Sitting of 26 February 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Belfast Harbour Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 28.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  DEMOBILISATION.

    INDIAN ARMY RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers of the Indian Army Reserve of Officers belonging to Government Departments in India will, on return from military service to their civil duties, be granted indulgence passages to England such as are available for junior officers of the Indian Army in peace time?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The transport service is not at present under the control of the Secretary of State for India. He sympathises with the object in view, but is advised that the pressure on accommodation is likely to be so heavy that, after satisfying prior claims, room would not be available, or at most only to a very limited extent, for the officers referred to. The announcement of their eligibility for indulgence passage would, therefore; in all probability, only lead to disappointment.
    Colonel YATE: Considering that many of these young officers have been wounded and cannot get home, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly do something to help them in this matter?
    Mr. FISHER: I will see that my hon. and gallant Friend's point is put.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that very heavy hardship is being inflicted both upon Army officers and Indian civilians by the enhanced fares from India, and that this is all the harder, in view of the large dividends paid by the principal shipping company in India?
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the pensions awarded to officers in India of the Indian Army Reserve of Officers who have been invalided out of the Service have remained unpaid for more than a year after they are due, orders can be issued to the Controller of Military Accounts in India to accelerate payment and to reform his Department in this respect?
    Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State for India has ascertained from the Government of India that they have been able to trace one case only in which the issue of pension has been delayed for a year. The delay in this case is due to very exceptional circumstances. The Secretary of State will be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will bring to his notice any cases in which undue delay is alleged.
    Colonel YATE: I will send them to the Secretary of State.

    OFFICERS'WIVES (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the wives of officers who are being sent home from India for demobilisation will be given as a rule, and excepting in cases of illness, a preference over other applicants for passages, in order that their husbands may not be put to the expense of maintaining them after their own departure from India?
    Mr. FISHER: Arrangements already in operation for regulating the priority of passages for persons wishing to travel from India to this country provide for the special claims of the families of officers and men sent home from India on demobilisation.

    ROYAL MARINES (TRADESMEN).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that pensioners and time-expired men of the Royal Marines are being refused discharge for the reason that these men are

    1711
    tradesmen, e.g., bootmakers and the like, and that in answer to their application for discharge they are told—Supply someone to take your place and you can go tomorrow; and will he either order the immediate discharge of these men or pay them the wages they would receive in civil life?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The clothing and boots for Royal Marines are all made in our own workshops. On the outbreak of war a number of active service men employed in these shops had to be released for more active employment, their places being taken by pensioners and specially enlisted men. As it is necessary still to keep up the supply of clothing and boots, it is necessary to retain these men until reliefs can be found for them, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that every effort is being made to obtain suitable men to release those due for demobilisation. I should add that these tradesmen, in addition to their military pay and allowances, all earn extra pay according to the work they do.
    Mr. HOHLER: Will my right hon. Friend state what is the amount of extra pay they earn? Has it any relation to that in civil life?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that, but over and above their military pay and allowances, tailors and shoemakers in Royal Marine barracks are earning on an average: tailors, by piece work, 29s. a week; shoemakers, 15s. 6d.
    Mr. HOHLER: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these men in civil life would get at least £3 a week, and, in view of their service, ought they not to be the first to be considered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, and my hon. and learned Friend will notice I have said that every effort is being made to obtain suitable men so that these men due for demobilisation shall be released.

    ARTICLED CLERKS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether articled clerks who enlisted subsequently to 1st January, 1916, are not now permitted to be demobilised; and, if so, whether any exception can be made in the case of young men who have to pursue their studies to prepare for examination?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The Instructions issued by the Army Council in fulfilment of the Government's decision as to the Armies of Occupation do not admit of any exception being made in favour of particular occupations. Articled clerks who joined for service after 1st January, 1916, will therefore be retained in the Armies of Occupation, unless they are eligible for demobilisation under those Instructions.

    RUINED BUSINESSES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister what provisions the Government have made for assisting discharged and demobilised officers and men for rehabilitating them in businesses ruined on account of their service; whether applications can now be made; and, if so, to whom and where?
    Mr. PRATT: This matter is now under consideration, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to issue a statement on these points shortly.
    Mr. HOGGE: Again, I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can say when one may put down a question with the idea of getting a definite reply? This question has been asked since the beginning of the Session.
    Mr. PRATT: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put it down again next week, when I hope that my right hon. Friend will be here.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will put it down on Monday.

  INDIA.

    DEFENCE FORCE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India for the permanent establishment of the Indian Defence Force?
    Mr. FISHER: The Government of India proposed to constitute a force which will replace the Indian Defence Force under modifications suitable to post-war conditions. Pending the settlement of various questions in connection with the constitution, organisation and training of this Force they propose to continue temporarily the Indian Defence Force in its present form.

    IMPERIAL POLICE SERVICE; (INCREASED PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state what is the increased scale of pay that has been granted to the Indian Imperial Police Service?
    Mr. FISHER: The information asked for is, for greater convenience, being published in the Official Report. The new scale takes effect from the 1st January last.
    The following is the information referred to:
    [NOTE.—The salaries are paid in rupees, but for convenience their sterling equivalents are also stated, at the pre-war standard rate of exchange of 1s. 4d. the rupee. Exchange has fluctuated during the War and the rupee for the present stands at about 1s. 6d.]
    A time scale has been introduced as below, with effect from 1st January, 1919. In this a distinction is made between a "junior scale" and a "senior scale." All officers enter on the "junior scale," but when they attain certain posts of higher responsibility they receive an extra allowance of Rs. 150 a month (£120 a year), and are classed as coming under the "senior scale." The "junior scale" and the "senior scale" in this way overlap.

    TIME SCALE, Rs. a month (£ a year).

    Year.

    Junior.

    Senior.

    Rs.

    £

    Rs.

    £

    1st

    350

    (280)

    —

    2nd

    400

    (320)

    —

    3rd

    400

    (320)

    —

    4th

    450

    (360)

    600

    (480)

    5th

    450

    (360)

    600

    (480)

    6th

    500

    (400)

    650

    (520)

    7th

    500

    (400)

    650

    (520)

    8th

    550

    (440)

    700

    (560)

    9th

    *600

    (480)

    750

    (600)

    10th

    650

    (520)

    800

    (640)

    11th

    700

    (560)

    850

    (680)

    12th

    750

    (600)

    900

    (720)

    13th

    800

    (640)

    950

    (760)

    14th

    850

    (680)

    1,000

    (800)

    15th

    900

    (720)

    1,050

    (840)

    16th

    —

    1,100

    (880)

    17th

    —

    1,150

    (920)

    18th

    —

    *1,200

    (960)

    19th

    —

    1,250

    (1,000)

    20th

    —

    1,250

    (1,000)

    21st

    —

    1,300

    (1,040)

    22nd

    —

    1,300

    (1,040)

    23rd

    —

    1,350

    (1,080)

    24th

    —

    1,350

    (1,080)

    25th and over

    —

    1,400

    (1,120)

    * Increase of salary beyond this figure is subject to fitness.

    The pay of Deputy-Inspectors General has also been increased to rs. 1,600 a month (£1,280 a year), rising by annual increments of Rs. 100 a month (£80 a year) to Rs. 2,000 month (£1,600 a year).

    MEMORIAL IN LONDON.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what has been, is being, or will be done, in connection with the proposed Indian memorial in London?
    Mr. FISHER: I have no information regarding this proposal, and shall be glad of any particulars which the hon. Member may be able to give me.

    BURMA (REFORMS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any scheme of reforms for Burma, to be brought into force concurrently with or subsequently to the reforms contemplated for India, is now before the Government of India?
    Mr. FISHER: A draft scheme has been prepared by the Lieutenant-Governor, and published in the "Burma Official Gazette" for criticism. In its final form it has not yet reached the Government of India.

    HINDU UNIVERSITY, BENARES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what relation, if any, the Hindu University at Benares, which has lately held its first Convocation, bears to the Educational Department of the Government of India or to the educational institutions with which that Department deals?
    Mr. FISHER: The Benares Hindu University is not under the supervision or direction of the Department of Education. It is a denominational university, established in response to a popular demand for a university specifically adapted to the needs of the Hindu community, and it has been liberally endowed by that community. In many important respects it is more independent than other Indian universities. Such State control as the Act of Foundation provides is vested in the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province in his capacity of Visitor, and in the Viceroy as the Lord Rector. The Governor-General in Council has also an emergency power of intervention.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Has this university received any Grants?
    Mr. FISHER: I must ask for notice of that question.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether expenditure is now being incurred on the national ship yards at Chepstow and the Bristol Channel; if so, how much; what has been the expenditure incurred to date on these yards; and whether negotiations for their sale have taken place?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For replies to the other points I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answers which I gave yesterday on this subject, and, in particular, the replies to the hon. Member for Salop (Wrekin), in which particulars of the expenditure on the national shipyards to the end of January are given, and to the reply to the hon. Member for Preston in which the policy of the Shipping Controller as regards the disposal of the national shipyards was set out.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly answer the last part—whether negotiations for their sale have taken place; and, if so, with whom?
  Colonel WILSON: My right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller has received inquiries from certain individuals and bodies, but those inquiries have not got to such a stage that they can be called negotiations at present.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state when those shipyards were handed over from the Admiralty to the Ministry of Shipping, and also whether Lord Pirrie is still in control of them?
  Colonel WILSON: The shipyards were handed over to the Ministry of Shipping on 1st November, and Lord Pirrie is still Controller-General of Shipbuilding.

  H.M.Y. "IOLAIRE."
  Dr. MURRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the finding of the fatal accidents inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's yacht "Iolaire," in which a strong recommendation is made that proper provision should be made for the safe transit of naval ratings on leave to
  1716
  the Western Isles; whether he intends to act upon this recommendation; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I take this opportunity of expressing the profound regret of the Board of Admiralty at the loss of over 200 gallant lives and of tendering their deepest sympathy to the relatives of the men who were lost in such tragic circumstances.
  A copy of the findings of the jury has been received, and these findings and the recommendations accompanying them, including that referred to by my hon. Friend, will, of course, receive the very fullest consideration by the Admiralty. No statement can be made at the present moment, except that the very exceptional circumstances under which a large number of naval ratings required to travel to Stornoway on the same day are not likely to be repeated.

  ROYAL NAVY,

    MEDALS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that up to December, 1917, a naval pensioner called up for service could obtain the good conduct medal and the long-service medal by adding the v.g.'s obtained by him as pensioner to the v.g. of his previous service; will he state whether the Admiralty have now deprived pensioners and those compulsorily retained for service of this benefit; and. if so, will he at once take steps to restore it to them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Pensionable service only is allowed to qualify for the award of a long service and good conduct medal, and as the pension concessions promulgated in 1917 were conditional on subsequent service (while in receipt of both pay and pension) not counting towards further increase of pension, time for medal ceased to reckon also.
    It has since been decided that men who would benefit by the application of the old pension regulations may continue to count their service for both pension and medal purposes up to the date of their demobilisation. Men who benefit under the new regulations are necessarily subject to the condition attached thereto.
    Mr. HOHLER: Do I understand there has been no alteration in the Regulations with regard to pensions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and learned Friend had better read the second paragraph of the answer, and then, if he wants to put another question, I shall be glad to answer him.

    ADMIRAL SIR BERKELEY MILNE.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the names of the members of the Court of Inquiry which decided the case of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne; if he can give the name or names of the signatories; and if he can say why Sir Berkeley Milne was not given a court-martial as in the case of his second in command, Admiral Troubridge?
    Mr. LONG: No Court of Inquiry was held in the case of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne. The Admiralty issued a statement on the 30th August, 1914, to the effect that
    "the conduct and dispositions of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne in regard to the German vessels 'Goeben' and 'Breslau' have been the subject of the careful examination of the Board of Admiralty, with the result that their Lordships have approved the measures; taken by him in all respects."
    In view of this decision of the Board of Admiralty at the time, no necessity for a court-martial existed.

    DECEASED NAVAL RATING.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, when the body of a deceased naval rating belonging to the Western Isles is taken home from the mainland for burial, the cost of transit by sea has to be paid by the relatives; that the expense of conveying the remains by sea is never less than £6; and, as these relatives are practically in all cases poor fishermen or crofters, whether he can see his way to arranging for the whole charges of transport to be paid for out of public funds?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Early in 1915 it was decided to allow the conveyance of bodies of deceased warrant officers and men to their homes for burial by their relations, if desired, at the public expense. But in May, 1917, it was necessary, not on account of any question of expense, but owing to difficulties of sea transport, to restrict this privilege to cases in which the journey did not involve passage by sea. At the beginning of last month it was decided that this restriction is no longer necessary, so that the conveyance of the body of any warrant
    1718
    officer or man may be authorised by any of the naval authorities to places within the limits of the United Kingdom, the expense being defrayed from public funds.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (GRATUITIES).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked whether an Army lieutenant receives £223 gratuity for service from August, 1914, to November, 1918, while a lieutenant, Royal Naval Reserve, receives £205, and then only if he has served thirty months afloat?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend's figures are not absolutely correct, but they do not seriously depart from the fact. The statement that a Lieutenant, R.N.R., must serve thirty months afloat to receive full gratuity is, however, entirely incorrect. There is no such qualification. I may perhaps add that, as I said on the 19th February in reply to the hon. and gallant. Member for Antrim, East, the justification for the lower amount in the case of the temporary Naval officer is to be found in the fact that whilst the gratuity was part of the contract with the temporary Army officer, it was an addition to the conditions of service in the case of the temporary Naval officer, and it was held to be not inequitable, because of that fact, to fix it at the lower rate.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Why should a temporary Naval officer be treated worse than a temporary Army officer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: For what it is worth, for the reasons given in the latter part of my answer.
    Mr. LAMBERT: They are not worth much.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be; but a temporary Army officer has this as part of his contract, while a temporary Naval officer has it in addition to the conditions of service; therefore it was held not to be inequitable to fix it at the latter rate.

    PENSIONAL NAVAL OFFICER (FINANCIAL POSITION).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now make any statement as to the financial position of the kept-on and the pensioned naval officer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In replying to my hon. Friend's question, I will differentiate between officers actually retired under the

    1719
    Regulations during the War but continued in their appointments, and officers who have been retained on the active list beyond the age of compulsory retirement. In the case of the former officers, I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that sanction has now been obtained for the payment to them of the bonus of 25 per cent. in addition to the active service rate of pay. In the case of the officers who have been retained on the active list beyond the age of compulsory retirement, I am not at present able to make any further statement than this, that their case is at present engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most burning question and can on no account brook delay; it is a matter that must be settled? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me an answer, whether I may, at the close of questions, ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of public urgency?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just been told that the matter is engaging the earnest and immediate attention of the Department concerned. Had not he better wait till we get the decision?

    AUXILIARY PATROL.
    Mr. BARRIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that assurances have been given that fishermen who served during the War would be given every consideration and opportunity to acquire Admiralty vessels suitable for fishing purposes on reasonable terms, any action has yet been taken by the Admiralty to assist these fishermen in the manner described?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, in which I said that we certainly feel under obligation to do what we can for the fishermen of the R.N.R.(T), who have served in the Auxiliary Patrol in order that they may be started again as advantageously as possible upon their old occupation. I am not in a position at the moment to announce the precise character of our proposals, but I hope to be able to do so at an early date.

    TRAWLING (MORAY FIRTH).
    Mr. BARRIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the public demonstrations which have recently taken place in certain towns on the Moray Firth against the continued practice of trawling by Admiralty vessels in the Moray Firth; and if he will give instructions that the practice be immediately put a stop to?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: During December and January last, general complaints that Admiralty vessels were trawling in the Moray Firth were received from local fishermen by the Admiralty and Scottish authorities. No details or particulars, which would help to trace the offenders, were furnished, and from reports obtained from the local naval authorities, it seems probable that they were private trawlers and not vessels in Admiralty service.
    However, early in February orders were issued by the Commander-in-Chief, Rosyth, forbidding trawling in the Firth, and since then no complaints have been received by either the Admiralty or the Scottish authorities.

    NURSING SISTERS (PAY).
    Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked whether the pay of the nursing sisters in the regular naval service is to be raised as is the case with the pay of naval officers and men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question on Thursday last, in the course of which I said that the pay of naval nursing sisters is now under consideration.

    WAR BONUSES (SUBORDINATE OFFICER GRADES).
    Major CAYZERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that in the new Admiralty award of war bonuses pending the introduction of a higher scale of pay the subordinate officer grades of midshipmen, paymaster midshipmen, and paymaster cadets find no place; and if he can give any reason therefor?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Midshipmen, paymaster midshipmen, and paymaster cadets have not received the ad interim increase which came into operation as from 1st February. The rate of pay of midshipmen, which was 1s. 9d a day before the War, has been raised during

    1721
    the War to 5s. a day. The pay of paymaster cadets and paymaster midshipmen has been similarly raised from 2s. 6d. and 4s. a day to 4s. and 5s. a day respectively. These junior officers are quite young, and have not to meet the responsibilities with which older officers are confronted, and the Board came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to add to their present rates of pay. My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that they are eligible for the war service gratuity.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if, seeing that the division of prize money may take a considerable period, he will consider the granting of preliminary sums of such prize money in the immediate future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Since my hon. Friend's question of last week, the proposal that there should be an ad interim payment has again been very carefully considered. This could not be done, of course, until the records of service are complete. The Department responsible is making every effort to finish that work. Of course, my hon. Friend realises that service conferring eligibility was not finally closed until 11th November last. We are working to have the records completed so that they may be ready by the time that the money is available for distribution. This, we hope, will be in the autumn. I ought to remind my hon. Friend that, apart from the delay involved, which, I think, he will see is entirely inevitable, no one's interests are prejudiced. Interest is payable on the values of all ships and stores that have been taken into use by the Government and on the moneys that have been received. Further, it is provided that the shares due to men who are dead shall be paid to their representatives, and the fact that a man may have left the Service will not deprive him of his share of prize money unless he has been discharged for misconduct.

    CAPTAINS AND ENGINEER CAPTAINS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the reason why captains and engineer-captains, Royal Navy, of under three years' seniority and under three years' service in that rank, should be placed below deputy surgeon-generals, admirals' secretaries, chief naval instructors, and pay masters-in-chief in the matter of gratuity; and if he can have the matter amended?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under a War Cabinet decision gratuities to permanent officers of the Royal Navy are based on their relative ranks as compared with officers of the Army. As surgeon-captains, instructor-captains and paymaster captains all rank with a captain of three years' seniority or a colonel, they receive the gratuity of that rank, but captains and engineer-captains of under three years' seniority rank only with a lieutenant colonel and therefore receive a smaller gratuity. In the case of admirals' secretaries, the gratuity is based on their relative rank, but this varies according to their length of service as secretary, and according to the status of the officer under whom they are serving.

    OFFICERS AND MEN (PAY).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is in a position to state approximately when the final decision of the Admiralty upon the pay and other matters of the officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines will be made known; whether all the evidence taken before the Jerram Committee will be published for the information of the House, and in what form; and also whether such final decision of the Admiralty will be declared before the Navy Votes are taken?
    Mr. LONG: The Jerram Committee is proceeding with its Inquiry with all expedition. During the three weeks ending 8th February, it interviewed 240 witnesses at the three principal naval ports. It is now at work preparing the summary of the evidence taken, together with all relevant facts. The advisory representatives will shortly be summoned to-London; thereafter the Committee will consider its Report to the Board of Admiralty. In order to accelerate the Inquiry it has been decided to appoint a separate Committee to deal with the question of officers' pay simultaneously. This Committee will keep in close touch with the Committee dealing with the pay of the men, and its recommendations will pass through Admiral Jerram.
    The Board has not yet considered the suggestion contained in the second part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think it at all possible that the final decision can be taken before the introduction of the 1919–1920 Estimates, a Vote on Account of which must certainly be taken

    1723
    in the House very shortly indeed. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall proceed in this matter of pay with all possible expedition.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity to the House to discuss this question this year on some Naval Vote?
    Mr. LONG: I imagine that there will be an opportunity when the Navy Estimates come on later in the year, and the question can be raised on the Vote on Account.

    DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked how many of the dockyard apprentices are still in the Army; and if he can state what steps are being taken to have them demobilised at the earliest possible moment, so as to enable them to complete their apprenticeships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has not been possible in the time to ascertain the exact number of apprentices still in the Army, but I am advised that there are probably between 200 and 300. Demobilisation is, of course, in the hands of the Army Council. The Admiralty have taken the steps open to them by notifying that the apprentices will be re-employed immediately on their discharge from the Army. The position of these men on returning to the dockyard will be that they will be credited with the time served in the forces as time served at their trades, and will be given an opportunity to complete their training as tradesmen whilst. drawing tradesmen's wages if the term of the apprenticeship has elapsed whilst they have been serving in the Forces.

  DOMINION NAVIES.

    GIFTS OF DESTROYERS AND SUBMARINES.
    Lieutenant - Colonel BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any naval units and, if so, which have been handed over to the Commonwealth of Australia; and whether if requests be put forward by the self-governing Dominions they will receive similar consideration?
    Mr. LONG: An offer has been made to the Commonwealth Government of six modern destroyers and six modern submarines. Two submarines have been
    1724
    presented to the Dominion of Canada. Requests put forward by other self-governing Dominions will receive sympathetic consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that the Australian Navy is in an advanced stage of development.
    Lieutenant-Colonel BURGOYNE: May I ask if the two submarines presented to Canada are the same two that were taken from Canada?
    Mr. LONG: I really could not say off-hand.
    Lieutenant-Colonel BURGOYNE: Or are they additional?

  SHORE WIRELESS SERVICE.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that four civilians attached to the Shore Wireless Service were asked in April, 1918, to volunteer for service in Italy under civilian conditions as to pay and privileges similar to those they were enjoying; whether these men were required to proceed from Ancona to the Bosphorus, and kept on board His Majesty's ship "Cæsar"under naval routine and conditions; whether he will say why payment has not been made in accordance with the agreement under which the men accepted this service; and whether he will make arrangements for them to be released by naval ratings?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are as stated in the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question. The men referred to are General Post Office operators, who are allowed to wear uniform and are borne on ship's books for protective purposes. The question of their pay is a matter for the Postmaster-General. As regards their release, orders were given in January that they should be sent home if no longer required.

  NATIONALIST PARTY (SOUTH AFRICA).
  Mr. BETTERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made on the 17th instant by the acting Prime Minister in the House of Assembly, Cape Town, to the effect that Admiral Fitzherbert, the Commander-in-Chief on the

  1725
  Cape station, had informally offered to convey a deputation of the Nationalist party to Europe on His Majesty's ship "Minerva"; and whether such action had the approval of, or was suggested by, His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part of the question in the negative.

  KIEL CANAL.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the length, breadth, and depth of the Kiel (Kaiser Wilhelm) Canal; whether it is adaptable for the transit of merchant ships; and, if so, would it be a better entrance to and exit from the Baltic than the ordinary passage through the narrow and shallow waters separating Sweden and Denmark?
  Mr. LONG: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is as follows:
  Length of canal—52⅔ nautical miles.
  Surface width—334 ft.
  Bottom width—144 ft.
  Depth—supposed to be 36 ft.
  The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, the canal having been used by merchant ships continually before the War, and by German merchant ships during the War. As regards the last part of the question, navigationally, I am advised, the Kiel Canal is preferable to the passage through the Sound, Great, or Little Belt, and subsequently through the Skaggerack. But whether a ship would prefer to use the Kiel Canal must depend on a variety of considerations, the most important of which are the relative distances to or from her port of arrival or departure outside the Baltic, and the relative value of the extra coal consumed in making the longer passage as compared with the Canal dues.

  ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that retired officers of the Royal Marine Light Infantry who at the outbreak of war were called upon to rejoin the Service were given the pay of their rank and certain allowances, but were deprived of their pensions; whether
  1726
  a similar course was taken in the case of Army officers; and, if not, will be explain why a difference was made between the two Services?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Retired officers of the Royal Marines who, at the outbreak of the War, were called up for service, ceased to draw retired pay from the date of recall and received instead the full pay plus 25 per cent. of full pay and allowances of their rank. Army officers similarly situated received their pension in addition to their full pay. The rule under which retired officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines when called up for service ceased to draw retired pay dates back for very many years.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that the position of the Army officer is very much in advance of the Naval officer?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that Army officers, similarly situated, received their pension in addition to their full pay, whilst the Royal Marine retired officers, sent for, ceased to draw retired pay and, instead, received the full pay plus 25 per cent. of full pay and the allowances of their rank.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Which is the better?

  MERCANTILE MARINE (WAR SERVICES).
  Dr. M'DONALDasked what tangible recognition will be made to the officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine and pilot services in respect of their services in safeguarding the nation's food supply during the War?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. A medal will be awarded in recognition of the services rendered during the War by the members of the Mercantile Marine. This medal will also be given to the sea-going pilot services.

  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD (WOMEN EMPLOYES).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the women employed in Woolwich Dockyard

  1727
  are not yet in receipt of the last award of 5s. applicable to engineering trades; and whether, in view of the fact that the women employed in Woolwich Arsenal received this award a fortnight ago, he will give instructions that the same action shall be taken in regard to the women of the dockyard?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The award does not apply to these women. It was agreed by the parties at the hearing that any decision reached would only cover engineering shops, boiler shops, and foundries. The Woolwich Dockyard establishments are not of this character.

  STANDARD WAGES AND HOURS.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Labour if he will, before exercising his power under the Trade Boards Act with respect to any industry, in all cases consult the employers and employed in that industry through their organisations, and give them the opportunity, if they so desire, to organise themselves, in the form of a joint standing industrial council or an interim reconstruction committee, for the purpose of establishing in their industry an agreed minimum standard of conditions as to wages and hours?
  Mr. PRATT: It is the practice of the Department to discuss with representatives of both employers and employed the nature of the joint body which would be best suited to the needs of their trade, and to assist in its formation if desired. When, having regard to the provisions of the Trade Boards Acts, it appears to be necessary to establish a trade board, conferences are held, and, as far as possible, action is taken only after the agreement of both parties.

  INDUSTRIAL UNREST (CONFERENCE).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the conference which it is proposed to call between the representatives of capital and labour, he will give an undertaking that
  1728
  representatives of the unorganised sections of the community will also be present to state the view of the consumers?
  Mr. PRATT: I am unable to give any such undertaking. The questions which it is intended to discuss are questions which primarily concern only employers and workmen. It will be the duty of the Government to see that in any results which may emerge from the conference the interests of the consumer will be fully taken into account.
  General CROFT: If this procedure is to be carried out and is to be continued will he not consider the question as to whether consumers, who are also very largely interested in all these questions, shall have some representation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is asking the same question again.
  General CROFT: Is it not a fact—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour is not here, and it is no use putting further questions.
  Colonel MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has studied the objects and work of the National Alliance of Employers and Employed; what are the reasons for inviting this body to the forthcoming Labour Conference; whether he is aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is interested in this or an affiliated body; and what are the reasons for not inviting the Industrial Reconstruction Council to attend this conference?
  Mr. PRATT: Invitations to attend tomorrow's conference have been sent to all the principal employers' associations and trade union organisations, either through the joint industrial councils or the interim reconstruction committees, or directly. Invitations have also been sent to a number of bodies who are specially interested in the adjustment of labour differences and who have asked to attend, and if the Industrial Reconstruction Council would wish to send a representative, a ticket will be forwarded to them.
  Colonel MALONE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
  Mr. PRATT: I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  Colonel MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a lady not a Civil servant and not previously connected with the Ministry of Labour has recently been appointed to a position carrying a salary of £600 to £800 in the Demobilisation and Resettlement Department of the Ministry; what were her special qualifications for the appointment not possessed by officers already in the employment of the Ministry and eligible for the appointment; and whether, before that appointment was made, the pledge previously given to associations of officers in the service of the Employment Department of the Ministry that, on appointments being made to fill new or existing posts, priority of consideration would be given to the permanent officers of the Service was duly observed?
  Mr. PRATT: The answer to the first part is in the negative. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  SHIPYARD LABOUR DEPARTMENT, BELFAST.
  Mr. DONALDasked if it is the intention of the Government to continue the Shipyard Labour Department in Belfast; and, if so, what will be the duties of this Department in the future?
  Mr. PRATT: The functions of the Admiralty Labour Department in. Belfast, in so far as they will continue during peace conditions, have been transferred to the Ministry of Labour.

  INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE RESEARCH BOARD.
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour if he will explain why women are not represented on the recently appointed Industrial Fatigue Research Board?
  Major HILLSasked why no woman has been appointed on the Industrial Fatigue Research Board; whether the work of that Board is largely similar to that of the Health of Munition Workers Committee; whether it is the case that women sat on that Committee and did work of great value; and, if this is so,
  1730
  what reason exists for excluding women from the Industrial Fatigue Research Board?
  Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friends have asked me to reply to these questions. It was recognised when the Board was first established jointly by the Medical Research Committee and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research that its original membership would need to be extended. Additional members have, in fact, been appointed on two occasions. Women investigators have been appointed and employed from the beginning, and the inclusion of women on the Board was intended from the first. Particular appointments are at present under consideration by the Medical Research Committee and the Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It is probable that an announcement will be made shortly.

  WOMEN LABOUR.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he can explain why there is such a shortage of women labour in laundries; and whether the Government is continuing to pay unemployment pay to women who refuse laundry work?
  Mr. PRATT: The shortage of women labour in laundries is probably attributable to the relatively low wages offered in many cases, coupled with long hours and other conditions which do not make this class of work in general attractive to women applicants for employment. With a view to establishing a more satisfactory level of wages the Department is proposing to set up a trade board for the industry.
  As regards out-of-work donation, women for whom laundry work is regarded as a suitable occupation have this work offered to them, and if they decline it their right to remain on donation is referred to a Court of Referees for decision.
  Mr. TERRELL: Could he say what the rate of pay is which is considered unsuitable which is being offered to these women?
  Mr. PRATT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that over 5,000 women in Tottenham are at present

  1731
  drawing out-of-work donation pay at the rate of 25s. per week, and that a considerable number of local firms report a shortage of skilled women labour in departments that have again become important due to the change over of work; and whether he is prepared to recommend that, in the case of women who are desirous of learning a new trade but who are not able to earn full wages whilst in the course of tuition, a grant should be made by the Government to help them during this period, similar to the grants made to women while under instruction for the manufacture of munitions of war?
  Mr. PRATT: With regard to the first part of the question, it is correct that over 5,000 women are drawing donation at Tottenham. The local demand, however, for skilled women workers registered at the Exchange is small. The suggestions made in the second part of the question are under consideration.

  BRICK INDUSTRY.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that the manufacturers and men engaged in the manufacture of bricks in Edmonton and Enfield recently met, when an offer of 75 per cent. on pre-war wages was made by the manufacturers and refused, the men demanding 150 per cent. at which cost the manufacturers alleged that they could not afford to make further bricks and sell at the present controlled price; and will he state what steps are proposed to be taken by his Department to adjust these differences in view of the scarcity of bricks for the building trades in Tottenham and the surrounding districts, which are mainly dependent on the brickyards referred to for the supply of bricks?
  Mr. PRATT: This matter has not previously been brought to my notice, but I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as I am able.

  BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that practically the sole cause of unemploy-
  1732
  ment in the building and allied trades is due to the lack of raw material, especially bricks, and that, notwithstanding the fact that clay diggers and workers in brickyards are urgently required in the national interest, a large number of this class of workmen have not yet been demobilised; and whether he is mindful of the fact that any large increase in the production of bricks cannot be expected owing to the reluctance of brick manufacturers to largely increase their production on account of the uncertainty which is prevailing as to the steps that may be taken by the Government with regard to the requisition of the present stocks of bricks and the fixing of maximum prices for future productions?
  Mr. PRATT: While my right hon. Friend cannot agree with my hon. Friend that practically the sole cause of unemployment in the building and allied trades is due to lack of raw materials, especially bricks, he is fully aware of the necessity for the production of bricks and other materials on a large scale, and he can assure him that this matter is receiving the closest attention of the Ministry of Munitions, which Department is responsible for placing orders for these materials. In regard to the workmen employed in brickyards, these have been included in Industrial Group 29, which is one of the groups open for demobilisation, and all men included in this group who are not liable for service in the Armies of Occupation are being demobilised as rapidly as possible. In addition a Building Materials Supply Committee was appointed to select pivotal men in this industry for early release, and the men selected by this Committee have been or are being released. With reference to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend must refer the hon. Member to the answers given in connection with this subject by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions and by the President of the Local Government Board on the 18th February.

  POSTHUMOUS HONOURS (NAVAL AND MILITARY).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Prime Minister whether posthumous honours are only conferred in the Navy and the Army in the case of those who have earned the Victoria Cross; and will he consider and take steps to confer posthumous honours

  1733
  in the case of all men who have been recommended for them but have lost their lives before they were conferred?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. So far as the Army is concerned, there is no restriction as to posthumous recommendations for the award of the Victoria Cross. In the case of other orders, decorations, and medals, recommendations for award can be approved if the officer or soldier was alive when the recommendation was initiated. Where, through stress of military operations, the recommending authority was prevented from recording his recommendation prior to the death of the officer or soldier, it being fully his intention of so doing, the recommendation is still valid if the cause of delay is duly certified. This procedure was not in force during the earlier years of the War, and I regret that it is quite impossible to make it retrospective.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee of the Members of this House to investigate the staffs at the different Government Departments, with the object that staffs are not retained in excess of actual requirements?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend doubts whether there would be any advantage in appointing such a Committee at the present moment. The disbandment of the war emergency staffs is already in active progress, and the situation changes so much from day to day that before the Committee could report the data upon which its conclusions were based would be obsolete.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the demobilisation of these clerks is making very unsatisfactory progress?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I hope very much that the hon. Member is exaggerating.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give particulars of the Committee promised to deal with old age pensions?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend regrets he is not yet in a position to give this information.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say when one may put down a question with any prospect of getting an answer?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Monday.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the delay in the appointment of the Committee? It seems a very simple thing. We have been at the question since Parliament opened.

  MINERS' FEDERATION.

    PRIME MINISTER'S INTERVIEW.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the verbatim account of his interview with the Miners' Federation at Downing Street was published as an advertisement; whether he can state the amount expended; on what Estimate it will appear; and whether the Government propose to extend this system of publicity in order to secure greater accuracy for Parliamentary and cognate proceedings?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the very exceptional circumstances of the case, the Government considered that the widest possible publicity should be given to the proceedings at the interview between the Prime Minister and the Executive of the Miners' Federation on Thursday last. The approximate cost was £4,450, and this sum will be charged against the Vote for the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would not the reporters of all the principal newspapers have attended by invitation, and have reported the proceedings for nothing?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As a general rule that is the preferable way, but it was obvious to us that it was better to have this meeting at 10, Downing Street, in the Prime Minister's own room, where it would have been very inconvenient to make such arrangements.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether all the newspapers had an opportunity of attending to report, or whether it was only a specified number of Coalition newspapers supporting the Government that got this advantage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, that was certainly not the case. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the report, he will have seen that the report was in full, giving everything said by everybody at the meeting. It is obvious that if it had been desired to give only the Government side, it would not have been necessary to take these precautions; but we wished every side to have the fullest publicity.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If that be so, why were not all the newspapers invited, instead of some being given an advantage over others, seeing that these reports were paid for out of the public funds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There was no question of giving an advantage. The report was sent to the papers which it was believed would give it the widest publicity among every section of the public.

  PEACE CONFERENCE.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he will bring to the attention of the Peace Conference the desirability of requiring from the German Government the names of all persons and associations in this country who received subventions from the German Government before the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to a similar question on Monday.

  TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION (IRELAND).
  Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation extending the operation of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, to other parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not the intention of the Government to adopt the course suggested.
  Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in the North of Ireland in favour of local option, and is there any chance of the North of Ireland being put on the same footing as Scotland in this respect?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I believe that there is such an opinion.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I believe that there is not.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is evidently a difference of opinion, but in any case the Government are not prepared to adopt the Scottish method.
  Mr. DEVLIN: We want nothing Scottish in Ireland.

  NECESSITOUS WIDOWS WITH CHILDREN (PENSIONS).
  Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the question of providing State pensions for necessitous widows with children in order to enable such mothers to bring up their children themselves under conditions of home influence and control; and whether he is in a position to promise legislation on these lines?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to propose legislation on the lines of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
  Major O'NEILL: May I ask, as this is a matter of great moment to the poorer classes of the community, whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Government will, at any rate, bear it in mind in connection with their programme of social reform?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A great deal of attention has been given to this particular subject.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the questions on which we are united?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the hon. Gentleman mean Ireland?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not surprised, as the money comes out of the British Treasury.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Treasury are paying £20,000,000 more than we ought to pay?

  MESOPOTAMIA AND DARDANELLES COMMISSIONS.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Asquith, in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Bill, on 26th July, 1916, agreed to the proposal that it should be left to the Commissioners to decide whether or not, after the War, the evidence should be published; and whether he will ask the Commissioners to meet and decide what evidence can be published?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to similar questions on the 13th February.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister gave a definite undertaking that the Commission should decide what evidence should be published?
  Mr. LAMBERT: Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the publication of the Second Report of the Dardanelles Commission relating to the military operations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer which I gave on 13th February applies to both. We have only decided that it is not in the public interest to publish the evidence just now, but we shall reconsider the matter. With regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said as to the Asquith declaration, I have looked up the Official Report, and I find that all that is said is that the Prime Minister nodded his head. The suggestion was that the Commissioners at the time they were working should have the authority to recommend its publication. There was no suggestion that the Commission should be brought together again long afterwards.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a definite question, and that the Official Report, as corrected, says that the Prime Minister assented?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was suggested that while they were engaged upon their work they should recommend that it should be published after the War, but there was no suggestion that they should be called together again.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply that when Mr. Asquith nodded his head there was nothing in it?
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether the reason given of the public interest for the refusal to publish any of the evidence given in the Dardanelles Inquiry also applies to the sets of documents comprising the dispatches dealing with the escape of the "Goeben," the proceedings and evidence of the Troubridge court-martial, and the naval dispatches dealing with the bombardments of the Dardanelles forts in March, 1915?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall ask the Departments concerned to consider whether the time has yet come when these documents can be published without detriment to the public interest.

  BRITISH MANUFACTURERS (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement as to how effect is to be given to the policy for the protection of British manufacturing trade outlined by him on the 2nd November, 1918?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the question is answered, may I ask if a declaration was not made by my right hon. Friend on the 2nd November in favour of the protection of the British manufacturing trade interests?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not make that particular declaration. I suppose it was made by the Prime Minister. My answer to the question is that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this, uncertainty is very prejudicial, and is seriously affecting unemployment?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the high prices and the prevention of imports into the country which is creating the unrest?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In the Speech from the Throne it was indicated that this would be one of the measures dealt with at an early date, and that is still our intention.
  Mr. TERRELL: Is there a possibility of its being referred to in the Budget?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope we may be ready before that.

