Sitting of 17 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chepstow Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill,
Workington Corporation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
"To empower the London County Council to construct and work new tramways; to alter and reconstruct existing tramways and to make street improvements and other works; to provide and work omnibuses; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GERMAN DIPLOMATIC APPOINTMENTS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allied Governments are reserving any power to supervise the appointment of German Ministers to the United States of America and elsewhere; and, if not, whether he will consider the importance of securing a right of veto in this respect?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. So far as I am aware, none of the Allied Governments has raised this question, and, so far as this country is concerned, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is at any time open to the Sovereign, acting on the advice of his Ministers, to refuse his acceptance of any individual proposed as representative of a foreign State at the Court of St. James.

  PASSPORTS (CONSULAR RESTRICTIONS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Foreign Secretary when the Consular restrictions regarding passports to America are to be relaxed, so that people who have obtained their passports will be able to get them viséd?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question is entirely one of shipping accommodation, and I understand that there is reason to hope that the situation will admit of considerable relaxation by the early autumn.

  EGYPT (LORD MILNER'S COMMISSION).
  Lieut-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Foreign Secretary whether Lord Milner's Egyptian Commission will consist of Sir William Garstin, Sir Ronald Graham, General Maxwell, and Sr Arthur Chitty; and, if so, will he explain why, with the exception of the chairman, no Member of either House has been appointed a member?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no truth in the report in question.
  Sir S. HOARE: Has the Commission been appointed yet?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Not yet; but negotiations are being made.
  Sir S. HOARE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that at least one member of the Commission will be a Member of this House?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give that assurance, but names of Members of this House are under consideration.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that nobody associated with the Egyptian Government during the War will be appointed, in view of the fact that the Egyptian Government administration during the War will be under consideration?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give such a comprehensive undertaking as that.
  Earl WINTERTON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the members mentioned in the question was a member of the Egyptian Government for three years during the War, and does he realise

  571
  that it would be most unfortunate for him to be a member of a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the Egyptian Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: This list of names is not authentic. I will bear in mind what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS (SOUTH AMERICA).
  Sir S. HOAREasked which Diplomatic and Consular posts are at present vacant in South America?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Legations at Caracas and Montevideo are temporarily in charge of acting officers, the former during the absence of the Minister on leave, the latter pending the arrival of a new Minister, who is due in a few days. His Majesty's Legation at La Paz has been in charge of a Chargé d'Affaires since the end of 1915. His Majesty's Consular posts at Bahia Blanca (Argentine), Rio de Janeiro and Bahia (Brazil), Asuncion (Paraguay), Iquitos (Peru), and Guayaquil (Ecuador) are in charge of acting officers. The titular officer at Guayaquil is on his way back from leave to resume his duties there. Appointments to the other posts mentioned are under consideration and will be made shortly.

  RUSSIA.

    VISITS OF EX-FOREIGN MINISTERS.
    Mr. LUNNasked whether Mr. Sasonoff, Mr. Milhuikoff, and Mr. Tereshchenko, former Foreign Ministers of Russia, are now, or recently have been, in London; whether each, or any, of these Russian gentlemen have been, or now are, in communication with the Foreign Office since 11th November, 1918; and, if so, whether any statement can be made of the negotiations or communications which have passed?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Of the three gentleman named, Mr. Milhiukoff is understood to be at present in London, while Mr. Sasonoff and Mr. Tereshchenko are believed to have been in London recently. Mr. Sasonoff paid a call at the Foreign Office in the course of his visit. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    BRITISH RELATIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked when a decision may be given as to whether the British Government will recognise, attach diplomatic representatives to, and permit trade to commence with the Kolchak Government, the Bolshevist Government, or both?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the question of recognition of Admiral Kolchak's Government, I fear I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend the information he desires. The question of the recognition of the Russian Soviet Government has not arisen. I would, however, point out that His Majesty's Government are in relations with Admiral Kolchak, being represented in Siberia by a High Commissioner, and that trade is allowed with the territory under Admiral Kolchak's control.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that German enterprise has already taken over the management of the railways in parts of Bolshevist Russia, and have not large concessions been granted to neutrals?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is another question on the subject of German enterprise.

    ADMIRAL KOLCHAK'S GOVERNMENT (POLICY).
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that M. Sasonoff was Minister for Foreign Affairs under the Czarist Government in Russia, and is now Minister for Foreign Affairs under the Kolchak Government, he can state if the policy of the Kolchak Government is similar to that of the Czarist regime?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think I can do better than to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Notes exchanged between the Allied Governments and Admiral Kolchak, in which the views of Admiral Kolchak in regard to the reconstitution of Russia are fully explained. It will be seen that they are in no way similar to those of the old regime.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that Sasonoff is anathema to the other Russian representatives in Europe, and that his views do not always agree with the views of Kolchak?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot express any opinion as to the effect of Sasonoff's views.

    BOLSHEVIST GOVERNMENT (REPRESENTATIVE IN LONDON).
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked if anyone is carrying out the duties of representative of the Bolshevist Government in England in place of M. Litvinoff; and, if so, who?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that the Bolshevist Government has communicated with certain gentlemen in this country, and that some of these communications have reached the Foreign Office? Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether that is a fact, and either disregard all these communications or recognise the Bolshevist Government, and not have this dilly dallying on one side or the other?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know that there is any official communication. If the hon. Gentleman has any information perhaps he will supply particulars.
    Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to arrest these Bolshevist agents?

    RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).
    Mr. SPOORasked the Foreign Secretary whether the policy to recognise no Russian Government which could not speak for the whole of the former Imperial Russia of the Czar has been abandoned; if so, on what date; whether any definite declaration of intentions or policy in this connection can be referred to; whether any Russian Government at the present time does actually speak for the whole of Imperial Russia or claims to do so; and, if so, what that Government is; and whether it has any representative in London?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first, second, and third parts of the hon. Member's question is that His Majesty's Government have never decided not to recognise any Russian Government which could not speak for the whole of the former Imperial Russian Empire. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative. The fifth and sixth do not, consequently, arise.

