed disinfection respectively.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, every one who has listened to the speech of the noble Lord must be well aware of the earnest care he has devoted to this subject, and his sincere anxiety to combat venereal disease in every way possible. If I differ from him in his methods I am sure he will credit me with the same sincerity and earnestness. I regret that his Committee would not accept the invitation to a roundtable conference which I offered, because I believe it would have cleared away a good many misunderstandings and have led to the avoidance of this very distasteful debate. It is very natural that he should criticise the Report which has been made public because it really is very damaging to his case. It is not, I think, quite as clear as it might have been, and it is a great pity that the names of the ten experienced medical officers who formed the Committee were not given. I am not myself at liberty to give their names, but although they do not hail from Harley-street I think the public would respect them and feel that they speak with great authority.
I do not think the Note is quite as clear as it should be. It does not make sufficient distinction between the prophylactic packet to be used before risk and the disinfecting packet to be used afterwards. As regards the first, I pointed out in the debate of April last that it had been tried and given up in the American Army, and now Sir Archdall Reid says that the prophylactic packet is useless. We have this then—
854
that this method, which was widely advertised and advocated, is now practically dead. Now I come to post-risk disinfection, The Inter-Departmental Committee, very unfortunately as I think, did not make this one of the main subjects of their consideration, but they have provided us with a large amount of valuable evidence which in my opinion goes very far to destroy the theories of the noble Lord. Post-risk disinfection may be of two kinds. It may be carried out by skilled attendants or under skilled supervision, or it may be left to the care of the individual. It is in the latter case that the packet containing permanganate and the tube of calomel ointment is recommended to be used. According to Sir A. Reid the materials for disinfection should be "ready in the man's pocket, not on the shelf of the Early Prevention Treatment Hut."
I believe medical opinion is quite unanimous that disinfection skilfully and vigorously applied within one or two hours will in all probability remove the risk of the disease. Medical opinion is also agreed that such disinfection may be carried out successfully when applied by exceptional people in exceptional circumstances. But the question really is whether an ordinary individual in special circumstances would be likely or not to disinfect himself effectively. That is not a medical question; it is a question which any layman is competent to judge on such evidence as is available. Happily we have some evidence in the White Paper which was not available when our debate took place last year. We are told that the American authorities tried self-disinfection on a large scale and abandoned it entirely in favour of disinfection by skilled attendants. They were so convinced that self-disinfection amongst their soldiers was a failure that in some units they declined to give all-night passes and issued disinfectants only to men who were going on leave to a distance. They have abandoned permanganate of potash, which we have been told is a specific disinfectant. The American evidence is very valuable, and I commend it strongly to the study of the noble Lord. The American Army figures of incidence among men at home before the war were considerably higher than our own. When America entered the war energetic measures were taken by the authorities to enforce supervised disinfection, and those measures brought down the figures of infection in their troops in this country close to our

855
own; but the rate among troops in the United States was still distinctly high in the last half of 1918.
The Australian evidence seems to be even more destructive of the views of the noble Lord. My information is that no man left camp or barracks without having a packet offered to him, and the result was a distinct increase of disease among the Australian troops. This deplorable failure is attributed to the lack of sufficient stations where disinfection could be applied under skilled supervision. In other words, it was a complete breakdown of purely self-disinfection. In the last three months ended December 31, 1918, the rate among the Australian troops at home was 147 per thousand per annum; and if cases where abortive treatment for gonorrhea was given are added we get an incidence more than five times greater than among our own troops in this country during the same period.
The point that I wish to make is this, that it is quite impossible to carry out self-disinfection among the civil population as vigorously as it was carried out among the Australian troops, and that among them it was an undoubted failure. The reason is given by Colonel Raffan, who says—
"Unfortunately for various reasons due to carelessness, excitement, and mainly excess of alcohol there are a large number of men who fail to use the outfit correctly, if at all."
Therefore we have practical experience showing that the sovereign remedy proposed by the noble Lord failed in circumstances in which one would most expect to find it successful.
On the other hand, there was a marked success amongst the Canadian troops at Havre, where of 5,153 treatments not one infection occurred, due entirely to the work of skilled attendants. In the British Army since the middle of last year extensive measures were undertaken for disinfection purposes, careful instructions were given, inspectors were appointed, and as much as possible was done to make self-disinfection a success. In some cases there was success, no doubt for exceptional reasons. That will always occur. But all the efforts made failed to bring down the incidence of disease in our Army to any marked degree. The rate per 1,000 per annum in the United Kingdom was forty-three in the first half of 1918, thirty-eight for the last half of 1918, and it rose to thirty-nine for the first half of 1919, when the system was in
856
full operation. It is impossible to claim success on such figures, though of course there may be reasons why the arrangements were not so effective as was wished. Sir Archdall Reid has asserted that our military authorities failed because they told men to apply for disinfectants after exposure, implying that they were to wait until they got back to barracks. That is not quite accurate. The War Office, most rightly in my opinion, declined to press packets upon our soldiers, but every man knew perfectly well that he could get a packet, and as a matter of fact large numbers were taken, and in some cases I believe were sold. One man was found with thirty-five tubes of calomel in his pocket.
Sir Archdall Reid gave to the Committee the figures which have been quoted, and very striking figures they were, but when questioned he said he did not know the percentage of men who used permanganate and were infected or not infected, and he did not know the percentage of men who did not use permanganate, nor did he know the numbers of men who were diseased on arrival in Camp or on leaving. Without these important details it is impossible to form a satisfactory and scientific opinion as to the results claimed. We all know how easily statistics may mislead. I do repeat that self-disinfection may succeed if all necessary conditions are complied with—we none of us deny that—or if all the circumstances are satisfactory and all the instructions are carried out in detail; but all the experience which we have is derived from Forces under discipline, and it is certainly not encouraging. An immense advantage is possessed by the military and naval authorities in dealing with this disease. Among the civil population none of these advantages exist. You cannot enforce attendance on lectures and you cannot possibly have the very severe disciplinary arrangements which were applied to the American Army.
Therefore does it follow that even if the evidence derived from the military and naval experience were hopeful, which it certainly is not, we could expect nearly so good results to apply to the civil population. I was at one time uncertain of the policy of the noble Lord's Society, but it has been made quite clear. On the 22nd of last month the Society published its programme, and the public was informed