  BUILDING MATERIAL (BRICK TRADE).
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of the Government taking control of the present stocks of bricks in the Kingdom and obtaining an increased production of bricks by exercising over the brick trade a control similar to that exercised over munition factories during the time of war; will he consider the desirability of releasing the present stocks of bricks and other building material, and all control over the price at which existing and future stocks shall be sold; and whether he will consult the representatives of capital and labour in the trades most immediately concerned?
  The DEPUTY - MINISTER to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir." I do not propose to exercise over the brick trade a control similar to that exercised over munition factories during the War. It has been decided to suspend at once the control of bricks as at present exercised. The trade is now free, but the Government has the right to re-impose control at any time. The Department of Building Material Supply is in close touch with the trade, whose members have been consulted as to the best methods of increasing the output of bricks.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
  Mr. ARNOLDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the cessation of hostilities, no further regulations will be made under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to give this undertaking.
  Mr. ARNOLD: May I ask whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to discuss and criticise any new Orders which may be proposed before they are made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot promise that, but certainly the Government will make very sparing use of this power, and only use it when it is absolutely necessary.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the paper business?

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will state whether the Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. O. R. A. Simpkin to be Public Trustee; if he will state what was the previous occupation of Mr. Simpkin and what are considered his special qualifications for filling a post for which business experience and capacity are required; whether the claims and qualifications of existing members of the permanent staff were considered for the post, and, if so, on what grounds these were passed over; and whether it is advisable that the appointment to such an important post should be left in the hands of any one Minister, without reference to the Treasury or other qualified Department?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Mr. O. R. A. Simpkin is a barrister practising on the Chancery side. He has been employed throughout the War in the War Trade Intelligence Department, where he has given proof of great business capacity, and has had very large business experience. The claims and qualifications of existing members of the permanent staff were considered before the appointment was made. It would be invidious in the case of gentlemen in their position to state the grounds upon which it was considered that Mr. Simpkin would prove a more suitable holder of the post. The appointment was made after consultation with the Treasury and after an exhaustive consideration of the qualifications of all persons, whether in the public service or outside it, who could be considered as possible candidates for the appointment.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask my hon. Friend whether in the office of the Public Trustee, where such excellent work has been done, we are to understand there is no man qualified to take up this position?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to a question of that description has already been given.

  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.
  Mr. STURROCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the Memorandum on home propaganda published by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, he can under-

  1741
  take to give the House of Commons a day for the discussion of the question before a decision is made in this matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question asked by him on Monday last, to which I cannot at present add anything.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether a new department of public information is to be established; and, if so, what are to be the objects of this proposed department?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not able to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Montrose on Monday last.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Department is being set up for the purpose of advertising virtues of the Coalition Ministry which they have not got?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Captain REDMOND: Is it the intention of the Government to publish a newspaper to propagate Coalition Ministry literature?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Do the Department propose to issue any more biographies of the Prime Minister?

  HOUSE SHORTAGE (THREATENED EVICTIONS).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee for Home Affairs has come to any decision in regard to the question of the eviction of tenants from houses over £35 value?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley on Monday last.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A Committee of the Cabinet has been considering the question for several days, and my right hon. Friend the Chairman says it will come to a decision this week.

  AMERICAN SHIPPING BOARD.
  Major CAYZERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the American Government through the Shipping Board are placing requisitioned American steamers or American Government standard steamers in the hands of American agents to be loaded by them against the steamers of the British lines in trades from the United States of America ports which have been built up and established by the British lines; and whether, in view of the principles advocated by Mr. Wilson in proposing a League of Nations, representations will be made to the Government of The United States with regard to the employment of national funds in this connection?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government cannot see their way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend s suggestion.

  INTERNMENT REGULATIONS.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, as there is no power to intern persons under the Defence of the Realm Act unless in cases of actual invasion or of urgent military necessity arising out of the late War, he will state under what authority subjects are still interned?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question. The authority for the internments to which the hon. Member refers is the sixth paragraph of Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that the Act clearly lays it down that no person shall be interned except in case of invasion or urgent military necessity arising from the present War? If that be so, is the present detention of these men justified?
  Mr. SHORTT: Those are the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act and under them these persons are detained. The Government are advised that the necessity for their detention still continues.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Then the provisions of the Act are overridden by the Department's Regulations?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Under what plea then are these people detained?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Are the Government to continue to be the chief law-breakers in this country?

  PAPER CONTEOL.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the attention of the War Cabinet has been directed to the effects of the artificial maintenance of the price of paper; whether they are aware that, under the present control, there is a restriction of enterprise and employment as well as penalising of the public; whether the results on trade papers and Colonial and foreign trade have been considered; and whether, in view of the public belief that there has been a cornering of the paper market, and that prices are now double what they would be if there were a free market, the War Cabinet will give directions for the withdrawal of controlled prices?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The whole matter is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  RUSSIA.

    LOANS BY BRITISH AND FRENCH HOUSES.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government was in any way party to or concerned in negotiations resulting in the loan granted early in 1906 to the Russian Government by British and French financial houses; if so, whether any political conditions were imposed; what those conditions were; whether the Duma was proposed to be or agreed to become a party to the loan or controller of the loan in any way; and whether the British and French Governments, separately or jointly, claim any rights against the present Russian Government in respect of this loan?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first and second parts of this question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the question, authority for the issue of the loan was given before the first meeting of the Duma by Imperial Ukase on 4th April, 1906. The Ukase directed that it should be negotiated by the Russian Minister of Finance with
    1744
    Russian and foreign bankers. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  SCANDINAVIA.

    BRITISH TEXTILE SHIPMENTS
    Lieutenant-Colonel PICKERINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that English merchants engaged in shipping textiles are handicapped and inconvenienced owing to the delay in issuing permits to ship to Scandinavia, and that other countries are rapidly securing the trade, particularly America; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?
    Major GERVASE BECKETT: It is true that exports of textiles to Scandinavia are subjected to difficulties and delays owing to the necessity of obtaining guarantees from local associations in those countries against re-export to the Central Empires. Licences cannot be granted until these guarantees have been obtained. The same difficulty attaches to exports from the other Allied and neutral countries, and His Majesty's Government are not aware that the United States of America, to whom I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers, are able obtain any advantage from this system. The question of abandoning or modifying this system of guarantees is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government.

  NILE PROJECTS COMMITTEE.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will state the constitution of the Nile Projects Committee; if he is able yet to present to the House its Report; and, if not, whether, in view of the urgency of the questions submitted to it and the allegations which are being made, involving charges against high officials in Egypt and the Sudan, he can expedite the publication of the Report?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Nile Projects Committee was constituted as follows:
  President: Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice.
  Members: Sir John Benton, Sir William Garstin, Colonel H. G. Lyons, Professor W. C. Unwin, and Sir Arthur Webb.

  1745
  The Committee have recently presented their Report, and a copy will be placed at once in the Library of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.
  Sir F. HALL: Are the recommendations put forward in the Report likely to be carried out or will they be shelved?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not seen the Report.
  Sir R. COOPER: Will the hon. Gentleman say that no action shall be taken until we have had an opportunity of studying the Report?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question which should be put to the Leader of the House.
  Sir R. COOPER: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the very great importance of no action being taken until the Report has been studied by Members of the House?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will represent that to the Leader of the House.

  OVERSEAS TRADE.

    COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVES.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, of the thirteen appointments as Commercial Secretaries to our Embassies abroad recently made under the new scheme for the development of overseas trade, eleven have been given to members of the old Consular and Diplomatic Services; and whether he will consider the advisability of including a larger proportion of men possessing actual business experience, in view of the admitted necessity of improving our commercial representation in foreign countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: All appointments as commercial counsellor or secretary are made on the recommendation of a Committee composed not only of representatives of Government Departments but also of representatives of the business community. The Committee has interviewed a large number of candidates, and before recommending any appointment to the Secretary of State has carefully reviewed the relative claims of candidates possessing official administrative experience as compared with those possessing business experience. The proportion of selected candidates with business experience is likely
    1746
    to be somewhat greater when all the appointments have been made, as the list of appointments already published includes a number of officers who have rendered good service as Commercial Attachés, and have been confirmed in their appointments under the new scheme.
    Mr. RAPER: Was, it not the intention of the Government in reconstituting the Overseas Trade Department to infuse new blood into the commercial branches of our Legations, and does the hon. Gentleman consider that is being done by appointing members of the old Consular and Diplomatic Services to the majority of the vacancies for Commercial Attachés?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would ask for notice of that question.

  MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to state the estimated cost of the motor repair depot at Slough; whether he will state the intentions of the Government in regard to this depot; and whether, in view of the additions that have been made throughout the country to all motor manufacturing concerns, he will consider the advisability of cancelling further expenditure on the works in question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The estimated cost of the works at Cippenham is £1,750,000. As regards the remainder of my hon. and gallant Friend's question I would refer him to answers given, yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division of Salop. I may add that the whole question of the future of this depot, which is a new problem to me, is receiving my close attention, and it will be necessary for me to confer with Lord Inver forth, the new Minister of Munitions, who as late Surveyor General of Supply at the War Office is well acquainted with the project.
  Sir C. HENRY: Does the £1,750,000 include the cost of the land?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that this is a new problem to me with which I have not previously been brought into contact. I will follow the request of my hon. Friend and give it my personal attention during the next few days.

  WAR DECORATIONS.
  Captain MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a special medal to all ranks of the Special Reserve and Territorial Force who were actually serving in those forces on the 4thAugust, 1914, in recognition of the services which their previous training enabled them to render at that period of the War?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of the award of an appropriate distinction to the members of the Territorial Force referred to is still under consideration. I would point out that there is an essential difference in the conditions of service of the Special Reserve, in that the Special Reservist was bound by the conditions of his service to serve abroad if required, while men of the Territorial Force in peace-time were only called upon to serve at home, and thus by later undertaking to serve overseas went beyond the original obligations of their conditions of service. I am afraid I cannot promise that a special award to men of the Special Reserve will be considered.
  Major COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many Territorial officers and men undertook the obligation to serve abroad before the outbreak of the War in 1914?
  Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War if, in the issue of war medals and decorations, he will recommend the adoption of some clearly distinguishing mark when the award is made for purely staff services and not for the actual leadership of men on the battlefield?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is not considered practicable.
  Captain TERRELL: In view of the great dissatisfaction which does exist in the Army among officers who have earned their decorations under shell-fire, could the War Office reconsider this matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very difficult question. Everyone has a quite clear opinion of what they would like to do, but the difficulties of carrying it out are enormous. The difficulties of drawing a line are enormous in practice. If my hon. Friend is moved to address his mind to the question of endeavouring to frame some kind of rules and regulations, he will see how difficult it is.
  Captain REDMOND: Why not adopt the same method which is adopted in France and elsewhere for a distinguishing mark?
  Captain TERRELL: Would it be possible for the word "Staff" to be printed on all ribbons given to all Staff officers? [Laughter.] I am quite certain that all Staff officers would be very proud of it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would deprecate altogether the House adopting the position that there is something discreditable in the persons who have served on the Staff. As a matter of fact, we lost scores of thousands of men until our Staff was well trained. Then we obtained success. While I quite agree that the sufferings and sacrifices of the fighting units are, in some respects, more arduous than those of the trained officers of the Staff, yet I think that their life was a very hard one of constant devotion to duty.
  Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several Distinguished Service Orders and Military Crosses have been awarded to A.D.C.'s—[An HON. MEMBER: "And about 1,000 Orders of the British Empire!"]—who have never been under shell-fire?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any case of that kind, but when we talk about being under shell-fire that is a very extensive term. They may have been under long-range artillery fire.
  Captain REDMOND: Why should it be more difficult to apply the same rules in regard to decorations which obtain in France—that is, making a distinguishing mark for an Order or medal conferred upon officers and men in the front line from that on a medal conferred on the officers and men who were at the base?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very far reaching suggestion. I do not exclude that from examination. It has not been the practice of the British Service up to the present, the assumption being that all the men do the duty they are told to do.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    INDIAN AND EASTERN STATIONS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what steps are now possible to carry out the promise given by the late Lord Kitchener, through Major-

    1749
    General Donald, on 24th September, 1914, when he was asking the Wessex Division to go to the East, namely, that by going to India they would not be the losers, that they would share all the honours of the War, and might regard it as a guarantee that the Wessex Division would be brought back home before the end of the War so that the men might resume their employment or get fresh employment before the great rush took place from the Colours when the War was over; and (2) whether he is aware that, with few exceptions, neither officers nor men of the l/4th Somerset Light Infantry, who were sent to Mesopotamia in February, 1916, have had any home leave since October, 1914, whereas men with shorter service on the Western Front have had frequent leaves, and many have now been demobilised; and what steps, consistent with the public interest, he can now take to alleviate the sense of hardship which this inequality of treatment has created among the men and in the Somerset community?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to this and the next question, I would refer to the full statement which was made yesterday in reply to questions on the subject put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of question 72, which is not covered by yesterday's statement, namely, what steps are possible to alleviate this sense of hardship with regard to the inequality of treatment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A complete understanding of the New Army scheme and the effort on the part of the authorities to demobilise those men who should under that scheme be demobilised at the earliest possible moment.

    SPECIAL LEAVE (FAMILY ILLNESS).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some instances considerable delay takes place in granting special leave to other ranks overseas in cases of serious illness at home; that in the case of Private C. Reynolds, No. WR/22459, of the 312th R. C. Company, Royal Engineers, British Expeditionary Force, a wire was received oversea on 26th October, 1918, from the house surgeon of Maidstone Hospital, that his wife was
    1750
    seriously ill, and leave was not granted until 5th November 1918; that in the case of Private C. Willgoose, No. WR/22510, of the 312th R. C. Company, Royal Engineers, British Expeditionary Force, a wire was received overseas on 6th November, 1918, from the Kingston police that his wife was dangerously ill, that leave was not granted until 17th November, 1918, and that his wife died before he reached home; and whether steps can be taken whereby similar delays shall not be possible in future?
    Captain GUEST: I can assure my hon. Friend that cases of this nature are always dealt with sympathetically and as expeditiously as possible. I have no information regarding the two cases mentioned but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (CONTINUOUS SERVICE).
  Major WHELERasked the Secretary of State for War whether warrant officers of the armament section of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps who were re-enlisted for the War are not allowed to complete twenty-five years of continuous service, but are compelled to retire at the end of twenty-one years' service; whether the effect of this order is to permit these warrant officers to receive only the minimum rate of pension, viz., 3s. 6d. per day, and thus to place them at a disadvantage as compared with warrant officers of other units; and whether he will consider the granting of an increased pension allowance for these warrant officers?
  Captain GUEST: My hon. and gallant Friend's question is not quite understood. If he is referring to Royal Army Ordnance Corps warrant officers who have completed their twenty-one years during the War, they are still continuing to serve, and no order to the contrary has been issued.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether five more conscientious objectors, all of whom had done hard labour sentences amounting to two years and ten months, were recently taken, on the expiry of their

  1751
  sentence, to Hounslow Barracks for their fourth court-martial; whether they have yet been court-martialled; if so, what the sentences were; and, if not court-martialled, what he proposes to do with them?
  Sir WILLIAM WHITLAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into consideration the immediate release of all conscientious objectors in order that their services may be utilised for the cleansing of the latrines in the different camps at home and abroad, a duty at present imposed upon the fighting men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to reconsider the general issues involved in these questions until demobilisation has made further progress.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will steps be taken to prevent consecutive sentences and re-court-martial for men whose time has expired?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can go beyond the terms of my answer, which was carefully considered.

  VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give some special recognition to the Volunteer Force for their services during the War?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 24th February, to the effect that the grant of a badge is under consideration. I may add that Volunteer officers will have honorary rank on retirement, and the right to wear uniform on special occasions, and that Volunteers will be allowed to retain their uniforms under certain conditions, the details of which will be made known in due course.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received an intimation to the effect that Members representing Scotland are unanimous in their demand that a separate Health Bill should be introduced applying
  1752
  to that country, and can he now state what the intentions of the Government are in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received an intimation of the general opinion held by Scottish Members in this matter, and I have discussed it with the Leader of the House. In view of the change of procedure which was adopted last week, the Government have decided to withdraw the Scottish Application Clause from the Bill, to amend its title accordingly, and to introduce a separate Bill dealing with Scotland only.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in drafting the new measure, take steps to acquaint himself with the views of Scottish Members generally with regard to the demand for a separate Ministry for Scotland?
  Mr. MUNRO: Certainly

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether, without mentioning precise names at present, he could indicate what particular section of the community it is the desire or the policy of the Government should be represented on the Coal Commission?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister always sends me a notice of that kind. I have not received it. As a matter of fact, there is no harm in saying in general terms that the intention is to have eight representing, in one way or another, Labour interests, eight representing the business community, and the Chairman.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: And anyone representing the great middle-class domestic consumers of coal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. The idea was that on the whole we should have not too big a Commission.

  IRELAND.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Leader of the House when the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be in his place, and when he proposes to make a statement on the Government's Irish policy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as the Re-election of Ministers Bill has received the Royal Assent—which I fancy will be to-day—my right hon. Friend will be able to take his place. But he is at present in Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: When will he be able to make a declaration on Irish policy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am by no means satisfied that the time has come when a declaration would be useful.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the Government has an Irish policy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That must be evident.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What is it?

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Major BURGOYNE: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the order of priority of questions on the Paper? There is a certain list got out whereby Members putting down questions know on what particular days those addressed to specific Departments should appear, but there is no chance of anyone having replies to questions put orally to the Under-Secretary for Air. I have tried on three or four days, but every time they have gone well over 150?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I call attention to the fact that in previous Sessions Irish questions were always put first on Thursdays? That has now been departed from, and we have been unable to reach Irish questions any day since the House met.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Nearly all my questions last week were in the neighbourhood of 196 or 195.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The difficulty really arises from the insatiable thirst of hon. Members asking supplementary questions, a great number of which are utterly unnecessary, and many of which simply ask the same question as has already been asked, but not so carefully worded. If hon. Members would only use their influence with their friends to restrain them from asking these supplementary questions, I am sure we should advance a
  1754
  great deal more rapidly, and should reach a higher number. With regard to the arrangement as to the order in which questions to the different offices are taken, that has always been a matter of arrangement between the Government and the Members who desire to question the particular office. It varies from time to time. During the War, of course, the Navy and the Army occupied prominent places, and it is now open to modification. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will apply in the proper quarter, I dare say an arrangement might be arrived at by which the Air Ministry would be given a distinctive place on one of the days of the week.
  Colonel GREIG: There is an important part of the Kingdom as to which questions are often asked and hardly ever reached. I refer to Scotland. In any reconsideration of the order, may I ask that the claims of Scotland shall be regarded?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would communicate with one of the Whips, possibly something of that sort might be arranged.
  Mr. HOGGE: As the Air Office is now under the War Office, ought not questions to be put down on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?
  Sir F. HALL: There have been many questions to the Postmaster-General, but there has not been an opportunity of putting one to him since the commencement of the Session.

  MEMBERS' SEATS.
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask you, Sir, whether Members who have sat in the House for ten or fifteen years, and established some claim to their seats are to continue to come at half-past six in the morning, and form a queue in order to obtain them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman is an early riser. As a matter of fact, it would be no use being here at half-past six because the doors will not open till eight.
  Colonel LOWTHER: I thought it was no use being here at half-past six, but I was here at half-past seven this morning. I saw a big queue, and that is the reason I asked the question. I wish to ask your

  1755
  ruling about it. Is it not your wish that hon. Members who have established a claim in past Parliaments to their seats? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no wishes whatever in the matter except that hon. Members should be pleased and content with the places they occupy. I do not think it can be said that any hon. Member has entitled himself to a particular place. The rule is, so far as unofficial Members goes, that if an hon. and gallant Gentleman who happens to be a Member of Parliament is thanked for his services in the field, for the rest of his period as a Member he is entitled to retain his place. That is the only rule that I know of; but, under the usual courtesies which pass between Members, it has always been the custom that hon. Members who have distinguished themselves in the House by their assiduous attendance and by the prominent part they have taken in the Debates, should be allowed to retain particular places. Of course, the place must vary according to whether they oppose or support the Government for the time being.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Ours never vary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I said that the other day. Nationalist Members, as long as I can remember, have always sat on the particular benches they now occupy, and, therefore, I thought they ought to be left to them.

  MEMBER SWORN.
  Henry Duncan M'Laren, Esq., commonly called the honourable Henry Duncan M'Laren, County of Leicester (Bosworth Division), took the Oath and signed the Roll.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
  "That, in the case of the Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'The Port of Portsmouth Floating Bridge Company,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  Resolution agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
    UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL).
    Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Mr. France, Mr. Hayward, Sir John M'Callum, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Mr. John Parkinson, Colonel Sir Alan Sykes, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, and Mr. Turton.
    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee A: Mr. Baldwin, Colonel Godfrey Collins, Sir William Cowan, Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. Pratt, Sir William Raeburn, and Mr. Wilkie.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Colonel Allen, Sir William Barton, Mr. James Bell, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Carr, Mr. William Carter, Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Major Cope, Major Courthope, Commander Dawes, Mr. Donald, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. John Hugh Edwards, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir George Elliott, Major Entwistle, Sir James Fortescue Flannery, Mr. France, Mr. Gange, Mr. Gritten, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. John Joseph Jones, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Mallalieu, Lieutenant-Colonel Murray, Mr. Neal, Mr. Nelson, Sir John Rees, Mr. Alexander Richardson, Lieutenant-Colonel Roundell, Mr. Rowlands, Lieutenant-Colonel Royds, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Major Steel, Mr. Swan, and Colonel William Thorne.
    Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:
    "That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection."
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the course of business, and will he wish the House to sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the right hon. Gentleman will see from the Notice in my name to-day, we propose to take Supplementary Estimates to-morrow, and, if they be not concluded, to go on with them on Friday. We have taken this course as the best method of utilising Parliamentary time. The Estimates which we intended to take downstairs are not ready, and by freeing the Standing Committee—the only one which has been set up—from the Supplementary Estimates, we hope it may be possible for the Ministry of Health Bill to be read a second time to-day.
  Sir R. COOPER: If the Supplementary Estimates be concluded to-morrow evening, will Friday be given up to private Members?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to secure Friday for a discussion on the question of the restriction of imports into this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think there would be a general desire to have that discussed this week. As regards the question of my hon. Friend, the House will have plenty to do later on, and if it should be found that we do not need Friday, it would be absurd to sit on Friday simply for the purpose of sitting.
  Ordered, That the Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1918–19 [presented 11th and 24thFebruary]; the Civil Services and Revenue Departments, 1919–20 (Vote on Account) [presented 13th February]; and the Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1918–19 [presented 18th February], be considered in Committee of Supply.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I make an appeal to the Leader of the House? I have been asked to do so by the Committee of the Harbours and the Docks of
  1820
  the country, that he should allow some decent interval between the introduction of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill and the Second Reading, in order that a measure of such vast importance may be thoroughly studied?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is intended to give reasonable time. It is intended to give proper facilities and as reasonable time as possible.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move,
  "That leave be given of the House to bring in a Bill to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, and for purposes connected therewith."
  We have had during the four and a half years of the War a great many questions pressed upon this House of the highest importance to the country at large. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that probably no question is of more pressing importance to the country than is the question of transport and communication. You cannot develop any industry in this country unless you have adequate facilities for transport and unless you have cheap transport. You can do nothing with the housing question unless you are able at the same time to control suburban and inter-suburban communication. You cannot develop agriculture unless you can provide for adequate transport, and, indeed, there is hardly any form of industry you can mention which does not largely depend for its success upon facilities for transport and upon cheap transport.
  In the past we have had many means of transport in this country, but we have had no co-ordination; we have had no stimulus but that of private gain, with, of course, the honourable exception of municipal tramways, but, speaking practically, in pre-war days our transport depended largely on private effort and private gain, and in a matter so vital as this of transport it is not altogether to the public good that private interest should be the main stimulus of those who control it. No doubt in the past competition, especially in the railways, has played an important part, and, indeed, for many years a beneficial part. But the day for unfettered competition has gone. Equally with regard to roads—roads, no doubt, were at one time purely local questions, but the introduction of the motor has prevented

  1821
  road traffic being any longer merely a local question—it is now essentially an Imperial question, and one which cannot be dealt with by a very large number of local authorities each controlling its own roads, constructing its roads, and generally dealing with them in its own way. It is, therefore, proposed that a Ministry should be set up which is to co-ordinate the whole of this important means of transport.
  May I remind the House that in August last a Committee was set up by this House to inquire and report what steps it was desirable to take to develop and improve the internal facilities for transport in the United Kingdom and to secure effective supervision and co-ordination in order to ensure that such developments and improvements should be adequate and suitable to meet the national requirements. That Committee, a strong Committee of this House, has taken evidence and has arrived at certain conclusions, namely, that we cannot allow the organisation of all the transport agencies of the country to revert to their pre-war circumstances and conditions. They are equally satisfied that the temporary arrangements which were made for the course of the War in order to meet the emergencies and the exigencies of the War are not in themselves satisfactory. But they have not been able as yet to recommend what the great changes should be in order to procure the best possible system of private transport in this country. For example, they have not yet been able to say whether they do or do not recommend the nationalisation of our railways. May I also remind the House of another thing. When the control of the railways was taken over in 1914 an arrangement was made by which their net receipts were guaranteed. My hon. Friend (Mr. Walter Runciman), who was then a Member of the House, in a letter which he wrote to the railway companies, promised that the Government would undertake to extend the period of the guarantee to two years after the termination of the War. Therefore, we are in this position that a Committee of this House has made up its mind that the pre-war system cannot be reverted to, that the temporary arrangements for control are not satisfactory and cannot be continued in their entirety, and that we have to guarantee the net receipts of the railways for two years after the termination of the War. The result of that is that
  1822
  the Government propose to set up a Ministry to maintain for the two years during which the receipts are guaranteed the whole of the control which they had during the course of the War, and at the same time to give them powers during these two years to consider the whole question, to consider it with the assistance of the Committee of this House which is still in existence. [Several Hon. Members: "No, no; a new Parliament."] Well, you can set it up again—and at the same time to make such changes as and when they may think desirable as are desirable.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does it mean that they will nationalise the railways?
  Mr. SHORTT: I will explain that afterwards. Not without the consent of this House. Of course, any step which the Ministry take must be brought before this House and must be passed by this House. They cannot do it on their own initiative. The Government propose first of all to take control of the railways, light railways, tramways, canals, waterways and inland navigation. With regard to the railways, they had the control during the period of the War. It is considered essential that those means of communication and transport are so essential for so many purposes to the community that they ought to be under one central control. Equally with regard to roads. As I have said, they have been up to the present under diversified local control. The Road Board has had some control, but not really a working or an efficient control. Take, for example, the case of engineering. More and more large, enormous masses, such as boilers, and so on, are being moved about this country which cannot be moved by railway; they have to go by road. Some of them have to pass through an enormous number of areas belonging to different local authorities and meeting with different difficulties in each area; but a matter of that sort really requires centralised control. It is therefore proposed also that roads and bridges for vehicular traffic should be included in the Bill. Already there are a large number of powers exercised over the roads, railways, canals and tramways by the Government, but they are exercised by the different Departments of the Government. There is no one Department which can co-ordinate the whole of the control. It is divided among several Departments and that is obviously not a

  1823
  desirable thing. Therefore, it is felt that this necessary control, this necessary co-ordination, is better in the hands of one Minister who has the whole subject before him, the whole of the evidence before him, and can deal with it in the best interests not of any individual or locality, but of the community as a whole.
  The final power which it is proposed to take is the control of the supply of electricity, and as to that there may at first sight be a considerable difference of opinion. But if the House will recollect that probably transport is the greatest and most permanent customer of electricity and further that transport depends entirely for its successful management on the development of the industries of the country, the House will see how important it is that this Minister should have control of electricity. It is suggested, I know, in some quarters, that the interest of the railways and the tramways, so far as electricity is concerned, is not that of the consumer. The exact opposite is the case. The more prosperous are all the industries in any of the areas—the more industry prospers and is enabled to increase its output and to use the railways and transport the more transport will prosper. Therefore there is every inducement for the railways and those who control the railways to see to it that every individual in the country, everyone who can improve his business by the use of power, is enabled to get his power as cheaply and as easily as possible. As every person connected with electricity knows, the load factor is one of the most essential points which has to be considered. If the railways were able to establish a load factor they would enable themselves to use electricity on the railways far more efficiently and far more cheaply and to a far greater extent even than at the present. For these reasons I submit to the House that it is essential that whoever has to co-ordinate the control of this means of transport should also co-ordinate that which is essential to transport, namely, the supply of electric power. This Bill no doubt will require considerable discussion. Whether it will meet with any wide opposition I very much doubt, when it is thoroughly digested and understood. As has been promised in reply to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, time will be
  1824
  given for the House to consider the Bill before the Second Reading. In a matter of this kind I felt that it was right in asking leave to introduce the Bill to give some brief sketch of the object, motive and intention of the Bill and the method by which it is to be carried out.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will it apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes; it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that there is no part of the United Kingdom where it will be more valuable than in Ireland.
  Mr. RENWICK: Will the Manchester Ship Canal and the Sharpness, Gloucester, and other ship canals be included?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, that would be the intention.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a speech on, I think, the most powerful Ministry that it has ever been suggested to set up in this country. A single Ministry which is to control the roads, canals, railways, bridges, vehicles, and traffic regulations of this country, which I presume includes the whole of London as well, and in addition to that is going to be responsible for the supply and control of electricity, and, as we are informed in reply to a question, is also to have the Manchester Ship Canal thrown in as a little extra, will need its Minister to be a superman. He will need to be a. very great man, and I almost think it would save the time of the Government, if they included in the Bill the provision that the Minister for Ways and Communications should also manage the whole of the affairs of the country. I am not rising to oppose the whole of the Bill, but I rise to outline a very grave opposition to the Bill with regard to the roads. The House may not be aware that quite recently a private Committee was appointed in this House to promote the use and development of the roads of this country and only to-day there are 280 Members of the House who have joined that Committee. I cannot go to a Division on the First Reading, but I can tell the House that I have the full support of that Committee, and I think it right to outline the views of a great many Members of this House who strongly object to the inclusion in one Ministry

  1825
  of all these vital essentials to the well being of the trade and commerce of the country.
  I am going to ask my right hon. Friend to omit roads from his Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman who is going to be the Minister of Ways and Communications will find that there is enough for any one man to do in managing the railways—including nationalisation, an enormous problem—the canals, and the whole of the electric supply of this country. The roads might be left to a new Ministry. There are 152,000 miles of roads in this country that will have to be dealt with by this single Ministry. At the present time these roads are dealt with by no less than 2,000 road authorities, the whole of whom must necessarily be consulted before this Bill is passed into law. The real point I want to make, quite candidly, is that the road users of this country and the great motor interests, who are also concerned in the use and development of our roads, are gravely suspicious of the roads being put under railway control. Let a railway-man manage the railways if you like, but let a roadman, a man who knows the roads, who has been born on roads, trained on roads, and who knows something of the management of roads, have the management of the roads under a single Ministry. The Road Board to which the Home Secretary referred today has been allowed to become moribund by this Government. The Road Board did excellent work before the War and during the War, but it has been allowed to become moribund and is doing actually nothing. The last thing the Road Board did was to submit a Report to the Ministry of Reconstruction stating that at least £30,000,000 are required for the reconstruction of the roads, £7,000,000 for the reconstruction of bridges, and a similar amount in respect of deferred maintenance to bring the roads into a proper condition for the traffic of this country. The Treasury have already allowed £10,000,000 to the Road Board to be distributed among the local authorities as a commencement for the improvement of the roads. The roads are not altogether feeders of railways, but they are competitors. My right hon. Friend told the House that many large commercial articles have to be carried by road because the railways cannot take them at the present time. I altogether
  1826
  differ from him in his statement that these boilers or great iron castings are carried with difficulty from one side of the country to the other because of the multiplicity of districts through which they pass. I have had a great deal of experience and I say that there is no real difficultly, and provided that there are good, well constructed and well founded roads, these loads do no damage whatever.
  It is often said that criticism is destructive, and though I strongly agree that a physician should not prescribe until he is called in to prescribe, I suggest a line upon which my right hon. Friend might get his Bill, and the roads of this country might be developed for the enormous work we expect them to do during the next few years. Let him, instead of killing the Road Board, revivify the Road Board and give it representation on that Front Bench. There is ample work on the roads for one Board and one Minister to do. There are the present powers of the Road Board, the powers held by the Board of Trade in regard to tramways, the whole of the motor car Acts, the whole of the petrol Acts, and the whole of the Home Office regulations in regard to traffic. Surely it would be enough for one Minister, in addition to the negotiations that will have to take place with over 2,000 road authorities, and the making of arrangements with them to bring their roads up to a proper condition. If my right hon. Friend says that my scheme provides no co-ordination between the railways and the roads, I am prepared to admit that he is perfectly correct. The proper way to co-ordinate is not to appoint a railway Minister to co-ordinate the roads and the railways. The proper co-ordination is for the Cabinet itself to co-ordinate the work, and to make perfectly distinct departments of railways and roads. I submit that to roads even more than to railways—because it is utterly impossible during the next few years to build any new railways, to reconstruct our railways, or to build any number of light railways—we must look in facing the problems of reconstruction, such as the problem of housing, the problem of developing agriculture, and the problem of public health. All these depend upon the development of the roads rather than upon the development of railways.
  What we want is rapid, effective motor transport in order to enable the small

  1827
  cultivator to get his produce right from his farm to the market place, and not have to bring it from the farm to the station, tranship it there, and then tranship it at the other end in order to get it to the market. As the whole House knows, this War has been a war of motor traffic. The motor services, not merely of Great Britain but of the other countries in the War, have enabled the War to be carried on on all sides. We know now far more than we did five years ago about the development of motor traffic. Perhaps there are new Members of this House who do not know me, and I wish to state that I have no money involved in any sense in the motor question, though I frequently speak on motor matters in the House. I am interested in such matters, but not financially. Old Members know that, and new Members will forgive me in making this point clear, because I shall have to speak several times on this Bill. The motor trade of this country is to-day in a position to cope with the roads as soon as the roads are developed and made fit for heavy motor traffic upon them. I want the Home Secretary to realise that there will be a very determined and very definite opposition to this portion of his Bill, and I would suggest that just as the Secretary for Scotland is prepared to deal with one portion of the Health Bill and that Scotland is to have a separate Bill, I would advise the Home Secretary to pluck out from his Bill the part relating to roads, and let us have a separate Road Ministry. Above all, do not let him attempt to rush this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has asked that there should be ample time before the Second Heading. This is not a Reconstruction Bill in the strict sense of the word like the Housing Bill, which is an important Bill that ought to be got upstairs to Grand Committee as soon as possible. This Bill requires consultation and consideration on the part of the great industries concerned, and it must receive the consideration of the 2,000 local authorities who are administering the roads. It would be perfectly unfair to force the Second Reading until those great industries and local authorities have had an opportunity to consider the terms of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  1828
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHORTT, Sir Albert Stanley, Major Baird, and the Attorney-General.
  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL,—"to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is in some respects similar to the one which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now introduced. His Bill relates to a very important side of industrial reconstruction. This Bill deals with a very positive national need. I think that at the present time the House needs little persuading to consider carefully any measure which is designed to safeguard and strengthen the life of the people. We recollect that during the past four years we have lost about 700,000 of the pick of our race in the battles connected with the War, and I would remind the House that during the months of October, November, and December last year there was as high a mortality in the average per month from influenza alone as the average monthly mortality during the War from causes connected with the War. The men and women who were lost during that quarter were very largely people in the prime of life, as is the case, unfortunately, at the present time.
  If we wanted an illustration of how necessary it was to bring our practice into accord with our knowledge, we have it before us at the present time, because in this matter our practice is far behind our knowledge. Somehow or other we hear of these things, they sink into our minds, and we go away and forget them. For years attention has been drawn to the fact that we have in our children, in our elementary schools, armies who are physically defective or have defective vision, etc. We have them of every age and in every year, not a company or a brigade or a division, but an army. Every year they

  1829
  go out and lose themselves in the mass of the population. We forget them until suddenly some great national event occurs which brings it up to us in its reality. That was the case in the War. Then we saw those generations of children we had hoard of so often who were represented in the military age by hundreds of thousands of men who were physically unfit and could not pass the very moderate standard of physical fitness which the Array required. Then it was revealed as a source of national weakness, which is vary great in time of emergency, but it is just as much a source of national weakness in time of peace.
  Is there any one of us who knows how much waste is revealed if we think of the millions of men who could not pass the standard for recruiting? Think what we lose in productive capacity. You cannot calculate it in terms of millions. The physical, human, industrial waste of our present state of affairs is well nigh incalculable. It behoves us, therefore, to do what we canto remedy these things. I am getting tired of talking about it. We have been talking about it for a long time, and I am glad to say that this Bill indicates the conviction of the Government that the time has arrived for action. I would appeal to the House now that, when we get to the Committee stage, they should keep the big object of the Bill in view and take care that no parochial or petty or personal considerations stand in the way of the Bill. My experience is that any negotiations which it has been my duty to conduct in connection with this Bill have been no exception. Whatever you propose there are always plenty of people ready to say, "That is all right to deal with this kind of thing, but," and when you get to the bottom of these "buts" you find that somebody's interest is involved, and that there is some axe-grinding going on. I am tired of that kind of thing, and I hope that the House of Commons will see to it that whatever organisation we propose it will be directed solely, regardless of every interest, to the one object in view—the promotion of the health of the people by the most practical and sensible means we can evolve.
  My hon. Friend opposite just now, I thought, provided the best argument that could be provided for the creation of a Ministry of Ways and Communications. He said that there were 2,000 different authorities dealing with the matter. Do
  1830
  you wonder that there is a muddle? We are not so bad as that in the matter of health, but we are getting on towards it. We have a very large number of different Departments dealing with it, and I believe that there are about 1,800 local authorities. The first thing, if you are going to get a job well done, is to make it somebody's duty to see that it is done, and not leave it to the ill-defined and the combined responsibility of half-a-dozen different sets of people. That is the central idea, of this Bill—to try to fix responsibility and make it the duty of a body of men and a Minister to see to it that adequate steps are proposed in this Parliament, and, if sanctioned, are taken, to deal with the various aspects of this question, to unify the control, to get common direction and common policy. I suggest that we shall never make real headway in this or any other similar matter until we have fixed responsibility for getting it done upon a given body of men, because if responsibility is divided among half-a-dozen different sets of people it is quite easy for one man to suggest, and quite honestly to think, that the responsibility belongs to someone else.
  Referring for a moment to our present experiences, if we were told that we were going to have a new wave of influenza, in the present state of know ledge I am informed that it would be difficult and probably impossible to take adequate measures of prevention. But still it is quite clear also that if our organisation were better, if our agencies were directed by a common mind to a common end, we could have done very much more than we have. I may give another illustration of what has been done already by the hearty co-operation of the offices concerned. This country runs the risk, on demobilisation, of the introduction of a number of diseases, some of them of a very dangerous kind. Large numbers of our men have been infected with dysentery, malaria, and various other diseases, from which hitherto we have been in a large measure free, and we are endeavouring, by the joint action of the War Office, the Admiralty, the Air Service, and ourselves through my hon. Friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, to see that we take steps, as far as we can with our present agencies, to prevent the introduction and spread in this country of various tropical diseases. We devised this organisation ad hoc during the last