    UKRAINE AND CAUCASUS (TRADE).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign
    574
    Affairs whether trade is permitted with Southern Russia and the Ukraine through Odessa and other Black Sea ports; and whether there are any British Diplomatic and Consular representatives in the Ukraine and the Caucasus respectively?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Trade is not permitted with those parts of Southern Russia or the Ukraine which are under the control of the Soviet Government. Trade is not only permitted, but is actively encouraged, by His Majesty's Government with part of the districts under General Denikin's control. For further particulars on this head, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the official announcement which appeared in the Press on the the 20th June.
    As regards the second part of the question, there are no Diplomatic nor Consular representatives of His Majesty's Government in the Ukraine, nor Diplomatic representative in the Caucasus. His Majesty's Government are, however, represented by Consuls at Novorossisk and at Batoum.

    GERMAN TRADE.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of efforts being made by the German Government to enter into trade relations with Soviet Russia; whether a German industrial and commercial mission has visited Soviet Russia; and what steps will be taken to safeguard the interests of British merchants and traders in Northern Soviet Russia and to enable them to compete in Russian markets?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Although I have no exact information, I believe it to be the case that the German Government are endeavouring to enter into trade relations with Soviet Russia, and that a German industrial and commercial mission has visited or is about to visit Soviet Russia. I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we in a position to stop Germans trading in Soviet Russia in the same way as our merchants are stopped from trading in that most lucrative market?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: This question is under the immediate attention of the delegates in Paris.

  TURKISH EMPIRE (PARTITION).
  Mr. SPOORasked the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that the secret treaty concluded in May, 1916, between this country and France relative to the partition of the Turkish Empire has now been published in France; whether the British Government gave its consent to this publication; and whether he is now prepared to issue as a White Paper, or place in the Library of the House, a copy of the map alluded to in the agreement?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is not at this date anything very secret about the agreement in question, which has been reproduced in the Press of this country. But, inasmuch as the Peace Conference in Paris are at present considering to what extent effect should be given to this agreement, the provisional character of which is recognised both by the French Government and by his Majesty's Government, in the settlement with Turkey, I do not think it would be desirable to lay any Papers at the present time.

  BRITISH CONSUL-GENERAL, NEW YORK.
  Sir S. HOAREasked whether a Consul-General has been appointed to New York?
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Department of Oversea Trade): I regret I cannot definitely announce the date of the appointment of the new Consul-General for New York I hope to do so at an early date.
  Sir S. HOARE: We realise that the delay in giving the announcement is not due to the hon. Gentleman. Will he give an undertaking to make an announcement on Monday next?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is impossible for me to say definitely that an announcement will be made next Monday. I appreciate the fact that it is not due to me that there is any delay. As soon as the announcement can be made, it will be made. We are now in negotiation with a distinguished gentleman, and we hope he will satisfy the demands of this very high and important position.
  Sir S. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been asked two or three times a week since last year?
  576
  Can he reconsider the answer which he has given and promise definitely to answer on Monday next?
  Sir H. GREENWOODI can quite understand that this is a matter of vital importance, and nobody appreciates it more than I do, because no one in this House knows New York and America better than I do. It is impossible for me to speak for the Foreign Secretary, who has the ultimate approval of any appointment.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary has been very dilatory in this matter?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not aware of that.
  Sir S. HOARE: I beg to give notice that I will put this question on Monday next.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether (1) Montenegro declared war against Germany on the 9th August, 1914; if so, why Montenegro was not invited to sign, and did not sign, the Treaty of Versailles between Germany and the Allies;
  (2) if he has any official information as. To the number of Montenegrin refugees still detained in France; whether these refugees are forbidden to correspond with their relatives and friends in Montenegro, or to return to their own country except with Serbian passports and subject to conditions imposed by Serbian authorities in occupation of Montenegro; if he is aware that these refugees include a number of Montenegrin soldiers who were- anxious to return to their country during the War to fight under their native flag, but refused to swear allegiance to the Serbian monarchy and to enlist in the Serbian Army; whether steps will be taken to facilitate the return to Monte negro of all who have been exiled as a result of Serbian action, in order that they may take part in any plebiscite that may be taken to determine the future destiny of their country;
  (3) whether the declaration of war by Montenegro against Austria on the 6th of August, 1914, and against Germany on the 9th of the same month was in pursuance of treaty obligations to Serbia and loyalty