857
that "immediate self-disinfection, requiring no special skill or training" is "the only way which offers any real hope of efficiently combating this terrible scourge." Accordingly the Society asked everyone to send a stamped envelope, and then promised that the necessary instructions" will be sent free of charge. I think I have proved that this statement it not quite in accordance with the facts, and that as it stands it may do very great harm. Supervised disinfection has proved to be a success, but self-disinfection has not proved to be trustworthy, even when conditions are favourable, and the effect of such an announcement as I have read out must be to create a false sense of security and possibly to increase infection.
The Society of the noble Lord is nothing if not belligerent. Sir Archdall Reid has permitted himself to attack the National Council in very strong language. He declared in the New Statesman of September last that we were a "fake" society. He went on to say that our "object is not to prevent venereal disease, but by pretending to prevent it to prevent other people from preventing it." I decline to characterise a statement of that kind, which must do harm, and I leave it to the judgment of your Lordships' House. This "fake society" was started by the members of the Royal Commission who wrestled with this most unpleasant subject for two years, and took a great mass of expert evidence. Surely I have the right to defend the Council. We were the first to publish widely some striking figures obtained from the American Naval Station at Norfolk, Virginia, where disinfection under skilled supervision was employed. We have used these figures to drive home the lesson of the necessity of treatment at the earliest moment, and we are now accused of keeping back a wonderful discovery of the disinfectant power of permanganate and calomel.
What are the facts? The National Council took up the question of disinfection in the autumn of 1916, as a result of the experience gained in France. We were then greatly concerned with the large number of troops on leave in London, and in a pamphlet which we published the uses of calomel, protargol, and permanganate were explained. With the approval of the Director-General of Medical Services and with the co-operation of the National Guard Sir Thomas Barlow took great pains
858
to secure the establishment of irrigation statistics in camps and barracks. The result of this was a most striking success in many cases, especially in Chelsea Barracks. We also issued many thousands of cards to soldiers on leave, urging them to take early preventive treatment and telling them where it could be obtained. That system could not be applied throughout the country for the use of the whole civil population. It was gradually superseded by the military authorities in favour of self-disinfection packets.
As regards the civil population, the National Council has strongly urged the immediate use of soap and water, which even Sir Archdall Reid admits may be effective. Soap has been shown to be a germicide, and if vigorously used is probably quite as effective as permanganate. We do not deny, and we do not suppress the fact, that disinfectants recommended by a medical man if skilfully and quickly applied will reduce the risk of disease, but they do not afford and cannot afford certain security, and if any symptoms supervene medical advice must be taken at once. But we decline to make soap and water or anything of that kind the only or even main plank of our platform, and for the reasons I have given, we are deeply impressed with the danger of making any announcement which may be misunderstood by the public.
Now we have evidence that already in the case of women harm has been done by the letters which the noble Lord's society have sent to the Press. Some women thought, not unnaturally, that disinfection was a cure for the disease, and used the disinfectant with the result of delaying proper treatment and jeopardising their ultimate cure. Colonel Harrison, whom I agree in thinking is one of our greatest authorities, and who may perhaps have changed his opinion slightly in consequence of larger information obtained of late, has said publicly that "he has seen numbers of cases where soldiers have treated themselves with these prophylactics, allowing the disease to get a deeper and deeper hold on them. Sometimes the result was truly disastrous, as when a man who suffered from syphilis treated the sore with ointment, and his next, event was hopeless paraphlegia." I do beg my noble friend and his colleagues to consider the grave warning conveyed in those lines. Self-disinfection is practically useless for women, and

859
further it is a well-known fact that syphilis can be conveyed by other means, which the measures advocated by the noble Lord's society do not meet.
I will not dwell on the moral aspects of this matter which are very difficult, and on which my Council feels strongly, but I regret the tone of some of the letters of the secretary of the noble Lord's Society. He has accused us of being influenced by ecclesiastical opinion because we say that the only complete safeguard against disease is to lead a moral life. That does not prevent us in the least from recognising the many imperfections of human nature, or from combating disease by all the means which medical science has placed at our disposal, but we do consider that it is not only contrary to moral law but positively dangerous to hold out a promise of certain immunity for men only by the use of these disinfecting packets. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that this promise is illusory, even when self-disinfection is practised under most favourable circumstances. The more sexual irregularity exists the more, most certainly, must venereal disease increase, and the false idea that men only can be made safe by these means must lead to an increase of sexual immorality from which in the long run women may suffer most, morally and physically.
There was a time, not very long ago, when many people thought that the Contagious Diseases Act was an absolute specific against the spread of diseases. Where are those people now? Between 1883, when the Contagious Diseases Acts were suspended, and 1913 the incidence of disease of our troops in the United Kingdom fell from 260 per thousand to 50·9. That reduction to less than one-fifth of the former incidence was brought about by many causes, of which probably healthy recreation, temperance, and good counsel were amongst the most important. Now medical science has given us more weapons in our hands, and we must use them with wise judgment. I hope that we shall never ignore the moral aspect of this matter, or be induced to place complete reliance on methods which experience shows may be failures, and it is for that reason that I regret the far too confident announcements, as I think them, in the publications of the noble Lord's Society. But I do cordially agree with him in asking for any statistics which can be given that are
860
relevant to this matter, provided that those statistics are very carefully examined, because otherwise they would certainly lead to misunderstandings.
I will only say one word in conclusion. Some legislation is very much needed, and I think that it is a great pity that the Joint Select Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Muir Mackenzie presided was stopped when the last Parliament ended, and I hope that the noble Viscount may say that the Government will consider whether that Committee might not be set up again, because there are certain questions involving legislation which are very important and very urgent. I believe that it was a thoroughly competent body, and that it would have been able to pronounce a decided opinion upon this matter.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful to Lord Willoughby for having called attention to-night to the Report in the White Paper, on the existence of which his speech was to some extent based. The noble Lord has now, as on former occasions when he raised this subject, handled what is admittedly a most unpleasant matter in its details, and one which is controversial in more ways than one, with lucidity, with knowledge, and with force. He has necessarily gone over the ground which he covered some eight months ago, and he will not be surprised if I propose for the same reason to repeat somewhat what passed on that occasion. The arguments which were then used do not seem to have changed in their character, or to have had much force added to them by what has passed since then. Undoubtedly, however, fresh light has been thrown upon the subject by what is known as Lord Astor's Report.
I note that the noble Lord did not say to-night—and I do not think on a former occasion that he said anything himself to that effect—that this subject is a purely physical one, a purely medical or surgical one, and that it has nothing practically, as regards policy, to do with morals or ethics. But the noble Lord has rested his arguments in no small degree upon the statements of people who have said that. One of them has said that it is time the moralists and ethical people were treated with scorn, and put on one side. He went on to say that they should be allowed a free hand, and that it should be recognised

861
that the two things are entirely different. I will quote these words—
"You will remember that the principles which underlie the whole question of the suppression of venereal disease are, first, the complete and absolute separation of the moral from the medical problem."
I need not multiply quotations to that effect from the lady upon whom the noble Lord relied considerably, or from some of the medical authorities whom he quoted and who hold that opinion. But he himself has not said that. Allegations of that kind, however, continue to be made, and I have tried more than once here, and constantly elsewhere, to meet them. It seems to me that we are in the same position on that matter as were those who were discussing political economy questions in the days of our boyhood. We were then constantly told that whatever we did we must keep out of political economy all questions except those relating purely to the statistical side, and that political economy had nothing to do with morals or ethics. In short, you had to discuss it as something entirely apart from its practical application to human conduct. I do not say for a moment that the great masters of political economy, like Adam Smith, said that the science had no practical application to human conduct, but it was said by political economists in that day. I do not think there is any political economist who will take up that standpoint to-day. Even those who dwell most upon its scientific and statistical aspect acknowledge now that the human nature side does come into and affect the whole question.
That is equally true—indeed much more true—with regard to this particular question. The purpose which we all have in view is the prevention or the eradication of a horrid evil which is flagrant in the midst of us, and it is when the methods come to be discussed that the moral side has to come in. I ventured to say on the former occasion, and I apologise for repeating it, that the moral side cannot be kept out because you are dealing with human beings. You have to behave in a totally different way from the way in which you would behave if you were dealing with animals. If you were dealing with the cattle plague or with the dog plague of rabies you might do so by killing the animal, but in this you are dealing with human beings and you cannot deal with
862
it in that way. It is not a purely physical or medical matter.
Lord Willoughby has to-night, as on former occasions, urged, and with my complete concurrence, that it is desirable that people should know and realise the gravity of the evil and the necessity and, if so be, the possibility, of combating it effectively. His eloquence on that point is not needed now. I think that I am entirely in agreement with him on that point. The cry has been raised that we want concealment. I do not want concealment. I want people to know everything that is to be known provided it is told in a proper way and told without panic. I believe it is desirable that the fullest possible knowledge should be extended on the whole subject. Whatever may have been said or thought a few years ago it is quite certain that since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission over which the noble Lord who has just spoken presided, the policy which to some extent perhaps existed before of complete silence on the subject or of suppression, not exactly of the facts but suppression of discussion respecting them, is dead. Everybody must know that this subject is before the world. We have to discuss it, whether we like it or not, and we cannot from the daily Press or anywhere else fail to find that it is constantly forward.
But what I am anxious to make clear is that those on whose behalf I speak—if I am allowed to speak on behalf of any group—are quite as anxious as those whom the noble Lord represents that the whole facts should be known, and that no kind of concealment of the deliberate sort, or of any other kind that we can avoid, shall take place in the matter. The noble Lord went so far as to say that it was doubtful morality to suppress the truth. I quite agree with him. I do not want to suppress the truth, and I do not know who does. Nowadays—I do not say it was ever so—nobody does, and I agree with him that it would be unwise, possibly doubtful morality, to suppress it. More than that, we are all in agreement in our desire to prevent and combat this disease. They are really unworthy taunts which are brought against those who are represented by the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, by some of those upon whom the noble Lord (Lord Willoughby de Broke) relied. Two of them I can quote. An article by Sir Archdall Reid said—