  1831
  month, but it should be part of our regular organisation. I have no doubt that considerable success will attend our efforts.
  The House will recognise that there are two stages in which we must proceed to deal with this matter. In the first we bring together the Government Departments concerned with health. In the next, the one which will have to be unfolded to the House later on, which the Speech from the Throne indicated, will be any proposals we have to submit with regard to organisation of certain services and the administration and extension of them, and so on, throughout the country. You have the central organisation and the local authority. This Bill relates to the central organisation. The House will see that in this Bill there has been one governing consideration which determines the Departments which will be brought together. It is set out in the third Clause. You will see there the Local Government Board, over which I have the honour to preside at the moment, the Insurance Commission, the services connected with the children under the Board of Education with respect to mothers and nursery schools, etc., the powers of the Home Office with regard to child life, are all amalgamated at once. The reason for that is this, that that gives you a central authority which deals practically with all existing, or the chief of the local agencies, Insurance Committees, local authorities, and the rest, all answerable to the one body, to control the general services of the country, and particularly those relating to infancy and maternity.
  There is another group of powers which we propose to take later on. The House may perhaps desire to know why they are in the second category. We propose to take later on the powers of the Board of Control with regard to mental deficiency, and we propose to take power to take over the duties of the Minister of Pensions with regard to disabled soldiers, and the services of the Board of Education with respect to medical inspection, etc. Our reason for having this second category is that the first amalgamation is quite enough to tackle at the beginning. It is a very big job and it would be a mistake to overload the Ministry at the very start with too much work to manage at the beginning. Then there is another reason. The powers relating to
  1832
  mental deficiency raise a great many judicial questions which are not medical in any sense; the rights of the subject, the custody of the person and various other legal questions which clearly would have to be disentangled from the medical side of the matter. Then with regard to the Ministry of Pensions, we have postponed taking over the services in reference to the disabled men for twelve months, because in the first place we want to know what is the magnitude of the task that is to be taken over. That will be fairly clear in twelve months. There again you have to disentangle the medical services of pensions from the payments which are made weekly to pensioners, many of which are conditional upon the receipt of hospital or other treatment. That is a matter which requires serious and careful adjustment. The same applies to the services of the Board of Education.
  Another provision is in the third Clause which may perhaps arouse some surprise. It will be observed that the Ministry of Health does not take over the central Medical Research organisation, the Medical Research Committee, but will transfer that to the Privy Council. I have been asked why we are not taking that over, and a number of hon. Members seem to think that that would be the natural thing to do. I said some time ago that we were not to do this on the principle of grab, but from the point of view of what is the best way to do it. The Ministry of Health which is proposed to be set up here, with qualifications to which I will refer later on, relates to two parts only of the United Kingdom—England and Wales—but if the Medical Research organisation, the Central organisation, included England and Wales merely, you would have the Scottish Board of Health, and my right hon. Friend the Scottish Minister of Health claiming one too, and the same I suppose would be the case as to Ireland. Knowledge is not limited to any particular part of the United Kingdom.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is that why you leave Ireland out?
  Dr. ADDISON: The reason is this, that this body served all Ministries. We have proved that during the War. I remember that my right hon. Friend and myself had a good deal to do with the designing and setting up of this organisation some years ago, and it is an organisation which has

  1833
  done magnificent work during the War. I think our wisdom has been justified by the event. It has occupied a detached position so that it could serve all, and whether it was tropical diseases or in connection with the Army or the Navy, or the Colonies, they all naturally went to this body without any jealousy. The right place to have a central research body is so that it is independent of departmental considerations. That is why now we place the Research Committee under the Privy Council, which is as wide in its sphere as the Empire, and I am sure it is the right place to put it. Another change in the Bill as compared with last year is the reference in Clause 3 to the Poor Law. The House will remember the very important declaration which I made on the authority of the Cabinet last year, that we had substantially accepted the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend opposite, with respect to the Poor Law, and we propose to give effect to them as soon as we can. But in one respect I have always felt that my right hon. Friend was in a privileged position, in that he showed us the fence of difficulties, while some of us have to find our way over that fence. Certain parts of the Poor Law are extremely intricate, and as an illustration of that I may mention that we shall have to deal with Statutes going back as far as the reign of Queen Anne. [An Hon. Member: "Queen Elizabeth!"] At all events, going back a very long time. You have many complex questions, such as overlapping areas, rating powers, and other matters of that kind which are exceedingly difficult and exceedingly involved. That is why I made my friendly remark about the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the matter is exceedingly difficult and it will take considerable time to disentangle these things.
  What is embodied in the Bill now on this subject does not very much differ from the statement I made last year. We think the time has come when it is our duty in the near future to deal with the local services and to disentangle the treatment of sickness from any relation with the Poor Law. There are under the Poor Law very well managed and excellently equipped institutions. Those who manage them know well enough that they are there to minister to the needs of the sick, and in the main I believe I can say they do it very faithfully and well.
  1834
  But after all, if you are going to deal with sickness as a whole from the point of view of promoting the strength and vigour of our people, we cannot consider it in its relation to destitution. We have to consider it merely as a problem of sickness and that is why this declaration is in the Bill. The House will see from the various powers which are transferred to the Minister of Health that he is to be a gentleman with very wide powers indeed. They will also see how necessary it is that he should have power to deal not only with the actual remedial services but, what is much more important, that he should have power to deal with preventive services—those that are preventive and affect the question by environment. That is why the housing question must remain with the Ministry of Health. On a future occasion, I hope before long, it will be my duty to submit to the House the provisions of a Bill which is now under consideration relating to housing. We have up and down our country, both in towns and in villages, a number of places in which our people spend half their lives and which are really no better than pig styles and quite unsuitable as human dwellings. There is nothing more intimately related to the foundations of health than the places in which the people live. That is why housing must be made part of the Ministry's affairs.
  All that is very important, but the Ministry should not be saddled with things which are not really appropriate to its proper business. That is why both in the Schedule of the Bill and in the Bill itself powers are provided to enable the Minister to get rid of things which are amongst the transferred powers, but which do not relate to the health of the people. I am sure that nothing would give me greater joy, if I happened to be the Minister, than to pass over to the Minister of Ways and Communications the control of motors and various other matters of that kind which at present are dealt with by the Local Government Board. I do not know which Minister will be persuaded to take the compilation of the Parliamentary register—perhaps it would be my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—but, at all events, it is not a matter which is properly the function of the Minister of Health. There are other matters which are indicated in the Schedules as matters to be transferred to other Departments.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask if it is proposed that the Local Government Board shall cease to exist altogether?
  Dr. ADDISON: I thought it was evident from what I said. The Local Government Board and the English Insurance Commissioners will cease altogether, and all their powers are transferred to this Ministry, which has a separate existence. Therefore I think it is one matter of commendation for the Bill that it does not create an additional Ministry. We come to a matter which, I think, must give some satisfaction to those of us who have been concerned in the working of public health for a long time, and that is that the other parts of the United Kingdom are not satisfied to be left out of the Bill, but want to get it themselves. I know what are the views of my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir E. Carson) with regard to Ireland, and I say I entirely share them. The reason why, in drafting the Bill, it was not applied in many respects to Ireland was because the system in Ireland in many respects is very different from, and, I am afraid, in some respects very far behind, what it is here. So it was not easy to make the Bill applicable, but, as far as that goes, however, I am quite pre-pared to try and make it applicable to Ireland as far as we can, and to accept in that sense the spirit and intention of my right hon. Friend's Instruction.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply this Bill to Ireland without considering the views of the representatives of Ireland generally?
  Dr. ADDISON: The Irish Members can state their views fully in the House of Commons with freedom and facility. I shall be glad to consult their views in any practical way which the hon. Gentleman can suggest. Another problem which this Bill has brought to the front is that it emphasises the necessity for devolution. It was drawn within the limits of our present forms of government. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland announced to-day that owing to the change of procedure it would be taken separately so far as it affects Scotland. We were asked to create a Ministry of Health for Scotland and the same for Wales, and the same for Ireland. I think that would be in accordance with the lines which would follow under devolution, but you could scarcely alter your constitution under the cloak of setting up a Ministry
  1836
  of Health. If we come to devolution, let us call it devolution, but do not let us call it health.. That is why the Bill was drawn within the limits of existing forms of government. But it is, at all events, some satisfaction to some of us who thought devolution was necessary for years past. With regard to my hon. Friends who re-present Wales, I hope it will be possible to meet their views in Committee, and, at any rate, we will do our best to try.
  5.0 p.m.
  There is another feature of the Bill which is unusual, and that is that we propose to constitute a number of advisory committees to the Ministry. This was a feature of the Bill which was much criticised by those with whom I consulted, and I dare say in Committee upstairs they will have some criticisms to make upon it. As far as I am concerned, I am a whole hearted believer in this proposal. I believe that it will mean that the Ministry itself will be kept up to the mark. It will mean that a number of people who are interested in these problems will be given an active, or sufficiently active, share in policy matters, and the Minister will be kept in touch with progress and with the opinions of people outside in a very real and intimate fashion. I believe also a body of this kind will be very useful for the officers of the Ministry as well. Departments may get into old grooves and rather apart from life and things outside, and I think that it is altogether to the good that we should have some body of this kind in our organisation. I may say it is the intention that these advisory councils should not be larger than we can help. They would be set up by Order in Council, and a draft form of Order will be found in the Vote Office. It is proposed under that Order that they will deal with matters referred to them by the Minister, and they will be able to make suggestions to him that they should advise on certain matters, or they may initiate suggestions themselves, and I hope it will be found that they are a useful innovation.
  Major BARNES: Is it the intention to set up these consultative councils on the basis of a definite council for a definite area?
  Dr. ADDISON: No; I do not propose to set up these councils either from the point of view of area or from the point of view of representation of interests. I think you want experience and knowledge, whether

  1837
  on local authority questions, insurance questions, or medical questions, but you want to get the best people you can to advise you, and it is immaterial, I think, what part of the country they come from or what their nationality is; and, therefore, I think you should rigidly set your face against any geographical limitation of these bodies or any constitution of them from the point of view of the representation of interests, although it is quite clear that there will be different groups of problems with which the Ministry will have to deal. Arrangements are made for taking over the insurance work, and the financial matters dealt with by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee are retained by them under the Bill, the Secretary for Ireland, the Minister of Health, and the Secretary for Scotland being on the common body dealing with financial and other questions; and arrangements are also made to deal with judicial matters which at the present time fall outside the scope of the functions of the Minister of the Insurance Commissions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and other Members of this House got together last year bodies of people connected with insurance matters, local government matters, and medical questions, and this Bill has been thrashed out in full detail, or at least the proposals in it have, with these bodies, and I think I can say in the main that it has received the support and concurrence of all these different and very important groups of organisations, and I may add that that end has not been achieved without some considerable diplomacy. I have always found that whenever we treated a thing on big comprehensive lines, with sole regard to the national interests and the best way of dealing with health matters, sectional interests immediately fell into the background. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the assistance these gentlemen have given me. May I take this opportunity of saying, in reply to a good many correspondents, that those who are concerned at the present time with various branches of our health services need have no misgivings as to the future. One gets inquiries as to whether they are to set up a cottage hospital or whether provision of a village nurse is a fit subject for a local war memorial scheme. Of course, they are. We have not anything like enough of these services, and none of them have anything to fear from the coming of the
  1838
  Ministry of Health. We shall want more of them, not less, provided they attain proper standards of efficiency.
  May I point out that when in the next stage we come to explain our proposals to the House, it will be found that there is to be a wide extension of facilities in connection with nursing, midwifery, diagnosis, hospitals, and so forth, because in our poor districts, in our country districts, and amongst the middle classes there are large sections of the community which have not at their command at the present time the services that we have at command. In this respect, I think, nobody suffers more than the poorly paid middle classes. Our great voluntary hospitals cater for the poor, although many of them can get admission only by charity or good fortune, and there is always a long waiting list at our hospitals—and there ought to be no waiting list. The poor middle classes are between the upper and the nether millstone all the time. They cannot afford the fees of the great expert, and naturally they do not want to be the recipients of charity, and therefore it often happens that this class of our population suffers most from a lack of the best facilities. But beyond and above any extension of our remedial services, prevention is the thing that this Ministry must aim at, and wide as our opportunities may be in treatment, they are as wide as the world in the realm of prevention. For instance, we have half a million children in our schools suffering from malnutrition, which is a preventable complaint in the vast majority of cases, and these are the children who get measles, tuberculosis, and all the rest of it. Then I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of them are suffering from deafness, due to living in in sanitary dwellings and such causes.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask whether the Ministry of Health will deal with the cases of the blind and the deaf and dumb?
  Dr. ADDISON: Certainly. All those classes will come under it. We could not have two better illustrations than those given by my right hon. and learned Friend. Directly you begin to probe into these things you will find that an immense proportion of these cases could have been prevented. In fact, it was only two days ago that I asked the best adviser that we have what his view was, and he said that, in his opinion, so far as the revelations of the physical defects of children in our

  1839
  schools were concerned, the bulk of them were preventable. If that is true, think what it means. There are hundreds and thousands of these children, and the bulk of their defects are preventable, so that there is plenty of work for all our agencies and the best of our services. As a matter of fact, it is clear to any man of common knowledge that the bulk of these things are preventable, or at least a large proportion of them are. Many of the disabilities from which the men examined for the Army were found to suffer had their origin either at birth or even before that. They came from living or being brought up in unhealthy homes, and from them or their parents not having a proper knowledge of the kind of food they ought to eat; they came from living in stuffy rooms because they had never been taught to appreciate the necessity of fresh air; and they came from a large number of other causes of that kind, such as improper conditions of work and improper hours. In this connection one's mind turns to what was found at the Ministry of Munitions by that Committee which investigated the conditions relating to the health of the munition workers. We found that we were in a large number of cases able, not only to improve the health of the workers, but to increase the output at the same time by a sensible, practical, and common-sense survey of the conditions under which they were working. All these things should come under the cognisance of men who have to deal with health matters. The vast majority of them are the natural and obvious effects of common and well-known causes, and the fact is that in these things our practice is a long way behind our knowledge, and this organisation is mainly required to enable us to get nearer into accord with our knowledge. Let me say, finally, that this Bill provides only a necessary instrument. The development of the services throughout the country will have to come later. The Bill will have to be an instrument that can stimulate and develop them. This is only the central instrument, and if you want to promote the health of our people in a rational, comprehensive, sensible, and adequate way this is a vital and essential instrument, and on that ground I commend this Bill to the House.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The House will congratulate my right hon. Friend on the clear and excellent way in which he
  1840
  laid this very important measure before the House. No one is better entitled to do so. By his professional skill, his long Parliamentary experience, and his fine public spirit, he is essentially the man to introduce such a measure. I congratulate him on dropping Scotland out of the Bill, because I can tell him and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that they not only saved the House a large number of speeches of vigour and length, which may well be, made upstairs, but that they have got out of the way the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and his colleagues. It is an excellent idea. It would have been a very serious brake on the progress of the Bill had they not done so, and I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friends on the wise decision at which they have arrived. I should like to say, first of all, how much everybody must agree with the general ground on which my right hon. Friend bases his Bill, with the unhappy national circumstances which we find at the present time pointing the moral of his remarks. The reaper is busy among us—among every class in the land—and, since we have not yet left the realms of war, we can remind ourselves that as worthy battles are fought with fairness glory against the enemy of disease and dirt and social degradation. As the right hon. Gentleman wisely pointed out, the only way in which that can be done is by co-ordination of forces and unity of command. It is, I suppose, the note running through the whole of his speech, and indeed throughout the Bill—that message of co-ordination of succour. I would like to corroborate what he said with regard to recruits for military service. Often it was quite easy to realise what would be the grade of the man by glancing at the papers to see the district in London from which he came. Seven times out of ten you could always guess the grade into which the man would naturally fall.
  We were all delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend was so fully seised of the elementary fact that the conditions under which citizens live very largely determine the health they enjoy. As he pointed out, no mere attempts to cure will meet the case, unless we adopt wise methods of prevention. He touched on one of the gravest evils, and that is the terrible

  1841
  defects of housing in the country. I would say only one word with regard to Scotland. May I read three lines from the Housing Report on the conditions there:
  "45.1 per cent. of the population in 1911 were living more than two in a room, 21.9 per cent. more than three in a room, and 8.6 more than four in a room."
  The mere reading of that is sufficient indication of some of the evils which my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to combat in this Bill. He appealed for unity of support, and a union of national interests to override particular interests. No one knows better than I do, after such experience as I have had, as to that terribly difficult task. It is a really serious matter to grapple with, and if for one or two minutes I refer to the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, it may, perhaps, bring home to the House some of the difficulties of the overlapping of local administration. The Committee was composed of persons who were all—exceptmyself, of course—extraordinarily well qualified to deal with the question, and it may be interesting to remember that there were gathered there the protagonists of other days—Lord George Hamilton and Mrs. Sidney Webb—I mention only those two—who finally agreed on the Report, although the whole country knew what serious differences of opinion unhappily divided them in the long gone by. The first thing with which we had to deal was the question of the boards of guardians, and we speedily came to the conclusion that it was quite necessary that those boards should be abolished. A great complaint was made that we did not call evidence, but it was quite hopeless to endeavour to go over that ground again. In dealing with the whole question of the work of the boards of guardians it became speedily evident that the dominant factor was the question of health. Every hour that we devoted to it we came, back again to the question of health. It is very likely, therefore, owing to that fact, which we brought out very clearly in our Report, that a large amount of support was given to my right hon. Friend and his advisers to go forward with this Bill.
  What are the facts with regard to this question of overlapping? There are no fewer than seven different public authorities giving money assistance in any home which requires it, leaving out of account the exceptional cases of money payments for education. On the question only of
  1842
  medical assistance, there no fewer than six different authorities which may be rendering assistance to a given family, and often the officials working for these authorities do not know that the other authorities are connected with it. There is no proper system of registration. In the case of a family, a board of guardians may be rendering medical assistance, and the local health authority, the insurance committee, the local war pensions committee, the local education authority, and—if the family should unhappily include some mentally deficient member—the mental deficiency authority may also be rendering some assistance. Wherever we turned, the same trouble arose—overlapping, additional expense, official friction. It is extraordinary that in any common-sense community it should have been tolerated so long. In the work of the guardians, three quarters of their expenditure of money and officials' time is in connection with services relating to children, maternity, the sick and the aged, because the able-bodied problem is very largely out of the way, and if we are at all sensible it never will achieve the proportions that it did any time, say, within five or six years of the War. There is no need for that at all. This, then, is a question which will not wait, if we are to carry in any degree a proper sense of our responsibilities for the future.
  I do not know whether I might give another example of how these various authorities work. Let me just tell the House the different authorities which may have to do with a baby of live and under. There is a midwife, who is under the county council. If there be a doctor's fee, the local sanitary authority comes in, or the guardians. Suppose the child has some inflammation of the eye, then the county council comes in, but, if there be a permanent affection, the local sanitary authority comes in, and if there be some other part of the child's body affected the county council is the authority. If there be puerperal fever in the case of the mother, that is a question for the local sanitary authority. But the midwife has to be dealt with under a different authority, under the Midwives Act, the health visitor under the board of guardians, while the Infant Life Protection Act has also to be administered by the board of guardians. Then suppose a Government grant comes from the Local Government Board for nursing or medical

  1843
  aid, now for measles or whooping cough it is all right, but for scarlet fever or diphtheria, no. I am just giving a bald recital of the facts. It really is absurd that that can be going on to-day. After all the lessons which the nation has been taught, we are now at this time of day debating the matter, and I am sure there will be an immense amount of opposition when you really get down to it. I only hope the facts we are now trying to make public will make it rather more difficult for vested interests to operate against great public measures which are urgently needed in the interest of the nation as a whole.
  Having made these somewhat general remarks, let me say a few words on the Bill itself. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that it is sweeping. I must say I gasped—I do not know whether with astonishment or relief—but certainly he swallows the Local Government Board. [An Hon. Member: "Why not?"] That is a very big mouthful. He proposes to rejects bits of it which he does not want. I will only say that I am all for wide and sweeping, drastic changes, but this will have to be rather carefully examined, because, after all, the Local Government Board has grown up after many years under very able officials, though no doubt it has grown out of touch with many developments of our modern and social administration. That may be so, but one knows the number of times the Local Government Board comes into private Bill legislation, which shows how wide and sweeping are its powers, and in the vast majority of cases how beneficial is its work. It is a tremendous proposal, and I hope and believe that will be most carefully examined in Committee upstairs—if the Bill is going upstairs, as I suppose it will—to see whether there is a sufficient case for so wide and sweeping a proposal. Then my right hon. Friend very wisely said he had omitted, for technical reasons, to take certain powers of the Home Office. I do not see why the medical side of the factory legislation of the Home Office does not come under the new Ministry. It is a most important question, and I should have thought it very naturally falls into the scope of the proposals of my right hon. Friend.
  I am particularly delighted to find that he has practically taken over charge of the children. I think that is important,
  1844
  and makes up for a great many defects, because, unless we look after the children, I do not know what is to become of the State. A great gap has been torn in our social life. Seven hundred thousand of the most fit of our nation are gone, and at least another 1,500,000, who would have been the fit fathers of another generation, are devitalised—broken in health and in general capacity. Every child is one of the most precious jewels this nation has at the present moment, and any effort the State devotes to the well-being and development of the child is worth any amount of money and any amount of energy you put into it. Blank negation must give way to a new and living interest in the development of the child. Therefore, I most cordially welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has here taken wide, sweeping powers of co-ordinating all possible efforts on the health side in the cause of the children.
  One word or two in regard to the proposal about the boards of guardians. I say at once that the work which has been done by boards of guardians, especially of recent years, has not received anything like its fair meet of public recognition. There has been an immense amount of splendid, unselfish, unknown work done by boards of guardians. It was immediately apparent after the War began how well their work on the infirmary side had been done. Some of the very best war hospitals in the country have been justly regarded as those in the old infirmaries which were taken over with all their staff and equipment, and these furnished at once an excellent testimonial to that side alone of the guardians' work. We must, however, face the fact that there is an immense amount, a very right and proper amount, of prejudice against what is known as pauperising. I think the time has come when boards of guardians must be mingled with other authorities. I myself hope, whatever is done, that use will be made of those splendid men and women who have been constituting boards of guardians in the past. I am certain that they will devote their splendid public experience and their unselfish efforts to the furtherance of the public good in some other form than that which has been associated hitherto with boards of guardians. I hope there will be no unnecessary change in regard to their work, but only a change of instrument. My right hon. Friend is forming his supreme war council.

  1845
  You cannot, however, carry on a war with a war council. You must have your units, which are going to do the real work in the field. The sooner he sets to work in regard to the necessary measures for getting local authorities who are down at the seat of the trouble the better. I am certain the whole community will welcome the introduction of this Bill. They will realise that the motto of New York is one which can really be carried out in their experience. That motto is:
  "Public health is purchasable, and, within limits, a community can determine its own death rate."
  Mr. THOMAS: I was, unfortunately, unable to have the opportunity of listening to my right hon. Friend; negotiations of another kind were the real cause of my absence. Nevertheless, I desire to say that there is no Minister who has worked harder than my right hon. Friend in connection with this Bill. For eighteen months, week after week, he was engaged, against tremendous opposition, pressure, and prejudice in meeting many conflicting elements; and I am perfectly certain that he is not responsible for the delay in bringing forward this measure. It would be idle to deny that there is no piece of legislation so necessary as this Bill. It is rather a disadvantage that it required a war, with all its horrors and sacrifices, as well as the patriotism so magnificently displayed by our people, to bring home to all sections of the community what a handicap there was in the health of our people. We have read of C3 men. We have been acquainted with young men who at the call of duty responded to the call. They did not hesitate to offer their services. They repeatedly offered them on many occasions. It was a sad reflection, I repeat, on our social system that these men had to be rejected, and could not serve in the War, because the country itself had neglected to do its duty in looking after their health. I would be deceiving the House if I did not frankly admit that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we look upon this Bill only as a first instalment. One virtue of the Bill is that it for the first time co-ordinates the many authorities dealing with health questions. The fact that so many authorities at this moment are charged with this duty means that nothing is being done. [An Hon. Member: "Question!"] At least we have this particular advantage in co-ordinating the whole health services under one administration. It wilt be impossible for
  1846
  right hon. Gentlemen opposite to excuse their mistakes by passing the blame on to somebody else. In other words, we will at least be in a position to hold someone responsible. If the Minister, whoever he is, in charge of this matter—I hope the Act will be in force in the very near future—is kept to his job, and Parliament recognises its duty and responsibilities, then I am perfectly certain that something will be done.
  I must, however, confess that I am somewhat apprehensive if this measure is transferred to the Local Government Board. My views on the Local Government Board are well known. I believe that the Poor Law arid Poor Law administration stink in the nostrils of all progressive men today. I boldly declare that there is much responsibility for the delay in bringing forward this measure due to the "dead hand" of that particular Department. If it simply means that all these magnificent Clauses, all these great proposals, and all these wide and extensive powers are merely to be transferred to this body, and nothing more is heard of it, then, instead of the Bill being an advantage, it will be mere camouflage. What I desire to impress upon my right hon. Friend is that we want a change of spirit in the Local Government Board. We want them clearly to recognise that there has got to be some driving force, and a different atmosphere, or this measure will not be so advantageous as some of us want it to be, and as, I believe, the whole House expects it to be. That, I put to my right hon. Friend, will clearly necessitate some driving force. For instance, I want the advisory councils that are proposed in this Bill to be real live bodies. I want them to be composed of people of all sections, men and women with experience, knowledge, and interest in the particular question. Whilst, of course, the Minister must always be responsible, we, at least, expect that he will look upon these new bodies as a sort of consumers' council, acting as a driving force to see that things are done.
  I want my right hon. Friend also to recognise that if this Bill is to be really effective we must have large Exchequer Grants to the local authorities in order that they may be able to do their work. Anyone in this House, or connected with local administration, knows perfectly well that the great difficulty to-day in dealing with all these questions is that the local authorities always excuse themselves on

  1847
  the ground of the rates, often justifiably! They are entitled to say that the question of the public health is not exclusively a local matter. They are entitled to say that often local authorities are crippled by circumstances for which they have no responsibility. This occurs mainly in the poorer of our authorities. They are entitled to urge that at least the Government shall not be behindhand in giving them substantial Exchequer Grants to enable them to do their work. I know the difficulty with the Treasury. Just as one may say that the Local Government Board retard progress in some directions, so in others my right hon. Friend will be up against the Treasury. My only comment is that, whatever might have existed in 1914, whatever might have been tolerated in 1914, is not good enough for to-day. Our people will not stand it. Our people demand something better. Our people have already shown that they are entitled to something better. By the Minister in charge recognising that I am quite sure he will be able to persuade the Treasury that they must not adopt the usual policy—they must recognise the changed times.
  I should like to see some more provision made in connection with the taking over of our voluntary hospitals. No one can do other than pay a tribute to the magnificent work that they have done and are doing. No one can do other than appreciate the magnificent services that have been rendered by the medical provision of our voluntary hospitals. After all, however, so far as the working classes are concerned, it is one of two things which is open to them—charity or the Poor Law. So far as the Labour party is concerned, they are quite clear, and quite determined—and they believe the time is not inopportune—that instead of these great institutions being maintained and being dependent on the charity and good will of the public, they shall be real national institutions, provided and paid for by the public, and administered for the public as a whole. There are many other points that one might deal with, but I do welcome this Bill as a first instalment of the election promises of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Every Member of this House on either side is committed to a new England, no matter to what party he belongs. When we recognise, as we are compelled to do to-day, that the homes and conditions of
  1848
  our people are such that breed disease, we are all satisfied that something must be done. Just imagine for a moment the waste of public money to-day, even under the Insurance Act, which, by the way, was the very first attempt to ascertain the health of the people. In that Act we provided 30s. to at least give some chance in the most critical period of a woman's life. We provided also, in order to prevent her going to work following maternity, that she was at least to be paid four weeks' benefit. But after that, so far as the State is concerned, there is no more concern for her or the baby, with the result that you can go into many of our industrial towns and see a procession of women coming out of the factories, and they rush into some hovel to find the baby that has been left to the care of someone else. After all, the child life of this country should be an asset to the nation, and it should be our first consideration, because these children are the citizens of to-morrow.
  In welcoming this Bill we of the Labour party recognise that it is the first step forward, and we will give all the assistance and help we can to the speedy passage into law of this measure. I hope that the same determination, enthusiasm, and energy which my right hon. Friend opposite has displayed with many conflicting interests during the past eighteen months will be shown by the Minister in charge of this Bill, and I hope that the same energy displayed in the administration of the Insurance Act will be the kind of energy that will be displayed in his Department. In other words, I hope that, whilst these things are transferred to the Local Government Board, it is to be a new sort of Local Government Board, and it is not to be conducted on the old methods of the past; and, above all, I hope that the pledge which is here given to put into the operation the Maclean Report, which means the abolition of the Poor Law, is one not to be embodied in this Bill, but is to be given immediate effect to as soon as circumstances warrant. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a very strong feeling in the trade union and friendly society movement on this question. We only accept this Bill as an instalment with a distinct understanding that the Maclean Report is to be followed by immediate legislation, and I hope that this first Bill to create what I have referred to as a new England will only be the first stage in this

  1849
  House towards many reforms dealing with the social condition of our people as a whole.
  Sir E. CARSON: I only desire to say a few words on this Bill, more particularly with regard to its application to Ireland. In the first place, may I join in my congratulations to the President of the Local Government Board for having brought in a Bill which, in my opinion, at all events, has before it, if it passes, a great future. I am well aware the Bill only deals at the present moment with machinery, but the machinery is the most important foundation of the whole matter, and when you have set up your machinery, I think you will find that when it is somebody's duty to do a particular thing and there is the machinery provided for doing it, you will have a much better chance of the thing being done whole-heartedly. When this Bill, or a similar Bill, was before the House in the autumn I entered a protest against it not being applied to Ireland, and I did so for the reason that, I regret to say that for some years past there has been a growing disposition in the House in Irish politics to leave out from Bills for the amelioration of the people Ireland, with a view to avoiding political opposition, or with a view of getting the Bill through in an easier way. That policy has proved very disastrous to the people of Ireland.
  Last year we passed for England and Scotland an Education Bill of a far reaching character, and in regard to those Bills, great and beneficial as they are going to be for Great Britain, we are already beginning to perceive that they are going to leave the boys and young men in Ireland at a great disadvantage. So far as I am concerned, I am determined in whatever way I can to urge upon this House the great necessity of not treating the people of Ireland as if they did not require the same measures of amelioration as the people of England and Scotland. If hon. Members who differ from me, for either political or other reasons, disapprove of this course as regards the parts of Ireland they represent, all I can say is I will then urge that at least the North-East of Ireland would gladly welcome all the measures of reconstruction and advancement for England, and they do not want to be left out because other parts of Ireland do not wish to come in.
  I can foresee that a great deal is foreshadowed by this Bill. In the first place,
  1850
  my right hon. Friend has stated, and I think rightly, that the question of housing will be under this Ministry. That question has, in my opinion, more to say for the health of the people than almost any other question that comes before us. I am not sure that it does not also help to solve the temperance question, because if a man has a decent, comfortable, healthy house to come to I think he is not so likely to be constantly frequenting the public house. In Ireland, and especially the Constituency I now have the honour to represent, there is no more pressing question at the present moment than housing. It is a fact that in Belfast, growing rapidly as it is, having grown almost out of its clothes, I do not know how in the coming few years the people of that great community are to get on unless very drastic measures are taken to supply the deficiency of houses that exists there at the present moment.
  There was another matter foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend, and it was the revision of the Poor Law, and there is no place requires a revision of the Poor Law more than Ireland, more especially on the question of the separation of medical relief from the relief of pauperism. I am not going into details, and I merely make these observations to show that there really is foreshadowed in this Bill a great, policy of amelioration of the people, and I claim that policy for Ireland just as you are claiming it for England and Scotland. I would join the Scottish Members in the course they have taken in asking for a separate Bill for Ireland, were it not that. I believe if I did so I should never get it. I think my only chance and the only chance of Ireland is to ask to be, included in this Bill, and then when the people of Ireland are included they will have a chance of getting relief in all the various ways which are foreshadowed by the policy that has been stated by my right hon. Friend. Ireland, as regards public health, is miles behind this country. Let me state one or two facts. The medical officers of health in Ireland are supposed to conduct the whole question of health, which includes preventive as well as curative methods and sanitation, and when I state that except in three out of six county boroughs there are no whole-time independent medical officers of health in Ireland hon. Members will realise what that means. There are some 812 part-time medical officers of health at an average salary of just under

  1851
  £20 a year, and very few, not 5 per cent., of the whole of that 812 hold a diploma of public health. You cannot wonder that the Branch Medical Council of Ireland have reported that
  "these officers cannot discharge their duties to the best advantage of the public, and sanitation for this reason, combined with the permissive character of public health legislation in provincial and rural Ireland, has become a sad farce."
  It is worse, because it is practically non-existent. The course of legislation has been that the most elementary Health Acts are all permissive in Ireland, and, bearing this in mind, hon. Members will readily understand what a condition we are in. Let me take the Infectious Diseases Notification Act of 1889. That particular Act is permissive in Ireland, and there are six urban and fifty-one rural sanitary districts in which it is inoperative. There are sixteen urban and ninety rural sanitary districts in which the Infectious diseases Prevention Act of 1890 in Ireland has not been put into force at all. As regards the notification of tuberculosis, only forty-one out of 213 rural sanitary districts have adopted it. That is a scandalous condition of affairs to have to bring before the Imperial Parliament.
  6.0 p.m.
  May I mention one or two more facts? We have not in Ireland the power of medical inspection of the children of the schools at all. We have no such Act. That is another of the Acts that were passed for this country where Ireland was purposely left out. We have no method in Ireland for the inspection of the sanitary condition of our schools. We have hardly any legislation at all in Ireland, as you have in England, as regards the blind and the deaf. All these things are still in an antediluvian state of chaos, and I do press upon this House that they should insist that this Bill in its fullest form—I say that because my right hon. Friend said as far as it may be practicable, expedient, or something of that kind—should be made applicable to Ireland, and a strong body set up—I do not care whether it is in the Local Government Board, but a statutory body—whose duty and responsibility it will be to take care that no longer are these great subjects neglected in Ireland. I cannot myself see any difficulty in adapting this Bill to Ireland. Almost every Clause of it which is beneficial might be easily applied to Ireland. But
  1852
  even when that is done, I must beg the Government, and particularly the Irish Executive—and now that we have a new Chief Secretary who is a Scotsman probably there may be more hope for us—seriously and anxiously to take in hand this whole question of health in Ireland, and to do something to make up for the arrears which exist there, especially for our children, and indeed the whole of the poor population, something to bring us nearer the level, because it will take a long time to bring us up to the level, of what has been done for the people in this country and in Scotland. I hope that in this matter I may have the assistance of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). I hope, moreover, that if we do happen to agree upon a matter of this kind we shall not be told that we only agree because we want to rob the British Treasury. This matter is removed from politics. It is a matter upon which, I hope, we can easily agree, and still hold our own strong views. Perhaps we are each at the further end of the pole, but for all that, while this question of the settlement of Ireland is going on, as it has been going on for so many years, do let us recollect that generations are growing up, and that they are not having a fair chance.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I cannot dissent from the rather powerful indictment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made against health conditions in Ireland, and he may be quite certain, however we may differ upon the best method of solving this question, that I am in perfect agreement with any Member of this House of any class or politics who is willing and anxious to improve health conditions in Ireland, and to do something to put a stop to the desperate ravages which diseases called forth by these causes bring about in that country. But where I do disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is in the method of the solution. When this Bill was proposed Scotland was included in it. To-day, at the request of the Scottish Members, Scotland has been excluded. Ireland was not included in the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to include it. I object to that altogether. It is because I feel just as strongly and just as passionately as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the need for dealing with this great and insistent problem in Ireland that I want it free from all the intricacies of an English health system and a measure brought in for Ireland that

  1853
  will simplify the matter and, in my judgment, deal with the evil much more promptly and effectively. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir D. Maclean), paid a well deserved tribute to the patience and zeal and the effective labour of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure. He stated that for weeks and months, and even for a year, the right hon. Gentleman, when planning this scheme for the betterment of the health of the people of England and Scotland, was in constant touch and communication with all the great authorities whose advice and opinion would be of valuable assistance to him in the ultimate adjustment of the questions involved. May I ask—no one knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), how different is the whole system in Ireland for dealing with health matters from that in England—what consultation has taken place between the Ministers who wants to include Ireland in this measure and the Public Health authorities, the medical profession, and popular opinion as expressed by Parliamentary representation? Has there been a single health authority, medical authority, or public health authority consulted on this matter? Not one. Has a single hour of the time of a single Minister, whether the head of the Local Government Board, the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, or any other Minister, been given to this matter? What have they done to consult Irish opinion and to consider the peculiar conditions in Ireland before they come to deal with this question of health? Nothing at all. Yet the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says that a measure that cannot be effectively applied to Scotland must be applied to Ireland; and without consulting anybody in Ireland, any of the services involved, or any of the influences that will be bound to be touched on the question of health in Ireland, he proceeds to incorporate Ireland in the Bill, though Ireland was not mentioned originally, and to take Scotland out of the Bill, although Scotland was originally incorporated in it. I do not think that is right.
  If we are to deal with public health in Ireland, I want to deal with it on right lines, and it can only be dealt with on right lines by being left to an Irish Public Health Board. I want, as far as possible, to see the future treatment of the health of the Irish people divorced from the taint of Poor Law assistance. We have our dis-
  1854
  pensary system differing entirely from what you have in England or Scotland. The only successful body in Ireland up till now has been the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and they are going to be wiped out. Their powers are to be taken from them. They are to be made merely the escalier of a series of other authorities. The Board composed of the most successful officials, who have carried out the work of the Insurance Act and have given universal satisfaction, because the Board is not contaminated by association with Dublin Castle, is to be wiped out and cease to exist. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the opinion of the Irish Medical Council. I think he might have gone further and stated what were the views of the Irish branch of the British Medical Association on this question. They most vigorously demand the appointment of an Irish Health Board. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, notwithstanding his strong Unionist views, that one of the curses in Ireland is the existence of forty English boards uncontrolled by anybody except one Minister here in this House. According to this measure, the only representative of Ireland upon this Health Board would be the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He would be responsible to this Parliament. In the terrific organisation of a great Health Department dealing with 45 millions of people, you are going to subordinate the interests of a country which, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and rightly according to the, right hon. and learned Gentleman, is as pressingly in need of health reforms on the lines that he has indicated as any country in the world.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. Perhaps I did not make myself perfectly clear. I did not put it forward that health matters in Ireland should be under any Department except the Ministry here. I said that there ought to be a statutory body set up to deal with them, and I said that I did not mind whether it was in the Irish Local Government Board or an independent body, so long as it was a statutory body.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, the most brilliant lawyer in these islands, and, indeed, in all Europe. I wish I had as much faith in him as a politician as I have in