  577
  to a kindred race; whether he is aware that this action was adduced by the German delegation at Paris as evidence that Montenegro had been an aggressor against the Central Powers and consequently disentitled to a war indemnity; whether he is aware that one-third of the Montenegrin Army perished on the battlefield endeavouring to stem the Austrian invasion and to cover the retreat of the Serbians across Montenegrin territory; whether, in view of this record, the Montenegrin Government or people have done anything to forfeit the confidence and esteem of their Allies;
  (4) if he is aware that during the War reports were current reflecting gravely on the loyalty to the Allies of the King of Montenegro; that these reports were widely credited in certain quarters, were and are believed by many persons to have been originated by parties in Serbia for the purpose of discrediting the Montenegrin monarchy and thus preparing the way for the annexation of Montenegro by Serbia; and whether, in view of the fact that the conclusion of Peace renders reticence on such matters no longer obligatory, he will now make a full disclosure of the facts of the case, stating the evidence, if any, on which the reports referred to were based?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Gentleman is correct in stating that Montenegro declared war on Austria-Hungary on 6th August, 1914, but my information is that war was declared by her on Germany on August 8th and not on August 9th, 1914.
  As regards the question of the Montenegrin refugees in France referred to in question No. 16, I have no official information, and I would point out that as these individuals are detained in France, provision of facilities for their return to Montenegro is a question for the French Government. I have already answered the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question No. 17. I have no information as to the second part. I am afraid I have no figures as to the actual losses of the Montenegrin Army, but I know that they were heavy.
  As regards the last part of Question No. 17, and as to question No. 18, I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that he is incorrect in supposing that the Montenegrin people have done anything to forfeit the confidence and esteem of His
  578
  Majesty's Government. On the contrary, His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to discover their true wishes and aspirations, and in this connection I would refer to the replies returned to the hon. Gentleman on the 1st July. I can add nothing to those replies at present, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that peace with Austria has not yet been signed.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a number of points which have been left unanswered, and that if I do not press them at this moment it is for no other reason than that I want to avoid embarrassing the Foreign Office?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. I fully realise that, and I thank my hon. Friend.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    1ST NORFOLK REGIMENT (PRIVATE A. F. TITLOW).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Private A. F. Titlow, No. 6582, 1st Norfolk Regiment, residing at 53, Ribston Road, Downall, Sheffield, is a victim of tuberculosis; that he is receiving a pension of 13s. 9d., plus 7s. l1d. for three children who all attend school; that he is unable to follow his employment; that Mrs. Titlow is now a victim of the disease; and whether he will cause his pension to be immediately increased and further expedite Private Titlow's application to be found work upon a poultry farm?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): When examined by a medical board in April last, Private Titlow was found to be incapacitated to the extent of 50 per cent. No application for increase on his behalf has hitherto been received, but in the circumstances the local war pensions committee have been asked to have the soldier examined by their medical referee, and if he certifies that the disablement has increased from the original cause, the committee will at once issue recoverable advances pending the final decision of the Ministry. I have not been able to trace any application to the Ministry of Employment.
    Captain COOTEasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that delays

    579
    in the Pensions Issue Office are as great as ever; and when the promised improvement may be expected?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The work at the Pensions Issue Office is not generally in arrear. There are now about 1,400,000 pensions in issue, and, of course, errors are made by individual clerks. The effort to prevent and correct errors is continuous.
    Captain COOTE: Is it not a fact that considerable delay has taken place between the sanction of the award and the actual issue of the pension? Will the hon. Gentleman remedy this delay?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware that there is any delay generally. I am not suggesting that there is not delay in some individual cases. I do not think that there is any delay generally as suggested by my hon. Friend, but I will look into it.

    MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (PRIVATE J. W. BURTON).
    Captain COOTEasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the widow of Private J. W. Burton, No. 74858, Middlesex Regiment, has been applying in vain to the Pensions Issue Office since October, 1918; that this man was granted a pension of £l per week for twenty-five weeks, which expired a few days before he died, and was therefore not renewed; and when a decision may be expected in this case?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The late Private Burton's disability has not been accepted as due to or aggravated by service. He was granted a gratuity of £35 paid to him in weekly instalments. An appeal lodged against the decision raised questions requiring considerable investigation which is now completed and the Appeal Tribunal will hear the case at an early date.

    REASSESSMENT BOARDS.
    Captain COOTEasked the Pensions Minister if he will state what is the salary of the president and members respectively of the reassessment boards; whether any pro vision is made to grant holidays to these medical men; and how many doctors have applied for posts under the Ministry of Pensions within the last month?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Presidents of resurvey boards are whole-time officials, whose salaries vary from £650 to £800. Other members are part-time officials paid at the rate of £1 1s. for a session of two and a half hours. All the salaried officials, who are whole-time servants of the Ministry, are entitled to holidays with pay in accordance with the regulations. During the past month 321 medical men have applied for posts in the Ministry of Pensions.
    Captain COOTE: Does the hon. Gentleman think that salaries such as he mentioned are sufficient to attract men of the highest ability, and is there now a shortage of medical personnel to be employed?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As there have been 321 applications from medical men during the last month, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the salaries are sufficient to attract men of capacity and standing.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to applications from officers who have been in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Preference is given in the appointment of medical men first to those who have been overseas, second to those who have given up their practices at home, and, third, to the ordinary civilian practitioner.

    PENSIONS MINISTRY.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if he will state the average number of cases dealt with per day per head of staff employed by the Pensions Ministry?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So many operations are involved in the award, issue and continued payment of a pension that it is impossible to give any average output per head of the staff which would not be misleading. The staff of the Ministry consists of approximately 15,000 persons. In the month of May, the awards branches, with a staff of 6,000, gave decisions in over 250,000 cases, and the number of pensions in payment at the end of the same month was 1,300,000. In addition to its other work, the Department deals with an enormous amount of correspondence, upwards of 500,000 letters being received every week.

    INCOME TAX.
    Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the income Tax Commissioners have no authority to give effect to the Government's decision to issue disability pensions and gratuities free of Income Tax until the Finance Bill has been passed, he will arrange that special permission shall be granted pending the necessary legislation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. After the announcement on the 13th February, that it was proposed to seek authority to exempt disability pensions and gratuities from Income Tax, arrangements were made that, pending legislative sanction for the proposed relief, Income Tax should not be deducted in respect of the pensions and gratuities in question.

    WAR GRATUITY.
    Mr. A. SHAWasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether, in order to alleviate possible hardship, and with a view to the removal of a legitimate grievance, he will have inquiry made into the case of Private Thomas Cowan, late No. 146229, Royal Engineers, now living at 1, Park Lane, Kilmarnock, who was demobilised on the 23rd December, 1918, and who, up to the present, has been unable to obtain payment of his war gratuity; (2) whether, in order to alleviate possible hardship, and with a view to the removal of a legitimate grievance, he will have inquiry made into the case of Private A. S. Queen, No. 365711, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, now living at 7, Dean Lane, Kilmarnock, whose war gratuity was deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank on the 19th March on remittance roll No. 253/B series due for deposit on the 1st April, 1919, but up to the present has been unable to obtain payment of same?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): A warrant was sent to Private Cowan on the 14th instant. As regards the other question, no soldier with the name and number quoted appears on the remittance roll mentioned by the hon. Member, or is known to the regimental paymaster concerned.
    Major F. KELLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to alleviate possible hardship, and with a view
    582
    to the removal of a legitimate grievance, he will have inquiry made into the case of Pioneer H. B. Seymour, No. 129343, G Special Company, Royal Engineers, Special Brigade, British Expeditionary Force, who was demobilised on 13th February, 1919, and whose war gratuity has been handed to the Controller of the Post Office Savings Bank, under remittance roll No. 20/188, on 22nd February, 1919, but up to the present has been unable to obtain payment of the same?
    Mr. PEASE: Pioneer Seymour's gratuity book and green card were duly dispatched but he has apparently changed his address, as the card was returned undelivered. The Savings Bank Department are now endeavouring to get into touch with him.

    ROYAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the 25th March, 1914, it was stated that the Postmaster-General and the Secretary of State for War had recommended the Treasury to grant the claim of the K Company men; and whether, seeing that an impartial body has given a verdict in favour of the men, he will take steps to do justice to this class, despite the small-ness of their numbers and their inability to show industrial strength?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne on this subject on the 6th May last.

  IRELAND.

    GAELIC LEAGUE FESTIVAL (KILLARNEY).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state on whose advice or on whose instructions were large detachments of military and police brought into the town of Killarney on Sunday, the 8th of June, to suppress the annual Gaelic League festival fixed for that date; and whether there has ever been any sort of disturbance in connection with previous celebrations of the same character; and, if so, when and of what nature?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply

    583
    given to a similar question on this subject asked by the hon. and learned Member for South Down on 26th June. The Irish Government accept full responsibility for the action taken.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Would it not be possible to exempt these athletic meetings from interference on the ground that athletics are a useful and harmless outlet for the energies of the young Irishman?
    Mr. HENRY: We are always glad to allow athletic meetings to be held, but we find that at those meetings the energies of the young Irishman sometimes take the form of sedition.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Were any troops sent to Belfast on 12th July, and, if not, why not?
    Lieut.-Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What is the hon. Gentleman's definition of sedition?

    PRISON OFFICERS.
    Mr. LYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that for the past two years Irish prison officers generally have been called upon to perform special and extra duties consequent on the institution of a new class of prisoners imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act and the granting of special ameliorations to that class; that those ameliorations comprise long hours of additional exercise on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as permission to remain outside their cells after the scheduled hour of evening lock-up; that such exercise and liberty involve extra duty on the staffs and, at the present moment, are delaying the application of the eight-hour day to the Irish warders which has been working in the English Prisons Service since 1st May; and will he now take immediate steps to give special consideration and recognition to this body of servants who have in very trying times proved themselves loyal and faithful servants?
    Mr. HENRY: The institution of a new class of prisoners under the Defence of the Realm Act in receipt of ameliorative treatment has of necessity thrown additional work on the prison staffs, but when possible relief is given in respect of additional hours of duty. The application of the eight-hours day to Irish prison staffs is not being delayed thereby.

    DISTURBANCES, DUBLIN AND DUNDALK.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the attacks made upon soldiers and other loyal persons in Dublin and Dundalk while celebrating the signature of the Treaty of Peace; whether he is aware that Major Alexander, of the Rifle Brigade, was attacked in Sackville Street while driving to his club, dragged from his car, and severely beaten; that Army lorries were attacked and burned and men in charge of them assaulted; that shots were fired by members of the mob, and Constable Dawson was struck by a bullet; whether in Dundalk soldiers were attacked and some of them seriously injured; and whether any arrests have been made?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On the 28th June Major Alexander, while driving to his club in Sackville Street, was pulled off the car by a number of men and severely beaten but his injuries are not serious. An attack was made upon a military motor lorry which was overturned and set on fire. A corporal and several members of the Women's Royal Air Force were injured. Shots were fired but did not take effect. On the 29th June there was further disturbance when Constable Dawson was struck by a bullet, but not seriously injured. Two Australian soldiers who were carrying a Sinn Fein flag were arrested and handed over to the military authorities, and two other men have been returned for trial. Disturbances also took place at Dundalk on the 28th June, when some soldiers were attacked, but none were seriously injured. Two ringleaders in the crowd have been identified by the police and will be prosecuted.
    Mr. STEWART: May I ask whether these disturbances do not indicate that there are a great many people in Ireland who are displeased because we have beaten the Germans and won a good Peace?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We can all form our own conclusions.

    DEATH SENTENCE ON BOY.
    Lieut. - Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Joseph Charles Fitt, a boy of sixteen years of age, who was sentenced to death last November for the murder of a child

    585
    of under two years of age, but whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life, is being detained in solitary confinement in Mountjoy Prison; and whether, in view of the fact that he was under sixteen years of age at the time of the crime, that the evidence as to the cause of the child's death was not conclusive, that no evidence was called as to the mental state of the boy, and it appears to be very doubtful whether he is responsible for his actions, he will give instructions for his immediate removal from prison to some place where he may receive, under suitable conditions, training of a reformative nature?
    Mr. HENRY: The boy is detained in Mountjoy Prison, but not in solitary confinement. He was removed from Maryborough Convict Prison to Mountjoy Prison, where he is receiving modified Borstal treatment so far as is compatible with the character of his crime and the nature of his sentence.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULABY (PAY).
    Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the same increases granted to the police forces of England, Scotland, and Wales in the Lord Desborough's Committee Report will be granted to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and if these increases will be retrospective?
    Mr. HENRY: This Report is receiving the immediate consideration of the Irish Government.

  ELECTION POSTERS, HORBLING.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the recent parish council election at Horbling, Lincolnshire, posters were issued which urged the electors not to vote for the man who got the boys into the Army; whether he is aware that the printer's name and the name of the association or individual by whom published were cut off the bills before posting; and what action he proposes to take?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am informed by the police that after the fullest possible inquiry they have been unable to ascertain who was responsible
  586
  for the posters in question. In these circumstances I am not aware of any action I can take.