863
"Doctors as well as the general public are divided in opinion both as to whether it is right to prevent venereal diseases, and also as to the best means of doing so."
Are doctors divided as to whether it is wise to prevent venereal diseases? Can we find a member of the public that would take that view? I do protest against that kind of statement being made by such high authorities. And it is made in even blunter forms by some others to whom the noble Lord refers. The lady whose name he gave and who was written voluminously on the subject said—
"A section of the so-called 'religious' public is so benighted ethically that they actually desire to maintain venereal disease as a material hell into which to drop all offenders against their moral code."
This kind of argument might be treated with absolute contempt it its author had not been quoted to-night by the noble Lord as one upon whom he desires to rely as a guide in what we are to do in a subject of this kind. Nothing of the kind is said now by anybody who is worthy of being listened to, and I hope we shall not hear any more said as to its being necessary to meet an argument like that as if it existed now—the argument that it is desirable to maintain diseases in order that punishment should follow from an offence. There, I think, we are all in agreement.
The difficulty arises when the question comes as to the reliance or non-reliance on the self-disinfection about which the noble Lord has spoken so well and so clearly tonight. One school of thought in this matter relies—not infallibly but mainly—on personal disinfection, and desires to make universal provision for it. The other distrusts self-disinfection, and urges that the proper course is to advocate everywhere—in addition to advocating morality—cleanliness on the part of anyone, man or woman, who has subjected himself or herself to the possibility of infection, and then to obtain as early as possible treatment by those who can really give that treatment effectively. That is the difference which divides people. And in the distinction thus drawn you can find on either side of the line medical men of high authority. There is no doubt whatever that there are medical men of high authority who give support to the whole contention which the noble Lord has brought forward. We have testimony to that effect not by Sir Archdall
864
Reid only but by many others as well.
What I want to point out, and to put your Lordships on your guard against in studying this subject, is that those who are giving you statistics about what happened in regimental or barrack treatment in this matter skate lightly over this as if it were true with regard to the general public, and by a kind of sleight of hand—I do not think it was intentional on the part of the noble Lord, but, if it was intentional, it was exceedingly adroit—suddenly slip, as he did, from arguments and statistics which he was bringing out as regards barrack treatment under the careful supervision of Sir Archdall Reid to the application of that to the general public, of whom he speaks in the Notice which he has given, and to the steps given to instruct the general public in the matter. That is fraught with the greatest possible danger. Things which may be true with regard to men under discipline in barracks and elsewhere—though I distrust them there—may be absolutely untrue when you apply the same rule, or anything like the same rule, with regard to the general public. I distrust this system which is advocated. I distrust it for the disciplined forces, for the men in barracks or under military or naval discipline, but as regards the general public I not only distrust it but detest and abhor it. I believe it to be something prejudicial in the highest possible degree to public welfare and the public good.
The noble Lord and those who act with him use, as you would expect, careful, well chosen, and guarded language, and the blunt and brutal form in which the matter can express itself is not there, or is covered up by statements which are not susceptible of attack, because of the careful way in which they are formulated. But while the noble Lord and those who act with him avoid the blunter statement they do not, as far as I can see, avoid what it ultimately comes to in fact. We have the statements perfectly clearly, in plain facts. The lady whom the noble Lord referred to to-night says quite plainly (and this is a lady whom he has relied upon to-night for evidence) that every boy and girl in our parishes must be provided free with the outfit which will make them secure, and when you have done that all will be right "Go with clean people and you will be clean." That is the kind of treatment of

865
this subject, and I did not expect to hear the author quoted to us to-night. But if she is to be quoted let us understand what it means when it comes down to the plain English in which it will be used and understood up and down the country. The words which the noble Lord quoted—the kind of general words about early disinfection and self-disinfection—couched in that kind of language may not mean very much to very many of the public, but when you have it all in the form in which I have put it, quoted from this lady, we see what it means that we are being led to support, if we follow the line along which the noble Lord desires us to go.
The noble Lord has quoted the authority of the medical officer of health for one of our great boroughs as showing what is to be said in favour of the self-disinfecting process which he described. There are others not less entitled to weight, one or two of whom, after what he has said, I think I may be entitled to quote. The Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham says—
"In the first place, I am convinced that the only true prevention for civilians is sexual morality. The alternative which is suggested, of teaching the use of and supplying prophylactic outfits, will more surely destroy the family life of this nation than any other method you could advocate. To destroy the family is to destroy the nation. It was to similar methods that the glory of ancient Rome owed its eclipse."
I do not like repeating what was said on a former occasion, but the noble Lord rather tempts me that way as he has gone over again ground that he traversed before; therefore I do not think it is inappropriate to read what was said, which has never been withdrawn, by the high medical and military and naval authorities who dealt with this whole question with regard to the American troops when they were in this country. Colonel Snow, of the United States Army, said—
"In considering this matter in relation to the civil population, it seems to me, both from my experience in the Army and as a public health officer, that any measure which produces self-diagnosis and self-treatment, such as the 'prophylactic packet,' will militate against the early discovery and treatment of infected persons. In so far as the 'packet' has a bearing on the moral question, its official promulgation seems to me to favour increased sexual promiscuity."
I bring that forward because the noble Lord has, fairly and rightly, brought forward at any rate medical evidence of a weighty kind. There is a well-known passage, that I almost shrink from quoting again, which the American Navy Secretary
866
continued to circulate during the war as regards his views of the suggestions which have been put forward to-night. He said—
"The use of the packet I believe to be immoral; it savours of the panderer; and it is wicked to seem to encourage and approve placing in the hands of the men an appliance which will lead them to think they may indulge in practices which are not sanctioned by morality, military or civil law, with impunity, and the use of which would tend to subvert and destroy the very foundations of our moral and Christian beliefs and teachings with regard to these sexual matters."
These are strong words and I do not want necessarily to adopt them in their entirety, because I can imagine that something might be brought forward to qualify some of the evidence.
It would be sheer impertinence on my part to try and express a personal opinion on the medical and surgical aspect of this question, but at the same time I do not profess to be entirely ignorant about it. I have not only read about it, but I have spent trying hours in the hospitals seeing the actual processes so that I might be thoroughly conversant with what is happening. I am glad that such emphasis was laid by my noble friend on the weight attaching to what is said and done in this matter by the man to whom I believe we owe more in this respect than to anyone else—Colonel Harrison. He has been to the fore in the whole of this matter; he has worked at it, he has written and spoken about it, he has taught people on the subject, and to him, and to the careful and painstaking effort he has made to grapple with this subject, we owe more than words can say. Colonel Harrison is a prominent member of the Executive Committee of the Society for Combating Venereal Disease, the society which the noble Lord is opposing to-night. Colonel Harrison, with increasing certainty I think, is expressing himself in regard to this matter.
I do not know the date of the quotations used by the noble Lord, but a few months ago Colonel Harrison was a prominent member of the great Congress held at Newcastle where this, among other subjects, was discussed. There he said that he was opposed to the methods of prophylaxis by means of disinfectants for the use of the individual so far as they applied to the civil community. His reason was that the results would not justify the price to be paid. As for the results, it would be