  1855
  him as a lawyer. What would be thought if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked to go into court and plead his case from a blank piece of paper? That is precisely the case here. We are asked to deal with the health problem, and we do not know where we are. I suggest that in the first place you ought to bring in a Bill to deal with Ireland. You ought, in the meantime, to bring together the representatives of the recognised medical authorities, the Insurance Commissioners, the Local Government Board, and all who are competent by experience and desire to serve, and to have some sort of a conference, with a certain promise that the matter will be dealt with during this Parliament, and set up such a tribunal as would understand Irish conditions and be able to deal with them. As far as our intentions are concerned, there is no disagreement between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself. The health of the people is the greatest and most vital of all national concerns, and I have seen in Ireland, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen, the evil fruits of sweated labour, of bad legislation, of neglected hygienic conditions, and of an appalling lack of moral responsibility. In no place has this been more felt than in Ireland, because so many of our vast social interests have been for gotten in the perfervid character of the political controversies in which we have been engaged. Speaking not only for a great working-class constituency—and I was taunted the other day by one of my colleagues for Belfast that I represented a slum district—
  Sir E. CARSON: And so was I.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, I know, and there never was a grosser misrepresentation. It was for the purpose of contradicting the statement of the Provost of Trinity College that I made the observation. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not represent a slum district, but I do according to the hon. Gentleman opposite. Does he think that an attack of this character worries me? I represent it because I love the people in the slums, and I am here to serve them. I take no interest whatever in the aristocratic concerns of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman. Not at all. My grip of the situation is this, that the rich and wealthy custodians of the right hon. Gentleman's interests in Belfast are very well able to take care of
  1856
  themselves. The slum dwellers cannot do that; they have sent me here to take care of their interests, and I am proud to represent them.
  Sir W. WHITLA: It is not my desire or intention at this early stage of the Session, before I have become familiarised with the Orders of the House, especially as I represent a constituency that has hitherto not been enfranchised, to speak at any length, but I will ask the House to bear with me for a moment should I transgress any of its regulations. I rise with great pleasure, after hearing the very generous concession made to Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for England in this Bill. I rise to express on behalf of my Constituency, which is largely a medical one, our gratitude for the concessions of the Government, and I should like also to express my gratitude to that band of professional brethren in this House who are unanimous in their desire that this Bill should be extended to Ireland. We were somewhat disappointed yesterday morning on reading in the "Times" the reply of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the important deputation which waited upon him regarding sanitary and health matters in Ireland. We were disappointed because he did not definitely give a promise that Ireland should be included in this Bill. But perhaps he did something equally important and equally valuable, something which I have no doubt has influenced the Government and the President of the Local Government Board,—something which was done by a distinguished and illustrious Irishman in the eighteenth century when he practically showed his sympathy with another phase of sanitary reform by proving, "with one Satiric touch, no nation needed it so much." I understand the Chief Secretary is a Scotsman. I do not think he has been sufficiently long in Ireland to become tainted with what we are accused of—the use of exaggerated language. If his remarks had been made by an Irish Member they would have been put down probably to Celtic exuberance. The Chief Secretary stated to the deputation that, after having carefully studied the reports which were placed before him he had come to the conclusion that the conditions in Ireland were appalling. I put that to the House as absolute proof that not only is sanitary reform needed in Ireland, but

  1857
  that it is needed most urgently. I have been practising in Ireland as a physician for nearly half a century, and I can testify to the absolute accuracy and truth of the Chief Secretary's statement.
  We have in Ireland that machinery which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) has referred to under a variety of different heads. This Bill before the House is a great co-ordinating Bill, and that is what we require in Ireland. It asks for power to co-ordinate under the Local Government Board all the different powers that are delegated to different State Departments. One fact which I wish to put before the House as an absolutely convincing proof that this Bill should be extended immediately to Ireland, and that we should not ask for a separate Bill, is that we have all the machinery in Ireland at the present moment ready for the enforcement of this measure. I ask the Government only to "touch the button," and then, all the different Departments which the right hon. Gentleman seeks power to co-ordinate, will be found centred in the Local Government Board. That is an unanswerable argument for Ireland's inclusion in this Bill. It is natural that the House should ask why this machinery is not in motion. I do not wish to criticise—I have no desire to criticise the Local Government Board for Ireland. It has done its duty. But these powers are all permissive, and they are carried out by some 400 different bodies in a most sporadic and desultory manner. Under this Bill we see untold blessings coming to Ireland, and I thank the Government and my right hon. Friend for the inclusion of Ireland in the measure. As for the Ulster Members, I think, from what my right hon. Friend has said, our action is perfectly clear. We are not going to oppose this Bill. We know, and I know as a physician, that thousands of lives are yearly lost in Ireland owing to its alarming and disgraceful sanitary condition, and we are, therefore, determined to help to pass the Bill, to get it through Committee with all the speed that we possibly can, and to remember that while we sit dallying in Debate, or hair-splitting on Amendments, lives are being lost in Ireland.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): In the first place, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member
  1858
  (Sir W. Whitla) and the constituency, which for the first time has power to express its views in this House on his maiden speech. I am sure that the representative of Queen's University, Belfast, in this House will have a Parliamentary career worthy of that body. I also wish, on behalf of the Irish Government, to say that we regret extremely the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary who, I am sure, will be glad of the facilities promised from all parts of the House for forwarding this important measure dealing with Irish health. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E Carson), and my hon. Friend the representative of the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) as well as the hon. Member for Queen's University, have all spoken of the appalling conditions prevailing in Ireland, and I am sure we are all agreed there is an overmastering demand for a measure which will improve the public health. The Irish Government has been reproached with its attitude in regard to this matter. May I point out what this Bill does and intends to do? I wish to repudiate in strong terms any suggestion that the Irish Government is thoughtless of what is going on regarding this question. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said to a very important deputation on Monday, it is the intention of the Irish Government to see that all those remedial measures for social reform and improvement in the health of the people which are to be applied to England, Scotland, and Wales, should be applied either immediately or pari passu, as the conditions best permit, to Ireland. I am sure that the House on all sides is anxious that the public health and welfare of the people of Ireland should advance along with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason that the Bill which my right hon. Friend brought forward last Session was not thought quite suitable for Ireland—
  Mr. DEVLIN: This was not the Bill of last Session.
  Mr. SAMUELS: The Bill of last Session dealt with central administration, and it may surprise hon. Members to know that, as far as central administration and central machinery is concerned, the Irish position is ahead of that of the English. We have a better existing organisation. As was pointed out by the representative of Queen's College, Belfast, we have better working machinery.
  Sir E. CARSON: Only it does not work.
  Mr. SAMUELS: As far as central machinery is concerned it is easy to put it in operation, and in that respect we in Ireland are in advance of England. But health administration has broken down in Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: You are always breaking down in Ireland.
  Mr. SAMUELS: It has broken down in Ireland and the reason for that is that the local administrative bodies which have to deal with practical matters touching the health of the people have permissive powers, and being permissive the result has been that the putting of them into operation has lamentably failed. What we have to do when we come to deal with a real practical measure for putting into operation the great preventive, the great curative, and the great administrative powers in Ireland, is to see that powers which have been neglected in the past shall not be neglected in the future. And here may I say that a tremendous responsibility is laid not on this House, not on the Local Government Board for Ireland, to which such a fine tribute has been paid by the Member for Queen's University, but on the electors of Ireland themselves and on the people who are returned to the county councils and district councils in Ireland for their failure to put the provisions which already exist, defective as they may be in certain senses, into operation. If they had put them into operation, public health would at any rate be far in advance of what it is to-day. Now let us deal with the Bill, and the reason it was not applied. The reason it was not applied is this: The Irish Government intended to have brought in a Bill to carry out, what I assume is the object of the representatives of the Government in Scotland, to deal with all these matters, having the more or less central machinery in Ireland. They hoped to deal with public health at once, and under that machinery.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a central machinery?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I will deal with that in one moment. Extensive inquiries were on foot and are on foot with regard to certain powers we have to administer. My right hon. Friend intends to deal with the matter as soon as he gets the organisation necessary. If hon. Members will look at the Bill for one moment they will find
  1860
  that the operative Clause transfers to the new Minister all the functions of the Local Government Board, all the functions of the Insurance Commissioners, all the powers of the Board of Education in respect to mothers and young children, all the powers in the Privy Council under Midwives Acts, and certain powers of the Secretary of State under the Children Act, 1908. How are these powers, which do not exist in Ireland, to be dealt with in Ireland? The Irish Local Government Board has, speaking generally, the same functions as the English Local Government Board. They are of enormous extent. They deal with all sorts of different matters. I do not think it would be satisfactory in Ireland, when we are dealing only with the question of public health, to have to tear up all the multifarious legislation which is compact and bound together and is under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board in Ireland. It is unnecessary for us to do that. The Local Government Board in Ireland is concerned with public health a great deal more directly than is the Local Government Board in England, for the whole of the dispensary system in Ireland, which provides for medical treatment and the provision of medicine not only to paupers but to all poor persons, is, so far as the central organisation of it is concerned, under the Local Government Board, of which the Chief Secretary is the head. As regards the Insurance Commission, you must recollect that the public health functions of the Insurance Commissioners in England do not exist in Ireland at all. There are no medical benefits under the Insurance Act in Ireland except, sanatorium benefits and they are carried into effect by an arrangement with the local governing bodies and under the Local Government Board. But the medical benefits do not exist in Ireland at all. It was at the request of the Irish medical profession and Irish Members that Ireland was excluded from those medical benefits, the reason being that it had this dispensary system.
  With regard to the Board of Education, my right hon. and learned Friend has asked whether the new Ministry of Health will deal with such questions as the blind, epileptic and defective children. It is a most lamentable thing that under no Education Act, system or board in Ireland at all are there any arrangements whatsoever to deal with the blind, the deaf, the dumb and defective, although they have had that in England and Scotland for a very long

  1861
  time. I hope that when we have a Public Health Act for Ireland that defect will be remedied, and that we shall have at any rate something which will bring home to these poor children in Ireland the same advantages as the children have so long enjoyed in this portion of the United Kingdom. I may say that we have in preparation a Bill conferring on the Irish Local Government Board powers similar to those of the Board of Education with regard to the medical inspection and treatment of children. Up to the present we have had no such powers in Ireland at all, therefore they could not be transferred under this Bill. In the same way, the administration of that portion of the Children Act which is exercised here by the Secretary of State is exercised in Ireland by the Chief Secretary. I do not wish to detain the House by going further into all these different transferred powers. We do not want them transferred in Ireland, because we have them vested in the President of the Local Government Board, who is the Chief Secretary. Where it would be an advantage to Ireland is in the direction pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend, namely, that we might adopt some of these measures. I hope that when we go upstairs with this Bill we shall have the combined assistance of all Members of both sides of the House to see how far we can make this Bill more effective in certain of its forms, especially with regard to consultative committees and other bodies dealing with general health, and to giving greater power, as has been suggested by the Irish branch of the British Medical Association, to the Department of the Local Government Board, reinforced by the addition of other Members, and having a statutory power and statutory abilities, such as have been suggested by my right hon. Friend.
  Sir E. CARSON: Executive powers?
  Mr. SAMUELS: Yes; they will have executive powers. There are no politics in this matter. It is just as important for us all in Ireland to have healthy children, whatever our politics may be. We want more health and less politics. I wish to express the obligation of the Irish Government and my right hon. Friend for the way in which we have been met by the Minister in charge of this measure in trying to see that, so far as possible where it is applicable, it shall be applied to Ireland. I hope we may shortly have a
  1862
  measure which will relieve the terrible state of public health in Ireland, and shall see it enforced so that the public bodies who will be entrusted with its administration shall carry out their powers. The elections will soon be taking place for these public bodies, and a great obligation is laid on the people of Ireland as to the class of men and class of women they return to those bodies to care for the health of the men, women, and children of that part of the United Kingdom.
  Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I wish, in the first instance, to congratulate the President of the Local Government Board on bringing in this Bill, which I believe, when it is suitably amended, will provide a fair basis for the erection of a great organisation. I do not propose to say much to-night, because now, fortunately, we have in the House a number of medical men who have practised in different branches of the profession, and I only wish to make a few remarks with regard to the machinery of the Bill. In the first place, I was very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the principles upon which one should act. He said that this was not a political measure, and that all sorts of side issues should be put aside. I would lay down as an axiom that the health of the people is a matter of national concern rather than of sectional or vested interest. I propose in anything I say or do with regard to this Bill not to attempt to force medical interests unless they are best for the health of the people. It would be a terrible thing if measures connected with the health and life of the people were to be in any way emasculated in order to meet those interests, which may not be of vital importance. Health is a primary essential of the community and anything else must be secondary to it. When I say that, I do not mean that interests, sentiment, customs and habits, should not have full weight given to them, but if they interfere at all with health they must be given up. It is a necessity that whoever has to do with carrying out this Bill should be fully satisfied with the position he occupies and the remuneration he may receive. We do not want any sweating in connection with the Bill nor do we want any strikes.
  Coming to the machinery of the Bill, we have had before us to-day another Bill, and the two Bills will illustrate the contrast I have in mind. The first Bill dealt

  1863
  with ways and communications. That is a known subject; the roads are there and we know how to make the roads. The mechanism of that Bill is simple, because we have done the things before and know perfectly well how to do them. But when you come to the question of health we are occupied with a very different state of matters. I speak with great diffidence in the presence of a number of doctors, but all must admit that our knowledge on the matter is not so advanced as it should be, and that we really know comparatively little about the fundamental truths of health and life. Therefore you must have a somewhat different organisation from what you have for a thing about which you know everything. My idea of the Ministry of Health would be that we should have a central brain, thinking, investigating, gathering information from every source and spreading it. That brain would have a great deal to do. Then, as quite a secondary thing, executive branches which would deal with the information and apply it according to various local conditions. When we come to consider the Bill, one looks to see where the brain is, and the only brain I can find is that of the Minister. I have nothing to say against the brain of our particular Minister, and, of course, I am not making any personal remarks at all, but the Minister must be a super-man to do all that is required for the thinking part of the organisation. He must assist it; he must form one of the thinking body. That is essential.
  Then we find that consultative boards are to be instituted, and I know that he intends to make them real live boards; but I do not like the term "consultative board." A consultative body is a body that is never consulted. I have been on a consultative body myself in connection with one of the great Departments during this War. We have only been called together twice, whereas if we had been called together as I have asked, we could have done the very greatest service. The right hon. Gentleman himself used the phrase "advisory body," and that is a term I shall try to get put into the Bill. A real advisory body must meet at definite times, and should not only meet to consider problems sent to it by the Minister. It must initiate work. The third condition is that it must come directly in contact with the Minister. It must have direct access to him so that
  1864
  any decisions it comes to shall not be lost or pigeon-holed or delayed. He is going to have several consultative and advisory bodies. There is the thinking brain, as for as I can see it, of the Minister, plus advisory bodies, but I think most Ministers will get very tired of advisory bodies. The time will come when we shall have a medical man as the Minister, and someone who is a great executive man, and knows a good deal about the subject. He will get tired. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to think whether he-could not have, between the advisory committees and himself, a board which can thoroughly sift the information that comes from the advisory committees, and to which he can refer the information when he gets it. But even then I do not think the thing is complete. The medical profession approved of the Research Department under the Insurance Bill, and it has done excellent work. It has done the very work which was intended. It has given the sort of information a Minister of Health wants to get, but to my disappointment it was dropped and put under the Privy Council. I cannot see a Ministry of Health without a research department. With the thinking machine, the board I have suggested, the advisory committees and the research department, you would have a thing which would be of use not merely to England, but to the whole world, and which would show how to work a proper health machine. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to think over that problem. Everyone in the profession who has studied the subject wants these consultative committees. Of course the medical part of the committee would need to be selected very carefully. Physicians are in a state of great uneasiness and distrust about it now. It would go very far to relieve their mind if we can get an advisory body which is very carefully selected, which may be trusted by the profession, and which represents the best elements in the profession. The question will arise how to appoint them. I think the Clause reads as if it were an optional thing, as if it were in the power of the Minister to have advisory committees or not as he likes. It says, "It shall be lawful for His Majesty." The other paragraph says, "It shall be the duty of the Minister." I should like it to say, "It shall be the duty of a Minister to have a consultative body."
  One other point as regards the duties of the Minister. His duties are most exten-

  1865
  sive. It seems to me he could upset everything if he chose. The right hon. Gentleman assured me the other day that so long as he kept within the four walls of the Insurance Act it would be all right. The question is how much he can do within the four walls of the Insurance Act. I am not enough of a lawyer to know, but I fancy he can do a great deal. For instance, taking the panel practices in crowded areas, I could imagine it may occur to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well to go in for institutional treatment. He might like to set up an institution to which these cases can come instead of going to the doctor. Such an institution would have aids to diagnosis and would have consultants, so it would be an enormous benefit to the patients and to the doctors themselves. Then I can imagine the time will come when he will say, "We cannot allow people to be ill in their own crowded rooms; we must have them in hospitals. We will take over the Poor Law infirmaries"; and then the time will come when he will have to do something about voluntary hospitals. When that time comes Parliament ought to say what it is going to do. I should like an assurance that anything of far-reaching importance, like, for instance, interfering with the great hospitals and teaching schools, should, if he can possibly find a way, be brought before Parliament so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it, and, if necessary, throwing it out. As far as I am concerned, as far as the medical men in the House are concerned, and I think as far as the great part of the profession are concerned, we are sincerely anxious that the Bill should be a great success and a great example, and we will do all we can to help it.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: As a new Member of this House, and I believe the only new Member who has spoken this afternoon, I want to crave the indulgence of the House and hope it will extend to me the same sympathy as it has extended to other new Members. I represent one of the most important trades in the country—the iron and steel trade and the tin-plate trade in South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) knows what a laborious trade it is and how much ill-health arises in connection with it. For the last two years in divisional council meetings the members I represent—100,000 in number—have pased unanimous resolutions in favour of establishing a
  1866
  Ministry of Health. This has also been done by the miners in South Wales, the railway men, and also the women from the Industrial League of Women. The introduction of this Bill is long overdue in so far as the working classes of this country are concerned, and I want to associate myself with the other hon. Members who have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having had the privilege and the honour of introducing what to my mind, is one of the most important Bills which has been brought into the House during the Session. Some of the Bills that have been discussed in the House have dealt with the re-election of Ministers, others have dealt with the mode of procedure of the House, but this Bill affects every house in the land, and every individual in the land, both rich and poor. We have been told, I believe by the Prime Minister, that it is absolutely impossible to get an A1 nation out of a grade 3 population. This is true, according to the statistics which have been placed before us in reference to infant mortality in this country. I read that one eminent doctor stated that a thousand babies were dying in this country every week, and that 75 per cent. of the lives of these babies could be saved if we established a Ministry of Health. Napier Burnett, speaking at Newcastle last week, stated that 100,000 deaths had taken place from influenza during the last three months, and that the rich and tine poor were dying far more rapidly as a result of influenza than did our heroes who were killed out at the front. He stated that the reason for this was the shortage of the medical staff and the inadequate provision in the hospitals for dealing with cases as they arise from time to time. There is just one point I should like to bring before the right hon. Gentleman. I represent the Labour party, but I am also a member of the Welsh party. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman is treating Wales so badly in introducing this Bill? During the period of the War for four and a half years the Welsh people left their homes, left the industries, and the factories, to go out and fight for their King and their country and for the freedom of small nations. Why is it now, if they were fit to fight for the freedom and liberty of small nations, that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving Wales the same freedom as he is going to give Scotland, and probably will give to Ireland? I

  1867
  want to appeal to him on behalf of the Welsh people, because we have in Wales miners, railway men, steel workers, and tinplate workers; and no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he was at the Ministry of Munitions, that not only so far as military service was concerned, but in regard to loyalty and patriotism, the industries of Wales were as patriotic as any other industries in the country in their endeavour to support the Government in the successful prosecution of the War. Therefore, I am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert in this Bill a proviso that we shall have a separate Department for Wales, and that it shall not be optional, with the word "may," as in Clause 5. We want him to insert the word "shall." We only ask for this as a first instalment, because we are going in for Federal Home Rule in Wales. We shall only be satisfied with this as a first instalment. I think you could extend the duties of the person appointed in order to cover agriculture, education, and also housing, because, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, this Health Bill is going to affect the Housing question as much as anything else in the land.
  There are one or two points that I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to find out what powers he has under the Bill. Take, for instance, the case of a man suffering from tuberculosis. You send that man to a sanatorium, and he is cured. What is the use of spending money, wasting energy and effort in curing that man if you are going to send him back to the very same slums in which he contracted the disease? Take the miners in South Wales. These men have to go out at six o'clock in the morning; they are down in the pits until two; they work in water; some of them work in heat. They have to wait sometimes an hour and a half or two hours in their wet clothes for trains; they contract a chill, and sometimes tuberculosis develops out of that chill. What power has the Ministry to deal with cases of that kind? Take the tinplate trade, which is one of the trades that I represent. Owing to industrial fatigue, the average life of the tin-plater is very low indeed. These people get chills, and tuberculosis is as rampant in the tinplate trade as it is in the mining industry in South Wales to-day. I want to know what power the right hon. Gentleman has, and how far he is able to go
  1868
  in dealing with these cases? It is useless trying to cure the men; what you want to do is to prevent the disease arising at all. Once that is done, this Ministry of Health will have accomplished some good. This is my maiden speech, and I did not think to take up so much of the time of the House. But I do want to say this: the keynote of this Bill is the finest keynote I have heard sounded in all my life. The keynote is life; that is the keynote of the whole thing. For four and a half years we have heard of nothing but death. At the first knock at the door in the morning the mother would turn pale in case the son had lost his life out on the Western or the Eastern Front. When we took up our papers in the morning we read about some hero who had fallen. When we met at our meal table we discussed some friend who made the supreme sacrifice. It was nothing but death, death from morning till night. But in this Bill we have life, and the preservation of the life of the people. I was delighted with the elevated tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks when he introduced the Bill. It reminded me very much of an article I read in the London "Daily News" some time ago on that great seer John Ruskin. He preached more about the life of the people of this country than anybody else. He said:
  "Your riches are no good; your wealth is no good. There is no wealth but life; life including all the powers of joy and of love and of admiration. That is the greatest country that nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings."
  That is the intention of your Bill, and when we have established this happiness and comfort and health among the people, then we shall have achieved the new world and the new England that has been promised us by the Prime Minister and by others during the last Election.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I promise the House a short and very definite speech. I had the honour of being, with the Secretary of the Local Government Board (Major Waldorf Astor), a member of a small Committee of Unionists in 1914, who then reported in favour of a Ministry of Health. In this Bill our recommendations find their embodiment. Since that day my Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board and my Friend the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major J. W. Hills) have been continuously doing all they can to get this policy adopted, and very respectfully I venture to offer them

  1869
  my congratulations. The point I want to make is this: Under the Bill power is given to take over generally the subject of lunacy and mental deficiency, but it is not one of the branches of health that are taken over at the commencement. I appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to alter that, and to take it over forthwith. I have the honour to be the Chairman of the Central Association for the Care of the Mentally Defective, which was founded in 1913, as soon as the Mental Deficiency Act was passed. That body is composed half of representatives of all the different statutory authorities in the country who are concerned with the administration of the Mental Deficiency Act, and half of the representatives of all kinds of voluntary associations who, in the course of their social work, come into close contact with this very grave subject of mental deficiency. My executive council, representing, as I said, county councils, education committees, Poor Law guardians, the Lancashire Asylums Board, the London County Council Asylums Board, and so on—all these statutory authorities, a body of the leading experts in the country on this subject, are unanimous, and have been unanimous ever since the possibility of a Ministry of Health Bill came near, for more than a year that is, that the subject of mental deficiency should be taken over by the new Ministry of Health, when created, from the commencement. In February of last year my executive council passed three resolutions and sent them to the President of the Local Government Board and the Minister of Reconstruction. The first one was:
  "That lunacy and mental deficiency are health questions and ought to be so regarded equally with the physical health of the community."
  That precisely is recognised by the Bill.
  The second resolution was:
  "That it is essential to the efficient organisation of the health services of the country that the subject of lunacy and mental deficiency should be placed from the beginning under whatever central authority is entrusted with the general duty of supervising or administering health service."
  Then, thirdly:
  "That it is of the utmost importance that the Board of Control, the Government Department responsible for this work should, from the outset, be made a sub-department of the central authority responsible for health service in whatever way that central authority be constituted."
  These three resolutions I ask the House to treat as the considered opinion of all
  1870
  those who know most about this subject in the country. The council in question, my executive council, had the honour to receive a testimonial of very high appreciation from the Board of Control in their last annual report for the work they had done in assisting in the administration of the Act. I only mention that in order to give weight to the resolutions which I have read. The next point I want to make is, that under the Mental Deficiency Act the local authority is the Statutory authority of the county council. The county council is under the supervision of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board is being taken over lock, stock, and barrel by the Ministry of Health. In addition to the county council the Poor Law guardians have to do with mental defectives, and of course with lunatics in their workhouses. During the War on account of the difficulty of building and therefore of providing institutional accommodation for cases which require special accommodation, it has been necessary to resort to the sections of the Medical Deficiency Act which authorise the Board of Control to treat the workhouses as certified institutions. Since November last some workhouses under Poor Law guardians have been certified as institutions under the Act by the Board of Control. In regard to this the Local Government Board is the controlling authority. In addition Poor Law guardians are under obligation to notify cases of mental deficiency or lunacy to the Local Government Board. Again, and here is a cross complication, the Board of Control have to inspect the workhouses where there are, or there are said to be, lunatics.
  Take all these provisions and you observe that the Local Government Board, changed in name to the new Ministry of Health, cannot avoid having to do intimately with the whole subject of mental deficiency, because it is the Local Government Board. Under these circumstances why make two bites at a cherry? Why leave the subject of mental deficiency where it is at present under another Department of State, the Home Office? It is bound to make much more trouble and to be more difficult for the Ministry of Health if that subject is left out of the purview of the Ministry of Health at the outset than if it is taken over. It was said by the President of the Local Government Board that there would be difficulty because there were certain judicial functions that have to be exercised in regard to mental

  1871
  defectives and lunatics. Quite true. But who exercises them? Not the Home Office but the Lord Chancellor, and the judges and magistrates of the country. They are not under the Home Office. My suggestion is that the proposal in the Bill that the functions of the Home Office in regard to lunacy and mental deficiency should be transferred to the Ministry of Health ought to apply forthwith and not be postponed. That will not mean any more complications qua the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor, the judges and the magistrates than will exist if it is left. If you leave the Home Office in control over part of the work of mental deficiency, and part comes over because it cannot be helped to the new Ministry of Health, because it is the Local Government Board, you will have a system of utter confusion. These are some but only a few of the practical reasons why my executive council passed these very strong resolutions. I do not want to go into all the details. There are all kinds of difficulties about certification by different medical officers, but I can assure the President that I am right in saying that he will make more trouble for himself as well as confusion for the community if he carries the Bill as it is proposed instead of taking over at once the particular duties to which I have referred.
  One other matter, and it is one of the greatest importance. There was never a time in the history of this country when the perils of mental deficiency were of such direct and immediate practical importance to the community as they are now. During the War a large number of boys and girls who are feeble-minded, and therefore mentally defective, and prone particularly to sexual weaknesses, have been in remunerative employment because of the difficulty of labour. As the men come back from the Army the feeble-minded will be the first to go because they are feeble-minded, but in the meantime they have got out of the control of their parents and relations, and have been independent. They will come upon the streets in every sense of the word. Further, in the rescue homes, a very large proportion of the girls—I am not sure whether it is one-half or one-third—are mental defectives. In the lock hospitals the female patients suffering from venereal disease are more than half of them mental defectives. There are two classes of mentally defective girls who are
  1872
  a grave danger to the community from the point of view of venereal disease, and with all the soldiers coming back on demobilisation that evil will be ten times worse than it ever was before. These feeble-minded girls, who do not know the danger and who cannot resist temptation because they do not appreciate the consequences of their action, contract venereal disease. In connection with this problem of mental deficiency we have also the moral imbeciles who, in the case of girls, are so often erotic and who are an active danger because they seem to be perfectly normal. They are quite a trap for the returning soldier.
  At a very large conference at the Guildhall in January, 1918, at which practically all the authorities in the Kingdom were represented who were concerned with mental deficiency, a resolution was passed and sent to the Government warning the Government of the very grave danger that would ensue during demobilisation unless the most active steps were taken to deal with the terrible danger arising from mental deficiency, and advocating that these steps should be taken in order to protect the boys and the girls who were mental defectives and to protect, at the same time, the community itself. The medical profession are unanimous that early cases of mental illness—this applies, of course, to lunacy and not to mental deficiency, because mental deficiency is not curable—ought to be treated at an early stage just as cases of physical illness. It is most important that they should be treated then, because then there is the best chance of cure and prevention. Half the trouble from insanity might be prevented if dealt with early enough. The proposal is that clinics for mental cases should be attached to all the great hospitals. If that is to be done it is most important that it should be done as soon as possible, and I venture strongly for that reason also to urge that the duty appertaining to lunacy as well as mental deficiency should be taken over at the earliest possible moment by the Ministry of Health, in order that we may get on as fast as we can, and deal with the great emergency that is before us.
  For these reasons I urge the President to accept an Amendment in Committee which. I will put down to transfer the provision in the later part of Clause 3 to the earlier part, and thereby cause the whole administration of lunacy and mental deficiency to be taken over at once. The diffi-

  1873
  culty will not be great. The Board of Control is there. It is a Sub-department of the State, whose immediate duty it is to deal with all these matters. It is only that we want the driving force of a demand for real organisation of our national health behind the Board of Control, instead of the Home Office, whose functions have not to do with health. The Home Office know that their job is not health, and in the interval they would probably be tempted to do very little to promote it.
  Dr. MACDONALD: I rise to make my maiden speech, and I claim the indulgence of the House if I transgress any rules. The only transgression so far that I have made has been to come down here early in the morning and take the seat of one of my seniors. I should like to extend to the senior Members of Parliament my very grateful thanks for the courtesy and kindness which they have shown to me as a new Member. I feel highly honoured in being a Member of this House. I happen to be the first representative of the first borough to which His Gracious Majesty King George granted a charter, and I happen to have been returned by the second largest majority in a vote on this contest in the whole of England. I support this Hill very heartily, and I feel that it should also have the support of the whole House, because in the first place it favours neither politics nor creed. It has for its aim only one grand principle, and that is to improve the health of the people at large. For this reason we, as medical men, think that it should be equally applied to all parts of the British Empire, and for the same reason we think that a measure of such far-reaching importance should he presented to the people in its final form as free as possible from any doubtful Clauses. I must confess that when I came to Clause 3, to that part dealing with research, in which it is provided that research is to be handed over to the Privy Council, I was astounded. I feel that research is the very basis from which all medical science starts, and it must be closely associated with a professional body. When I read this Sub-clause I was reminded of a story of a lady who was taken suddenly ill in her confinement in a large establishment. The nurse could not obtain the services of the doctor she wanted, and she asked the servant in the house if there was no professional man there. She said she had seen a gentleman in a silk hat and frock coat walking along the corridor, and she thought he
  1874
  was a professional man. This was about midnight, and she went to the gentleman's bedroom and brought him in his pyjamas and dressing-gown to the bedside, but he had not been there long before the nurse discovered that instead of being a medical man he was a lawyer, and rumour says that the first thing he did when he got into the room was to ask her to make her will, and then, when the infant manifested its entry into the created world in the usual healthy manner, it was suggested that the lawyer should issue a writ against it for creating a public disturbance. It is also said that he asked what its heritage was and promised to make due provision for it in after life. But that was no good to the mother or the child. I do venture to submit that the Privy Council is not the body to look after that all important part of medical science, research work, and I ask the framers of this Bill very seriously to consider this Clause before it is presented to us in its final stages.
  Mr. G. THORNE: The promise of this Bill has caused very great expectation in the country which I hope earnestly will be realised. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech was very wise when he reminded us that this Bill itself is only an instrument, and that everything depends on how this instrument is going to be used. We all recognise that
  "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
  Makes deeds ill done"
  I earnestly hope that the means to do good deeds will make good deeds done. The whole country will support the Ministry in its attempts in that direction which we all hope will be fulfilled. But it seems to me that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman limited the use of the instrument in a way which I regret and which has been regretted by the two hon. Members who have spoken last. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point that the great object in view was to bring our practice up to our knowledge. That would be a very great advance and we should all rejoice in it, but though possibly, in view of the anecdote which we have heard just now, it may be unwise for a lawyer in the slightest degree to associate himself with a doctor, I do hope that there will be no limitation to bringing our practice up to our knowledge, but that our knowledge itself under this Bill will be extended too, and I would urge

  1875
  that the points advanced by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from their long experience, would be taken into consideration fully by the Ministers, and that they themselves will see that methods of research and investigation are developed fully so that our present knowledge may be extended very largely and that our practice may be lifted up not only to our present knowledge, but to the level of any further knowledge that is obtained.
  Manifestly the effective use of this instrument will depend on co-operation between the Minister and those in the country whose duty it is especially to work under him. Therefore his association with the local authority is of the highest importance, and I am very glad to be the means of conveying from the Association of Municipal Corporations their recognition of the spirit and way in which the right hon. Gentleman has already approached them in the preliminary negotiations prior to the introduction of this Bill, and given them cause to hope that in carrying out this measure he will exhibit the same spirit and the same desire. But they have asked me to submit this particular point. They are anxious to know what the position of local authorities is going to be when this Bill is passed into law? So far as I understand all the powers of the Local Government Board are to go to the new Ministry and consequently all the services rendered by the local authorities, under the control of the Local Government Board, will go to the new Ministry, and, therefore, there will be no divided authority in that respect and the only change that will come about will be under the Clause in the Bill which gives the Ministry power from time to time to transfer any specific services under the First Schedule to the measure. If that be so, then I think that the local authorities will always be able to understand what the position is going to be, and will not be worried by imagining that they come under various authorities when the Bill is passed. They note with interest the proposed appointment of consultative councils.
  I am rather inclined to agree again with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the expression "advisory council" is better than "consultative council," and I hope that his suggestion may be carried
  1876
  into effect. The local authorities are particularly anxious, as they will have so much to do with carrying out the work which this measure will confer upon them, that they may be availed of largely on those consultative or advisory bodies, so that their experience and knowledge may be brought together. Next to the local authorities, and, of course, the medical profession, those who can help most are the women of the country. To the women this Bill will be one of very great hope, especially in its reference to child life and motherhood, and, at the urgent request of ladies who have addressed themselves to me, I am asking that the help of women may be used so far as possible in carrying out this beneficent measure. I observe, in the Clause referring to consultative councils, that in such cases women are to be employed, but the representation that I have been asked to make is that there should be a women's consultative council, so that women may consult together and advise the Ministry as to matters specially affecting women and children. That is an appeal which I have been asked to make, and I make it on their behalf, and hope sincerely that, in the directions which I have indicated, the right hon. Gentleman may find it possible to do what I have desired.
  Mr. SITCH: During this week I have witnessed so many manifestations of the splendid tradition of understanding and consideration which this House always affords to a new Member who rises to address it for the first time, that I feel no hesitation in asking for its patient indulgence while I make a few observations on the Bill before the Chair. I agree with the view that has been expressed to-night that this Bill is one of the most important that could possibly come before Parliament. Some of us in our election addresses, dwelt on the need for improvement in our public health, and, while I am a Labour Member and never hesitate to criticise the composition of the Coalition party, I take this opportunity of congratulating them on making this their very first reconstructive measure. But, from what has been said in this House, I am not quite sure whether even the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill is cognisant of the facts of history on the question of the unified Ministry of Health. I think that it was in the year 1848 that a Ministry of Health was established in this country, and the very same arguments were used in reference to our neglect. In

  1877
  1871 the Local Government Board was established, and that was supposed to supersede the old Poor Law Board, but in effect we know quite well that health questions always have to take second place. It is true that the present Bill proposes a unified Ministry of Health, by merging the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commission and the health functions of all the other Departments, but unless the declaratory Clause is put into operation immediately, I do not think that this Bill will have the desired effect.
  One infers from the Bill that the Ministry of Health will adopt or be consistent with its own principle of establishment and proceed to reorganise the public health authorities in all localities. Unless this is done, notwithstanding the existence of a unified Ministry, I am certain that the measure will be a failure. Therefore, effect should be given immediately to the declaratory Clause of the Bill, so that the work of the boards of guardians can be broken up, and care for all the sick and infirm, including maternity and infants, and mentally defective and the helpless—in fact, of all who need medical or nursing aid—may be united with the local public health services, so as to have in each area one health authority, and one only. The local authority, to my mind, should be aided by an advisory medical committee of local doctors, and should be in close contact with the local insurance committee, which must be well represented, on the public health committee. I know that there will be some objection to this suggestion, but I am convinced, notwithstanding the fact that it is proposed to have consultative councils, that unless we do have the local doctors acting in an advisory capacity, we shall not be able to appreciate the specific ills of specific districts. In addition, as the local authorities will have to do most of the work, they must be aided by Grants-in-Aid, failing which, I am convinced, there will be no success under the Ministry.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to—
  Coal Industry Commission Act. 1919.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. SITCH: I was about to say that the success of the Ministry of Health depends on whether it begins with that new spirit and that new office organisation which I have tried to indicate. The danger is, as the Local Government Board powers are being taken over, that they will again maintain the Poor Law conception of organisation and thereby ruin the Ministry which they are about to found. The only way to my mind to prevent this, as there is no real safeguard in the Bill, is to secure some promise, or, better still, a printed declaration, to be issued concurrently with the passing of the Bill, to the effect that it is the intention of the Government by the passage and adoption of this Bill to ultimately abolish the Poor Law.
  8.0 p.m.
  Major FARQUHARSON: I think it is a matter for congratulation that at last this country is within measurable distance of having a Ministerial Department devoted to the one sole aim and purpose of the care of the health of the people of this nation. Some twenty or twenty-five years ago it was regarded as an indication of the sanitary progress of local authorities when they appointed what was called a whole-time medical officer of health. It is pleasing to-day to find this honourable House in the process of appointing a whole-time Minister of Health. We are engaged in doing something very much akin to a process of nationalisation, and that with the very greatest asset which any nation or any individual may possess, namely, the nationalisation of the health of the people of this country. The parallel in the use of the word "nationalisation" is not perhaps entirely correct in the sense in which nationalisation is understood by some people. Nationalisation in that sense, I suppose, means, primarily, the deprivation of the ownership of the thing owned and the transfer of that ownership to the State. This is a form of nationalisation which is, with all respect, very much more ideal. This is a form of nationalisation which asks for no transfer of ownership, but which leaves the ownership of that most material and important of things—health—in the possession of the original owner and proceeds, with true communal spirit, to add to the value and quality of that original possession. Difficulties and troubles which