  PROFITEERING.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have been instituted this year against retail traders for profiteering; what number of the offenders were punished by imprisonment with option of fine; and how many by fine only?
  The FOOD CONTROLLER (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The number of prosecutions instituted during the present year against retail traders for profiteering is 5,908. In 229 of these cases the offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment with the option of a fine, while in 4,565 cases the penalty was restricted to the imposition of a fine.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce what steps will be taken by the Government to curtail profiteering pending the Report of the Select Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to the previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. HIGHAM: May I ask whether there is any truth in the statement in the Press that a tribunal is to be sent up to deal with cases of profiteering?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said, in answer to that question, that the Government are considering the matter. I really cannot say anything until they have come to a decision.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Will they consider quickly?
  Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the urgent necessity of setting it up as soon as possible, could the Select Committee be asked to accelerate their Report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the Select Committee themselves will realise the necessity of doing so.

  ENEMY ALIENS IN LONDON.
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether a Count Pejácsivich has recently come to this country; whether he is aware that he

  587
  belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Embassy in London in 1914, and that a year ago he was employed in the Austro-Hungarian Embassy in Berlin expressing strongly anti-Ally sentiments; can he state for what purpose he is now in this country; and when he will be repatriated?
  Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware of the diplomatic appointments which this gentleman has held, but he has now been recognised as of Jugo-Slav nationality and came to this country with a Serbian passport. I do not think his presence here is likely to be detrimental to our interests, but he can be required to leave the country if any occasion should arise.
  Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the peace with Austria is not yet signed, and that great indignation exists because this man is allowed to go about London exactly as he did in pre-war times? Is it impossible for the late Austrian Ambassador to come here also?
  Mr. SHORTT: We must have some regard to the Serbian passport, and in the meantime we can protect ourselves if necessary.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is only one of many formerly connected with the Austro-Hungarian Fmbassy who have come here camouflaged as Jugo-Slavs? Is he aware that the late Ambassador has announced his intention of coming here as soon as possible before peace is signed?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have heard of that.

  TREBITSCH LINCOLN (DEPORTATION).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary if an Order has been made for the deportation of Trebitsch Lincoln, the Hungarian spy and late Member of Parliament for Darlington; if arrangements were made for this Order to be carried out on 2nd July; if the deportee was recalled when on his way to the port of embarkation; and, if so, will he state the grounds for such action?
  Mr. SHORTT: The facts are correctly stated in the first three paragraphs of the
  588
  question. The deportation of this man was suspended on receipt of information which made it appear undesirable to allow him in present circumstances to return to his own country. He remains in internment and his repatriation will be carried out later.
  Sir F. HALL: When will this repatriation be carried out?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that definitely; it is not advisable to give a date.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Why is it more desirable to have this most undesirable person in this country rather than in his own country?
  Mr. SHORTT: Because in this country he is under lock and key.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (PASSPORTS),
  Mr. GRUNDYasked the Home Secretary whether, as a result of his communications with the Channel Islands authorities, the present Regulations requiring passports to visit the Channel Islands are to be rescinded without delay?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Channel Islands authorities are still anxious that the passenger traffic shall be subject to control by passports for the present; and I cannot yet give a date when this control can be removed.

  RUSSIAN EMBASSY, CHESHAM PLACE.
  Mr. LUNNasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the building of the Russian Embassy, in Chesham Place, comes in any way under his notice or control; whether any public money has been expended upon it, either during the present financial year or the two previous financial years; if so, what that amount or those amounts have been; and whether any buildings occupied by foreign Government officials, either previously or at present, have been or are the subject of attention or expense by the Office of Works?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first three parts of this question is in the negative, and, as regards the last part, my Department has rendered various ser-

  589
  vices for Allied Governments the cost of which has cither been recovered or will be treated as recoverable.
  Mr. J. JONES: Which is the Government?

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will give instructions for arrangments to be made in Palace Yard for the staff of the Houses of Parliament to view the Peace procession on Saturday next?
    Sir A. MOND: I regret that, owing to the height of the stand that would be required, the lack of labour and material, and the short time available, I am unable to adopt this suggestion, and in any case I could not provide a stand for the staff in question at the public expense.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reserve for the staff spaces in Bridge Street, as has been done, I understand, on more than one occasion at the opening of Parliament?
    Sir A. MOND: I will look into it.
    Sir F. HALL: Is there time to look into it? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the matter?
    Sir A. MOND: I will look into it this afternoon.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are there not some rooms about the precincts of the House that could be allocated?
    Sir A. MOND: I doubt that.

    WORKHOUSE INMATES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Health if he can make any statement as to the arrangements which have been made by way of response to his instructions to local government authorities that on the occasion of the Peace celebrations special entertainment could be offered to inmates of workhouses; and whether these instructions also affect people in receipt of out-relief?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Poor Law authorities are not required to report the action which they propose to take under the recent Order which authorises the making of special
    590
    arrangements for persons in receipt of out-relief as well as for the inmates of the institutions.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNEasked the Food Controller whether, seeing that many thousands of people will be visiting London during the week-end of 19th July on account of the Peace celebrations, and that the secretary of the London Retail Meat Trades Union has stated that there will be a shortage of meat at this period in view of the big demands for meat by hotels and catering managers, he intends making arrangements in order that butchers in working class areas will have a fair share of the quantity of meat available and a proportion of the better cuts?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The arrangements for the distribution of meat in the London area over the period of the Peace celebrations are calculated to ensure that butchers in working-class areas will receive an equitable share of the various qualities of meat.