867
conceded by every one that such methods would have a better chance of success in the Army, where men would be taught almost individually, and supervision generally must be closer than amongst civilians. Yet so far no general diminution of venereal incidence had occurred in the Army. The admission rate for all troops in the United Kingdom during the war had been approximately 38 per thousand per annum. It was the same to-day as it was before the introduction of prophylactic packets. The rate for English, Scottish and Irish troops was considerably lower than for Colonial troops, in spite of the fact that the prophylactic methods under discussion had been far less energetically pursued in the Imperial troops than among the Colonial. Probably the most energetic in this respect had been the Australians but their infection rate for troops in the United Kingdom was considerably higher at the end than at the beginning, when it had been 130 per 1,000 per annum. Those are the words of the Medical and Military authority to whom the noble Lord has specially referred and on whose authority he lays such stress. I think they are of first-rate importance when we are discussing the question of the difference between the two schools.
In that same speech Colonel Harrison points out the peril which would arise, from the use of the procedure which has been recommended to-night, as to the evasion of the Venereal Diseases Acts. Those Acts are intended to prevent the provision by quacks, or unskilled, or otherwise inappropriate people, of rough and ready remedies for venereal disease. Infinite mischief has come from that which these Acts try to prevent. Colonel Harrison points out in the next place that it is undoubtedly true that the public will use for curative purposes in that case what were not meant for curative purposes but what were issued for preventive purposes. It would be impossible to get people to distinguish between the two. He further says—
"The greatest factor in the reduction of venereal disease in the Army had been improvements in social conditions and encouragement of games; and the reduction was effected without recourse to any direct means of prophylaxis. The best hope of salvation now lies in the promptest possible treatment of venereal disease after its commencement."
I have troubled your Lordships with those quotations because Colonel Harrison is the gentleman on whom the noble Lord to a
868
large extent relies, and it is most important that the words of one who is such an expert, and to whom we all look for guidance, should be brought forward and dwelt upon on such an occasion as this.
The whole of that is summed up in Lord Astor's Report, which is given as the basis of the noble Lord's discussion and Motion to-night. I entirely agree with the desire that found expression that we should be furnished with the names of those who were Lord Astor's colleagues, and I hope that the noble Viscount when he speaks will be able to furnish us with the names of the medical authorities who, with Lord Astor, agreed in putting forward that Report. What the Report says is of the greatest possible importance, and I do not apologise for quoting a few sentences from it because the whole point of to-nights debate is involved. The Report says—
"The Committee desire me to point out that in their view many of those who wish the Government to utilise in peace time for the civil population methods which have been tried among the Forces in war have not sufficiently appreciated the fundamental differences between the two groups, or between the conditions of war and peace; nor have they been aware of the comparative failure of packets even in a disciplined force."
That is after taking all this evidence. Again—
"The civil authorities cannot command or control the general population, men and women, as officers can properly and legitimately control enlisted men."
Then a little later—
"That the issue of prophylactic packets tends to give rise to a false sense of security, and thus to encourage the taking of risks which would not be otherwise incurred, and the neglect of facilities for early treatment when available; and, in certain circumstances, might even increase the spread of disease."
Then—
"That the most carefully organised packet system, such as exists now in the Army (a system which would be unattainable in the civil community) has not produced such a general reduction in the incidence of venereal disease as to counteract the disadvantages mentioned in these conclusions.…The Committee set out to examine the evidence placed before them from the scientific and the medical point of view, and it is strictly in this spirit that they desire to record it as their opinion that the irreplaceable effect of the moral factor has been too frequently neglected or forgotten."
That is the result of the Committee's deliberations on the evidence taken before them. The Committee was appointed by His Majesty's Government to look into this

869
matter, and these quotations really conclude what I have to say. But the general issue is one of very great importance. I am quite sure that we under-rate the danger of arming men with supposed securities—of course, no one says absolute —against venereal disease, and arming them beforehand; and, still greater is the danger, if you make the same applicable, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, to young women. It is a quasi-encouragement of the gravest kind.
I do not want to rest that assertion upon opinions which come perhaps from a source which would be distrusted as coming from those whose special business it is to deal with ethical and moral questions. I much prefer to rest it on those whose primary duty is medical and surgical. Therefore I should like to quote from one of the foremost doctors dealing with this matter, Sir Malcolm Morris—
"If you provide a man with an outfit and assure him that it is a reliable safeguard against infection, do you not so far encourage him to the indulgence in which the outfit will come into play? You may accompany the outfit with an exhortation to practise continence. That is well. But which is the more likely to influence him, your words or your act? Do you not, by providing him with this safeguard, release him from the prudential restraint which might otherwise be effective?…It is a question of ethics. But it is much besides. It is a question of the effect that will be produced upon the mind of the man whom you prevail upon to accept the outfit and carry it about in his pocket ready for use at any moment. I submit that the mere possession of that outfit will tend to lessen his powers of resistance. He will not have had it in his pocket long before he will come to feel that he is a fool unless he indulges himself and brings it into use. No difference between prophylaxis and early preventive treatment! There is the difference between making it easy and not making it easy for a man to yield to temptation."
These are the words of a great medical authority who has given peculiar attention to the subject. He is an authority not only on the technical side, but also upon its bearings with regard to the general conduct and character of a man's life. I think the more closely this is looked into, and the more it is studied in the writings of those who have dealt with the matter in the largest way, the more will the conviction come to those who study it that we are liable to under-rate the moral effect of action which is supposed to make less the risk which at present exists. I do not admit that you do make it much less, but if you have to consider against that the greater number of persons whom you will
870
induce to run the risk—it is obvious that while a limited number of people are led to imagine that they are protected against the evil, at the same time a larger number of people are encouraged to subject themselves to the danger—you are defeating the very object you have in view.
If any one will refer to what has been said in the admirable work of Abraham Flexner in his "History of Prostitution," and look at the statistics from Copenhagen, Vienna, and Berlin, and see how he works them out and shows by actual charts and diagrams the way in which the extent of the moral wrong-doing varied with the increase of supposed facilities for the protection of the wrong-doer, he will be struck by finding how the man who produced this book with no other object than that of science, is led to the conclusion which I believe to be the right and true conclusion.
We have before us two different groups, to which the noble Lord has referred several times—the Society for Preventing Venereal Disease and the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease. Quotations have been made as if the medical authorities were chiefly on one side, but remember that the society which argues against the personal disinfection process and against the issue of packets, and in favour of the other process—I am speaking of the civil population and not of the technically military question, on which I have expressed my opinion before, but which concerns me less than that with regard to the general population—remember that the medical men on that side include the President of the Royal College of Physicians and the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and such leading medical men as Sir Thomas Barlow, a former President, Col. Harrison, Sir Arthur Pearce Gould and many more who could be named.
It is trifling to say that medical opinion is on one side. It is not for me to try to balance the long list on one side against the list on the other, but I have given the names of great medical authorities to show that we do not speak lightly when we say that we quote medical authority on the side I recommend. I very earnestly hope that no countenance will be given by any action on the part of this House to the recommendations to which I have referred, given in guarded terms by the noble Lord and in less guarded and perhaps therefore