  1879
  lie ahead of the Ministry of Health have been indicated. I would suggest that many of those difficulties lie in the legislation of past Governments. That legislation is of very recent date. It was not until 1849 that the first Sanitary Act was passed; that is an Act wholly concerned with the sanitation or lives of the people. In 1875 a great effort was made to codify and simplify the public health law of this country, with the result that we had the excellent Public Health Act of 1875. The principal executive function was given to the Local Government Board, which came into existence in 1871. Since 1875 there has been a wealth of legislation, a mass of the most beneficent legislation passed, but the Government are faced with this difficulty, that not having a whole-time Minister of Health, these measures had to be allocated for their carrying out to a variety of Departments. Thus from the growth of this mass of social and public health legislation since 1875 you get an overlapping and concurrent jurisdiction at the centre. You have the Local Government Board, which was the original repository of public health matters, you have the Home Office, you have the Education Office, the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and lastly, the National Insurance Commissioners. If there was this overlapping at the centre, in still greater degree did you get on the periphery of this wonderful organisation of administration a still greater perplexing maze of administration. You had the county councils, the county boroughs, the urban councils, the rural district councils, the port sanitary authorities, the Poor Law authorities, the insurance committees, county and district, and all that, a bewildering and perplexing maze. The Government is faced with this difficulty of a mass of properly originated administration, executive and legislative, and not knowing how to deal with it. It could only deal with it in one of two ways, namely, to deal with the legislation as legislation, to conduct a huge inquiry into all the past legislation, codify and simplify it, and compress it in one great health charter which would be the authority for a Ministry of Health. That may be theoretically and constitutionally a very correct course, but it still leaves the great practical question of how all these functions were to be turned out from the existing adminis-
  1880
  tration. I congratulate the President of the Local Government Board on the courage he has shown in dealing with these matters. He has set aside all pedantic effort, not seeking to rival the Emperor Justinian's action in introducing the Roman Code or that of Napoleon in introducing the Napoleonic Code. I can assure the House that if a codification and simplification of the public health laws of this country had been undertaken so as to create a charter of legislative authority for a Ministry of Health, the task would have rivalled both that of Justinian and that of Napoleon; but the Government have selected the wiser course, and I congratulate the President on what he has done. He has taken out of these Departments two which I might refer to as organically complete Departments. He has taken that much despised Department, the Local Government Board, and there I think his courage is remarkable, because there is no denying the fact that there is a strong feeling of prejudice and sentiment in this country, and an attitude of mind which regards the Local Government Board as a museum of lost opportunities in which there resides nothing but the spirit of those mythical individuals who are typified as Bumbledom and, perhaps, Bumbledee. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in absorbing into his authority the Local Government Board. Furthermore, the organically complete Insurance Commission, combined with the former, makes a very sound basis.
  I was sorry to detect in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a feeling that perhaps he ought not to take upon himself too heavy a load, and I suggest to him that Section 3, Sub-section (1), of this Bill does not put too heavy a load on him. I beg this House even now as a scientific proposition to put out of their minds altogether the rigid distinction between the words "prevention" and "cure," and I hope the union of the Local Government Board and the National Insurance Commission will intensify and confirm that. Prevention is nothing more nor less than continuous treatment, and cure is nothing more nor less than occasional or intensified treatment to suit the occasion. The same scientific principle prevails in both cases. In addition to the simple absorption of these two bodies, the right hon. Gentleman has very rightly begun at the beginning, and he has taken from the Education Department those matters

  1881
  which deal with child life and with pregnant mothers. I am glad of that. We had some little time ago a simple little institution called by the Local Government Board Maternity Clinics, and by the Board of Education Schools for Mothers. The same little institution had two sets of rules, one set issued by the Local Government Board and the other by the Board of Education. There was an absolute duality of control. I dislike the term "joint control," as I do not think there is any true joint control in anything that exists, but you had a complete duality of control which stifled the magnificent opportunities for work which that institution could do. I am glad this is put now under the single control of the Ministry of Health. We had an Act passed in 1908 which the whole country hailed as the Children's Charter. It has been practically a dead-letter, and now I am thankful to find that this children's charter is going to have a chance of being revivified through the Ministry of Public Health. Surely it is not a difficult matter to excise from the functions of the Privy Council the Central Midwives Board. One thing which has puzzled me in reading the allocation of executive functions which was made in past years has been to understand upon what principle or method the Government of the day allocated these things, and nothing was ever a greater puzzle than why they allocated the control of the Central Midwives Board to the Privy Council. Up to now I have had nothing in my mind, but thoughts of commendation for the principle and methods of the Bill, but I wish to make reference to Sub-section (2) of Section 3. I hope the order in which those paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) appear does not indicate in the slightest degree any order of priority. [Dr. Addison nodded.] The right hon. Gentleman assures me that that is so, and I assume that that means that the first thing to be taken into account will be education and the last thing would be anything which would come under what I may call the omnibus paragraph, paragraph (d). I have no objection to the President of the Local Government Board establishing an order of priority in regard to the three previous paragraphs, but I do have an objection to not knowing what this paragraph (d) may possibly contain.
  For instance, I can indicate at least two organically complete authorities which are, in my opinion, at work upon matters
  1882
  strictly relevant and cognate to questions of public health. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles has referred to the difficulties of registration, to the overlapping of peripheral administration authorities, and he gave as an example of what might happen the number of authorities which might be called into play in the course of the first few months of a child's life. He was quite right. In regard to this simple question of registration alone, I will give an example of what might happen in a child's life within a few months of its entering upon its existence. Take a child born in an English county. Within forty-eight hours, by the Notification of Births Act, the fact of its birth must be notified to the county medical officer of health—Official No. 1. Then within six weeks notification of the birth of the child must be given to the registrar of births and deaths—Official No. 2. A little while afterwards the child has to be vaccinated, and notification has to be sent to the vaccination officer—Official No. 3. A little while after that the child gets scarlet fever, and an official notification of the fact has to be sent to the local authority—Official No. 4. Thus within a few months you have four registrations to make, all on questions of vital statistics. My point is this, that the Registrar-General's Department is a Department that is an organic whole which comes naturally within the compass of the work of a Ministry of Health. I am a believer in a simple universal register. We all know how, during the War, we had to find out what was the manhood of the nation. We all know the muddle of the National Registration. Act, the muddle that takes place every ten years with regard to the Census, and the amount of muddle in connection with the register for the Parliamentary elections as well as for local elections, old age pensions, and a. whole variety of purposes concerning the life of the community. And, mark you, in all those statistics which are necessary, the vital statistical element forms part and parcel. That is why I say that, instead of giving an omnibus Sub-section, you ought clearly to specify what the possible Departments are you propose to transfer in the future. I suggest that one should be the Registrar-General's Department, and another the Department that is known as the General Medical Council. The medical profession is sincerely, I believe, beginning to recognise its collec-

  1883
  tive responsibility for the public health and welfare. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration whether this body could be specified in Sub-section (4). I may be wrong, or I may be right, in my views with regard to the question of registration and the question of the General Medical Council, but my suggestion would, at all events, enable public opinion, and all those concerned in these matters, to be focussed and expressed, and that the expression reveals itself the right hon. Gentleman can be guided.
  There is one other point I should like very much to be included in this Bill. I am heartily in support of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the necessity of the Mental Deficiency Acts being included in the purview of the Ministry of Health. Then the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the administration, under the Home Office, of the Factories and Workshops Act. I, for one, think that the administration of that Act should be under the Ministry of Public Health, and for this reason. If the proviso in Sub-section (1) of Clause 3, referring to the Research Committee, means that research as research is to be excluded—
  Dr. ADDISON Dr. ADDISON indicated dissent.
  Major FARQUHARSON: I am glad to have that assurance, for the reason that a great deal of work has been done with regard to industrial fatigue. I have listened with the greatest interest to the Debates on the nationalisation of mines and other things in the last few days. I have spent the greater part of my professional life in the service of the miner, and am proud of it. I have every respect, and the greatest sympathy, for the miner, and shared with him the struggle before he got his minimum wage and his eight hours. I know something of the miner. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him, but I do say this, arising out of the Debate, I have been astonished and surprised at the avidity with which hon. Members put forward the idea that the number of hours that a man shall work day by day is to be settled by something which, with all due respect, I can only describe as mass caprice—the arbitrary, capricious decision of the mass. My point is that the hours which a man ought to work are capable of being demonstrated by science. It is a right and proper thing for
  1884
  scientific inquiry. Science is the handmaid of master and man. It smoothes human relationship; it establishes no antagonism. It is not a very difficult matter to estimate and scientifically demonstrate that thing which we call human energy. The daily output of human energy can be established, and, if necessary, standardised. If it can be established by science that a normal man can, without detriment to his physical condition, and without encroaching on his longevity, but with perfect health and safety work up to a given standard, I think that the number of hours which a man shall work a day can be standardised. Beyond that daily output of energy it should be an obligation upon the State not to ask a man to work. It should also be a corresponding obligation on the part of the worker not to submit a scientific question like this to the economic caprice of the time, but to give, according to the physiological, scientific data, the amount of honest labour which he ought to give. I would ask the House to regard a line of inquiry, such as I have suggested, not as a mere flight of imagination. From what I have read, and the experience I have had as a Territorial Force officer of the fatigue in the field of soldiers coming from the office desk, and so on, I am convinced it is well within research initiated, conducted and controlled by the right hon. Gentleman, to determine when a degree of daily fatigue is reached which in any way endangers the physical health of the worker.
  There are two other little excisions I would like to have from existing authorities. One is from the Board of Agriculture and the other from the Board of Trade. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that concurrent jurisdiction exists between the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture in the administration of the Food and Drugs Act. The Food and Drugs Act and the Milk Act, above all things, ought, I think, to be wholly within the purview of the Ministry of Health. I cannot understand why the Board of Trade has any powers whatever with regard to the water supply. If anything were of importance to the health of the community it would be the complete control of water supply. That is not so. All the powers the Board of Trade has with regard to the water supply should be taken right away from it and given to the Ministry of Health.

  1885
  Finally, we all know the debt which this country owes to the Mercantile Marine and the Navy. The Board of Trade has the complete administration of the sanitation of ships, and there is one especially distinguished Gentleman on the benches now who will bear me out in saying that the existence of tuberculosis among seamen is sufficient to raise a very convincing presumption that there is something very, very wrong with the ships that go down to the sea. I once again congratulate the President of the Local Government Board. I feel that we are standing at the beginning of a great era for the people of this country. If the spirit of this Bill is carried out by the Ministry, we are at the beginning of one of the greatest works ever undertaken by His Majesty's Government in the history of this glorious country. This race—the glorious breed of this country—is worth working for. It is worth fostering. It is worth strengthening. It is worth improving. If one of the great results in time to come is that this glorious race of ours—it is no use mincing matters, for it is a glorious race!—goes down to history to untold ages as the one which stood in the gateway of civilisation and held it secure against the most terrible, the most venomous assault ever devised by an enemy of mankind. The race is worth perpetuating for all time. It is a glorious race. I say to the President of the Local Government Board. "God speed" in doing this work; and pray God that there may never be occasion in time to come for criticism levelled at our past failures—never, never, never in the future!
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like, if I may, to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the very interesting and helpful first speech he has made in this House. He has been secretary of a medical group, and thus one has listened to him as an expert on these questions. I am afraid I cannot claim that kind of technical knowledge. But I should also like to add my congratulations to those of others to my right hon. Friend opposite for forming a Ministry, the purposes of which, if pursued, are destined to make it probably the most important Ministry of this country in the future. I do not rise to make any carping criticism upon this Bill, but I do want to make a little criticism in the direction of trying to make the Bill a reality. I do not believe, with other speakers, that my right hon. Friend can make the Bill a reality unless he gets
  1886
  more powers. What powers has he really got under this Bill? He is merely taking existing powers from existing bodies so as to give these local bodies a different head. He is really doing nothing else under the Bill, so far as I can see, except to establish advisory councils. The result we may look forward to is this: that the Minister will be able to exercise more fully the existing powers that at present are exercised by the various Departments. He will probably be able to co-ordinate more fully the efforts of the various local bodies. But against that he is not going under this Bill to increase the powers of local authorities, and he is not taking powers to do anything to make the backward local authorities take more action.
  So far this Bill does not necessarily mean that there is going to be a single extra life saved in the area of the backward local authority. Nor does it necessarily mean that you are going to have one day's less sickness in the area of these local bodies than in the past. You merely change the name of the Department to which they finally answer. To my mind, my right hon. Friend will find that the chief obstruction in this matter will be local apathy. The other day I read over again the speech made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last year. Speaking in the House, he said—I should just like to quote a very few of his words—
  "Those of us who have experience of local authorities know what delays there will be in many parts of the country. You will get backward local authorities holding back from making the necessary provision. The Local Government Board is not able to compel them to move: It can only tempt them with Grants-in-aid."
  When he occupied the post now held by my right hon. Friend Lord Downham said exactly the same thing. Mr. Hayes Fisher, as he then was, spoke of "the recalcitrant local authorities." He said that he was unable in many instances to make them move at all. So far as I can see—and I do not want in the least to be unjust to this Bill—there is nothing in it to meet that great difficulty. That, to my mind, is a serious omission from the Bill. I hope that before the Bill passes into law that upstairs, in Committee, we shall be able to give my right hon. Friend sufficient powers to deal with the local authorities who prove recalcitrant in the matter of carrying out these various duties.
  There is one other point—I promised I would not speak more than ten minutes,

  1887
  and I do not want to go on longer—I believe the result of this Bill will be much more cure than prevention. My right hon. Friend is taking over the work of the National Insurance Act. Nothing has been more clear during the last few years than that that Act has not done very much on the side of prevention. All it has done has been on the side of cure. The whole duty of the officers under the National Insurance Act has been paying out benefits to people already sick. That is why they are agitating for this Bill, which, they hope, will act in the way of prevention, because the continual paying out of these benefits is beginning to ruin the various approved societies. I think I can prove this by figures. Between 1875 and 1900 the health of our people was, no doubt, improving very rapidly. Since the National Insurance Act was passed there has been a lower birth-rate, in spite of maternity benefits, and a higher death rate. The birth-rate per thousand of the civil population has fallen from 24 per thousand in 1912 to 23 per thousand in 1914, and the death-rate has risen from 13per thousand to 14 per thousand. In regard to tuberculosis in 1916—that is to say five years after the passing of the National Insurance Act—there were no less than 1,529 deaths per million of the population from tuberculosis—the highest since 1909.
  I say, therefore, that this Act has done very little in the way of prevention. The mere taking over of the powers of the National Insurance Act under this Bill does not really mean that we are giving more prevention unless we give my right hon. Friend greater powers in the matter. I am afraid I have not got any time to make the various other points I desire to make; but I should very much like to know whether my right hon. Friend has got a promise in regard to money? If he has not got a promise from the Treasury that they will give him sufficient Grants I do not believe that he really will be able to do very much under the Bill. I am very sorry that there is no Clause in the Bill having that object in view. The only Clause dealing with money is a Clause concerned with salaries and administrative expenses. There is no Clause like there is in the National Insurance Act for money to be given for the general purposes of prevention and cure. I am sorry there is no provision in respect of money for tuberculosis. I should very much like to
  1888
  know if my right hon. Friend can tell me whether he has got a definite promise from the Treasury that he will get a sufficient Grant for the purposes of this Act, because he cannot go on without money. He will want millions. The French Government are just now passing through their Chamber a Bill giving them £3,500,000 for foundation charges in connection with tuberculosis alone. They are getting an annual Grant of £4,000,000 for that purpose alone. I want to see my right hon. Friend in possession of far greater power and far greater funds. I believe if he has that he will be able to make this Bill a great success, but I am sure he will have the sympathy of every party in this House in making this Bill a real and a lasting success.
  Captain ELLIOT: In rising for the first time to address this House, I, like many other hon. Members, have to begin by casting myself upon the mercy of this historic body. As the poor are said to be good to the poor, I can only hope that those new Members who have already spoken will be good to another new Member. I cannot even speak for the length of time occupied by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. There is only one point I wish to make in reference to this Bill, and it is that the provision for the cutting out of the functions of the Ministry of Health the Medical Research Committee is very unsound, and I wish to add my testimony against it. I am considerably interested in research, and I had hoped in the future possibly to add a brick to the temple of science in that respect. I am working just now in connection with the London Hospital under one of the coming men, a professor of physiology, who is one of our most brilliant researchers. I believe that this cutting out of the Research Committee and placing it under the Privy Council is looked on with very great suspicion. We do not see any reason for it, and, in addition, we think that it will weaken the functions of the Research Committee to an incredible extent. It is now working on a fixed sum of money from the Treasury, and it will never get any more than that. Consequently, it will have to go to the Ministry of Health. It has been my experience throughout all my life that when a child like that goes begging at the door of a respectable family, it is very apt to be turned down altogeter, whereas, if this Committee is under the Minister of Health it will be his own first-born, and

  1889
  he will take a much greater pride in it. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to expend very much larger sums and give this Committee a status which it will not have under the Privy Council. The sum of £60,000 a year for research in a country like ours is laughable, because you want to spend some years £250,000, and even £600,000, and the Minister of Health is the only man who is able to give us that money because he will see where he can save.
  The question of deafness was referred to in the earlier part of this Debate, and I remember noticing it was stated that there are 12,000 children in London with suppuration of both ears and 800 totally deaf, and they are receiving institutional treatment. The treatment of an ordinary child costs £10 a. year, but under institutional treatment it costs £40 a year. When the Minister of Health has these figures brought under his notice, he will at once see by devoting more money to health and research a definite way of saving, because he will at once see that he is getting a return for his money; but if this money is issued out like coupon tickets to the various authorities in the Kingdom, the bodies to which I refer will find the very greatest difficulty in getting funds for the reason which the President explained when he introduced the Bill.
  If we are not under the Minister of Health when the influenza wave comes on again for the tenth or fifteenth time, instead of applying to the Minister of Health we shall be referred to the Research Committee, then to the Privy Council, and then to the King, and we shall have to come back to the Minister of Health, and say, "We think it is time that you dealt with this subject." The Medical Research Committee and the Minister of Health are going to suffer very greatly by this proposal. I do not think it is purely due to the will of the Minister of Health to hand over a body in this way which so eminently belongs to him, and it should be handed over to the service of the nation; I think it is due mainly to the instinct of self-preservation that occurs in all bodies, and even in public bodies, and even in such an eminent body as the Medical Research Committee. Finally, I wish, like all other medical Members, to compliment the President upon having introduced this Bill, and assure him of our hearty support in this matter.
  1890
  Yesterday and on previous days, when I have been listening to the Debates in this House, and in particular when I heard the Debates respecting the impending coal strike, it struck me that the Minister who had the greatest right to be heard was the one who has not yet so far been created. If anybody has a right to speak on the impending coal strike, surely it is the Minister responsible for the health of this country! We have the influenza wave coming back again. We have a plague that is far more deadly than any of the most historic plagues of history, which has ravaged our country twice, and now is doing so a third time. And, as if there was nothing of that nature going on, it is now calmly proposed to turn out all the gas fires, shut down the electricity works and take away the coal scuttles from every sick room in the United Kingdom, and nobody can rise and ask for a trace of God; and while the country is in the grip of the most desperate plague, which the President has assured us was killing one quarter as many people as the great European War, nobody has the right to rise in the House and appeal in the name of suffering humanity for at least a temporary truce on this tremendous matter. It seems to me that it is not sufficiently realised in the House and throughout the country that this thing is like a fire on dried grass, and it will spread. The doctors are fighting it day and night at the expense of a tremendous amount of toil and energy. They are fighting this epidemic to keep it from getting a running start. If it gets a running start, there is no saying to what lengths it will go. Start an epidemic disease, turn out the fires, allow all people who are sick of it now to die, let a great many people be crowded together because of the cold and hunger, give it a good start in these crowded centres, and I do assure the House, speaking in the name of the medical community, that it is quite impossible for us to guarantee the safety of this nation against this plague. I say that no body of men, whether coal-owners or miners, ought to be allowed to bring on a thing like this without having been warned in the gravest possible terms by an official responsible for the health of the nation. There is no such thing nowadays as a bunch of hyssop to strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood of the lamb so as to make sure that the angel of death passes over certain houses. If we get an epidemic running, it will sweep the

  1891
  whole country. We have only just finished a war which has swept away the younger generation. The generation to which I belong has been very nearly wiped out, and disease threatens to wipe out those of us who have been left and the most attractive members of the community. I refer to young females of about my own age. That is a very serious situation indeed, and I say that before these old miners and coal owners and the various venerable and white-headed Gentlemen we see in power in this House and in the various public bodies outside condemn the rest of our generation to death they ought to take into account the fact that they cannot disclaim responsibility in the matter. The treatment of influenza is very largely a question of fresh air. If the patients cannot get warm air they cannot get fresh air, and if they cannot have fires they cannot get warm air. That point alone would justify the Minister of Health stepping before these contending bodies and explaining that there is an enemy in the midst of the country quits as deadly as the enemy we have fought on the Western front for four and a-half years. The Bill is a splendid thing and ought to have the hearty support of the House. Its greatest defect seems to be that it cuts out this Medical Research Committee and I should be very glad to hear some defence from the President of the Local Government Board, because as yet no adequate defence has been brought before the House.
  Captain LOSEBY: Speaking from the elevated pedestal of one who has on a previous occasion addressed this House, may I presume to congratulate the last speaker on his pointed, interesting, and illuminating address. If I may not do this as a Member I should like to be allowed to do it as an individual. The principle involved in this Bill touches so closely upon the fundamental policy of the group of which I am a member, that I hope I may be allowed to intervene in this Debate. I should like to commence by asserting that we enthusiastically agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill in his determination to co-ordinate the forces ranged against disease, the enemy of mankind which has taken such a terrible toll, and in our opinion such a terribly unnecessary toll, of human life during the enlightened period of the last fifty years, an enemy whose ravages I am convinced might have been
  1892
  confined within much more reasonable limits had we realised not only the deadly nature of its work, but also the forces at our own disposal. We agree that a Ministry of Health should be established without delay, but we are not so confident about some of the details in the Bill. I frankly acknowledge that I should like to see the Bill so amended before it leaves this House that the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise his beautified offspring, I think I am right in asserting that it was the medical examination of recruits for the purposes of this War which produced the figures which shocked the nation and led to the introduction of the present Bill. I want briefly to summarise some of the facts brought out by those statistics and to endeavour to draw a moral from them which can, I think, with advantage be applied to this Bill. It was discovered that only 40 per cent. of the recruits examined over a period of eight and a half months reached an A1 standard and were fit according to the life of the individual but not necessarily for front line service. Amongst the metal workers disease was bad, in the factories it was worse, and in towns like Leeds it reached its climax. In the agricultural districts of England it was discovered that the physique, surprisingly enough, was astonishingly low. On the other hand, the physique of the young miner, comparatively speaking, was excellent, although the physique of the older men was decidedly bad. The deduction is that where the general standard of life is low it can be traced to obvious causes. The young miner was healthier than the young agricultural labourer because, generally speaking, his wage was better, and therefore he was better housed and better fed. Force is added to this point by the fact that the older miners who lived in the days before better industrial conditions prevailed did not reach that standard. The moral is that disease springs from certain known evils which must be overcome.
  9.0 p.m.
  What I think this House has to examine in reference to the present Bill is this: Is the Minister of Health going to make the attempt to directly control those agencies which are attacking these evils? It is quite true that a good house is a potent factor against disease, but disease springs from many things; it springs from ill feeling, and I assert, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the attack it

  1893
  is to be hoped, he will not think it is a far stretch to say that he will have to take a prominent part in the attack on the standard wage question. My point is that it cannot be done, and I am certain that if the Ministry is going to be a success and a great success, as I hope it will be, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it will have eventually to control directly all those agencies that are fighting disease from the purely scientific medical point of view. He will not necessarily control, but he will educate, stimulate and encourage all those other agencies which are just as certainly lighting disease, but not necessarily from a scientific point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has a great chance and a glorious opportunity, but if we allow him to overload himself at the outset, if he takes on too great a burden, then I am convinced he will ultimately find himself so handicapped that he will fail in his own particular essential task, which he alone can perform, of fighting disease from the purely expert point of view. May I be allowed to give one further illustration? Take the Ministry of Education as an example of what is being done in regard to fighting disease directly. There you have a body of gentlemen fighting disease. It would be madness to attempt to control them in their fight through the Ministry of Health. The great public schools of this country have done wonderful work in fighting disease. I hold no brief for them. It is true that they have not concerned themselves overmuch with the training of the mind, and I have not heard of any cases of direct organic disease from that cause. But in scientific training of the body by their organised games they have done great work in fighting disease. That will be extended by the present Ministry for Education. If the same system were only undertaken in the national schools of our country, if one could only imagine that the children of this country were for one hour a day undergoing scientific physical training in the open air, then I say we should have made a wonderful start in fighting disease. Next I come to the functions of the Ministry. I suggest that the first function of the right hon. Gentleman should be the one he places third on his list—the function of collecting statistics and information in regard to the health of the people. When we have got these we shall know where we are, and
  1894
  the right hon. Gentleman will be able to start on his campaign. I believe that with such a table of statistics and with the moral to be extracted from them popularised, explained, and widely circulated, it would have the effect not only of stimulating medical zeal, but also of encouraging the laity to help themselves. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head in the idea, first, to educate the people in regard to the elementary principles of health conservation before directing their energy to the removal of ills brought about by the neglect of those principles.
  Now for the direct attack to be made by the right hon. Gentleman. Here I am afraid I shall get into trouble. The right hon. Gentleman, as intelligence officer, has done his work, and is prepared to give battle. He sends out his line of fighters, his picked men, who, to my mind, must be medical men and scientific experts. Surely something in the nature of direct control over these experts must be insured? We have allowed professional healing to become a trade—a trade honourably conducted by an honourable body of men, but still a trade. It is lamentable it should be so, but I do not think we can escape from it by eliminating competition; indeed, I fear that that would bring greater evils in its place. But surely under the Ministry of Health the right hon. Gentleman is going to claim his right to control those who are his chief agents, because they are his chief agents, whether they be country or town practitioners, fighting disease alone or united in a body, protecting the public against contamination. Through them he will be working, and I cannot see that it is an insuperable task. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make use of existing organisations. I hope he will insist on controlling those organisations, without exception, boldly and fearlessly, so that their energies may be co-ordinated with other energies of a similar nature. I am anxious not to give offence to a highly honourable body of men, but a section of the public of this country is not satisfied with the present method of licensing medical practitioners. This is a matter of vital importance to the public, and they have a right to claim that those responsible for the health of the nation should be competent to carry nut their task, not only at the time of qualification, but also during the whole period of practice. Something in the nature of re-

  1895
  fresher courses might be organised. [Interruption.] It is not nonsense; it is done in other countries, and it is perfectly possible. Be that as it may, the country will look to the Minister of Health to be responsible for the efficiency of his subordinates—because they are his subordinates—and if he shirks that responsibility I assert that many people who have confidence in him will lose that confidence. I sincerely hope that he will not shirk it.
  I am going to repeat deliberately a remark made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, because it is so pointed. Why is the Ministry of Health not taking over the work of the Research Committee? Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to be responsible for an attack upon any plague that visits this country, such as the influenza scourge? He cannot be responsible unless he controls the Research Committee, because in research lies the whole key to the attack. I deliberately suggest that the vanity of some person behind the scenes is responsible for this anomaly, because it is an anomaly of the most ridiculous description. With reference to the position of women, it is of vital importance that women, who have a particular interest in the Bill, should give the right hon. Gentleman sympathic co-operation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet them, and that he will give them some kind of place in the Ministry. I shall have something to say on this subject in Committee and will not waste time on it now. Another point I wish to raise is in regard to the medical personnel of the health services. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to be responsible directly for the efficiency of the medical personnel? If he is not, then all I can say is that if there is anything in my argument in regard to his responsibility for the private practitioner, it applies with redoubled force to that personnel, and I hope he will be responsible for it. I have no doubt that, in spite of my criticisms, the right hon. Gentleman will have the imagination to see the full possibilities of his glorious task and that he will have determination to carry them out. If we have ventured to criticise him, I cannot think that there is any body of imagination in this House who does not envy him and who would not like to wish him "God speed!"
  Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: I rise with all the earnestness at my command to support
  1896
  this Bill, so very ably introduced by the President of the Local Government Board. This Bill is an urgent public necessity and as it is conceived in a bold, comprehensive spirit, I feel sure that when its principles are carried into effect it will have the result, not only of improving the general health of the community, but of adding very considerably to the comfort of the people themselves. The House will be glad to know that the medical Members of Parliament are unanimous in their desire to support the principles of this Bill. The mental condition of the people of this country is improving, but I am sorry to say that their physical condition is steadily deteriorating. Owing to a very liberal and wise Education Act the people are now anxious and able to take an interest in all the problems of life. But it is even more important that the physical condition of the people of this land should be improved, because one knows that the last determining factor in any great war is an efficient manpower and sheer force to decide the issue. What are the chief root causes of this physical degeneracy of which I have spoken? First of all, among others, one has to mention hereditary, over which we have very little or no control. Then we have to mention low rate of wages. Then we have to mention insufficient care and attention to babies and children, and, lastly, the unhealthy surroundings in which the people live. Those are the root causes of this degeneration, which I feel certain this Bill is going to put right.
  It is universally recognised that up to the present time the amount of money paid to the industrial classes for the labour they perform has been totally inadequate, in a good many instances, to allow those people to live in ordinary comfort—in fact, even to exist. The result has been that a very large number of the industrial classes, especially those who had the responsibility of a family, were compelled to seek recourse to, and obtain relief from, the Poor Law. How was it possible for a woman with a family of six children to give the necessary support and the necessary nourishment to those children on 25s. or 30s. a week? What was the result? It was that the children did not get the necessary nutrition. Their bodies were not able to be developed, they grew up stunted, badly formed, and susceptible to disease. We had rickets, stunted growth, imperfect development, and all the conditions which follow imperfect nutrition. Those are the things we want to obviate

  1897
  by getting at the root cause of all these illnesses. I am firmly convinced that an increase in wages amongst the industrial classes of the community would do more than anything else to provide a really sound stock of people by providing them with the necessary nourishment and the necessary endeavours to grow up into a healthy manhood. It is no use encouraging a high birth rate if the children are not permitted to grow up to maturity. Special care must be taken of the care and provision of babies and young children, and we must all pay a very high tribute to the magnificent voluntary work which has been done throughout the country in the devotion and care given to babies and young children, and I am very glad to see that this will form a very essential part of the work of the new Ministry of Health. A staple and necessary food for infants and young children is milk, and if milk is pure and wholesome nothing else can take its place in the nourishment of a young baby or child. But I regret to say that the present condition of the milk supply of this country is nothing short of disgraceful, and I sincerely hope that this new Ministry of Health will have full power to take complete charge of the milk supply, so that in addition to the contamination which the milk receives from the cow to the consumer it will obviate the very dangerous condition which is in milk to-day, namely, tuberculosis. Twenty per cent. of all the samples of cows' milk which are delivered to the consumer to-day contain living germs of tuberclulosis. Surely any great Ministry of Health would look upon that as a most essential and important part of its work in trying to improve the health of the people. I am certain if the people of this country had more confidence in the milk supply they would drink a very much larger amount of it than they do to-day. And the result of that would be increased nutrition of the children and a very large stimulus to the whole dairy industry and the formation of a big enterprise in milk.
  Housing is one of the most important parts of this great campaign of the Ministry of Health. I feel certain, as all other doctors do, that when the industrial classes have a proper and a reasonable and decent place in which they can bring up their families the health of the country will be enormously increased and improved. Prevention in disease is better than cure, and I am glad to see that one of the important parts of this Bill is the
  1898
  provision of a research committee. Whether or not a research committee should be included in the Bill is a matter on which people may take different views. I think a Ministry of Health without a research committee is incomplete, and that a research committee certainly ought to be under the control of, and directly attached to, the Ministry of Health itself. The results of scientific research in the past has been extraordinarily beneficial to the human race. Small-pox, malaria, typhoid fever, diphtheria, have all been conquered by patient and intelligent scientific research, and I feel certain with a little more patience and continued research the great enemy we have in our midst to-day, influenza, will very soon be conquered. I would advocate that research should not only be confined to a central department in London but that this Bill should encourage a research in every town of the country. Every hospital should be encouraged to spend a, large amount of its time and money on the investigation of disease.
  The key to the efficient control and treatment of disease is an adequate and completely equipped hospital system throughout the country. Under the present circumstances the industrial classes have recourse only to two classes of hospitals—the voluntary hospital or the charitable institution and the Poor Law hospital or Poor Law infirmary. Every citizen in the country ought to have a perfect right, in case of illness, to enter a hospital and receive all its benefits and pay according to the services rendered. Speaking from a long experience of hospitals, I say the present system in this country is capable of considerable improvement. The voluntary system, or the charitable hospital system, has been the pride of this country and the envy of many other countries. But it is unreasonable to think we can expect the voluntary hospitals to be responsible for the great work of the treatment of disease, especially as they are now overburdened with financial troubles. I hope, under this Ministry of Health Bill, all the voluntary hospitals, which are doing such magnificent work, will be able to receive subsidies or amounts from the Treasury or through the Ministry of Health which will enable them to continue this splendid work which they are doing at present. I also hope the present Poor Law infirmaries will be transformed into national

  1899
  hospitals, so that every taint or every suspicion of Poor Law administration should be removed entirely. With reception and treatment for illness or accident neither charity nor pauperism should be in any way associated. The Poor Law up to the present has done magnificent work in the treatment and the handling of very large numbers of the industrial classes when attacked with illness or destitution, but the present Poor Law treatment is out of tune with democracy, and I think the time has now arrived when the functions which have hitherto been discharged by the Poor Law might quite well be handed over to some other body. It is difficult to realise that at present nearly two-thirds of the people who are receiving hospital treatment in England are receiving it in Poor Law institutions. This shows the total inadequacy of the present voluntary or charitable hospital treatment, and under this Bill I hope this difficulty and difference will be entirely removed and that those hospitals which will be established in the future will be national hospitals, into which every citizen may have a right to enter and pay according to his means and receive the necessary treatment which he will get in a well-conducted institution. In all these hospitals there ought to be provided a certain number of beds into which those people who cannot afford to pay will be received at the expense of the State.
  Another point to which I wish specially to call attention is the fact that the Lunacy Act and the treatment of all mental diseases may be associated with the Ministry of Health later. I maintain that the treatment of mental disease ought to be a primary part of this Bill itself. Mental disease is as much a part of health as any other disease we have to deal with. I would like to call attention to a matter which causes a great deal of discomfort in this country to-day, and that is the fact that there is no provision made in our laws for a temporary mental attack, such as a nervous breakdown, or, by way of illustration, the case of a woman who suffers from a temporary mental derangement following child-birth. The only place that she can possibly be received in is the workhouse infirmary or a nursing home. The reason of that is that it is impossible to treat those cases of nervous breakdown, of temporary mental derangement, unless a doctor has certified that the patient is insane. A slight
  1900
  alteration in the Lunacy Laws would allow all those cases of temporary mental trouble to be treated exactly as though they were hospital cases in a hospital where people might recover and return to their families without the stigma of having been certified as lunatics. The object of this great Bill is co-ordination, and I think the War has shown us that great value of co-ordination in the treatment of disease. I would like in this House to express my admiration for the splendid and magnificent work which has been done by the Army Medical Service in the field, and I speak from my four years' experience of service at the front myself. Everything that science and experience could suggest was given to our soldiers in the Army Medical Service—I speak entirely for the Western Front. The military hospitals in France were almost perfect, and the two great bugbears that we have to deal with as an army in the field, tetanus and typhoid, were almost conspicuous by their absence, thanks to the perfect system of inoculation and control by the medical staff.
  The hospital in France were so perfectly managed and so perfectly controlled that the mortality from disease among our British troops was astonishingly low, whilst the health of the troops themselves was splendid. I mention this fact, and I have longed for this opportunity to pay my tribute in this House to the splendid way in which our soldiers were not only nursed but looked after, and their health considered in really perfect military hospitals. The result of that was that thousands of lives were saved and thousands of limbs saved, and I mention the fact again just to show the importance of a determined and resolute attack on disease, such as was made by the Army Medical Service from top to bottom. The great benefits of this great Health Charter, the Ministry of Health Bill, can only be received by the people, if the people who have to carry out its provisions are in loyal co-operation with the authorities which administer them. I refer chiefly and especially to the doctors and nurses who have to carry out the details and working of this Act. I feel perfectly certain that the medical profession throughout the country is as anxious as any other body of the community to do everything and to make any personal sacrifice which would be for the benefit of the community in