    MILITARY PROCESSION (BRITISH WOUNDED).
    Major COHEN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the prominent part taken by the wounded in the Peace Procession at Paris, and whether he proposes to give the British wounded any part in the Peace Procession for Saturday, the 19th?
    Sir H. DALZIEL (later): Will the Leader of the House endeavour to see that a reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) is circulated in the course of the afternoon, notice having been given to the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that no notice has reached my right hon. Friend, but I discussed it with the Secretary of State for War yesterday, and he is going to arrange it if he can.
    The following is the answer circulated:
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I am informed that no provision is being made for the wounded men to take part in the Peace Procession. Special accommodation is being reserved for wounded serving men to view the procession, and also for wounded and disabled discharged soldiers.

    OFFICIAL HOLIDAY (WAGES).
    Lieut.- Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether, in view of the serious doubt which exists in the minds of both employers and workers as to the duration of the Peace celebrations, he will state if Saturday is to be the only official holiday arranged by the Government for such celebrations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not know there was any doubt. Saturday is the only official holiday.
    Sir J. N. GRIFFITHS: Will the Government make any statement or give any indication with regard to pay? I ask because at Newcastle and Middlesbrough a lot of people think they are entitled to pay, and the employers would like a lead from the Government.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not like answering a question without verification, but I am pretty sure I stated in the House that, so far as Government employés are concerned, pay would be given. Of course, we cannot control private employers.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the Leader of the House aware that employers in the steel and tinplate trades in South Wales are paying the workers for that day, and that other employers in the country ought to follow a good example?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very glad to hear it of one set of employers. I should be glad to hear it of all.
    Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give a lead to the private employers—I am sure they would be glad to follow it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I said before, I would like notice, but I have no doubt we have already given the best lead.

  ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the First Commissioner of Works whether any decision has been reached as to the extension of tenure of allotments under his control, in view of the strong appeals made by, and on behalf of, the allotment-holders who are under notice to quit at the end of February next?
  Sir A. MOND: I have decided that the temporary allotments in the Royal
  592
  Parks granted during the War shall remain up to February, 1921, with the exception of those areas at Primrose Hill and at Bushey Park, which are urgently required for games for children.

  FEDERAL DEVOLUTION.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister what will be the nature of the Parliamentary body to consider and report on a scheme of federal devolution; and whether the composition of the body will be announced before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to give the particulars asked for, but I hope that it may be possible to set up this body before the Recess.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we have an assurance that the appointment of this Commission will not in any way delay a decision on the Irish question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not appointed for that purpose; I can only say that.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if, considering the great debt due by the nation to the men and women who have devoted their lives to literature, science, and other practically unremunerative services to the State, more generous provision can be made for them and those dependent on them; and whether the list of those now in receipt of Civil List pensions will be reviewed for the purpose of increasing, where necessary, the amounts now paid, and making them more worthy and representative of the national obligations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The sum of £1,200 per annum available each year for new Civil List pensions is limited by Statute and it is not possible to increase the amount available from this source for meeting the cases the hon. Member has in view.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Civil List is confined to persons mentioned in the question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is confined to those who need assistance.
  Major O'NEILL: Is the information given to proposed recipients before their names appear?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; always.
  Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether in the event of any allocation being refused, it is still available for distribution amongst others?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall make inquiries into that. I cannot answer offhand.

  KEN WOOD ESTATE (SALE).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister if he has any information as to the intended sale of the Ken Wood estate at Hampstead; and, if 80, can any steps be taken to acquire this property for the country and to prevent the woods being cut down?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information in regard to the sale of this estate except what has appeared in the Press.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    VISCOUNT CAVE'S COMMITTEE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Cave Committee will be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This Report has just been received, but there has not yet been time to consider it.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May we assume that there will be no undue delay?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the kind of Report in regard to which there is no obligation to publish. I think this probably ought to be published, but I cannot give a definite promise until it has been considered.

    STEEL RAILS (AMERICAN AND BRITISH).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has yet ascertained the facts concerning the recent contract given by the Glasgow Corporation for steel rails from the United States; what was the difference in price between the quotations from Glasgow and the United States firms; what is the saving to the ratepayers; what is the value of the total contract; (2) what is the cost of unemployed benefit paid to workers in Glasgow under the present Government scheme; and
    594
    whether he can give the approximate amount of wages which would have been paid in the production of 5,000 tons of steel rails in Glasgow?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): As regards the first question, I have made inquiries as to this transaction and understand that the order has been placed abroad, because home firms are unable to deliver the rails in time for the necessary renewals of track which have to be carried out before the winter.
    The difference in price between the American and the lowest British tender (which was not by a Glasgow company) was just over £10,000, and the American company also undertook delivery at an earlier date. The value of the contract is rather over £100,000.
    I am informed by the Ministry of Labour that the total amount paid in respect of unemployment donation in Glasgow since the inception of the scheme is approximately £1,400,000. I am not in a position to give the wages estimate asked for, but I may point out that the amount is obviously comparatively small and that the iron and steel trades of the country are at present very fully occupied and unable to meet all the demands upon them.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the financial situation of the U.S.A. and of the economic situation and the labour position in view of unemployment, will the hon. Gentleman state when the House is going to be informed what the definite trade policy of the Government is, in order that manufacturers may prepare for these contracts, which ought to be preserved to this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: How much of that million unemployed was actually paid to steelworkers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

  CELLULOSE.
  Sir D. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Committee appointed last August to inquire into the cellulose question will be presented to the House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington on the 1st July, it is hoped that the Report will be ready this month.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as will expedite the issue of the Report so that we shall have one of the ordinary Parliamentary opportunities of debating it before we rise for the holiday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I shall try and have it circulated as soon as possible, but as my right hon. Friend knows Lord Sumner is at present in Paris.

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.
  Mr. INSKIPasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is proposed to ask the Coal Industry Commission to make further Interim Reports as suggested in the Interim Report of 20th March signed by the chairman; and, if so, whether he will first amend the constitution of the Commission by appointing persons in whose impartiality and freedom from prejudice the public may have full confidence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not yet had time to consider what action is to be taken in regard to this matter. I am, therefore, unable to make any statement.