871
a more useful form by those who advocate them in a blunt and full way—that free access should be given to everybody to obtain for nothing that which is supposed to protect them from the evil which is there. There is a right and a wrong way of dealing with the matter. The National Council seeks for the support of His Majesty's Government and hopes to hear to-night that that support is being more strongly given. I hope that we are going to adopt the right and not the wrong way.
THE EARL OF CLAN WILLIAM: My Lords, my only excuse for intervening in this debate is the fact that during the war I had a certain amount of practical experience in preventing the spread of this disease. Before I say more, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that I should like to support him in his request for Papers. I believe that anything that can be either said or done to prevent the spread of this appalling disease is worthy of the very serious consideration of the Government, and anything that can be done to secure that end should be done.
During the war I was attached to a Division, and it was one of my duties to collect evidence of cases of this disease and take what steps I could to prevent the disease spreading. As soon as a man was infected he was sent to me for interrogation and afterwards, accompanied by my French and English representatives, was sent to identify the woman. He then returned to me, was handed over to the medical authorities, and went to hospital to be treated and cured. The same thing happened to the woman. She was taken in charge by the French authorities and sent to hospital. In a very short time this reduced the number of cases of disease in that Division. As I was there for a considerable period I was able to take stock of the measures taken to prevent a spread of the disease, and I found there was no question but what this method was extremely effective. We found considerable difficulty in the cases of houses licensed by the Government, and there, although the women were supposed to be medically examined at frequent intervals, owing to certain reasons identification was not practicable. For that reason I would never advocate the existence of such houses in this country.
One other matter is worthy of note in this debate. The greatest difficulty I, or
872
any one in my position, had to contend with was the case of a man who had been at home on leave. The man went home and some of them, not all of them, came back infected, and it was absolutely impossible to carry out any identification. They returned to France or Belgium on leave, and it was some time before the medical authorities knew they were infected. During all that time they were going about spreading the disease. I do not wish to say anything more about that. Your Lordships will see the moral of it. It was our greatest difficulty and one we could not contend against. I have seen such a lot of this appalling disease that anything which can be done to prevent it will receive my hearty support. I shall support the Motion of the noble Lord.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this discussion deserves the thanks of the House for the manner in which he dealt with it. We all recognise his most earnest desire to deal with this subject and to do what is possible to combat it. I am in great sympathy with him, and perhaps he will therefore forgive me if I criticise just a little some of the things he said. The noble Lord advocated as the measure beyond all measures, superior to all, the one which should be made known to the public generally as the thing for dealing with venereal disease—early self-disinfection. In his Question on the Paper he asks the Ministry of Health what steps they are taking to instruct the public in the proper application of immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to infection. It seemed to me his enthusiasm was a little like that of people who think they have suddenly discovered a specific which has never been heard of before and which can be relied upon to remove all the evils if it is adopted.
In a matter of this kind considerable caution is required before you can be sure you really have a specific and certain remedy. I gathered from the criticisms of Lord Sydenham that, although medical opinion admits apparently that immediate self-disinfection, properly applied, is almost practically a certain preventive, there is still a very great difference of opinion as to whether in the case of the ordinary public there is a reasonable chance that it will be properly applied so as to be effective. It is obvious these are medical questions which must be settled by experience,

873
statistics, and doctors, and upon which your Lordships cannot express an opinion.
If these questions are still in dispute as is perfectly obvious they are, and if there is a great deal of doubt about it, is it wise and safe to recommend to the public this method as being perfectly certain and perfectly safe? Are you not really running very considerable risk? Lord Sydenham uttered a word of caution which I should like to endorse. The noble Lord read one of the advertisements and notices to the public which said, "This is the only way to safety." That does seem to me to be rather a dangerous statement to put forward to the ordinary ignorant layman and one which is likely to lead him into a sense of false security. It is probable that that which is merely a disinfectant may also be used as a curative treatment. I think caution is perhaps a little required in a matter of this sort, and a more considerable measure of medical agreement than we have at the moment before you give official advice to the whole community.
The most rev. Primate dealt with a question which is of obvious importance; the effect of this sort of thing on the morals of the community, and he read a sentence, which rather surprised me, from the report of a lady doctor which in terms said that these things were to be taught to every boy and girl. You would in effect have a licence for prostitution, almost an invitation to promiscuous intercourse. That of course from the moral point of view is not in the least desirable, and you are faced there, and the most rev. Primate himself is I am sure prepared to face the position fairly, with the difficulty which is always apt to arise in matters of this sort. You have a widespread scourge which you know is enormously widespread; you know that the populace as a whole is not continent, and that this disease is rampant, and you always have the difficulty of drawing the line as between telling as many people as is necessary and telling too many. If you are really to be effective you must tell the innocent. If you tell those who are already infected, you are rather too late.
On the whole I think we have come to the conclusion, and the most rev. Primate seems to support the view, that perfect frankness and openness and instruction in these matters is better than concealment, but that instruction ought to be under some safeguard and certainly ought not to be given unless you are sure it is the
874
right instruction, and that you are making no mistake in giving it. Less indeed than the most rev. Primate himself can I profess to know of the medical questions involved, but it seems to me a matter which is for experts to decide. It has undoubtedly two branches. One, purely scientific and medical, and the other a question of morals. The question of what is the proper or best treatment does not enter into the question of morals. You must first ascertain what is the proper treatment and the application of that knowledge is not involved in questions of morals, on which we can all have different opinions. I am entirely inclined to support the noble Lord's campaign, but I think it wants caution in its administration.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I rise only because, as has been already mentioned, I was Chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses which dealt, now a year ago, with the Sexual Offences Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill introduced into this House. I do not desire to give any opinion upon the merits or otherwise of the prophylaxis which is recommended by the noble Lord who opened this debate. I am not competent to give any opinion upon the subject and it did not come before the Joint Committee in any way, and therefore I have had no opportunity of dealing with that side of the subject. I only wish to say this. I cannot at present get over my own feeling of repugnance towards the sort of presumption that fornication is to take place, which seems to be involved in presenting people with these packets; nor can I get over the repugnance which I feel towards the idea that everybody, even the youngest, is to have instruction and suggestion in this direction. It was not to deal with that subject that I got up. It was that I think this is a fair opportunity for asking the Government, or the representative of the Ministry of Health in this House, whether all the labours of that Joint Committee, which worked for a long time and with great assiduity, at the end of last session, are to be thrown away or whether the Ministry of Health propose to take any action upon this subject.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, with regard to the last sentence which fell from my noble and learned friend, of course he will readily understand that I am not in a position to give information