  1901
  general. I feel also equally certain that the Government will offer every possible inducement to the medical profession to loyally work and co-operate in carrying out this great charter.
  Captain REDMOND: I do not think that the only expression of Irish opinion on this rather belated Government proposal to extend this measure to Ireland should be confined to Belfast, and therefore I venture to make a few remarks as a representative of the South of Ireland. I desire to say at the very outset that I am in complete accord with the general intentions and objects as expressed by the three Members who spoke as representing the City of Belfast. In my opinion, as in the opinion of everyone interested in the welfare of Ireland, there is no subject perhaps more urgent or perhaps more pressing than the immediate betterment of the public health conditions in regard to the people of our country. But when it comes to a question of method, there, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division, I part company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn and his associates. I think that it would have been better if the Government had departed from their usual practice of shilly-shally in regard to Ireland, and had for once kept a consistent and a straight line; that having once made up their mind as they did last Session that this Bill should not apply to Ireland, they should have stuck to their original proposal and have framed a special measure to deal with the peculiar position of affairs as they exist in Ireland.
  There has been one speech made in sup-fort of their recent volte face; it has come, of course, from the Government Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, who made that speech in the course of his remarks by way of explanation for the sudden change of mind of the Government, declared that only recently it was discovered that the powers which existed already in Ireland were not being properly used. A very strange fact indeed that during the period when the Bill was considered last Session up to the period when the Bill was again considered this Session such a discovery was not made, and that within such a very short space of time as has elapsed since the Bill was originally introduced here that this great discovery has been made. But, indeed, it is a nice state of affairs for a British Minister, and especially for an Irish
  1902
  Attorney-General, to come down to this House at this stage of the twentieth century and lecture any portion of His Majesty's Dominions, the people of Ireland included, upon failure to carry out and perform their duty in regard to the people they are concerned with. Failure is written all over the history of the Irish Government for the last 117 years. Failure is written all over the attitude of the present Government in regard to Ireland at the present moment. Failure is written all over the attitude of the last Parliament in regard to legislation and administration for Ireland during the whole period of the War, and now we are told, forsooth, that because it is suddenly discovered that the authorities in Ireland have failed to carry out what they had in their power to do and that discovery was only made within the last few days, the Government are to turn once more an Irish political somersault and come down to the House and tell us "We were wrong at the beginning, but we are right now."
  Mr. A. SAMUELS: I do not think I ever made a statement of that kind.
  Captain REDMOND: I am not going to say that the right hon. Gentleman did say it was sudden, I said it was sudden, because it has only taken place from the time that the Bill was first proposed in this House, a few days ago, and now. Why was that discovery not made when the Bill was originally proposed? My hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division, of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) addressed several questions to the Government, and, among others, he asked why Ireland was not included at the commencement. No attempt at reply has been made. During my experience in the House of Commons, which is not a very long one, although I have been rather a constant attender during the last ten years, I have never heard a Government proposal put forward with such lack of enthusiasm and with such utter lack of argument or common sense than was this sudden change of policy as enunciated by the Attorney-General for Ireland. The next question asked was what inquiries had been made of representative Irishmen in regard to this proposal.
  Mr. M'GUFFIN: The majority were consulted.
  Captain REDMOND: The hon. Member says that the majority were consulted. If the majority were consulted I hope the

  1903
  decision they have come to is known because that does not agree with what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General said that inquiries were now being made. I took down his words, "Inquiries are on foot." That is, they are now being made. Does the Government really mean to say that, in the first place, they make a proposal that Ireland shall not be included, then they go back upon that and say that they are going to make inquiries, or that they are making inquiries, how Ireland can be included, and while they are making these inquiries and before they know the result of the inquiries they turn round about and say that Ireland shall be included. That is the state of affairs. If they did make inquiries—and I have reason to believe that they have not made inquiries in quarters where they ought to have made them—and if they are making inquiries now, why cannot they wait for the result of their own inquiries before they determine which course they are going to take? We on these benches know full well that the Government of Ireland is not concerned with the feeling of the representative people in various capacities in Ireland, such as the great Departments represented by the various heads of those Departments and such as the medical profession in Ireland. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what eminent physicians or what eminent public health specialists have been consulted during the last few days or the last few hours in Ireland upon this question. What public health authorities and what local boards of guardians or what people who are in close contact with the everyday necessities of the poor and of the sick and those whom we hope to benefit by a Bill such as this, have the Government consulted? My hon. Friend opposite says that the Government have consulted the majority, I have not heard it definitely stated who the Government have consulted. The only explanation that we have had is that they have consulted somebody but that those people have not given their decision, and in spite of that the Government intend to carry out an entirely new proposal and to include Ireland in this measure.
  The Attorney-General said—and I think he let the cat out of the bag to a certain extent—that he proposed that there should be some form of central administration. What does that mean? Hon.
  1904
  Members from Ireland know perfectly well what is at the back of the Government's head. They want to bolster up a bureaucratic system in Ireland in Dublin Castle the like of which has never been seen, and which is almost crumbling at the present time. They want to build up and to strengthen a bureaucracy in the local board, and to appoint an autocrat the director of that board, a man who probably is not more conversant with Irish affairs than most of the Irish Government officials. They want him to rule the roost over the heads of all the local people and in spite of and without regard to local conditions in Ireland. We know what that means in Ireland. We know what boards and departments in Dublin Castle are and how they have already administered affairs in Ireland. We know in Ireland that they have no more regard for what concerns the welfare and the conditions of the people in Ireland than have the majority of the Members of the present House of Commons. We also know what this board or department as appointed in Ireland would largely consist of. Who will be nominated on that board? Will there be representatives of the Irish medical profession? Will there be representatives of the various locally elected bodies throughout Ireland? No; the gentlemen who will be placed on that board will be estimable gentlemen in their own way, but they will have no more concern or regard or knowledge of the affairs in Ireland than have the majority of the Members of this House.
  The Attorney-General, towards the close of his speech, mentioned that a Bill was now in preparation conferring powers on the local board in regard to the Children's Act. What I suggest respectfully to him and to the Government is this: that if that Bill is in course of preparation why not postpone the whole question involved in, including Ireland, within the scope of this measure, and deal with it entirely under the Bill which he has announced is under consideration, and will be proposed to deal exclusively with Ireland? After all, though we have a Scottish Chief Secretary that does not make us Scotland, and we have every bit as much right in Ireland to have our special interests considered as have the Scottish Members who, because they were not pleased to have Scotland included in the Bill, were immediately allowed their own way, and Scotland was withdrawn from the scope of this measure. If the Attorney-General

  1905
  is going to propose a special measure with regard to Ireland, why does he not make a full, large proposal dealing exclusively with Ireland, and, if he likes, tack it on and pass it pari passu with this Bill?
  Personally, I was much amused at the concluding passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He proceeded to lecture people in Ireland upon their failure to use the powers already vested in them, and wound up by saying that what he would like to see in Ireland would be more health and less politics. That comes very well from the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the university which he represents—Trinity College, Dublin—has already expressed itself in that way, for at the last election it returned an eminent member of the medical profession instead of a staunch party Unionist to represent it in this Parliament, and I am glad to know that he is in accordance with the views of his constituents to that extent. I endorse fully what he said in regard to more health and less politics, and I will go even further, and say more healthy politics. But that is altogether apart from the main question in regard to Ireland. We do not believe that this hasty and sudden determination of the Government to change about in reference, to Ireland can come from any genuine motives on the part of the Government. If they had acted with sincere motives for the welfare of Ireland, why did they take all this time about it? Why did they exclude Ireland twice already from the purview of this Bill, and why does the right hon. Gentleman come down at the eleventh hour and make a proposal which he knows will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn and his associates?
  Major MOLSON: As a medical man, I would like to give my strong support to this Bill, but I am sorry to see that the Ministry is not to take medical research under its care. There may be very good political reasons, and possibly it may be wiser for some reasons, to leave it under the Privy Council. It strikes me that possibly the reason might be that there would be different boards for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and I suppose we would wish to have the medical research committee as a central body, and not under these different authorities. But I would very much prefer the Ministry of Health to be entirely unified. I would like, so to speak, to have an Imperial
  1906
  Ministry of Health over all the four boards. If that were at all possible, I believe it would be very much better for the public health. If it can be arranged, I should like to see separate boards of health for the separate Kingdoms and an Imperial Ministry of Health over all. In that way we could have the unified command of which we have heard so much. I would also like to see public service for all who cannot afford to pay for medical attendance linked up with the present insurance medical service. In that way people who cannot afford to pay for medical attendance would be guaranteed good medical attendance, and those who come under the Insurance Act would be linked up with the medical attendance carried on in that way. The President of the Local Government Board pointed out that there are far too many sanitary authorities in this Kingdom. He mentioned the number as 1,800. A great many of them have only part-time medical officers. I should like the number reduced practically to about one third, and the same amount of money devoted to giving whole-time medical officers to the whole country.
  In those ways you will get a great improvement in general health and the work will be carried on in a more efficient manner. I endorse all that has been said by an hon. Member on the other side who served in the R.A.M.C. I also have served in it in the East. The hon. Member mentioned that tetanus and typhoid were almost exterminated through the splendid organisation of the R.A.M.C. I would like to add my testimony, from my experience, as to the splendid manner in which that organisation has reduced the mortality from dysentery. At the beginning of the War we lost a great many fine lives in that way, but during the last seven months, when I was connected with a general hospital, there was not a single death from that cause. Medical research, as I say, should be under the control of the Ministry of Health, and if this is possible it is advisable from every point of view. I wish to endorse the words which you, Sir, used at the opening of this Session, when you said we should build upon old foundations, and in connection with medical research grants could be given to the present universities and schools of medicine and all the laboratories which are doing good work. It should be done in that way, and if it were thought advisable to have a central laboratory to

  1907
  co-ordinate the work, possibly that might be the best plan to adopt. I only make that suggestion, but I would like to see the use of the present seats of learning, and the future Ministry of Health co-ordinating all that work, and not losing any good work that is being done. I thoroughly support this Bill in every kind of way, and if any of ray remarks are not in accord with it I do not wish to make any difficulty but simply throw out these suggestions.
  10.0 p.m.
  Major BREESE: I ask for the generous forbearance of the House on rising to address it for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some information with regard to the position and administration of the Bill so far as it concerns Wales. By Clause 5 the Minister of Health is given permission for the exercise and performance in Wales, through such officers as he may appoint for the purpose, of any of the powers or duties transferred to the Minister by the Bill from the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. That cannot be deemed to be satisfactory from the Welsh point of view, and I think it is a reactionary and retrograde step. We were led to believe that in Wales, as in all other parts of the Kingdom, all these matters were going to be unified. We should have preferred in Wales to have seen the Government taking its courage in both hands and appointing a Minister responsible to this House for Wales. Wales has asked for the separate treatment of matters relating to its government for generations past. We have been fed with hopes and have been asked to believe in good intentions. I would, however, remind Ministers that a road paved with good intentions does not necessarily lead to a healthy existence. In this particular matter I would ask the House to consider what has been the position of Wales in affairs relating to health. We have not come to Parliament to ask for Grants to initiate schemes which we consider to be in the interests of the health of the community. We have during the past thirty years set up an almost complete national system of district nursing on the basis of voluntary subscriptions. The amounts now contributed throughout the whole of Wales total £60,000 per year, which is not a small contribution from a population largely composed of poor people, and a
  1908
  people who have no great industry, except in the South, to draw upon for their wealth. In addition to that, largely owing to the initiative and generosity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomery shire (Major David Davies), we have raised a fund of a quarter of a million, also by voluntary subscription, to form the nucleus of a national system to combat the fell disease of tuberculosis. This scheme has been extended to enable the county councils to contribute towards the cost of that great undertaking, which has already done so much for the prevention, if not for the cure, of tuberculosis. Those two instances show not only grit, but also the unique capacity of the people of Wales to administer these matters under their own system of administration. It may be that I shall be told, and probably I shall be told by the right hon. Gentleman, that, unlike Scotland and Ireland, we have not got in Wales the necessary machinery to which could be transferred the powers of a Minister directly responsible to this House. That is true in part, but in part only. We have machinery which, I think, might be very easily co-ordinated and made applicable for the purpose of a Ministry of Health. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with Wales—which is no mere geographical expression—as he has expressed his intention to deal with Scotland. It is essential that the peculiar circumstances and conditions obtaining in relation to health matters in Wales should be fully realised and dealt with, and by those who thoroughly understand the needs of the country, and not only the needs, but the customs and traditions of the country. There is, for instance, the difficulty as to language, which is a very great one. That leads not only to difficulties, but to suspicion and distrust. There are other factors in Wales which deserve special consideration. You have industrial portions of the country in the South, and in rural Wales, which is the larger portion, you have a lack of transport which hinders and delays in every possible way. There is a provision under Clause 4 of the Bill for the establishment by Order in Council of consultative councils, but I do not think such a council would do for administrative purposes. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to meet Wales in such a manner as will not make more difficult the solution of the general administrative question in a fuller measure of devolution. I

  1909
  can assure him that if he can devise means by giving us a Board or a Commission, the members of which should be appointed not only with reference to their capacity for dealing with matters of health but also to their capability of speaking Welsh, if he could do that, whether it was called a Board or a Commission, it would go far to reconciling Wales to the Bill. I should like to know specifically whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to drop the word "may" and to substitute for it the mandatory "shall," and to delete the last five words, namely, "from the Welsh Insurance Commissioners"? If he will say whether he will agree to some such Amendments as I have indicated in Committee, he will do something to meet the wishes of Wales in this matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I am sure the House will agree that we have had a most interesting discussion to-day, and the level of the speeches, particularly by the new Members, has been very high. I am certain that everybody will agree that the support which has been shown to-day is most gratifying to my right hon. Friend, and shows that the House appreciates the energy and the tact and diligence which he has displayed in the last two months in getting agreement on this Bill. The fact that he is able to come to-day with a big first-class measure like this and practically get unanimous support from all quarters of the House is a tribute in itself to the successful and tactful way in which he has carried out what I know have been extremely difficult negotiations. The House has shown itself appreciative of the underlying principles of the Bill. We want by this Bill to use in the great fight against the disease the same principle which has enabled us to defeat the other enemy on the Continent. That is to say, we want unified command, one staff to look ahead plan a campaign, and then carry it out. Sir Douglas Haig, when he fought against the Germans, did not have half-a-dozen general staffs, but only had one general headquarters staff, and because he had one staff he was able to carry through his operations so successfully. That is the underlying principle of this Bill. It is a co-ordinating Bill, it is an endeavour to bring under one Minister and one Department the functions connected with health which are at the present moment scattered among at
  1910
  least half-a-dozen Departments in Whitehall. Almost every Minister probably at some time or other reviews the way in which his Department is carried on, the way in which the functions are being carried out by his permanent officials. He may find that one assistant secretary is over-burdened, and that another one has not enough to do, and he may find that the same function is being dealt with by different heads of sections in the same Department, and accordingly he reorganises the work of his Department, he re-shuttles the powers, he applies to the Department the same principle which the head of every big, successful business firm applies to the conduct of his business. In this Bill we want to apply the same principle to the Government Departments as a whole, we want to re-organise and reshuffle existing powers, to put the health functions under one Minister, to set up one staff, and then we can come down to the House here and ask for additional powers in order that we may carry through to a successful termination the big campaign which is ahead of us. Hon. Members have referred to legislation which will be necessary in future in connection with the Poor Law, sanitation, hygiene, welfare, the position of hospitals, and the position of the various medical services, etc. All those things will have to be dealt with at some time, but my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion, and I think quite rightly, that it was essential as a first step to set up one staff, to look ahead, and to make a comprehensive plan, and, having made a plan, then to come to the House and ask for additional powers. In the past there were various health functions scattered about. Take, for instance, the case of the powers in connection with maternity, which were scattered amongst four Departments, and because it was everybody's business it therefore was nobody's business to see that an adequate and satisfactory maternity service was provided. That has been the case in the past.
  As regards the future, we propose to co-ordinate and bring the powers as far as possible under one head. For the first time we shall be able to see how far we are able really to utilise existing powers. I believe we shall be able to do a great deal more than people think possible with our existing powers, if we deal with them from one head instead of having them scattered about under different heads, and under frequently competing heads, in different

  1911
  Departments, and that is an additional reason for not asking the House to-night to give us additional powers. Until we know the extent to which we can use our present powers, my right hon. Friend does not feel justified in asking for fresh powers. The question of money has been raised by several speakers, and it has been quite rightly pointed out that unless my right hon. Friend has adequate supplies of money it is no good setting up a Ministry of Health. My right hon. Friend means to go ahead and to draw upon the public purse. It was mentioned in the King's Speech, and I can assure the House that the Government mean business in this respect They mean this Department to be a real Department, and have real powers, and to go ahead and develop the health services of the country, and I am perfectly certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that money spent on developing the health services, on eliminating disease, on reducing disablement, is money well spent in the national interest. We ask the House to make us responsible. In the past there was no single Minister whom the House or the country could hold responsible if, say, maternity was not properly dealt with. Now there will be a Minister whom the House will hold responsible—my right hon. Friend. I am perfectly certain he realises—we both realise—that there is a rocky country ahead of us the next two or three years, many difficulties to be overcome, a great deal of work to be done, courage requiring the moral support and the support of all the Members of this House. Whether we as individuals succeed or fail, I am perfectly certain the principle contained in this Bill is the right principle, that is to say, having one Minister and one Department.
  Perhaps I may tell the House some of my own experiences, when I first came into public life in this House, in connection with public health. After the passing of the Insurance Act, 1911, I was made chairman by the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, of a committee on tuberculosis. I think we had eight departments represented on that committee. We eventually presented a unanimous Report to the Government as to the machinery which ought to be set up for dealing with this disease, but because we had eight departments looking at the question from a
  1912
  different angle, thinking that they represented different interests, that they had to look after their own interests, taking the side of interests at the periphery as well as at the centre, it took us, I think, thirteen months to get that Report agreed to and presented to the Government, whereas I believe, if there had been only one department, we could have got that through in half the time. That was in 1911. For some little time after that, I lost immediate personal contact with tuberculosis. In 1919 I come back to it—seven years after. The first thing when I come to the Local Government Board is, at the request of my right hon. Friend, to attend an inter-departmental conference between the Insurance Commission and the Local Government Board to deal with the question of tuberculosis. Two days afterwards I went to another conference between the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commission and the Ministry of Pensions. Again, tuberculosis. If it had not been for the Debate to-day I should have been presiding this afternoon at even a larger departmental conference, again on tuberculosis.
  I have no hesitation in saying that the organisation now existing in the country for combating this disease, which is so extensive and the ravages of which are so enormous, is inadequate, because of the conflicting and competing interests represented by these different Government departments. In the future, if we can get one head, I think we shall be able to get economy of man-power, of time, of money, of effort. Not only does it apply to this one subject. As my right hon. Friend, speaking earlier in the day, said, there are other diseases with which we have to deal. There are certain sub-tropical diseases, to provide against which we have to take measures in the near future, to see that the population is not attacked by malaria, dysentery and other diseases brought back from the various fronts. The first thing my right hon. Friend has to do is to set up an inter-departmental committee. I am sure that the House will realise that all these conferences, all this correspondence between Ministers and between officials, all these departmental minutes, mean delay. The Local Government Board, in common with other Departments, have their pigeon-holes absolutely choked with inter-departmental minutes, which all means delay. We can-

  1913
  not possibly get action if we have to go round consulting half-a-dozen other Departments. It is not that they are wicked, or antagonistic; but the very fact that we have to go to them to get their sanction means delay. Delay in this case means disease. In many cases it means death. We welcome this Bill and these proposals, because, I believe, it will enable us to get a "move on." Where that "move on" has already commenced it will, I believe, enable us to accelerate it.
  Hon. Members during the course of the discussion have raised various points and put various questions as to certain of the proposals in the Bill. Speaking early in the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) asked why the health functions connected with factory inspection and with industrial disease, which are now at the Home Office, had not been brought under the Ministry of Health. When drawing up the Bill my right hon. Friend felt that it would be in the interests of all to make a start on certain big things, such as maternity. He quite realises the importance of having, at any rate, satisfactory health in industry. When he was Minister of Munitions he appointed a committee which has issued reports, illuminating and instructive, and which have altered our conception, and that of a large number of people, as to the conditions under which industry ought to be carried on. He has power under Clause 3, Sub-section (2), paragraph (d), to bring the health powers connected with industry and with factories at present under the control of the Home Office into the Department of the Ministry of Health. It can be done by arrangement whenever the time has arrived. The hon. Gentleman opposite, in an excellent maiden speech, raised the same question. He referred to the ravages of consumption amongst the miners. Exactly the same answer applies to this question. My right hon. Friend, who realises the value and importance of improving the conditions of industry from the point of view of safeguarding health, so far as possible and as soon as possible, will use his powers to try to get all these matters remedied. The hon. Member referred in his speech to this Bill having the keynote of life. It has. It is a Bill for setting up and establishing a Ministry of Health. I should almost have called it a Ministry of Welfare, because I think it would be more accurately described by that term, but whether it is the keynote of life or welfare, I am sure we
  1914
  all agree and realise that it is the first real step towards getting that new country which we all talked about at the last election, and towards attaining this we are all pledged. The hon. Member I have just referred to, as well as the last speaker, raised a point about the position of Wales. They wanted to know where Wales was going to come in. They said they had heard the demands of Scotland met and also the request of Ireland, and they wanted to know what was going to be done in the case of Wales. I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to know that all Committee the President of the Local Government Board proposes to. alter Clause 5 so that the Minister shall establish an office in Wales for the exercise through such officers as the Minister may appoint of any of the powers or duties transferred to the Ministry by this Act.
  The hon. Member for North Leeds wanted to know why the powers of the Registrar-General were not transferred to the Ministry of Health. The answer is that they are now being already transferred to the new Ministry and the point has been met. The other point raised by the hon. Member was in regard to the General Medical Council, which he wanted transferred to the Ministry of Health. My reply is that this new Department which is being set up will deal only with England and Wales, and the General Medical Council deals with the whole of the United Kingdom, and that is why it is not in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green wanted to know how we were going to deal with the backward authorities. We depend very largely upon the cordial support which we get from the local authorities, and I believe that the same desire as is found here at the centre to get ahead and get a move on in order to improve the present unsatisfactory conditions will be found to exist at the periphery, and I believe my right hon. Friend is going to get real support from the local authorities. He proposes to set up new services. Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until those are developed in order to see what further steps may be required.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, who has given so much time and attention to the subject of mental deficiency and lunacy, wanted the powers of the Home Office in so far as mental

  1915
  deficiency and lunacy are concerned transferred to the Ministry of Health. I listened very carefully to his statement of the case, and I may say that my right hon. Friend and I both agree that the right hon. and learned Member made out a good case and that as far as possible we will try to meet him. We realise the urgency of the problem, and we fully appreciate that at some time and very soon the functions now exercised by the Home Secretary in this respect should come under the Ministry of Health. Then there were one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolver Hampton. I honestly believe that the local authorities will find their task much easier when they have only to look to one head instead of to several competing Departments as in the past. I believe the result will be that they will get guidance, instead of being merely confused. We look earnestly to the support they will give us in carrying out and making effective the co-ordinated powers which we shall try and practice from the centre. He also raised the point and asked about the consultative councils. It was also mentioned by other hon. Members. If my right hon. Friend opposite has any particular council in mind or has any specific proposals to make, I hope that he will let us have them. My right hon. Friend is going into the whole question of the number of the councils that there ought to be, their composition, and the spheres which they ought to occupy, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any concrete proposals to put forward they will be welcomed and carefully considered. Before coining to the Local Government Board I was at the Ministry of Food. There we had two councils, the Consumers Council and the Agricultural Advisory Council. I have no hesitation in saying that the Food Controller and I found these councils of the greatest assistance. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend will find exactly the same. He means to set them up as soon as possible, and they are to be a real part of the machinery. Great care, of course, will have to be exercised to see that the responsibility neither of himself as Minister nor of the House of Commons is taken away, but so long as that is safeguarded I am convinced that nothing but good, and a great deal of good, will come from the establishment of
  1916
  these councils. Another hon. Member raised the question of the milk supply. That question is being very carefully gone into at the present time. My right hon. Friend fully realises the importance of having a safe, a clean, an adequate, and a cheap milk supply. He has had consultations with other Departments also concerned, and we hope by administrative action and possibly by legislative action that we shall be able to remove the obvious and admitted defects which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
  There was another point which was raised by almost every medical Member who has spoken, namely, the position of the Medical Research Committee. I believe that the new medical Members who have discussed this matter have not fully understood the present position or the proposed position. I think they unanimously want the Medical Research Committee to be put under the Ministry of Health and not, as it is proposed, under the Privy Council. There are two sorts of research. There is what I may call fundamental research, and there is topical research. There is the fundamental research which surveys the widest field, looking for knowledge wherever it can be found, and I am sure that the House realises that there are only a very limited number of men of sufficient standing in the research world really to materially increase and add to our knowledge in a big way. At the same time there is a great deal of what I called just now topical, day-to-day, routine research. The Local Government Board is doing that research at the present time, and the Minister of Health will continue to do it in the future as the President of the Local Government Board has done it in the past, but we propose that the research over the wider field should not be limited to a Department which only covers England and Wales. We propose to put it under the Privy Council, which means that it will not only cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but that it will be in touch with the whole of the British Empire. Surely the House will agree that you will get far more progress if you have your central medical research committee in touch with the profession and giving assistance to research workers throughout the British Empire. It would be a grave mistake if it were limited to research workers in England and Wales alone. I should like to read to the House an

  1917
  extract from a speech which was made by a man of standing in scientific knowledge. He said—
  "The methods of research are anarchical and ought to be continuously destructive of accepted opinions; when a Government Department takes an official point of view, it is apt to insist of its being respected and not criticised by its officers on the strength. It has happened that a scientific man in Government employment has had to choose between his salary and his conscience.…The type of man most fitted for research wants his value to be measured by the quality of his scientific work rather than by his official adaptability."
  Hon. Members said that they wanted the Research Committee and research work to be under the strong control of the Ministry of Health. I think it would be a pity to put this work and the body of research workers under the strong control of any Minister. I can quite see, at the present moment, hon. Members only picture the Minister of Health in the person of my right hon. Friend. They know perfectly well that he would adopt a sympathetic and helpful attitude towards research work. But let those hon. Members who are medical Members of the House picture what might happen if you got an unsympathetic Minister of Health, someone who did not understand what was meant by research work, and who tried to control it directly. I cannot imagine anything more prejudicial to real progress. You cannot always tell what a Minister is going to be until he has arrived. If the Medical Research Committee is not attached to any one Ministry or Department, it can be of assistance to all Government Departments. During the War the Medical Research Committee has done a great deal of most useful and valuable work for the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Force. All Government Departments are beginning to turn to it when they want real research work to be done. Hon. Members know enough of Government Departments to be aware that they would not be likely to turn to it for this work if it were definitely linked up with one particular Department. We propose to put it under the Privy Council in the same way as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was put. The Medical Research Committee have considered this question very fully and very carefully. I speak with some knowledge, because for the last four years I have been Chairman of the Medical Research Committee, and they have unanimously decided on this, after careful and mature consideration, not once or twice, but three times, in the interest of
  1918
  the research development work which they carry out, and which I believe is unanimously acknowledged to be well done—and as I am only the lay chairman I can say that that work has been of the greatest value to the State at large and to His Majesty's fighting forces. It has done a great deal to advance knowledge. The Committee are unanimously of opinion that the course proposed in the Bill is the right course.
  I think that I haves dealt with most of the points, but before sitting down I feel that on an occasion like this one I ought to refer to a public man who did so much during the last two years to help forward the movement and shake public opinion, which has now enabled us to get this Ministry of Health—I mean Lord Rhondda. Lord Rhondda is no longer with us. He knew when he went to the Ministry of Food that it might end his life. He was warned about it, and one of the legacies which he left was a request that the Government and the Prime Minister should proceed with the establishment of a Ministry of Health. Lord Rhondda told the country more than once, speaking with the knowledge and authority of a President of the Local Government Board and with all the facts as he knew them and as he had had them put before him, that, in his opinion, if such a measure as this were passed, and if such a Department were set up, it would have been possible to save every week the lives of 1,000 babies. We know what that means. Since the beginning of this War this country has lost a quarter of a million infants at least. Children have died who ought to have been alive now. They have died very largely because it was nobody's business to look after them. There were four Departments, but there was no Minister we could hold responsible. There was no Minister whose first duty it was to see that they were properly looked after. They died because of the bad, limiting conditions surrounding child-birth. They died because the country neglected its duty. They died because of bad housing and malnutrition, and because of bad pre-natal, post-natal and natal conditions. Maternity, child-birth, is a natural process. Unfortunately in the past it has been too often a form of disease. Anybody who looks into it realises the amount of preventable suffering, debility and disease which women have had to suffer because of inadequate attention and assistance at

  1919
  the time of child-birth. We have got to turn off the tap of child mortality. We talk about increasing the birth-rate. It is far easier to diminish the death-rate than to increase the birth-rate. We have to make up for war wastage. During the War we have lost the best lives, picked lives. There was a need for a Ministry such as this before the War. It is doubly necessary now to make up the wastage of war.
  I mentioned just now the fact that it will possibly be in my right hon. Friend's power to spend a great deal of money. I am sure the House will agree that every time a child, or adolescent, or adult, male or female, in middle age, dies prematurely, there is a waste of money—money spent on educating and bringing up that child or adult. It is not only a waste of money actually spent, but there is the loss of a productive unit. The greatest capital of the country is its human capital. We cannot discuss a question such as this in terms of cash. The War has made us realise the amount of suffering and misery connected with disability, disease, and wounds. Hon. Members have referred to the splendid work which was done by the Royal Army Medical Corps and the medical officers in the various centres of war. The soldiers, when they went to the trenches, knew that if they were wounded they would have the best surgical and medical treatment which could be provided; they knew they would have the best chance of recovery. Why should not the children of this country have equal facilities? These hundreds of thousands of children who have lost their lives were not killed by shot and shell and poison gas. They lost their lives because the community had neglected to
  1920
  provide proper treatment and conditions to live in. We cannot afford to allow this to go on. It is because of that that we ask you to set up this new Ministry, whose first and most important function will be to improve the conditions under which people live. Give my right hon. Friend the instrument, and let us support him when he comes later on and asks for additional powers. I am certain, after listening to the Debate, that we can count upon the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, in whatever part of the House they sit, to assist us in getting the Bill carried through with great rapidity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to extend the Bill to Ireland."
  I need not put forth my arguments, as the Government has already expressed its intention of extending the powers of the Bill to Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes before Eleven o'clock.

  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  LEVY ON CAPITAL.
  LEVY ON CAPITAL.
INCOME TAX.
  EXEMPTION LIMIT.
  EXEMPTION LIMIT.
  COLONIAL INCOMES.
  COLONIAL INCOMES.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SOLDIERS' INCOMES (AVERAGE).
  SOLDIERS' INCOMES (AVERAGE).
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
  ENTERTAINMENT TAX.
  ENTERTAINMENT TAX.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  POULTRY.
  POULTRY.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  MARMALADE.
  MARMALADE.
  CONFECTIONERY.
  CONFECTIONERY.
  SALMON.
  SALMON.
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS (PRICES).
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS (PRICES).
  CONSUMERS' FOOD COUNCIL.
  CONSUMERS' FOOD COUNCIL.
  WHISKY STOCKS.
  WHISKY STOCKS.
IRELAND.
  SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS.
  SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  IRISH CONVENTION (HOUSING REPORT).
  IRISH CONVENTION (HOUSING REPORT).
  TEACHERS'SALARIES.
  TEACHERS'SALARIES.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT (GRANTS).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT (GRANTS).
  FILM PROHIBITED.
  FILM PROHIBITED.
  RAILWAY CHARGES, BELFAST.
  RAILWAY CHARGES, BELFAST.
DEMOBILISATION.
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR.
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR.
  DISPERSAL UNITS (ATTACHED OFFICERS).
  DISPERSAL UNITS (ATTACHED OFFICERS).
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT.
  ONE-MAN BUSINESSES (PROPRIETORS).
  ONE-MAN BUSINESSES (PROPRIETORS).
  SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY (LANCE-CORPORAL GOVAN).
  SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY (LANCE-CORPORAL GOVAN).
  DATE OF JOINING COLOURS.
  DATE OF JOINING COLOURS.
  WIMBLEDON DISPERSAL CAMP.
  WIMBLEDON DISPERSAL CAMP.
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA.
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA.
  STUDENTS.
  STUDENTS.
  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
  APPRENTICES (TRAINING).
  APPRENTICES (TRAINING).
  ARMY HORSES (SALE).
  ARMY HORSES (SALE).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  ARMY OFFICERS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL).
  ARMY OFFICERS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL).
  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  BOOKS FOR TROOPS.
  BOOKS FOR TROOPS.
  8TH BATTALION TANK CORPS (PRIVATE LEMON).
  8TH BATTALION TANK CORPS (PRIVATE LEMON).
  ARMY CLOTHING DEPOT, LEICESTER.
  ARMY CLOTHING DEPOT, LEICESTER.
  COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES.
  COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES.
  SPECIAL RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
  SPECIAL RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (ILLNESS).
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (ILLNESS).
  COLONIAL OFFICERS (PAY).
  COLONIAL OFFICERS (PAY).
  ARMY TRUSTEE FUNDS.
  ARMY TRUSTEE FUNDS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  DARRINGTON CAMP, SALISBURY PLAIN.
  DARRINGTON CAMP, SALISBURY PLAIN.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  DISABLED OFFICERS.
  DISABLED OFFICERS.
  ARMY PAY (INFANTRY).
  ARMY PAY (INFANTRY).
  COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION.
  COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION.
  ARMY MASSEUSES.
  ARMY MASSEUSES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  OFFICERS'GRATUITIES.
  OFFICERS'GRATUITIES.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
  DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
  OFFICER'S WIDOW (GRATUITY).
  OFFICER'S WIDOW (GRATUITY).
  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
  PROCEDURE.
  PROCEDURE.
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  WHITE ARMLET.
  WHITE ARMLET.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF REDUCTIONS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF REDUCTIONS).
  RETAIL SHOPS (LICENCES).
  RETAIL SHOPS (LICENCES).
  ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY (RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
  ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY (RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
  WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
  WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
MUNITIONS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  CONTRACTORS' BLACK LIST.
  CONTRACTORS' BLACK LIST.
  EXCESS PROFITS AND MUNITIONS LEVY.
  EXCESS PROFITS AND MUNITIONS LEVY.
INDIA.
  SUBALTERNS' PAY.
  SUBALTERNS' PAY.
  BOMBAY (SANITATION).
  BOMBAY (SANITATION).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  CONTINUATION CLASSES.
  CONTINUATION CLASSES.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  MANCHESTER SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  MANCHESTER SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
ALIENS.
  NATURALISATION.
  NATURALISATION.
  EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS (REPEAL).
  EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS (REPEAL).
PRISONS.
  REGULATIONS (PUBLICATION).
  REGULATIONS (PUBLICATION).
  DIETARY.
  DIETARY.
  CELL TEMPERATURE.
  CELL TEMPERATURE.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  HOSPITAL CASES, MALTA.
  HOSPITAL CASES, MALTA.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER LEWIS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER LEWIS).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (PAY).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (PAY).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
  URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  SAILOR AND SOLDIER VOTERS.
  SAILOR AND SOLDIER VOTERS.
HOUSING.
  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.
  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  WORKING-CLASS DWELLINGS.
  WORKING-CLASS DWELLINGS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (DOCTORS' ALLOWANCES).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (DOCTORS' ALLOWANCES).
  COAL.
  COAL.
  PETROL.
  PETROL.
  FORD MOTOR CARS.
  FORD MOTOR CARS.
  WAR-TIME BOOTS.
  WAR-TIME BOOTS.
  CENSORSHIP.
  CENSORSHIP.
  POSTAL SERVICE (PROMOTIONS).
  POSTAL SERVICE (PROMOTIONS).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (POST OFFICE).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (POST OFFICE).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (TRUNK CALLS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (TRUNK CALLS).
  TELEGRAPH AND POSTAL SERVICES.
  TELEGRAPH AND POSTAL SERVICES.
  POSTMEN OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  POSTMEN OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  SHIPPING FACILITIES (SINGAPORE).
  SHIPPING FACILITIES (SINGAPORE).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH PROPERTIES).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH PROPERTIES).
  SUMMER TIME.
  SUMMER TIME.
  HAMPTON COURT (FLOWER BEDS).
  HAMPTON COURT (FLOWER BEDS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LORD INVERFORTH.
The Right Hon. Andrew Weir, Minister of Supply, having been created Baron INVERFORTH of Southgate in the County of Middlesex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to remove disqualifications on the ground of sex for the admission of persons to practise the law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have now to ask your Lordships to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day in order that it may receive the Royal assent at the earliest possible moment, and so authorise the effective inception of the Commission which the Bill seeks power to establish. Your Lordships are, I am sure, familiar with the situation. What has passed recently in another place has, I think, made it more than ever urgent that despatch should be shown by this House. I accordingly make the Motion which is on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI. and XXXIX. be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Coal Industry Commission Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be passed through all its stages.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need not say that I do not rise in any way
340
to oppose the Motion which the noble Earl has made, or indeed to complain of the action of His Majesty's Government in bringing it forward. The national position, as we all know, is far too grave for us to take any thought of our own amour propre in this matter, or even of the amour propre of your Lordships' House. But I do think that it is necessary to point out on this occasion that the effect of the Motion made by the noble Earl is practically to reduce to a nullity the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I think it may be assumed that when we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will point out to us that it is practically impossible for us to send the Bill back with any material Amendments, or even drafting Amendments, to another place, in view of the necessity of its being submitted to the Royal Commission this evening. That may be a necessity—I do not dispute it—and I am quite sure that it is deplored by nobody more than the noble Earl opposite. But, of course, it does reduce the position to this—that although, I suppose, some speeches will be made by your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, for all the effect they will have they might just as well be made at the Oxford Union. It will hardly be supposed that the newspapers will even go to the trouble of reporting a debate of that kind which can have no conceivable effect upon the position in this House or out of it. That being so, I can only express—what I believe is shared by many of your Lordships' House—a feeling of profound regret that His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to take this course. But the urgency cannot possibly be disputed; not merely days but even hours are valuable in this particular instance. The noble Earl, therefore, has an irrefragable case; but it is, I think, a most deplorable necessity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg leave to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have been discussing the general labour situation for two or three days, and that debate will be resumed next week. I therefore think that it is probably unnecessary to go into the broad aspects of the particular difficulty in the coal-mining industry, and I suggest that I should confine my remarks to a brief outline of the clauses of this Bill.