  GERMAN BUSINESSES (DISPOSAL).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that previous to the Armistice certain German businesses, plant, and other assets were sold by order and for account of the British Government; and whether, since the signing of Peace, the Germans have been, or will be, permitted to recommence business in this country, and allowed to manufacture and sell proprietary articles under the same name and style as the Government disposed of to English buyers?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Acts, German businesses, plant, and other assets, were during the War, sold by controllers appointed by the Board of Trade or the Court. Where the goodwill of the businesses was disposed
  596
  of in such sale, any trade marks of the businesses remaining on the register would be transferred to the buyer. This would prevent their use by the previous owners, who would be equally debarred from making any claim to the goodwill of the business.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the assets of a concern known as Odol were sold for and on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and that the Germans who owned that business have now received intimation that they are in a position to come back here and recommence business operations, notwithstanding the fact that all those assets have been purchased by English buyers from His Majesty's Government, and what is going to be done in the matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inquire into the matter, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me his assistance.
  Sir F. HALL: I will repeat this question this day week to give the hon. Member the opportunity of answering it.

  VICTORY LOAN.

    STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Mr. HOLMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total amount of the subscriptions to the Victory Loan?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to be able to give the House approximate figures of the result of the War Loans. As a certain number of applications have still to be dealt with, some addition will be made to these totals when the final figures are available.
    The total stock or bonds applied for in cash (including Treasury Bills) is:

    Funding Loan—

    £

    Bank issue

    …

    …

    265,000,000

    Post Office issue

    …

    …

    9,000,000

    274,000,000

    Victory Bonds—

    £

    Bank issue

    …

    …

    254,000,000

    Post Office issue

    …

    …

    11,000,000

    265,000,000

    making a total applied for in cash or Treasury Bills for both Loans of £539,000,000.
    This figure represents the face value of the stock subscribed for. The issue prices being 80 and 85 respectively; the cash receivable is, of course, considerably less—about £450,000,000, to which must be added cash received in respect of War Savings Certificates during the period of the Loan amounting to £9,600,000.
    Over and above these figures, stocks and bonds created in respect of conversions are—

    £

    Funding Loan

    105,000,000

    Victory Bonds

    64,000,000

    Total conversions

    169,000,000

    £

    Total Loans created (cash and conversions)

    708,000,000

    In view of all the circumstances, this is a very satisfactory result, which could not have been obtained except by the unflagging efforts of all concerned in the campaign, to whom I again tender my grateful thanks for the work which they have done. But the House will recognise that the financial situation is still beset with many difficulties, and that great caution is required both in national finance and private expenditure.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether, in view of those figures, about which I express no opinion, the right hon. Gentleman will now consider the desirability of making an early issue of premium bonds?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Major COLFOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, during the Victory Loan campaign, a charge of £30 to £40 was made to country towns requiring a tank to help the cause; whether this charge was made on his instructions; who was expected to pay this charge; whether, considering the use to which it was put, the tank could have been supplied gratis; and whether, owing to this exorbitant charge, few tanks were used and a great many subscriptions were lost to the country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any charge was asked or made in connection with the loan of a tank to any town during the Victory Loan campaign.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TREASURY DEDUCTIONS).
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury makes any deduction from any salaries paid in any Government Department in respect of pensions which have been awarded for wounds or other naval or military service by the Ministry of Pensions?
  Mr. BALDWIN: In the case of officers a statutory deduction of 10 per cent. has hitherto been made from their civil salaries in respect of retired pay on account of naval or military service, whether for disability or otherwise, in accordance with the Superannuation Act, 1887, and rules there under; but I would remind the hon. Member that the Retired Officers (Civil Employment) Bill now before Parliament will, if passed, empower the Treasury to revoke or modify the existing rules bearing on this point, and it is the intention to discontinue the present deduction. In the case of other ranks, no deduction is made on account of pensions for service with His Majesty's Forces. As regards pensions for wounds or other disability, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Twickenham Division on the 18th February last

  ARMY LORRIES (OMNIBUS SERVICE).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now inform the House what financial arrangements have been come to between the Government and the London General Omnibus Company in regard to their use of Army lorries to supplement the omnibus service?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These arrangements are not yet settled, but they are under consideration.

  COAL SUPPLY.
  Dr. M'DONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the price of coal in this country, he will take immediate steps to inquire into the possibility of procuring a cheap supply from the easily-accessible coal fields of Spitzbergen; and whether he is

  599
  aware that coal can be procured, ready for shipment, at less than 7s. a ton in this area?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware that development is sufficiently advanced to justify the hope that there will be any very material assistance in the way of a substantial supply of cheap coal from Spitzbergen in the immediate future, particularly having regard to the question of freight, but I am causing inquiries to foe made into the matter.
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of the postponement of the 6s. per ton advance on the price of coal for the experimental period of three months, he will take steps to ensure that any stocks of coal during this period are not unfairly depleted by those holding Authority to draw a large ration and able to pay cash down partly with the object of saving the possible extra charge and partly to fill their cellars against a shortage of supply; and whether he will take all possible steps to see that the requirements of those not able to stock coal and less able to pay are justly and fairly met?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Under the House-bold Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, local fuel overseers have power to prevent coal merchants and dealers from making deliveries for stocking purposes to large consumers until they have established reserve stocks for the use of small consumers during the winter months. By exercising this power the requirements of the small consumers will be looked after as far as possible.
  Colonel BURDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause to be made out and lay weekly upon the Table of the House the total output of coal from mines in the United Kingdom and the separate output for each large coalfield, with the number of men employed each week in this industry?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Complete returns of output and employment are obtained from the collieries for four-weekly periods, and a weekly return of output of a provisional character is also obtained. I am afraid that it would not be practicable to obtain the former return for weekly periods, but as the number of men employed now shows only comparatively
  600
  small deviations over periods of four weeks, I think that it will meet the purpose which the hon. and gallant Member has in view if I lay upon the Table of the House each week the provisional weekly outputs, together with the final output and employment figures for each four-weekly period.
  Colonel BURDON: Could the hon. Gentleman not give the figures for the different coalfields, because that has a great bearing on the question?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that is what I have undertaken to do.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any American coal is being imported into this country, and what is the rate, freight included, at which such coal can be imported?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that certain negotiations have taken place with a view to the importation of American coal into this country, but I am not aware that any definite arrangements have been made. The usual prices, including freight, quoted for American coal delivered at European ports are from 30 to 33 dollars per ton, or 133s. to 147s. per ton at the present rate of exchange; the lowest firm offer of which I have received information is 23 dollars, or 100s., per ton, delivered at an Italian port. The f.o.b. price included in these figures may be taken at about 20s. to 23s. per ton.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if there are any import restrictions on coal coming into this country, in view of the shortage?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: If these negotiations are ratified, will that coal be carried in American or in British bottoms?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    NOTTINGHAM STATION (MIDLAND RAILWAY).
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. E. Somerfield, of West Bridgford, Nottingham, who has a siding on the Midland Railway at Nottingham and has placed orders with Mr. A. W. Plumb, of Mansfield, for tar, whose siding