875
one way or the other as to the future course in regard to that Committee, which was set up in reference to two particular Bills. I will, however, mention the matter to the Minister of Health, and probably take an opportunity of informing my noble and learned friend privately.
I should like to join with others who have once again remarked in what a fitting manner my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke introduced this subject. We all recognise my noble friend's singleness of purpose and his enthusiasm in pressing the cause which he thinks may be so useful to his fellow countrymen. It makes me regret all the more that I do not see eye to eye with him. I was also very glad to hear the experience of the noble and gallant Lord who has served his country so well in France. This debate, of course, bears a very close family resemblance to the debate which we had in April, and I shall, you will be glad to hear, not have to detain you very long at this hour, because really the speech of the most rev. Primate was of such a character that I think I might almost have left the question in his hands although, of course, my noble friend will expect me to say something on behalf of the Government.
It was suggested by my noble friend on the cross benches, and also by the most rev. Primate that it might be for the convenience of the House and of the public if they knew the names of the Committee who sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Astor. Noble Lords will understand that there is no mystery about it. I shall be very glad to give the names, and to give them at once, to the most rev. Primate and to the House. I may remind your Lordships that this Committee, as I think has already been stated in this House and in the Commons, was a Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Health to inquire at the time of demobilisation into a number of parasitical and infectious diseases, such as malaria and venereal disease, and to take evidence from expert and other witnesses and to report. The case of both sides in this controversy was fully represented before the Committee, and perhaps noble Lords would like to hear the reference to the Committee. It was "To consider the possible risks of introduction of infectious and parasitical conditions into the country in the course of demobilisation from the
876
various fronts, and to make recommendations for the purpose of securing close and effective co-operation in administrative measures for dealing with these conditions on the naval and military (including the Air Service) and the civil side."
The members of the Committee were Viscount Astor, Chairman; Major W. C. Smales, D.S.O., M.R.C.S. (War Office); Colonel L. W. Harrison, D.S.O., K.H.P., M.B. (War Office); Surgeon-Captain D. J. McNabb, C.B., R.N., M.R.C.S. (Admiralty); Lieut.-Colonel H. F. Horne, R.A.F., M.D., (Air Force); Dr. G. S. Buchanan, C.B., M.D. (Ministry of Health); Dr. F. J. H. Coutts, M.D. (Ministry of Health); Colonel A. L. A. Webb, C.B., C.M.G., M.R.C.S. (Ministry of Pensions); Mr. J. Smith Whitaker, M.R.C.S. (Insurance); and Sir Leslie Mackenzie, M.D., LL.D. (Local Government Board for Scotland).
I should like to mention once more the name of Colonel Harrison, who has been referred to in the course of this debate. The noble Lord quoted from a lecture which was given by him, and which was also referred to by the most rev. Primate. Colonel Harrison advised in favour of the self-disinfection system in October, 1918, judging from the figures which he had then been given of the results of skilled disinfection in the American Navy, and from some Australian statements, but at a later date he had an opportunity of seeing and watching the figures of our Army, showing the rates of the disease after the disinfection policy had been for some time disseminated and to an increasing degree in operation. It was his discovery that such large numbers of soldiers still caught the disease, in spite of the prevalence of the new system, which caused Colonel Harrison to realise that the efficacy of self-disinfection was much lower than he had expected in October, 1918, it would be, and made him realise that for the civil population it would be still less efficacious, and that such good as might be gained would involve other things whose disadvantage would far outweigh the good.
In dealing with this subject so soon after it was dealt with in April, it seems almost impossible to avoid appearing to repeat one or two of the things which I said on that occasion, but I shall do so as little as possible. I would, however, point out that this cleansing is, of course, only one item in a propaganda which has been put forward by a society which has been subsidised

877
for that purpose. The other items in the propaganda have already been referred to, and I do not think that I need refer to them again. In regard to some of the figures to which my noble friend refers—and I hope to be able to meet him by giving the Papers and figures he requires—it has been frankly asserted by such gentlemen as Sir Archdall Reid that if only the civil population were instructed to use proper disinfecting drugs such as permanganate of potassium immediately after exposure to infection, and if outfits for this purpose were made generally available, the risk of venereal disease would be avoided, and that if this policy were made general by the Government the disease would before long disappear. But careful investigation has conclusively shown that even amongst the military, where disciplinary arrangements can be resorted to and instruction can definitely be given, there are found amongst soldiers in venereal disease hospitals substantial numbers of men who state categorically that they used permanganate of potassium within a few minutes after exposure. It is thus clear that even in circumstances specially favourable to instruction and to the method proposed, the risk of venereal disease is by no means certainly avoided; for even in those conditions a certain number of cases occur. How much more then would this be the case, and how far removed should we still be from secured immunity with the civil population, in respect of whom the arrangements as to instruction and discipline adopted for the military would obviously be quite impossible?
As to the Portsmouth position, which was, I think, specially mentioned by my noble friend, the information received as to the number of soldiers admitted to hospital for venereal disease per thousand of the total military strength in the United Kingdom and in the Portsmouth military area, respectively, shows that the incidence of venereal disease amongst the military in the Portsmouth area from 1912 to 1914 was approximately one and a-half times greater than that amongst the military throughout the United Kingdom. In the years from 1916 to 1918, the rates for the Portsmouth area were approximately twice those of the United Kingdom; and in the current year, 1919, the rate in the Portsmouth area has been two and a-half times that of the United Kingdom. I believe that I am right in saying that in the years 1918 and 1919 the policy advocated by
878
Sir Archdall Reid was at its height in that area.
In regard to the statements by Colonel Harrison, it is admitted that skilled disinfection very shortly after intercourse will usually prevent venereal disease, but inquiries at military hospitals show that this is by no means the case when the disinfectant is applied by the man himself, and this even when he has been in a military unit under military discipline, and has been furnished with the usual lectures and posters together with personal instruction. Thus in the venereal hospitals where this matter had been carefully investigated 7·3 per cent. of the patients stated that they had swabbed themselves with permanganate of potassium solution within ten minutes after exposure. A further 36 per cent. had similarly, that is within ten minutes, used calomel ointment, and a further 1·5 per cent. had used both calomel and permanganate. Thus, in these two hospitals there were 12·4 per cent. of the venereal patients who stated that they had disinfected themselves with the drugs advised, within ten minutes after exposure. In another military hospital, 11·2 per cent. of the patients stated that they had themselves used permanganate, or calomel, or both, within five minutes after exposure.
It may be noted that these inquiries show a further and different point—namely, that the clear instructions of the medical officers on early treatment had in a large proportion of the cases either not been observed at all or had been followed in the most diverse ways. From this it is seen that, to be effective, instruction must be given much more clearly and insistently than has yet been accomplished in the Army, even by the lectures, posters and personal instructions given freely in many units.
It has been suggested that instruction in that degree of detail and thoroughness should be given to the civil population. I venture to say that instruction in that degree of detail in regard to the civil population is a practical impossibility. As to what can be recommended by the Minister of Health I may say this. Bearing in mind that if the Ministry recommended any specific disinfectant it would be necessary to issue formal advice as to its use, and that this advice, and also a regular supply of the particular drug, would have to be made available through the usual