341
I may remind the House that the demands put forward by the coal miners consisted of a demand for a six-hours day, for a 30 per cent. increase in wages, for nationalisation of the mines or something of that character, and for special demobilisation terms for men engaged in working in and about coal mines. This demand reached the Coal Controller, and through him the Government, a very short time ago, and an offer was made to increase the wages by 1s. a day upon the existing war wage to meet increased cost of living; and furthermore that an immediate Inquiry should take place in order to investigate other problems which were raised by these demands.
I imagine that everybody is familiar with the subsequent course of the controversy. This Bill is presented in pursuance of the decision of the Government to make the investigation to which I have referred. An Act of Parliament is necessary in order to invest the Inquiry with statutory powers, to give it full powers to conduct its investigations in the completest possible manner. The second clause of the Bill confers upon the Commission practically all the rights, privileges, and powers which are vested in the High Court of Justice. The Commission therefore has power to order the production of papers and documents, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any evidence it may desire; and there is a penal clause under which any person who infringes these instructions can be committed for contempt of Court. At one time, I understand, it was contemplated that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the Bill. That has not been carried out in practice, though it has been announced that Mr. Justice Sankey will act as Chairman of the Commission. But the personnel of the Inquiry is largely dependent upon the decision taken by the miners who, I understand, are to-day discussing their attitude on the subject.
I readily acknowledge the justice of what was just said by Lord Crewe. I deplore, as sincerely as he does, the fact that a Bill of this magnitude and complexity—not the Bill itself because that is a simple thing, but the issue governed by the Bill—should have to be pressed forward at such short notice. But I am afraid we are almost helpless in the matter. The fifth clause gives the Commissioners the power to
342
make Interim Reports, and instructs them as soon as practicable to make an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours of work of the colliery workers. That does not specify in legal terms the actual date on which these gentlemen are expected to finish their Report upon that aspect of the question; but the Prime Minister has promised that the first part of the Report—namely, that relating to wages and hours—should be submitted on March 20. General questions—those, for instance, dealing with the organisation of the industry as a whole—can be dealt with under less pressure and at a subsequent date. Any Reports which are prepared by the Commission will in due course be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I must admit that the time available is very short for a subject of such magnitude, but a great deal of preliminary work on the one side and the other has already been accomplished. A good deal of valuable evidence is already in the hands of the various Government Departments, and between now and the third week of March probably a great deal of good work can be done to elucidate this problem of hours and wages. If there is any technical point in the clauses of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will no doubt reply on questions of practice and procedure. Meanwhile, on the main principle of the Bill, I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: My Lords, I should like to enter a protest against what I consider to be the utterly inadequate time that is going to be allotted to this Commission to make their inquiry regarding the advance of 30 per cent. in the men's wages and the reduction in the hours from eight to six. I understand that the Commission will assemble on March 3, that they will not commence to take evidence until March 5, and that their labours are to be concluded by March 20. That is, roughly speaking, a fortnight. I think we shall all agree that, considering the scope and magnitude of the Inquiry, this time is all too short. We all know and sympathise with the reason for cutting down the time allotted to the Commission; it is, if possible, to avert what would be nothing more or less than a. national calamity—a

343
great strike. But when we come to consider the area covered by the coalfields of Great Britain and Ireland—I understand that Ireland is included—and when we further consider that there are some 3,000 to 4,000 collieries affected, it will be seen how utterly impossible in the time allotted it will be to get anything like as complete evidence as one would wish. Then you should further bear in mind that the conditions of working, wages, and many other things vary considerably in different districts, not only in regard to coalfields as widely separated as Northumberland and Somerset, but in places situated quite close together, where the conditions are entirely different. For instance, South and West Yorkshire have always claimed to be, and are, on an entirely different footing from one another with regard to wages, &c.
I view with grave suspicion this evident anxiety of the miners' leaders in the other House, and those who are evidently more interested in the nationalisation of mines, to divide the task of this Commission into portions. I do not think it is right; I believe that eventually it will work out disadvantageously to the scope of the whole finding. They ought to have been kept together, and then the Inquiry would have been of greater value. If, as the men's leaders say, their plans are based upon justice and they are certain they can be granted without any damage being done to existing interests, what harm is there in a little further delay? What difference will it make if this Inquiry lasts, say, another month or even six weeks, which, after all, is only a reasonable time? I do not think that the public or a great many of the members of either House of Parliament fully grasp the meaning of these demands. I am pretty well acquainted with the workings in one portion of the coalfields of England, and I do not believe that these demands are put forward by the men themselves. They are put forward by a group of leaders and men who desire to put the owners in an impossible position. It is not the case of holding a revolver to one's head, but a "75." They know perfectly well that their demands cannot possibly be acceded to.
If I may be allowed to refer to it, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his speech yesterday made a statement which I think might give grounds for misapprehension, though I am sure he did so un-
344
intentionally. He stated that what excited a great amount of distrust and suspicion amongst the men was that on previous occasions, whenever demands of this or a similar kind had been made, they had always been put off by the owners of the industries affected saying their demands were likely to jeopardise, if not to ruin, the industries concerned. He went on to say that these prognostications had never been fulfilled, though the men had always had their requests acceded to. With all due respect to the noble Earl, I entirely disagree with him. I agree to this extent, that their demands have always been acceded to, but at whose expense? It has always been at the expense of the public, who have to pay in the long run.
I will give your Lordships a recent instance. Some of you may be aware that the last two advances to the miners of 2s. each, totalling 4s., were agreed to in order to meet the increased cost of living. What happened? The owners were obliged to go to the Controller, the late Sir Guy Calthrop, whose early demise we all so deeply deplore and whose advice at this juncture would have been of immense value. He was obliged to accede to the owners' request and allow them to add an additional 4s. to the selling price. This sum was ear-marked specifically for the men's wages, and any sum not used up as such had to be returned to the Controller. That is an exact example of what will happen in this case. I do not know whether your Lordships have any idea of what this modest request will mean to you and to the country, but it has been computed, and I think very modestly, that on the average it will mean an additional cost of at least 8s. per ton. Your Lordships can very easily work out what that will amount to, and what the public will have to pay.
The real reason why I have risen is that. I have always regarded this House as the guardian of the public and the public interest, and I think it will be very wrong if, having regard to what will be the after effects of this Inquiry, a protest is not made at this juncture, and if I do not point out that the time allotted to this Commission in which to take evidence on this very important subject, is in my opinion far too short.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: My Lords, I only wish to ask a question, and that is

345
whether the date March 20, which I understand is not in the Bill, is conditional upon the miners' representatives taking their place upon the Commission of Inquiry. I should be glad if the point could be cleared up, because the advantage of getting the miners to take part in the Inquiry is clear, and I understood from the debate in another place yesterday that there was a sort of understanding that the date had been modified to attract them to come and take a hand in the Inquiry.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not think that I did as a matter of fact say what the noble Lord opposite ascribes to me, as to the capitalist saying he would be ruined by each advance and yet surviving, but I have not much hesitation in associating myself with the sentiment. I do think that we cannot discuss this Bill usefully this afternoon—we have not time and shall not have the opportunity—and it is a most unfortunate thing that the Inquiry itself should be so rushed. To that extent I should be quite prepared to associate myself with the noble Lord opposite, in saying that into an industry so large and so complex you cannot have anything like a reasonable Inquiry in what is practically a fortnight's working time. I raised a point yesterday as to nationalisation, as to which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said nothing, and I suggested then, what I think was rather borne out afterwards by the remarks of the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, that an announcement on that subject would possibly stave off immediate proceedings on the part of the men. I rather gather, if I am correctly informed by the journals this morning, that they have agreed or are likely to agree to postpone the actual strike, on the understanding that this Report will be ready by March 20, and, if so, the immediate object is gained. I think it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are to blame for the hurried nature of the Inquiry. These matters ought to have been taken in hand months ago, and it has been known for months that the situation was acute. In the circumstances we can say nothing useful, but must simply let the Commission be set up and hope for the best from an Inquiry which is clearly not an Inquiry in the sort of atmosphere in which one would consider the matter with a reasonable chance of arriving at an honest solution as between the parties.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only rose to concur entirely with what has fallen from the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I submit to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that if a Minister of Cabinet rank makes such a pronouncement as was made more than three months ago, surely it should be possible on another occasion for the Government to take the matter into sufficient consideration to avoid such a most unfortunate state of facts as has how arisen. After all, there are many men in this House with great acquaintance with the coal trade, but it does not need great acquaintance with the trade to know that there is a vast difference between different classes of mines, and that it would be absolutely impossible for one body of men, many of whom have had no previous acquaintance with the subject, to arrive at a proper solution, dealing with the whole trade, in the time suggested. For any of us to attempt to debate the Bill this afternoon would be lending ourselves to a farce, and we can only accept the situation which has arisen and trust that the noble Earl will do his best to prevent our being placed in a similar position should other difficulties of a like kind arise in connection with other trades.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think Lord Russell is wrong in saving that these demands were made months ago. Certainly one of the most difficult of the demands to accede to was that dealing with demobilisation, which has only reached the authorities within a very few weeks from to-day.
EARL RUSSELL: The one as to demobilised men receiving pay?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes. Some of the demands are in effect quite new. I am afraid I have to express my agreement with much of the criticism that has fallen from your Lordships. I would demur, as an admirer and advocate of this House, to the view taken very strongly by Lord Crewe, that because it is not in the power of this House to amend a Bill discussion is therefore fruitless. I do not accept that view, and I do not think that the value of discussions in this House is to be measured by the number of Amendments which we put into Bills. If your Lordships think it is farcical to present this Bill to Parliament, I can only

347
express my regret. Lord Wimborne asked me as to the actual date of the Report. The Bill states that the Report shall be made as soon as practicable. I am informed that, if the miners join the Inquiry, March 20 is the date by which the Report can be expected.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: It is conditional then?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If they do not join the Inquiry, it is contemplated that it will not be finished by the 20th. But there is a material point which I think has not received enough notice in this brief conversation℄namely, that these Reports will be Interim Reports, not Final Reports. Everybody admits that the time is short and the subject is large. There are wide variations in conditions and practice of coal-mining, not merely from one end of the country to another, but from one corner of a county to another. Everybody knows that and acknowledges it. If your Lordships will read the terms of Clause 5 you will see that the Commissioners shall make as soon as practicable an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours. That, I think, puts a different complexion on what was stated by my noble friend Lord Midleton. I can only add that Mr. Justice Sankey, the Chairman, has been consulted on this question, and, though I dare say he would like a longer interval of time, he has said that it would be possible to issue the first general review of the position by that date in an interim fashion, assuming that he can get the help of the miners.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

FOOD PRICES.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are taking steps, and if so what, to bring about an immediate reduction in the prices of food and other supplies to the consumer; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, during the three days' debates which have taken place in this House on the subject
348
of industrial unrest many reasons have been assigned as to the causes, but probably the outstanding one of all is to be found in the increased cost of living. I think this has contributed more than any other cause towards what we call industrial unrest. As regards wages, until now the demand for increase of wages has been based almost entirely on the increased cost of living. There has been no general demand for new conditions such as are now presented to us, but the advances that have taken place since 1915℄all of them℄have been of the variety that I may call war bonuses, and the insistence on the granting of these bonuses has been based exclusively on enhancement in the cost of living. In consequence of this, wages have more than doubled, and if I may quote a figure which was given the other day by Lord Emmott℄I think we can accept it, because he is a careful speaker and an authority upon the subject with which he was dealing℄he mentioned that the increase in wages per year is between £700,000,000 and £1,000,000,000. If that has been governed as I suggest it has been, by the price of food, it is a very important question for us to consider when and how a reduction can be brought about.
During the last eighteen months the Government have been in entire control of the purchase of all food supplies and practically of their distribution, in so far as they have fixed the selling prices through the various stages of commerce from the wholesalers down to the final distributor. Prices have been advancing all the time. Wages show that. And it is not to be wondered at considering the circumstances in which the Government found themselves in their buying operations. The Government have been the sole buyers. They had a limited sphere for their operations. They have not had at their disposal, as was the case in pre-war days, the whole of the markets of the world, but they have been limited more or less to a narrow area, consisting mainly, though not entirely of course, of North America. I would like to say that I am convinced that were it not for control, in spite of its difficulties and handicaps, prices would have gone very much higher.
We have now got to the stage where war conditions no longer prevail. We are released from the submarine menace, and shipping, although not absolutely free, has had restored to it a considerable amount

349
of freedom of which it was deprived wider war conditions. Therefore I say we are entitled in these circumstances to expect, and indeed to look for, some modifications as regards prices, and certainly as regards control. I dare say your Lordships have noticed that in the last few days there have been many official communications passing from the Ministry of Food to the Press on this subject of prices and control. Certain modifications—some of great importance—have been already announced. I think these modifications in themselves go far to support the argument that has been used that a revision was urgently needed. I think it has been delayed in some cases far longer than has been justified. I shall, perhaps, touch upon that in a moment or two in order to prove what I say. I propose to show that inherent in the situation to which I have referred are reasons and difficulties of purchase which account for high prices. At the preseirt moment a much greater scope exists for effecting a More sweeping reduction of control prices, and the general opinion which prevails so much is correct, that the most abbreviated period of a continuance of control will best promote the interests of the country.
The Government position is this. They have stated, I believe, that they are the best judges of the moment when control should be removed, but a contrary opinion has prevailed for some time among the shipping people especially, and also among the mercantile community—and there is abundant evidence to show that control in many things should be relinquished. To demonstrate that, I
will briefly deal with the position of the stocks of some of the leading commodities, those which are vital. Many of these stocks are increasing, and in addition to that the visible supplies—that is, supplies that are available, and yet are not within the United Kingdom—are so great that if the trader were free to operate, as he was before control was imposed, it is fair to assume (and it is stated generally) prices would fall much below those at present ruling.
Take first the case of wheat. The stocks of wheat in the United Kingdom on January 1 were over twelve million quarters, that is double the amount of stocks in 1917, and half as much again as we had in 1918. Lord Crawford, who is an expert on all questions pertaining to the stock of wheat, will remember quite well the serious position which with we were con-
350
fronted about January 1, 1917. I unfortunately had to bear the brunt of that when I first became Food Controller. We had large quantities of wheat bought at the other end of the world, in Australia—about 3,000,000 tons—but it proved to be ungetatable. Consequently unless some very immediate and effective steps were taken I do not hesitate to say that by the month of April this country, in 1917, would have been, not breadless, but in such a condition that there would have been certain and constant distribution of it. I think Lord Crawford will agree with that. Now the stocks in this country are large, and they are, I am told, rapidly increasing, and there is available all the wheat the Government bought and never brought home. Lord Crawford will be able to tell us what is the position of that supply. It was bought by the Asquith Government in 1916, and as far as I know it remains there still. I have not verified this, but I shall be glad to be informed whether the Government in the following year also bought the Australian wheat crop. If that be true, the stocks of wheat in Australia at the present moment must be enormous, and my noble friend will do us a great service if he will tell us the exact situation as regards the wheat in Australia.
I observed in the papers the other day an official communication from Mr. Roberts, the Food Controller, saving that it would be impossible to bring home more than 1,000,000 tons of this wheat during the cereal year. I do not think that statement should be accepted. I have made several inquiries in the last few days among shipping people with whom I am constantly in touch, and they assure me that there would be no difficulty at all in bringing home a much greater quantity than that suggested. In the Argentine there are apparently large quantities of wheat and also of maize, which are offering at prices much below those at present being paid by the Wheat Commission in the United States, whence they are drawing the main portion of their supplies.
I expect most of your Lordships noticed a very important letter which appeared in The Times last week from Mr. Runciman, a former President of the Board of Trade, one who has considerable experience in mercantile affairs and in shipping. What he said in effect was this—that wheat is now sold by the Government, landed in this

351
country, at 94 s., but if buyers were free to operate on their own account it could be landed at 28 s. lower; that is to say, 66 s., including freight; and he made a similar statement in regard to maize. I do not pretend to be an expert on these questions, but I think we ought to have some reply to that statement, because it is urgently necessary in the interest of the financial stability of this country that we should get down the price of wheat at the earliest possible moment, if for no other purpose than to get rid of that milestone around the taxpayers' neck—the £60,000,000 per year by reason of the loaf being artificially reduced to 9d. by subsidy. That is a terrible burden of over £1,000,000 a week, and therefore if there is anything in Mr. Runciman's contention—and I expect there is a great deal—it surely would be expedient on the part of the Wheat Commission to avail themselves of these cheap wheat supplies in order that we may get rid at all events of that heavy financial responsibility.
But it was stated that there was a reason why these cheap markets should not be resorted to exclusively for our benefit, and one reason was this—that the cereals are being bought by the Wheat Commission on an inter-Allied basis. The Department that issued this official communication—I expect it was the Wheat Commission itself—went on to say—
"And clearly we could not have all the cheap wheat ourselves and leave the expensive sources of supply to our Allies."
If this means that we are prevented by some arrangement with the Allies from taking advantage of cheaper markets, it would be interesting to know how long this engagement is to last. In war time we had to submit to everything, and we did so with a good grace, but I think now that the war is over there would be a degree of impatience evinced by people if, because of inter-Allied arrangements, we were stopped from getting full advantage of buying in the cheapest market.
I pass on from wheat to meat. The stocks of imported meat in the United Kingdom are accumulating very rapidly. I think they are about 100,000 tons, and in New Zealand and Australia there are about 150,000 tons of meat awaiting shipment.. The storage there is full to repletion. During the war, of course, the tonnage difficulty has been such that we
352
have not been able to get the advantages of the meat supplies that Australasia at all times is willing to offer, so that at the present moment they have this enormous accumulation in their storage. In addition to that, they have a larger number of animals than ever before awaiting slaughter, pending increase in storage accommodation, because it is obvious that when storage accommodation is full to repletion they cannot go on slaughtering. Again, there is the position of our own flocks and herds. I am told that they are increasing. I know that they are being drawn upon, but only in a very modified way as compared with pre-war days. We are taking out of our flocks and herds in this country no more than 40,000 tons a month, while in pre-war days the amount would be double that, or perhaps even more.
Another thing I would refer to is tea, although I am glad to notice that an intimation has been given by the Government that control over tea is to cease in the coming month. It has been obvious for a very long time that the stocks of tea were such that continued control was unnecessary, and had been unnecessary in this country for the last month or two, during which time the stocks have been almost as high as at any previous period. Now I believe there are 142,000,000 lbs., and in addition to that there is available for shipment in the countries of production a similar quantity. Control no doubt has been held up unduly, but since the Government have intimated that they are going to release the control of tea—I think in a month's time—I do not press this matter very strongly.
I pass to the question of prices, which is far more vital. How are prices affected be control apart from or in addition to purchase price? I first ask the question. "What is the object of control?" I think when control was imposed the object was to secure an equal distribution for all alike; secondly, to establish uniform prices, so that all could buy at the same price and no one get more than he was entitled to. At the same time the idea was to prevent inflation of prices, speculation, and manipulation, and it was considered that with the Government as sole buyer competition would be eliminated and purchasers would be assured in consequence of better terms. I myself had the privilege of first introducing Mr. Hoover to the

353
Government to explain his policy. That was before he was appointed Food Controller, but it was obvious that he was going to be so appointed. The point that he insisted upon most emphatically was that there should be only one buyer in the market, not only as regards this country, bat as regards the Allies. The object, of course, was to eliminate competition. The people in this country readily assented to control, not only in relation to purchases but also as regards the fixing of prices, because they assumed that they would thereby he protected from exploitation, and that the Government itself would stand in the position of protector of their interests. The implied understanding was that any advantages that might accrue to the Government by reason of the skill or magnitude of its operations would be to the advantage of the consumers also.
I am sorry to say that I shall have to point out to-day that the increase in prices in many cases—in fact, in almost all—is attributable in part at least to Government action by reason of their charging consumers for the commodities they buy a very much higher figures than is fair and reasonable having regard to their cost price and the consequent expenses attendant on buying. The first example I will take will be that of bnported meat. In August, 1914, the Government made a contract with the Argentine shippers for beef. I think it was a very good contract. They paid 5⅗;d. a lb. for the beef for Army requirements, and the cost here I am told was about 7½d. per lb. including freight, insurance, and handling charges. At the time the contract was made the shippers were afforded the privilege of shipping on their own account a quantity equivalent to 20 per cent. of that shipped on Government account, and that of course was disposed of here by them for civilian consumption, and I have no doubt that they did remarkably well out of it. When the Government took over control themselves it became necessary, of course, for them to secure this 20 per cent., because they were the only distributors in the market, and they paid these Argentine packers, who were really the American packers, 10½d. a lb. for this meat. The Government now sell to the trade the same meat at 1s. 2¼d. per lb., which gives them apparently the enormous profit of 3⅗d. per lb. If we allow a margin—and I am prepared to hear that that must be allowed—for handling expenses, &c., it still leaves a profit that the Government
354
are taking which I think requires considerable explanation.
Let us pass on to Colonial meat. That also was bought by contract from the Australian and New Zealand Governments. The Government bought chiefly mutton and lamb, and the f.o.b. contract price for mutton was 5¾d.—it costs here I am informed 9d.—and the cost of lamb on the other side was 6⅛d.—and here it cost 10 d. I can speak with some intimate knowledge of this class of meat, because I had a good deal to do with it when I was Food Controller. The contracts, however, were made, before food control was established, by the Board of Trade who have ever since had the handling of the matter up to a certain point. When I was Food Controller this meat used to be sold to the wholesaler by the Board of Trade at 10 d. per lb. I believe at the present moment it is handed over at cost price, but the Ministry of Food is charging the wholesaler in Smithfield 1s. 3d. per lb. That gives a profit to the Government of 5d. per lb. on lamb, and 6d. per lb. on mutton. No wonder that prices are high if the Government take for themselves a stupendous profit of that kind.
My Question was on the Notice Paper before the Government intimated their intention to reduce the price of meat by 2d. per lb. They say that this will involve no charge upon the Exchequer. I think that is self-evident. I contend that the reduction should not be 2d. per lb. but should be double that, or perhaps more. I submit further that this reduction should have been made months ago. The Government should not have saddled the consumer with a profit of 5d. and 6d. per lb. They have no right to do so, and, if industrial unrest proceeds from high prices entirely, conduct of this kind must contribute something towards it.
Apart from this, there are reasons why high prices should be still further and instantly reduced. We see almost daily a statement in the papers of the numbers of men demobilised. It was 1,000,000, then it grew to 1,250,000, and I saw to-day in the paper that it had got to 1,700,000. That has a tremendous effect on the meat situation. A soldier when serving as such is entitled to 12 oz. of meat per day, when he gets it. That is 5¼ lbs. per week. The moment he becomes demobilised he only gets 19 oz. a week. That means that every man who is demobilised puts into

355
circulation, in effect, 4 lbs. of meat. That in it self ought to have an enormous effect upon the situation, and I assume that the Government have taken note of it.
I pass on to butter. Here again the Government, through the Dominions, purchased the entire output of New Zealand and Australia. The price they paid in Australia was 175 s. and in New Zealand 181 s., and they also bought large quantities from Argentina, for which they paid 165 s. The cost of freight, insurance, and handling charges is estimated at 36 s. per cwt., but the Government are selling at 252 s. per cwt. That gives them a profit of more than 4d. per lb. before they distribute it to the dealers, who transmit it finally to the consumer.
There is the case of tea. The Government took over the entire production of Ceylon and India. The prices were fixed on the average price that was realised by the grower for the three years previous to the war. A liberal estimate of the full average price paid for tea in the country of production at Calcutta and Colombo, f.o.b., was 9d. per lb.; and when freight, handling charges, insurance, and brokerage are added, the cost here would not exceed ls. per lb. The bulk of these teas are sold to the great distributing firms at. 1s. 4d. per lb., with a rebate, I believe, of a small sum. These rebates are rather difficult to follow. They are in some cases ½d. and in some cases, I believe, as large as 1½d. But take them at any figure between those poles, and it will be seen that the Government here again are making a large profit on a very heavy commodity, as tea is—not less than 2½d. a lb.; and in many cases double that. But the appetite of the Government seems to grow on what it feeds on. The other day they permitted a sale of tea for export to take place. The prices were allowed to take their own range, and on many transactions the Government netted a profit of over 1s. a lb.
I could quote many examples relating to other commodities, especially those that form a staple part of the working man's dietary. I will take another commodity, the case of wool. That plays a very large part in the making of clothing. The Government is taking a net profit of 30 per cent. on all the wool it distributes to the factories for manufacturing purposes. Unless it can be explained in some way, this
356
seems to me to be a dreadful profit to be taking on a raw material. Of course, the Government may justify themselves by saying that these profits in here to the public purse, or that they are a set-off against losses incurred in some other direction. But in whichever way they explain it, I maintain that it constitutes a tax on food and clothing, and I do not think that the Government are justified, either constitutionally or in any other way, in imposing upon the people a tax. Their duty is to transmit their purchases to the consumer as near to cost price as possible, covering, of course, their working expenses. I doubt very much whether Parliament itself knows about the heavy charges being imposed by the Government. I have spoken to many members of Parliament about it recently, and very few of them have the faintest idea that the Government is making these large profits on its purchases. Looking at it from the constitutional point of view I would submit that the only authority to levy taxes—which these certainly are—is Parliament itself. The Government by the annual Finance Act receives its only authority to levy taxes, and in no other way can they be constitutionally levied.
I have not the slightest doubt that my statement will be contested in many particulars, but there is an easy method available for placing the matter beyond controversy. To-day we had a Bill before us setting up a special Commission on coal prices, profits, and wages. The whole basis of wages is prices, and I submit that this taking of big profits by the Government is a fair matter for inquiry, and I should be quite willing, as far as I am concerned—and I know many others would be also—that the whole thing should be a matter for investigation at the hands of a Select Committee. It is certainly a very serious matter, especially as wages have been so much affected by the cost of living, that we should find that much of the enhancement of the cost of living has been caused by Government action. I am quite certain the country did not know this and would not approve it, and the least we can expect is that we should have some sort of a statement as to what the results of these operations have been. At present we are considerably in the dark. The Government may have made profits of millions—they must have made them. If they are going to urge that it is legiti-

357
mate and that the money inures to the public purse, at all events, if we carry it no further, let us have some sort of statement as to what the yield has been, and then we shall be able to form an opinion for ourselves.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I reply in general terms to the Questions put by my noble friend by saying that the Ministry of Food desires to reduce prices, that it has done so materially already, and that it will do its utmost to continue that process. Before dealing with the specific arguments brought forward by Lord Devonport, I will refer to the actual reductions which have recently taken place. As regards meat, an all-round reduction of 2d. per lb. has been ordered as from March 3, and it is hoped that before long a further reduction will follow. I will refer to the bread question later when I deal with another aspect of the controversy. As regards cheese, a reduction of 2d. per lb. has been announced, and the possibility of a further reduction is under consideration; this, however, must depend upon the prices at which imported cheese can be obtained, and the price to be fixed for milk at home. Milk, again, will naturally fall during the coming months from the winter prices, but it is improbable that the price will fall below the summer prices prevailing in 1918. Condensed milk has been reduced by 1½d. a tin.
The margarine industry will be decontrolled as from the early days of March; the price will be lowered by 1d. or by 2d. per lb. That is made possible by two facts, both of them to the credit of the Ministry of Food. One is that ample supplies of raw material have been accumulated so that the industry can start with a secure outlook upon the future; and the second is that great and successful efforts have been made to develop the plant and equipment of margarine manufacturers. There a reduction in price is imminent. Tea is to be decontrolled in three or four weeks time; and it is probable that a reduction of anything from 2d. to 4d. per lb. can be ensured. The price of fish has fallen; and a substantial reduction is hoped for before long in the price of canned salmon. Dried fruits have come down by 2d. a lb. on the principal fruits; and currants have been reduced by 4d. a lb. Mill offals have been reduced by 10 s. a ton; some reduction seems probable in cereal
358
products, and I believe also in beer, though I am not sure.
Those are specific examples of reductions which have already been effected. I admit that the existing prices are still high, but I wish in justice to the Ministry of Food to point out what I think is very often forgotten—namely, that food prices have been more effectively regulated in this country than other prices, and that rises in food prices—from, say the middle of 1917 until the Armistice—have been relatively smaller than the rises in other articles of universal use, such as textiles, leather, soap, oil, candles, and coal. And if we compare the range of prices in Britain with the prices prevailing abroad, I think one gets an interesting comparison which shows that here at any rate we have managed to control our prices more effectively than others have done. I dislike quoting long rows of figures to your Lordships, but if I may take four main subjects of consumption I desire permission to do so—namely, beef, bread, sugar, and butter. Take beef. In this country the price of beef is 1s. 6¾4d.; in the United States, 1s. 9d.; in Paris, 2s. 2d.; and in Milan, 3s. Bread is complicated, of course, by varying forms of subsidy which exist here and with our Continental Allies. In this country bread is 9d.; in Paris, 10 d.; in Milan, 1s.; and in the United States 17½d. Sugar in this country is 7d.; in Paris, 8¾d.; in Milan, 1s. 6d.; in the United States, 5½d. Butter here is 2s. 6d., in the United States, 2s. 11½d.; in Milan, 3s. 4d.; in Paris, 4s.
You will observe that in only one item of those four fundamental food commodities is the price paid in this country higher than the prices paid in Italy, in France, or in the United States; and these are typical of other, though subordinate, food prices. Our difficulties in this country may be considerable, but I think we have surmounted them more successfully than they have been overcome elsewhere. There has been a good deal of controversy, and I think some misunderstanding also, about the attitude of the Treasury, which has been charged with obstructing the reduction of prices on the ground that such a reduction would reduce appropriations in aid of the Exchequer. That is really not the case. The Treasury has readily consented to dispose of stocks below their cost price, though insisting that reasonable conditions in such disposal shall be observed. It is

359
worse than useless to make reductions in prices unless those reductions can be maintained. We could sell the whole of our sugar stocks to-morrow at a reduction of 2d. or 3d. a lb. if we liked; we could sell in twenty-four hours at that reduction the whole 60,000 or 80,000 tons if we wanted to. But one must remember that such a course would involve a serious, and, perhaps a paralysing loss to numbers of small people who hold stocks.
It must be remembered that the Ministry of Food has constantly pressed private traders to take stocks. I myself during the last two or three years have constantly pressed the baking trade or householders to take flour stocks in order to relieve congestion at our ports. It is quite easy for us to smash prices. We could smash prices in sugar, or flour, or any article which is not perishable; but the result would be great distress, and possibly ruin, to some of those small people who have made their stocks, very often at our instance, in order to obviate difficulties in regard to port congestion and so forth. But quite apart from the loss of profit to individuals and small people, we must not cut our prices prematurely. That would accentuate all the existing difficulties. It would be disastrous in every way, and until we can be sure that there will be no reaction from a reduction of these prices, I submit to your Lordships that it would be most unwise to take action in that direction.
I would like to say a word or two about what Lord Devonport said as to undue profits on the part of the Government. I recognised with satisfaction that Lord Devonport admitted that the Government was entitled to a moderate margin.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: To cover expenses.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I thought the noble Viscount went a little further, and said there might be a moderate margin, which means a reasonable profit.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I must contradict that. It is the last thing to which I should dream of assenting. Handling expenses and charges incidental thereto I agree, but profiteering on the part of the Government is, I think, an outrage.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I thought the noble Lord was prepared to assent to
360
the Government making a moderate profit, so long as it did not do anything excessive in that direction. I make a great distinction between the State earning a profit and the private individual; in other words, the State, acting on behalf of every citizen in this country, is entitled to do things which the private trader in certain circumstances may have to be forbidden to do. That is my personal view. I do not know whether it is right or wrong; if, as so many people claim, the State is not at liberty to make any profit, I wonder if that is to be axiomatic for the future, and whether it is to apply to telephones, post office, port authorities, and mines and railways, which may have become the property of the nation during the next generation. I think that, when the State is acting commercially, in justice to those with whom it must be in competition it should not suppress and abandon the honourable ideals of commercial life. I think an honourable profit is a test of commercial success, and if you once remove that test and tell State departments it does not matter if they make losses, which some people are inclined to do, then you get this trading reduced to a mere routine, to a red-tape machine, which will rapidly develop into a serious loss to the State, and thereby into a serious burden upon the taxpayer and a hindrance and impediment to industry as a whole.
The effort of the Ministry of Food throughout has been to cover costs. It may have made profits here, considerable profits perhaps, but it may equally have made losses in other directions, and it is not unreasonable to set one against the other. As to an Inquiry into this subject by means of a Select Committee, that of course is a matter which I cannot settle for myself, without considering it very carefully with the Food Controller. I think it will be quite sufficient if, with the assistance of the Controller and Auditor-General and Parliamentary Committees which are already in existence, this question of profits by the State, whether in food or in other trading capacities, should be investigated, but I must most respectfully remind your Lordships that the pressure upon these new Departments is tremendous. They were almost entirely recruited from volunteers. Their nucleus of trained and permanent Civil Servants is insignificant. With the return of peace these departments are gradually finding it very difficult to maintain their work at its high level of

361
efficiency, because so many of their officials desire, naturally and properly enough, to return to their own businesses. Unless some advantage is to be gained to the public welfare from these Committees of Inquiry, I greatly hope that they will not be heedlessly forced upon these departments. The burden of such a fresh obligation would in many cases be serious.
Now let me deal with two questions relating to bread-stuffs. The first question which Lord Devonport asked was about Argentine wheat, and he referred to a letter written the other day, which asked in effect why we should buy wheat in Canada and North America when cheaper wheat can be bought in South America. That criticism was based on several assumptions, which seem to me to be ill-founded. It was based, in the first place, upon the assumption that we have got credits in South America to buy this wheat. We have not. Secondly, it was based on the assumption that all this wheat belonged to Great Britain. It does not, or if bought it would not. It also seemed to me to be assumed that the quantity was adequate to provide for all our needs. If we got it all, the quantity would not be adequate. It also assumed that tonnage was available to carry it all. It is not. And finally, that port and loading conditions in the Plate would make it possible to move this wheat, if we had tonnage and finance. Unfortunately, the industrial conditions in the Plate have been such that for weeks past whole ports in that great exporting country have been completely paralysed. If my memory serves me aright, during last week not 20,000 tons of grain was shipped from the Plate, an astonishingly small figure.
Finally, pressing the Argentine claim is apt to ignore our commitments to our Dominions. It is quite true that Canadian wheat is much more expensive than Argentine wheat, but Canadian wheat is largely grown for Allied purposes. Tremendous, stupendous efforts were made in Canada to increase her acreage, and although the price of Canadian wheat on the seaboard may be a large figure compared with the f.o.b. price at Buenos Ayres, none the less I am not quite prepared to admit that this is a matter in which cheapness is the sole, or indeed the governing, factor; and this is well illustrated by the position, about which Lord Devonport asked a
362
question, in Australia. We purchased very large quantities in that country, but we have also shipped large quantities. Lord Devonport said that he asked some of his shipowner friends about bringing it home, and they told him there would be no difficulty in doing so. I make a sporting offer to my noble friend. If he will introduce me to those shipowners, I will undertake that they shall have grain cargoes either to this country or Mediterranean ports, or be given an Indian option or a Suez Canal option. Every ton we can get in Australian waters will be loaded home for wheat or wheat flour. We have not found it so easy to get freight. The fact is that the Armistice has by no means solved the tonnage difficulty—by no means—and the grain, though of course it will be shipped as soon as possible, is not moving towards this country as rapidly as one would desire.
Here, my Lords, I wish, if I may, to make an observation to deprecate alarming and often misleading statements made on general food questions. They only make the public think that their interests are being neglected, and it seems a great pity that allegations of this character should be made. A day or two ago I read in a paper half-a-dozen lines which I should like to quote to your Lordships. It is a paragraph headed "Food Left to Rot"—
"In Australia, for want of shipment, hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat are at present stacked and going rotten and being devoured by rats. The same remark applies to our own country, where, in 1918, one-half of our yearly crops was given to the pigs, having been stored and held back so long that it went bad. Then take the case of Paraguay and the River Plate, where the same conditions prevail. Farmers and others remain idle because shipping has been messed about and used for all sorts of improper purposes."
There are three allegations which seem to me to be so ill-founded as to be quite fantastic.
The statement that hundreds of thousands of tons are going rotten and are being devoured by rats in Australia is an extraordinary exaggeration. The statement that in this country the same remarks apply—that grain is going rotten in this way, and that one-half of our yearly crops was given to the pigs because it had been stored and held back so long that it went bad—I have no doubt is made in good faith, but it fills me with astonishment. The crops

363
of the 1917 harvest—home-grown crops—amounted to over 8,000,000 quarters of wheat, over 7,000,000 quarters of barley, and over 26,000,000 quarters of oats. That is a total of 41,000,000 quarters of grain. It is alleged that one-half of it was stored and held back so long that it went bad and that it went to the pigs. In other words, that over 20,000,000 quarters of grain was fed to pigs. The last statement is just on a parity with others.
It is said that the same conditions prevail in the Plate; that is to say, the crops were held for so long that they went bad, and that farmers and others remained idle because the shipping has been messed about and used for all sorts of improper purposes. That is an allegation which cannot be sustained. Shipping in the River Plate, I think, was handled with extraordinary discretion and judgment. As many as fifty ocean-going steamers were in process of being loaded in a single day, and the quantities shipped from the Plate last year were, I suppose, unparalleled.
The idea that we held excessive stocks seems to me to be based on another misapprehension. During the war we did our utmost to accumulate stocks. These stocks were our best insurance against a continuance of the war, and in many ways they are a valuable insurance on reentering a time of peace. At the Armistice we held enormous stocks of ammunition which will be scrapped, but none the less their manufacture was imperative, because it was the most effective insurance that we could encompass. It is exactly the same with food, excepting indeed that the stocks we have accumulated help us to revive private trade. I have already referred to the fact that the heavy stocks of raw materials secured during the war and the development of the manufacturing industry of margarine has not only allowed a substantial reduction in price, but has practically given a great stimulus to this valuable trading business. That trade can now be de-controlled, because the competition which will reduce price has been effected.
One word in conclusion in reply to what Lord Devonport said about de-control. The Ministry of Food has every wish to revive private trade and enterprise, but international obligations, to which my noble friend alluded, still exist. These treaties cannot be denounced off-hand.
364
It is necessary, when these high contracts are abrogated, that terms and conditions shall be arranged so that none of the contracting parties shall suffer unduly, But, quite apart from international obligations, we must be cautious from the point of view of defending our own domestic interests. Lord Devonport said that the object of control was to equalise prices and to secure fair distribution. I differ from him. The primary object of control was to secure supplies. The first article controlled in this country was sugar. The object of that control was not to equalise prices or to look after distribution—both of which in the autumn of 1914 were looking after themselves—but to make certain that supplies were forthcoming. The second great object to be controlled was wheat and bread-stuffs. That was solely taken in hand by the State because, owing to the higher range of prices and the growing menace of submarines, the corn trade was finding itself unwilling and unable to face the risks of maintaining our necessary supplies. Subsidiary objects followed no doubt, very important objects too, of equalising prices and maintaining a fair distribution.
All these three objects have, on the whole, been satisfactorily achieved. As soon as these objects can be safely entrusted to private enterprise de-control will follow. But premature action will, in many respects, do much more harm than good; and difficult as it must be for private enterprise to continue to acquiesce in being controlled by the heavy hand of the State, I am sure it is to the public interest as a whole that these matters should not be unduly rushed forward, and that de-control should not take place until one can be assured against a reaction in prices. I am quite certain myself that the Ministry of Food is fully alive to the advantages which will follow de-control and the liberation of private enterprise, but it is determined that it shall not be brought into effect until the public interest justifies it.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, may I be allowed to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl? The noble Earl, towards the close of his observations, took objection to a challenge of Lord Devonport that the Ministry of Food have been making high profits, and he raised the question, Is this contention to hold good in future, and may we not look forward to a time

365
when high prices can legitimately be made? I was sorry to hear that observation. It is an entirely new thing altogether. I hold, and I venture to say it has always been held in days gone by, that Governments, British Governments at all events, have no business to embark upon trade at all, and they have only done so in this case under the stress of this terrible war. I hope it is not to go out that in future trading on the part of Government may be looked forward to. Certainly we live in strange times, and we hear a good many proposals that I object to altogether, particularly to its being accepted at the present time that Government, as a habit, may legitimately be engaged in trade.
The noble Earl said the Ministry of Food had made profits and losses. But what has the Ministry of Food done on the balance? I have put a question on this matter on former occasions, but I have never been able to elicit an answer from the noble Earl. I did elicit a reply as to what they were spending fur six months of last year, and it was just under the rate of £400,000,000 per annum. When I asked that they should show us the other side he was unable to tell me anything at all, and from that day to this I have never had a reply to that question. The noble Earl told us that considerable reductions had been made in prices already. That quite true, and I was very glad to hear it. I hope that further reduction will be made in the future, and without much more loss of time. One thing he did not reply to. My noble friend Lord Devonport spoke of the price of imported meat, and said the price charged was due very much to control. He pointed out that on lamb and mutton, which I think he said came from Australia and on which the price was 6⅛, per lb., the Government were making 5d. per lb, profit on lamb and 6d. per lb. profit on mutton. We have had no reply on that point from the noble Earl. I think we ought to have heard something about it, for it is a remarkable case.
With regard to the diminution of prices which ought to accrue, Lord Devonport pointed out another thing. He told us that soldiers were allowed to have meat at the rate of 5½ lbs. per week. What does that mean? Already 1,200,000 of these men have been demobilised, and if you multiply that by 5d. you get a very amazing sum which might have been forthcoming for the reduction of prices. I do not want
366
to delay the House, but I wish to say this about the Ministry of Food. I think the Ministry of Food—and I have shown it before in this House—are very largely responsible for the rise in the price of meat. I remember one of the debates we had here, and the question has never been answered, when we were told that it was only a question of 130,000 animals which had better not be killed under a certain scale of prices. Lord Milner was brought here, and we were told on the highest authority that that was the case. When I asked a question ten days afterwards in this House I was told that under that scale of prices there had been killed just under 1,500,000 animals, and of that number 275,000 were two year old. You do not kill two year old animals as a rule in England; if you do, you do not get one-third as much meat as if the animals were four years old. That was the policy of the Ministry of Food at that time. I do not know whether they have improved since, but I do know that we hear complaints of them in almost every direction that farmers are still hampered and do not know which way to look because of the restrictions still imposed, and that the sooner these restrictions are removed and the Ministry of Food comes to an end the better it will be for all people concerned in this country.

AUSTRALIA AND SHIPPING.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the interests of the Commonwealth of Australia are being detrimentally affected for want of additional passenger and cargo tonnage, what steps the Government are taking to secure the use of some of the enemy steamers that were especially built for the Australian services, particularly as these ships can be put into commission forthwith, and British shipping companies are prepared to either charter or purchase them.
THE CIVIL LORD OE THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I am afraid that the Question of the noble Viscount is rather premature at the present time. I must remind him that the German merchant ships to which he refers are not yet under the control of the Allies. We have made a demand for those ships to be handed over, and negotiations are now going on in order to secure that they shall be placed in our hands, but until that has

367
been done it is obviously impossible to say what steps will be taken to utilise them. Those ships, when they do come into our hands, will be disposed of by the Inter-Allied Maritime Council, acting in consultation with the Commission which has been set up for considering the supply of food to enemy countries. Those will be the bodies who will be responsible for the use made of the ships when they are obtained. But until the ships are in our possession I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Viscount what steps can be taken to utilise them.

DISPOSAL OF GERMAN FLEET.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON rose to call attention to the statement recently made in the Press that the Conference in Paris are contemplating the sinking of all German naval ships now in British custody at Scapa, and to ask His Majesty's Government if there is any probability of this policy being carried out.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what has chiefly influenced me in placing this Question upon the Order Paper is the remembrance of a somewhat significant remark made by my noble friend Lord Curzon in the course of his speech in the debate on the Address. In answering certain comments in regard to the lack of publicity of what was taking place in the Conference, the noble Earl informed the House that he was "surprised"—and if I remember right he added "on some occasions even concerned"—at both the amplitude and accuracy of the information obtained and imparted by the journalists at that Conference to the Press in regard to what was taking place within the Conference. When, therefore, I saw last week in nearly all the journals of the Press a statement—and I am bound to say the statement had with it a certain very positive ring—that it was seriously contemplated by the Conference to dispose of German ships now in custody in British ports by sinking them in mid-ocean, I recalled to my mind the remark of the noble Earl, and it appeared to me to be reasonable to ask His Majesty's Government if there was any truth in that statement, and, if so, whether they would give us the grounds upon which that decision has been made.
I have seen it estimated more than once that the ships of all classes and of various
368
calibre that are now in custody in our ports taken from the German Fleet amounts in value to something around £40,000,000. It would therefore appear on the face of it that a policy of destruction of this fleet, unless there was some very good reason for it—taking into consideration the present financial position of this and all the countries concerned—was a policy which might be deemed wasteful in the extreme. I do not desire to suggest by this Question, nor by the remarks that I am addressing to your Lordships, that the preservation of these ships should imply their subsequent use for naval war purposes by any one or any group of the Allied countries. I see in to-day's paper that a demand is being made by the French Government for a proportion of those ships to be handed over to that country. I can quite see—and I am sure that your Lordships will share the view—that there are obvious objections and difficulties in the way of carrying out such a policy, and I certainly do not intend, in the few remarks that I make to the House, to dwell on that aspect of it, because that aspect should, I think, properly be left to the representatives of the Powers to be decided at the Conference.
I am regarding this policy of destruction—if there be any truth in it—from the more immediate and practical point of view, and one which I think may reasonably be raised in the Parliaments of the countries concerned, and certainly of all those countries there is no Parliament in any one where there would be more justification for discussion of this subject than in the British Parliament. The destruction of a great fleet of modern battleships of various classes would appear to entail the destruction of a mass of material which surely could be converted to value of a considerable amount. I have heard it said more than once that these ships cannot economically be converted to commercial use. I am not competent to give an opinion upon that point, and I suppose that there would be only few in this House who would be in a position to do so, but I contend that before so drastic a course as that stated in the paper last week was given effect to, every effort should surely be made to test to the full as to whether these ships and the material of which they are composed cannot be put to useful and valuable purposes.
I submit that, far better than taking the opinion of individuals however expert in

369
that subject, the surest proof and the most reasonable test that could be made to see to what extent those ships could be put to other purposes would be to take each of the various classes of the ships and put them up to public auction. It would then be in the discretion of contractors to decide whether it was worth their while to buy the ships for a commercial purpose, or with a view to scrapping them and utilising the material of whîch they are composed. If such a procedure were given effect to it would be quite easy to impose a condition that no purchaser of any of the ships could utilise them hereafter for war purposes.
My reason for bringing this matter forward, and eliciting if possible an answer from His Majesty's Government, is that this is certainly one of the first and one of the largest tangible assets that has come to hand and is indeed available to the Allies. If there be value in it—and it is difficult to believe that there is not—surely it should not be squandered away unless some very good and unanswerable reason is given for doing so. We have to demand of Germany a vast sum of money to meet the solemn obligations which we, together with our Allies, have undertaken, to see to it at the earliest possible date and as effectually as possible, that the countries of our Allies, Belgium, France and Serbia, which have been laid waste should receive full reparation at the hands of Germany. Surely every £ that can be made available should be collected, and collected at the earliest date, to carry out with promptitude the reparation so urgently needed and anxiously awaited in these sorely-stricken lands. He would be a very light-hearted optimist who to-day can anticipate that a full sufficiency of wealth will be forthcoming from Germany to meet this tremendous and urgent liability to carry out promptly and adequately this indispensable work of reparation.
It does, therefore, seem to me—and I hope that your Lordships will share the view—that it is of the utmost importance that every resource that comes to hand should be put to this purpose, and that no resource, even though it be modest or insignificant, should be diverted to any other purpose, still less to what would really appear to be a mere spectacular, dramatic demonstration, which might be pleasing to the contemporary militant
370
eye, but which is not to be considered in comparison with the immense responsibilities and the great financial difficulties that confront us. The demands of the times are too urgent, the financial resources of the future are too precarious, and I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will tell us that the project of destruction is not to be carried out. I feel sure also that if my noble friend is in a position to reply in that sense, it will allay the apprehension of many thousands of people in this country and in the Allied countries as well.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I do not find myself in disagreement with anything that my noble friend has said. But I fear it is not possible for me to give him very much information, and if he will consider for a moment the circumstances of the case I think he will understand why that is so. The subject which my noble friend has raised in his question might very well give rise to a long and interesting debate. The question of what is to be done with the German Fleet is one of the utmost interest and of considerable difficulty. But that is precisely the question which those who are now assembled in Paris have come together to decide. It is one of the main conditions of the peace which will be imposed upon the enemy; the decision, therefore, does not rest with His Majesty's Government, but with the representatives of all the nations, who are now assembled to draw up the terms of peace.
My noble friend has read a statement in the newspapers that one suggestion put forward for consideration by the Conference is that these ships should be taken out to sea and sunk in deep water, and he asks me to say whether there is any possibility of this policy being carried out. I am afraid I am not in a position to say whether that—which is one of the various suggestions put forward—is, or is not, likely to be accepted. But I think I can assure my noble friend of this, that if this proposal were accepted and carried out it would only be because all the representatives assembled in Paris came unanimously to the conclusion, after considering all the questions to which he has called our attention this afternoon, that this was on the whole the best course to adopt. That decision must rest with the Conference.

371
But I understand that my noble friend wants to know what is the attitude which the representatives of this country will take on this question. I do not feel that I have any authority to disclose any instruction which may be given to our delegates upon this or any other subject which will be discussed in Paris. I think, however, I may say that the point to which we attach overwhelming importance is that these ships should not in future continue to form part of any of the naval armaments of the world, that they should not be added to the fleets of any nation. That is an essential question of policy on which the Government feel very strongly. I do not gather that my noble friend takes any exception to that policy; in fact, I think he supported it himself.
If these ships are never again to be used as ships of war, there really remain only three possible means of disposing of them. The first is that they should be taken out to sea and sunk; the second is that they should be broken up; and the third is the course suggested by my noble friend, that they should be put up to public auction and go to the highest bidder—always subject to the condition (and I understood him to apply this condition) that they are not to be used for naval purposes. I do not know whether it is, in fact, an economic proposition to break up these ships. It is a question upon which expert opinion will have to be obtained. It would take a great deal of time and a great deal of labour, and would, consequently, involve a great deal of money. And when my noble friend said that these ships were valued a £40,000,000 he did not, I think, mean to suggest that here was material which could in any way realise £40,000,000. These ships may have cost £40,000,000 to produce as engines of war; they may be worth £40,000,000 as engines of war, but for any other purpose they are only worth what they could be used for, after deducting the cost of breaking them up. But it is simply and solely an economic proposition. If it would pay to use the material in these ships for any other purpose I have not any doubt that the Conference would decide that the ships should be so used.
If I may express an opinion, I should personally strongly favour the course which my noble friend suggests, because that at any rate does offer some opportunity of finding out whether it is an economic proposition. I think it would be deplor-
372
able, if there are persons in the world willing to buy these ships as scrap and to remove them at their own expense and turn them to some use other than that of using them as engines of war, if the advantage were not taken of such a possibility. But, as I said, the matter is one which the Conference must decide. I can only conclude by again assuring my noble friend that all the circumstances in the case will be taken into consideration, and the course which is found to be on the whole consistent with policy and with the general needs of the Allied countries will, I feel confident, be adopted.

RE-OPENING OF PUBLIC MUSEUMS.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed—

1. To replace the staff of the Board of Education in their permanent offices;

2. To re-open those sections of the public museums which have been closed during recent hostilities.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I may not receive from the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government the ordinary kind of stereotyped reply of which, perhaps, I myself have been guilty in former days—namely, that this matter is under the consideration of the Government, who hope that before long the museums of the country may resume their normal conditions and that the staff of the Board of Education may be returned to their own premises.
I shall not dwell upon the fact that to me it seemed quite unnecessary for the Board of Education staff to be removed from the offices which were built for them and which accommodated them well. Nor shall I dwell upon the fact that, after they were turned out of their premises for many months, several of the rooms were not occupied by any other Government Department, and that there was a very extravagant expenditure in new carpets and other things for the new Departments which went into premises that were very well furnished and adequate for the purposes of the Board of Education in the period of peace. But I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the present moment the Board of

373
Education staff is distributed almost all over London. One portion is in St. James's square, another is in Cromwell-rd., another is in Exhibition-rd., a very large portion, together with the records, is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, while heads of Departments are in their own premises in Whitehall. It is impossible to administer a great Public Department efficiently if the various branches are distributed and the records are placed in most unsuitable spots—that is to say, in the galleries and courts of a great public museum. I am not going to dwell upon the position as it may concern other museums with which I am not particularly associated; I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Harcourt if he cares to do so after I sit down; but I would like for a moment to call attention to the conditions of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Half the Museum for a very long period has been closed to the public with most disastrous effects on the trade and industry of the country; and that policy is being continued during the period of the Armistice.
Only in the last fortnight two large rooms in the Indian Museum have been taken over, I suppose at the bidding of the First Commissioner of Works, for the purposes of curios connected with the war, with the result that very important classes connected with the great textile industries in Glasgow and in Manchester have been made impossible, and the classes connected with the manufacture of cotton goods—which classes have been held to be of inestimable value in the trade are indefinitely post-posed. A great utilitarian object is therefore removed from the purposes for which these museums were erected, and sacrificed at the bidding of another Minister. I can only express my surprise that a man like my right hon. friend Mr. Fisher should have acquiesed, during a time of peace such as we are now having, in another portion of these museums being taken away from the admirable purpose for which they were intended and being used, in order to store curios.
It seems to me that the Government entirely ignore the great value of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Museum is not merely for the improvement of public taste and for the curious to visit; it is a great institution which was created in order that the people of this country connected with our great trades might study the manufacture, the workmanship, the
374
quality as well as the design, of the various articles which consumers may require. In the pottery and glass trades, in metal work of all kinds, in architecture, in furniture, in wood-work, in embroidery, in textiles, that Museum has done an infinite amount of valuable work, and is capable to-day of doing much more. If you close a museum you put an end to the opportunities of the people employed in industry to go there and see how things ought to be produced, as well as preventing them from securing instruction; and you turn down all possibility of expansion in production at the very time when it is most important to the trade of the country that every encouragement should be given to manufacturers.
The attendance at the Museum is an indication of the way in which this policy has been pursued. Before the war the attendance was 24,000 persons a week; during the war and owing to the closing of the Museum it dropped down to 7,000, but recently it has risen to 9,000. It is obvious, moreover, that the congestion of the exhibits is such that, the public cannot adequately see the objects they want to see. The Colonial troops come here, having heard of the great reputation of the Museum, and ask to see things which are not on view; consequently they go away full of complaints and disappointment. The circulation portion of the Museum has been entirely closed, so that the exhibits which were sent into the provinces are no longer despatched; and there is a great outcry from the provinces that people in the local trades are deprived of the opportunity of seeing those exhibits. There is a great movement in this country for War Memorials, and no better place exists than the North Court of the Victoria and Albert Museum for an exhibition of War Memorials, but there is no opportunity of having such an exhibition. Furthermore, there is no opportunity of utilising the Museum for the international textile exhibitions which I know were being contemplated at one time. It is because the Museum is being misused at present that I strongly protest against the continuation of its use for storing Board of Education records. These records are most inflammable in character, and are dangerous to the whole of the exhibits in the Museum. It is also because I feel so strongly on this subject that I press the noble Lord to name an early day when this condition of affairs will end.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I ask your permission for only a moment or two to add something to what my noble friend has said about the Victoria and Albert Museum, something that is within my own knowledge as trustee of the other museums and public galleries which have been occupied during the war by the Government, and are still occupied by many Departments. Take first the Wallace Collection in Hertford House. During the latter part of the war that was occupied by the Naval Intelligence Branch of the Admiralty. That Branch was actually moving out on Armistice day, and thereafter the Government proceeded to occupy Hertford House with the Munitions Branch, Special Investigation of Accounts. This Branch may occupy that Gallery for years to come. It has engaged 175 clerks. Before the collections here can be restored some redecoration must be done. But a further injury is inflicted upon these priceless collections from the fact that, by the occupation of the Government Departments, we are compelled to keep them stored in the tubes underground, where they were put for safety against expected air raids which never took place. Anybody who knows anything about armour and inlaid furniture and ormolu knows that a tube 60 feet under London is not a very suitable storage room, although I am bound to say that the Office of Works has done everything in its power to render the tubes as suitable as possible for storage.
The National Portrait Gallery is occupied by the Separation Allowances Department of the War Office, with 400 clerks. All the galleries are occupied, and redecoration must take place before they can be again thrown open to the public and the pictures rehung. The agreement for occupation made and signed between Lord Kitchener and myself provided that it should be restored for public exhibition of the pictures there in not less than three months after peace. Those are the words used in the agreement—"ready for public exhibition." There is no chance of its being ready within twelve months, and I am sure the noble Lord, who is a co-trustee, would not think that statement an exaggeration on my part.
Then there is the London Museum, what is now called Lancaster House. It is occupied by a mass of small bodies, including the French Shipping Mission, the Allied Maritime Council, the Shipping
376
Intelligence Section, the Allied Maritime Transport Council, the American Shipping Mission, the Italian Shipping Mission, and a staff of about 180. They occupy the whole building except the basement. Redecoration will have to be done there before it can be thrown open to the public. All our collections there have been brought back from the tubes and are ready for exhibition and distribution about the rooms whenever the Government remove their clerks and officials. I think I ought to say here that, both in the case of the London Museum and the British Museum, all the objects that were packed away against air raids in the tubes have now been brought back, and that in no single case has the slightest damage been suffered by any single article. I think it is a tribute to the almost loving care taken, in most cases by amateurs, in the packing, unpacking, and transport of these articles.
The British Museum is also partially occupied by a Government Department. The Registry of Friendly Societies, with a staff of 128 clerks, occupies the exhibit galleries of prints and drawings, and also of the Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities, which are always popular with the public. It is a little ominous to think that the proper offices of the Registry of Friendly Societies is now occupied by the Ministry of Pensions, which is likely to be a permanent body. The Statistical Branch of the Medical Research Committee, with a staff of forty and a mass of card indices, occupies much of the storage space of the British Museum, and the basement is used to store the effects of German prisoners of war removed from German colonies—not, I think, a very suitable use to which to put even the basement of the British Museum. The Tate Gallery is occupied by the Ministry of Pensions (Widows' and Dependants' Branch), which is likely to last some time, with a staff of no fewer than a thousand; and according to the agreement made with the National Gallery by the Government at the time when the Tate Gallery was taken over "the whole of the rooms shall be given over ready for gallery uses within six months after the conclusion of war." That is obviously a condition which cannot be fulfilled.
The last of these public galleries which I wish to mention is the Imperial Institute. Practically all the exhibition galleries of the Imperial Institute are occupied—at first by the Ministry of Food, with over 1,000 clerks. They departed, and were

377
replaced by the Ministry of Munitions. They have now gone. The galleries are occupied at present by the Army Pay Section of the Machine Gun Corps, with 500 clerks; by the Ministry of Labour, with 600 clerks; and by the Effects Branch of the War Office—I think that has to do with tracing the effects of dead soldiers—with over 1,000 clerks. The Institute has really been made a sort of clearing house of flitting departments, and this has had a very serious effect upon the work of the Institute—not only upon the public, who do not go there much for sight seeing, but commercial men have been precluded from seeing the exhibits and resources of India, the Dominions, and the Crown Colonies, and from seeking there, in those exhibits and cases, new sources of raw material for use in this country. The lectures and demonstrations to the public and schools have of course, been stopped, and the scientific, technical, and intelligence work of the Institute itself has been deprived of its access to raw materials, because the exhibits, in order to accommodate all these clerks, have had to be stored away in subways and tunnels. Some of these have now been brought up again out of the tunnels and tubes, and are temporarily stored in houses in Queen's Gate and Prince's Gate, which are not suitable for scientific work.
I do not blame the Office of Works for the occupation of all these museums. I am sure that the whole of the permanent staff have been most anxious to restore the museums to the public at the earliest possible moment. I suppose the responsibility must really rest upon the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation, of which I believe the First Commissioner is chairman, but I think the taxpayer has now a right to demand an early re-opening for his own enjoyment, and, if I may use the discredited word, for his own culture. I especially should like to enforce what my noble friend said—namely, that it is most desirable that before the Americans and the Dominion troops return for good to their own shores, they should have an opportunity of seeing something of the treasures of which they have heard so much and been able to see so little, and I appeal to the noble Lord who is going to answer this Question for a definite assurance from the Government that all these museums will be fitted up at a really early and not indefinite date.
LORD STANMOBE: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the Question put by my noble friend, affecting the buildings of the Board of Education, I may say that those buildings are now occupied by the staff of the Controller of the Admiralty. This staff is already in process of demobilisation, and we hope that it will be reduced by about a thousand by the end of April. The total number under the Admiralty Controller in these buildings and also in the buildings of the Local Government Board and Office of Works amount to 2,500, and it is intended to replace the staff of the Board of Education in their offices as soon as the demobilisation is sufficiently advanced.
In regard to the second part of the Question, relating to museums, the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation have decided to clear the staffs from the public museums as soon as possible, giving a second priority to those institutions. The first priority is given to some of the large hotels, such as the Victoria, the Cecil, and the Grand, on account of the great shortage of sleeping accommodation in London. It is not possible to say on what exact date these premises can be vacated, but the First Commissioner is bringing continual pressure to bear on the various Departments to release important accommodation of this nature at the earliest possible moment. I wish I could give some more definite date, but I am afraid that is not possible.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order of the Day of the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, some discussion took place last night, as your Lordships will recollect, upon this Bill, and my noble friend Lord Downham explained some apprehension under which he lay with reference to the terms in which the proviso of the Bill protected interests which he conceives himself called upon and entitled to protect. I have considered the matter very carefully since yesterday. I considered it in reference to the objection of my noble friend, in so far as the objection could be dismissed by the Amendment of a legal or drafting character. It could not in effect. What my noble friend said was this. Under the terms of this Bill, even as modified by the proviso, this consequence will follow—that if any candi-

379
date, on the day on which this Bill becomes law, has spent the moneys allowed in the aggregate under the existing law as modified by this Bill, he cannot spend another farthing.
I am disposed to think the case made under that head by the noble Lord is well-founded. In other words, while the proviso which the House of Commons has adopted has safeguarded a candidate in respect of such expenditure as he had made before the passing of the Act, it had not covered the case of the candidate who had spent all his money before the date on which the Act become law. Some important consequences follow from this conclusion. If the case really does exhibit a grievance it is a grievance which does not admit of legislative correction. It is a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case. It is a difficulty, in other words, which arises from this consequence. When a maximum expenditure is provided by the Bill which is before your Lordships, it is suggested that the prohibitions are unfair to those who have already made expenditure. To meet that a proviso is introduced to say that all expenditure incurred before the passing of this particular measure into law shall be protected.
But the essential fact does remain, as pointed out by the noble Lord, that if you have a candidate who, in reliance upon the terms of the old law, has spent all he was entitled to spend under the old law and under the new law, he cannot spend another farthing, and is therefore at an immense disadvantage as compared with the candidate who comes into the field at the last moment. I confess that consideration of all these circumstances—though I do not pretend to follow the noble Lord in all the views he expressed on the legal point—has led me clearly to the conclusion that the case that is made out, not a case of drafting or a case on technical grounds, but the broad case of the merits that is made out against legislation when you are almost in the midst of an election, is a case which cannot reasonably be answered.
How does the matter stand? Supposing that to-night your Lordships accepted an Amendment in the terms suggested by the noble Lord—terms which, as I understand, the noble Marquess was not disinclined to accept—supposing, I say, your Lordships accepted such an Amendment now, that Amendment would have
380
gone to another place to-morrow. It might or might not have received assent there to-morrow. The matter I understand even there is not entirely removed from controversy. At any rate, it must be pronounced most disputable as to whether the Royal Assent would have been obtained to-morrow. It is conceivable, though not certain, that in the House of Commons the matter might have been agreed on Friday, and in that case the Royal Assent would have been received the same day. The nomination day for London is to-day or to-morrow, and in the country the nomination day has in many cases already been passed.
In these circumstances I am bound to say, quite frankly, that I have advised the Government, quite apart from any technical questions or questions of law such as have been raised by the noble Lord, that on consideration it is hardly fair that men who are already plunged in an election campaign—many of whom have already for many weeks been engaged in the campaign in which they have regulated their expenditure in reliance, and justified reliance, on the existing law—should be called upon at the last moment to recast their whole expenditure; and that, even though it be conceded that all the expenditure at the very moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent is justified, yet, if the aggregate of that expenditure exceeds what is permitted in the two Bills, they should be placed in the paralysing position that they are not permitted to spend a single farthing for the rest of the Election, whereas new candidates can derive all the advantage of the expenditure of money wisely spent at the last moment.
In these circumstances I am inclined to think that your Lordships will conclude that on the whole the Government have arrived at a wise decision. I am encouraged to form that view by two circumstances. In the first place your Lordships are at least the only just begetters of this Bill in any shape or form, because, until the idea occurred to the noble Marquess, I think nobody had suggested that this revised arrangements of expenditure should be made applicable to municipal elections. That suggestion was accepted by the House of Commons. Your Lordships' suggested amendment of the law has become, and will remain, a permanent corrective of excessive expenditure in municipal elections. I regret that the

381
change was not adopted in time to make it applicable to the county council elections, without introducing grievances which in my judgment are too serious to justify your Lordships in persevering with this Bill at so late a period of the day. But, whatever is said about that, this at least is certain—there has been introduced in municipal law a measure of great and permanent value which cannot be made available for the elections of the moment, not I think, as your Lordships will on reasonable consideration conclude, by reason of any blame that can be fairly attributed to anyone.
Your Lordships are not inattentive to what takes place in another place. When the time that was necessary to swear in the Members there, and when many most urgent matters, some of them considered by your Lordships, are taken into account, I think this consideration will satisfy your Lordships that there has been no delay that could reasonably be avoided in recommending this measure to your Lordships' House. In these circumstances and if this course is considered reasonable it is proposed that the Committee stage should not be taken to-night—your Lordships have already discussed many matters—but that the Committee stage should be taken on a convenient date within the next week, and under circumstances which will make this a permanent measure, available for all time, and not at the same time a measure which will occasion unreasonable embarrassment to those who have made their own personal electioneering proposals on a scale which may be altered.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be altogether surprised at the course which the noble and learned Lord has thought it right to adopt on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It was quite clear to everybody, when we were discussing this matter on the last occasion, that there is under the Bill as it stands a definite possibility of the infliction of considerable hardship on certain individuals. It was not sought to deny this, but it was the opinion of many persons, and certainly of the London County Council, that the measure was so valuable in itself that it would be a pity not to make it apply to the forthcoming election. I am told that, so far as the London County Council is concerned, that body will be glad if the measure could now be passed in the form in which it comes up to your Lord-
382
ships from another place. However, the Government take the opposite view, and I certainly am not going to attempt to offer any opposition to the course which they favour.
At the same time I do not think that His Majesty's Government can be entirely acquitted of having shown a certain infirmity of purpose in this matter. The reduction of the cost from 3d. to 2d. per head is, as a principle, uniformly approved. It was, as the noble and learned Lord told us, inserted here as an Amendment in the Representation of the People Bill at my instance, and it was only when that Bill went back to another place that, owing as I think to a very unfortunate misunderstanding of the real situation, a change was made and the previous figure reinserted in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has said that the correction has been made at the earliest possible moment. So far as the present session is concerned, that may be the case; and of course it is true in a certain sense that there has been a change of Government since the dissolution of Parliament. But the two Governments, which I think are in a sense one, might have spoken with the same voice to a nearer extent than they have. However, as the matter now stands, it is clear that it will be the desire of your Lordships' House that this reform should not be applicable to the present municipal elections. I am sorry it is so, but I feel there is nothing more to be said.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, may I add a few words to what has been said. I am confident that candidates drawn from all Parties alike, whether Liberal, Conservative or even Labour, will be most grateful to this House for the consideration they gave to the plea which I raised yesterday for the protection of innocent people who might easily have walked into a trap if this Bill had passed into law. They will be still more grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having saved them from the very perilous position in which they might have been placed if the Bill had been passed into law before the elections on March 6, next Thursday.
As one who is certainly as strongly in favour as any of your Lordships of reducing the excessive expenditure on county council elections, I should like to say that this Bill now will not apply to any elections probably before next November. By next November we may look forward to a great

383
reduction in the abnormal expenditure which has now to be incurred on printing, paper, and material of that kind. It is largely because that expenditure has risen at least 100 per cent. that it is necessary to spend such a large amount of money as is included under the old Act, and which will now be reduced if this Bill is passed into law. I am sure we are doing right in preventing this Bill from applying to the present election, when candidates would be liable to penalties which they ought never to have been allowed to incur simply because they were not in the least aware when they estimated and incurred their expenditure that your Lordships would be asked to join in passing a law which would compel them to spend only £400 instead of £600 on the election. They have been saved from a very perilous position, and I am grateful to your Lordships' House for having listened to the plea I put forward.
Committee of the Whole House put off sine die.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I ask your Lordships' indulgence, for, although I have spent a certain number of years in both Houses of Parliament, it has not been my privilege to fill such an important position as the one I occupy now in bringing to your Lordships' notice the Second Reading of a Bill of this description. I feel that at this late stage of the evening I should not be entitled to go into the briefest possible survey of the important matters which have actuated us in moving the introduction of this Bill. But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact, which has been forced upon our knowledge in the last few years, that the science of the air—a subject we have to regard in its entirety—although it has come quickly upon us, is something which we have to consider as controlling much of our everyday life. A Bill of this description is a measure which even the present generation quite a few years ago would have said would be introduced in a future which none of us would possibly see. I am anxious this evening to impress
384
upon your Lordships the importance of the measure I am introducing.
Hitherto there has been a prohibition of civilian aviation. Consequently, unless a measure of this description is passed, the progress of the industry and of the science itself will be retarded, and we shall be placed in an inferior position in the competition for supremacy in the air which I think we can claim to have at this moment, and which I sincerely hope we shall maintain for all time. We know that there have been various experiments from the earliest times of history with a view to obtaining the mastery of the air, but until the period which stretches over the last ten years we have never been able to say that we have achieved that supremacy and conquered that force of gravity which hitherto has dominated the universe. We are in an analagous position to our forefathers some eighty years ago when railway travelling was first inaugurated in this country, and I think that we are entitled to say that we shall be able to look forward in the future to as great an expansion of this industry of aviation as we have been able to see in railway travelling from the early years of the last century until now.
In making these general remarks I would venture to say a word of caution, and that is that while we are all optimistic and believe that there are immense possibilities in this great science, still we feel that any hasty legislation, or any steps taken without due care and consideration, will retard the objects in view and hamper and hinder those great purposes which we hope to see carried to successful fruition at no distant date. In 1914 the sole functions of aircraft were reconnaissances for the Army and artillery observation, and since then we have seen during the various stages of the war the great progress which aviation has made, and also the great achievement of aviation as one of the decisive factors in bringing about the termination of the great struggle which we are glad has ceased, we hope for ever.
The Bill which I am introducing to-day, as your Lordships are doubtless aware, is an enabling Bill to allow the Government to introduce those Orders which will regulate for the future civil aviation. Your Lordships are also aware that during the war a strong Committee—the Civil Aerial Transport Committee—has made certain recommendations for the regulation of aerial

385
transport when re-opened, which include the licence to pilots and the registry of machines. This Bill is to authorise the issue of Orders which will define what steps shall be taken to carry out these purposes. To carry out these recommendations will require permanent legislation; consequently this Bill is only a temporary measure.
There is also the question of inter-State flying by civil aircraft, which is now being considered by representatives of the Allied Powers in connection with the Peace Conference, for which an International Convention must be prepared and approved by the Allied Powers. To secure the passing of this Convention, and of permanent domestic legislation, will take a certain amount of time, and His Majesty's Government had these two alternatives placed before them. The first was to make temporary provision by emergency legislation, and the second was to postpone the re-opening of civil flying until such time as the permanent Act embodying the findings of the Civil Aerial Transport Committee and the results of the International Conference on Aviation could be enacted. His Majesty's Government decided that it was desirable to adopt the first of these two alternatives, and to provide, by means of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, for the regulation of civil aviation, embodying in Orders to be made under the Bill those provisions of the recommendations of the Civil Aerial Transport Committee which are suitable for the occasion.
I desire to press upon your Lordships that this Bill is an enabling Bill only, and that the actual re-opening of civil aviation will depend upon the enactment of the Orders which are provided by this Bill. It will also be realised that, having regard to the enormous development of aviation during the war, it was impossible to revert to the old system of practically unrestricted flying which prevailed up to the beginning of the war. The matter is one which concerns the safety of the public, and therefore your Lordships will appreciate the necessity of the control of flying by His Majesty's Government for that most important purpose. Before the war the safety of the public on the ground was alone considered. With the expansion of aviation which we see coming it is obvious that the safety of the public in the air—if I may use the expression—must also be safeguarded. It will be seen that
386
provision is made in this Bill for laying all Orders under it on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. That gives an opportunity to either House to raise objection to what is contained in the Orders with a view to revoking those Orders if need be.
As regards the Orders themselves, I should explain that they are being drafted in the Air Ministry, and that at every stage of them the fullest possible consultation is proceeding with representatives of the aircraft industry and with representatives of the House of Commons, where, as your Lordships are aware, there is a Committee which sits for the purpose of considering these matters as they advance stage by stage. If your Lordships consider it right to have a similar Committee in this House—I know well that a great number of your Lordships take a deep interest in aviation—any recommendation made by that Committee will, I need hardly say, be most carefully considered by His Majesty's Government.
I would also explain that the basis of the Orders is the interest of public safety, and that all the provisions of them are being framed with that object in view, and will be as little restrictive as possible bearing that object in mind. Your Lordships are aware that in the discussion in another place certain Amendments were proposed. The contention was that this Bill was a restrictive Bill, and was inclined rather to hamper and hinder the industry than to give it the free scope which is necessary at these initial stages to allow us to extend the industry and to maintain supremacy over all other nations. I should like to emphasise this point, that it is necessary that regulations of licensing and of registration should be made in the interests of the safety of the public. Apart from what is necessary for that purpose, the desire of His Majesty's Government is in no sense to hamper civil aviation in this country.
In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I would also crave your indulgence for a further point with regard to the importance of the Bill, without which the prohibition of civil aviation remains, as it is at present, in its most stringent form. I would ask your Lordships' permission to allow this Bill to pass through all its remaining stages to-

387
morrow. It is a measure of great importance, and I apologise to your Lordships for asking you to adopt a course which is distasteful to all of us. But when your Lordships realise that during all this time there has been this hindering regulation which has cramped the activity of those who are energetically disposed to concentrate all their powers into giving us the opportunity of keeping that supremacy which we have maintained and are proposing to maintain to its fullest extent, I feel that your Lordships will agree that the sooner we can have this Bill passed into law the better. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Marquess opposite on the very capable manner in which he has performed his task of explaining this Bill in, I fear, a very empty House. I do not propose to discuss the terms of the Bill. The noble Marquess made an interesting suggestion, as I understood, that a Committee of your Lordships' House might be formed which would act with the Air Ministry for certain purposes of administration. I have no doubt that there are not a few members of your Lordships' House who are well fitted by experience and interest in the subject to become members of such a Committee, and I merely mention the matter in the hope that the noble Marquess will take an opportunity of bringing his suggestion to the notice of the House, or to individual members of it in some form, lest in present circumstances his suggestion should escape the notice of those who might be interested in it.
As regards the intention of the noble Marquess to move on behalf of His Majesty's Government to-morrow that Standing Order No. XXXIX. be suspended, I personally have no objection to raise to that course, as I understand that the matter may be somewhat urgent. Of course, it is impossible to say whether some noble Lord may not desire to move Amendments, but I have no knowledge that any one does, and, so far as my friends and I are concerned, we shall raise no objection to the course proposed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill the purpose of which, I hope, may be very shortly recommended to your Lordships. The object of the Bill, as its title discloses, is to render it unnecessary for members of the House of Commons who after their election become Ministers to submit themselves for re-election to their old constituencies. This class of problem is one from which your Lordships studiously and over a long period of time, as far as my researches inform me, disinterested yourselves, because it affects less privileged persons than your Lordships. If any of your Lordships is advanced to Ministerial rank such a new Minister returns here without the temporary inconvenience of re-establishing contact with the electors from whom, it may be, he has parted quite a short time previously. No such privilege has been conceded to members of the House of Commons.
Your Lordships, like the spectators by the bank of a rapidly-running stream, have seen the members of another House nantes in gurgite vasto. This necessity has been in the past irksome to members in another place, and the purpose of this Bill, as originally conceived, was to provide that it should be in no case necessary hereafter for members of the House of Commons, on being promoted to become Ministers, to seek re-election. To that private members in another place offered reasonable and legitimate objection, and an Amendment was inserted to provide that this protection should only extend for a period of nine months in a new Parliament.
The general nature of the provisions of this Bill, of which I beg to recommend the Second Reading to your Lordships, is that in future, if after a new Parliament has come into being any member of that Parliament who has recently come from his constituency is promoted to be a Minister, a by-election shall not be necessary, unless a period of nine months has intervened between the election and his promotion. This controversy has raged in the past. Different parties at different periods of their fortunes have taken different views as to the propriety of the old rule, and as to the reasonableness of the modification which is now recommended to your Lordships by the House of Commons. It has

389
sometimes happened that one Party when in opposition has taken a very different view of the reasonableness and usefulness of the old practice from that which it has felt in the embarrassment of a period of office which has perhaps lost its earliest popularity. It is perhaps not unfair to suppose that the compromise which is now recommended in this Bill is reasonable as between the different views which at different times have been held. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to give notice that at to-morrow's sitting my noble friend the Lord President of the Council will move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in relation to the two Bills to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent—
Coal Industry Commission.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of February 25.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Briton Ferry Bridge [H.L.].

D.H. Evans and Company [H.L.].

Falmouth Docks [H.L.].

Hartlepool Gas and Water [H.L.].

Legal and General Life Assurance Society[H.L.].

390

Mansfield Railway [H.L.].

Newark Gas [H.L.].

Pembroke Gas [H.L.].

Sheringham Gas and Water [H.L].

Stourport Gas [H.L.].

Sunderland Gas [H.L.].

West Somerset Mineral Railway [H.L.].

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the case of the Petition for the following Bill:
Beccles Waterworks.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY (AYR HARBOUR TRANSFER) 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 (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz., "That it is expedient that the said Bills be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons": The said Message to be taken into consideration on Thursday next.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.