879
channels—with all the risk of misuse and of creating a false sense of security—the Minister is not prepared in the present position of the evidence to authorise a recommendation of any drug for these purposes. He would, however, be prepared to sanction the issue of advice in some such form as the following: "Those who have exposed themselves to infection are hereby advised that they have incurred grave risk of venereal disease. Persons who have incurred such risk of infection will certainly diminish that risk, to some extent at least, by effectively cleansing themselves immediately. They are further advised to watch carefully for several weeks for the first signs of disease, and to seek medical advice at a clinic or elsewhere immediately such signs appear."
I believe that what I am about to say has been referred to already, but perhaps your Lordships will pardon me if I repeat what has been well said. It has been said that there is this danger, that the preventive might be used in place of a curative, and that if a preventive is used it might tend, as I think was pointed out from the Cross Benches, to drive the disease deeper and deeper into the system. The use of these things by self-application might tend to prevent men from seeking proper treatment, and by the use of them the impression would prevail, as the right reverend Primate pointed out, that risks might be taken with impunity, thereby increasing promiscuity. On these grounds the Minister, seeing the doubtful results in the case of men under discipline, did not think it right to go further than I stated a moment ago, and I am bound to say that, having read a great deal about this matter officially and otherwise, especially in regard to the use and misuse of disinfectants owing to carelessness and want of knowledge on the part of individuals, the Minister has put himself in an impregnable position in not going further than he has.
My noble friend Moved for certain Papers. The Papers he moves for are those giving information as to the early incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared with the rest of England, Colonel Keble's Report, and the Hilsea, Hospital records. I understand that the War Office has no official reports from Colonel Keble, but in regard to the figures, and the Hospital records that my noble friend desires, I shall be able to place on the Table the Memorandum with those
880
figures, and they will also have side by side with them the necessary statistical explanations, without which in either direction such figures might be misleading. I hope I have been able to give the information desired, though the debate developed in such a way that speeches were made which really-answered the questions on my behalf.
LORD RANKSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much disappointed that there has been nothing in this important debate on the subject of notification. It has all been prophylactics and things of that sort, and it seems to me that we are at the wrong end of the problem. I was three years at Cambridge, and I have spent my life among soldiers, and my experience is that the chief agent for keeping a man clean has been the fear of consequences. Of course, there are many men who rise above that level, but it has been the athlete's and the sportsman's fear of the consequences that has been the chief motive. We should not diminish that fear. I think we should endeavour to increase it and if possible to make it into a terror. The only way to do that is by publicity, that is, the notification to some public body, in the same way as is done with other contagious diseases.
I am aware of the arguments against it—the stigma, and the difficulty with doctors, and the danger of driving it underground. But it has been underground ever since I can remember, and the question is—Do we intend to kill this invisible demon? If we do we shall not succeed by stroking its back in the dark. By all means have the best advice as to precautions for those who may require it, but let them be under no delusion as to what will happen if these gruesome safeguards fail. I am convinced that if we are going to tackle this scourge and destroy it we can only do it by the daylight of notification.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, my friends and I have thought a great deal about this question of notification, and I have given some attention to it myself. It is too late to go into the whole subject of notification to-night. There are very serious pitfalls about notification, and I should say that you are much more likely to be able to insist on notification of venereal disease after you have provided the means of preventing it. When you have found out whether somebody has or has not used the means of prevention, then I

881
should think that the State would be in a much stronger position with regard to notification. But in the present state of public opinion my view is that anything like public notification would not stand a chance of being carried in this country, and the most we could hope for at present would be some form of anonymous notification. But it is, nevertheless, a very important aspect of the prevention of venereal disease, and we are not losing sight of it. I shall take what the noble Viscount said as equivalent to accepting my Motion for Papers.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I said I would give my noble friend the Papers and figures, except Colonel Keble's Report, which we have not got.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Therefore I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division. But I think it is unfortunate that we have not proceeded further in combating venereal disease than a promise from the Minister of Health of a certain amount of soap and water. We do not seem to have made very great strides in any direction, and the noble Viscount in his courteous and well-considered reply did not say much about these early treatment centres. Has that been abandoned as part of the policy of disinfection, or what has happened to it? Some stress during this debate has been laid on ablution rooms where it is properly carried out by a skilful attendant. Are we to understand that the policy of the Government now with regard to disinfection of any kind before the symptoms have declared themselves is merely soap and water? I do not quite follow the Government policy about this. The most rev. Primate, who was extremely kind to me in his reply, as he always is, was rather annoyed at me for quoting Miss Ettie Rout, and he gave me to understand that she was not the kind of witness that I ought to bring forward on my side. In answer to that I should like to remind him that I have only quoted facts, and did not quote anybody's opinion except Colonel Harrison's. I regret that since April last when we brought forward this matter the Government have taken no further steps to deal with this question. Still, this is going to occupy a considerable portion of public controversy, and I dare say we shall hear a good deal more about it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH EDUCATION ASSESSMENTS.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON asked His Majesty's Government whether representations from any parish councils in Scotland in protest of the heavy assessments under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, have been received; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry at this late hour to detain your Lordships, but I have put the Question to-night and do not postpone it again because the action referred to in my Motion is in connection with a parish council which has just ceased to exist, and as it may be rather convenient for the new parish council to know what is the reply of the Government with regard to the matter I bring before your Lordships' notice. I may say that the assessment under the Scottish Education Act has caused a great deal of resentment certainly in my part of Scotland, and, I gather from the newspapers, in other parts also; hence I want to know how widespread this resentment is entertained throughout Scotland. As chairman of my parish council it came as a most startling surprise to me when a demand note was presented for an increase of about 800 per cent. on our old assessment. Up to now our School Board has cost about £240 a year, but under the new demand note it will be £1,797. That is rather larger than in many other parishes, but a 600 per cent. increase is not uncommon, as I can show from a statement which has been furnished to me. It is not only the enormous increase but the inequality of the increase which has caused so much criticism in Scotland. In one parish the rate has gone up by only ½id., while in the adjoining parish it has gone up from 1s. 3d. to 2s. 4d. In many parishes the rate has gone up only 33⅓ per cent., but in most of the rural parishes it has gone up from 600 to 800 per cent. The money levied is not to be spent in the parishes but by the Education authority for the whole of the country. The only money that is going to be spent in the parish itself would be for an increase in the teacher's salary and for the production of free books and stationery; all the rest will go to the big centres where the secondary schools are established. In a statement made the other day by the chairman of the education authority for Lanarkshire he stated that the object of this Act was to allow of the rural population obtaining greater facilities for education; and he also referred to the fact that in the past they had often

883
been crippled by the penuriousness of their School Boards. Apparently that is the sole justification for this Act. The people in Scotland are most ignorant of, or at any rate did not realise, what would be the consequences of this Act. I should like to hear the reply of the noble Lord before I make any further remarks.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I may say, in reply to the noble Lord's Question, that the Scottish Education Department has received a considerable number of representations from individual parish councils and from conferences of parish councils in protest of the heavy assessments upon their parishes under this Act. These protests, however, are from a minority of the whole body of parish councils and fall roughly into two classes—namely, those from parishes in the Highland counties, which are numerous; and more or less isolated representations from the parish councils of agricultural parishes in the Lowlands, with high or moderately high valuations, who find themselves merged under the Act of 1918 in a populous education area of a predominantly industrial character. As to the Highland parishes it is found on examination that, generally speaking, the protesting parishes were already highly rated; that the assessment has been steeply increased in the present year, and that they had heavy debit balances at the close of the financial year ending 1919, for which under the Act they had to rate specially this year in addition to the common rate on the education area which they had to pay as well as other parishes in the area; and that this year they had been deprived for the time being of certain special grants which they had enjoyed under the former rêgime.
With education areas of this character—the remark applies to the education areas as a whole rather than to individual parishes—the Department have the greatest possible sympathy. In point of fact, the Secretary for Scotland has just announced his intention of laying a Minute to-morrow to provide for the payment of grants to certain Highland counties of a higher proportion of their approved expenditure than is normal, and I trust that this, if approved by Parliament, will do something to remedy the grievance of which complaint is made. With the Lowland parishes it is quite otherwise. Generally speaking, under the former system they were not highly rated. On the contrary,
884
in many of them the rates were abnormally low, partly because of their relatively high valuation and partly because of the economies shown in providing educational facilities. Generally speaking also, they have no debts, or debts of relatively small amounts. What has happened is this. These parishes have been merged in a larger rating area and have to take their share, according to valuation, of the common burden. Of course there is here a prima facie grievance. There is apt to be a grievance whenever one has to pay rates for a purpose which benefits one's neighbours more than oneself, but that is a defect inherent in any system of general rating.
If rating is admitted at all (as it must be), the only question is what is the most suitable unit. In the matter of education, at all events, and in the interests of future educational developments, a county unit is preferable to a parish (or burgh) unit. One consequence of the substitution of the county for the parish as the unit of rating is the approximate equalisation of rates throughout the larger area. This equalisation may be disguised by the nominal difference of rates as between parishes owing to the different system of deductions obtaining in different parishes. A sum is demanded from each parish according to its gross valuation. That sum may be collected according to the particular system of rating obtaining in the parish. The broad result is that, assuming the total sum to be raised from rates for education in the county area had remained the same as under the School Board system, the rates of some parishes would have gone up and those of others would have been diminished so as to produce an approximately uniform levy of rates throughout the county on a basis of gross valuation. This equalisation of rates throughout the county is one cause, and an important cause, of the in crease of assessment complained of by certain parish councils, being, generally speaking, those whose valuation was relatively high and their expenditure under the former system low.
To take Lanarkshire, for instance, I see that Lamington was rated at slightly over 4½d., while Dalziel's education rate was 3s. 2d. In Dumbartonshire, the rate for Old Kilpatrick was 3s. 0½d. while for Dumbarton (Landward) it was only 1¾ d. This substitution of the county for the parish as the administrative and rating

885
unit for education is a foundation principle of the Act and cannot be departed from; but there is no doubt that its general application, particularly in the case of sparsely populated agricultural or pastoral parishes merged in a unit mainly industrial in character, constitutes a grievance amounting in certain cases to hardship. Such cases are engaging the attention of the Department with a view, if possible, to devising some suitable form of relief. But the material for any complete examination of the position is not yet available. Returns have been asked for from each Education Authority which would supply the necessary information, but, though reminders have been sent, these returns from many authorities are still outstanding.
I am glad to add that the Secretary for Scotland had just announced his intention of making payment this year of what are known as "accrued" grants. A Minute to that end will be laid to-morrow, and, if approved by Parliament, the effect will be that all parish councils, including those just referred to, will be credited with considerable sums which will go some way to meet the grievances complained of, for this year at least. But the equalisation of rates is only one cause of the increase of assessment in certain parishes, for there has been added, not only in these parishes but to all education authorities, an increase of assessment due to certain improvements in education which the Act contemplated as necessary or desirable.
Foremost amongst these, and the necessary foundation for all further educational development, is the adequate remuneration of teachers. The grounds for this increase are twofold—the inadequacy of the present remuneration of large classes of existing teachers to provide a living wage, still less to provide them with the books and opportunities for further study which are essential to success in their profession; and—the second ground is even more important—the absolute necessity of attracting to the profession a larger supply of well-educated men and women in the future. The number of entrants to the profession has been dwindling in recent years, and unless a successful attempt is made to attract suitable recruits to the profession with the certain prospect of adequate remuneration in comparison with other competing professions and occupations, there is great danger of many schools, even as they stand, becoming derelict or
886
of being left to the tender mercies of a lower class of teacher of imperfect educational attainments. But there is an item of an immediate increase of expense which must not be overlooked. One-seventh of the whole school population of Scotland have hitherto been taught in denominational schools.
LORD LAMINGTON: One-seventh?
LORD STANMORE: One-seventh. Apart from Government grants they have hitherto been maintained solely at the expense of the denomination to which they belong, and, from poverty of resources, both the school premises, generally speaking, and the salaries which the managers could offer teachers were much below the level of those of the public authorities. These schools are now, for the most part, transferred to the new authorities, and a great deal of money will have to be spent to bring up these schools to the general level of the others as regards all-round efficiency.
There are other increases of expenditure, more or less of a voluntary nature, which in the circumstances of certain districts seem almost inevitable. There is the question of free books and stationery, referred to by the noble Lord, which has hitherto been given by certain school boards in the district under the Act of 1908. It is difficult for the authority of any such district to continue the practice in the schools in which it was formerly in use by the school boards, and refuse it to others. Lastly, there is the requirement of Section 6 of the Act for an adequate provision of all forms of education, including secondary, without payment of fees, and in certain districts this may also lead to an increase in the cost of education.
For these various reasons the budgets of education authorities are very much swollen, compared with the total expenditure on education of the previous year. No doubt most, if not all, of this expenditure is really necessary under the terms of the Act. But the budgets were prepared in circumstances which made an accurate estimate of the expenditure in most cases very difficult. There are also marked differences in the proportion of increase which is considered necessary by different authorities. In view of these circumstances, it is hoped that, by a careful scrutiny of the various items, the amounts under some heads may be found to be in excess of what is actually required.
Lord LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his considerate answer. He practically infers that the accrued grant is going to be paid over to the school committees. I am afraid, as regards my own parish, it will only be £80, which will not go very far to meet £1,797. However, it is something. I hope it may be larger in the case of other parishes. The noble Lord referred to the fact that all these improvements in the education system have been for the benefit of agricultural parishes; which must take a share in the general ratings. It is a distinct hardship that, whereas in Lanarkshire generally the average works out at £9 per head as the cost of this education, in Lamington—an extreme case—it comes out to £40. We know that the question of rating is a very big one, and we cannot deal with it on an occasion like this, but the hardship remains that, whereas the general average is £9, in certain parishes it is £40 or £45 per child, and this money has to be found in the locality.
While the Act is supposed to be for the benefit of the rural population an extreme animosity against the Act comes from the rural population. I have not met a single person who is not indignant, who does not say he fears the Act, and did not know it was going to be passed. These people did not want the Act. The noble Lord has said that the increase this year is for the pay of salaries and teachers, which I believe to be a most necessary object indeed. And he said that it was very largely the case of the denominational teachers who had been underpaid up to now. That means a tremendous benefit to the Roman Catholic community, who are the only people who have voluntary schools, except, I think, the Episcopal Church, which has one or two. Practically, the Roman Catholics will benefit by the enormous increase of the education assessment.
I rather gather from the noble Lord that the authorities will look into the matter to see if they cannot give some redress. If they do not, I think this is only a forecast of what is coming in succeeding years, when there are going to be secondary schools and continuation schools, and I am told on a reliable authority that we can expect the rates to go up to 8s. in the £ for education alone. That will simply cripple us altogether—certainly, the unfortunate landlords in Scotland who pay half
888
the rates, unlike those in England. I am grateful for the answer, but the Government will realise that the Act has caused hostility among all sections of the population. I can truthfully say that it has done so among all those I have met in any part of Scotland.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 22, page 10, line 14, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
("(3) The list of persons qualified and liable to serve as jurors in a court shall not be delivered by the sheriff or high bailiff to the registrar of the court unless and until a demand is made by the registrar in that behalf.")
Clause 26, page 11, line 37, at end insert:
("Provided that where the principal value of the estate of the dependant so dying exceeds one hundred pounds, any sum paid under this section without probate or letters of administration shall be liable to estate duty as part of the amount on which that duty is charged, and the county court shall, before making any such payment, require a statutory declaration by the claimant, or by one of the claimants, that the principal value of the estate, including the sum in question, does not, after deduction of debts and funeral expenses, exceed the value of one hundred pounds, or the production of a letter or certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating either that all duties payable in respect of the sum in question have been paid, or that no duty thereon is payable.")
Clause 27, page 12, line 18, leave out ("January") and insert ("April").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In moving that these Amendments be considered, I may tell your Lordships that they are purely formal.
Moved, That these Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of December 9.]

GLASGOW CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a
890
(The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to give notice that it is proposed, for the general convenience of your Lordships, to meet at three o'clock on Friday afternoon to continue and conclude the debate which will be opened to-morrow on the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.