    601
    is also on the Midland Railway, is involved in an additional expense for cartage at both ends of the journey, amounting to £4 16s. for each 4-ton lot, by reason of the fact that this material has to be carried by the Great Central Railway in consequence of the system adopted by the railway companies for allocating traffic; and whether he will give directions that the present system be revised and altered with a view of avoiding the heavy loss incurred by traders in this and similar cases?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of the particular case referred to in the question, but the attention of the Railway Executive Committee is being called to it. The railway companies are considering the arrangements which have been made, at Nottingham and elsewhere, for the allocation of traffic with the object of securing the most efficient handling of goods in the general public interest, and they will endeavour to minimise, as far as possible, any inconvenience caused by those arrangements.
    Mr. ATKEY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring pressure to bear on the Railway Executive, so that in allocating traffic they shall not divert it to a railway where the trader has no siding and that the trader shall be enabled where he has a siding on a particular railway to use that railway?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think they endeavour to do that as far as possible.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that when the Midland station at Nottingham was built it was deemed necessary to provide three entrances and exits in order to accommodate the travelling public; that two of these are closed; that this is causing the greatest inconvenience both to arriving and departing passengers; and that great indignation prevails in Nottingham against the Government, who are held responsible for the refusal of the Midland Railway Company to reopen their entrance in Station Street; whether he is power-loss in the matter; and, if so, will he suggest what other authority can be approached?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question, but for the reasons given in the reply to the question on the subject put by my hon. Friend on the 1st July, I fear the Board of Trade cannot press the railway company to reopen the two entrances and exits referred to.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are not the powers of the Board of Trade sufficient to prevent the railway company penning the travelling public in like sheep and inflicting upon them the very greatest inconvenience?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is a question of economy, and I am not prepared to press the railway companies to indulge in extravagance, but if, of course, there was any danger to the public using the station, then it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to intervene.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the station is a very crowded one and that a great number of people are suffering very great inconvenience?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes; but it is a question of danger. Most stations are crowded and very inconvenient.
    Mr. ATKEY: May I ask when the question of economy is supposed to out-balance the public convenience? And will he ascertain from the railway company the exact alleged cost of this restriction on the travelling public in the city of Nottingham, so that we may be able to offer some remedy to the Board of Trade if they cannot find one?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If he means that they are ready to bear the extra expense I will put the matter before the railway company.

    GATTIE TRANSPORT SYSTEM.
    Mr. RAPERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the fact that, in order to obtain an impartial and satisfactory inquiry into Mr. Gattie's goods clearinghouse scheme, it will be necessary for Mr. Gattie to be allowed to call as witnesses railway company managers; whether he will be given facilities to call these witnesses and for the same to be examined by counsel; (2) whether, in view of the great national importance of and the public interest in the inquiry to be held into Mr. Gattie's goods clearing-house scheme, he will arrange that the inquiry shall be held with open doors; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Gattie's proposals would specially affect the trade and commerce of this country, he will consider the addition to the Committee of some representative business men?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Matters relating to the selection of witnesses and procedure will be decided by the Committee. With regard to publicity and to the proposed addition to the Committee of representatives of commerce and industry, I have nothing to add to my replies to previous questions by the hon. Member.
    Major NALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North-Eastern Railway Company asked Mr. Gattie to inspect their Hull Station and report on the possibility of installing his system there, and that Mr. Gattie reported that it would be necessary to clear away the existing station, thereby involving a capital outlay which the North-Eastern Railway could not undertake?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have heard some report of the kind, but I am not quite sure if it is accurate.

    WAGON REPAIRS.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Labour whether the employés of Messrs. Roberts and Company, Horbury Junction, are on strike in consequence of their refusal either to allow demobilised soldiers and sailors to work alongside the members of the Railway Vehicle Builders' Union or to join the union; and what action he has taken or proposes to take in order that the repairing of railway wagons may not be held up?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): A strike has occurred at the works named, because the firm introduced certain unskilled ex-Service men on skilled work without previous arrangement with the trade union concerned. I am not aware that the question whether the ex-Service men should join the union has been raised. The Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee for the industry, who have been consulted about the employment of ex-Service men, did not support the firm's action. I have put before the union a proposal agreed with the firm as to the conditions under which ex-Service men shall undertake the work proposed in this firm.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, ex-Service men are at present engaged in the making and repairing of wagons, and are the only people who are engaged in this work?
    Mr. WARDLE: If that means that there is a strike on, I quite agree that there is a strike.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he heard the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on Monday, giving one of the causes for the limitation of output in the mines as the shortage of these wagons, and is he aware that at the present moment 25,000 wagons are awaiting repair in the various shops?
    Mr. WARDLE: I quite agree that there is a shortage of wagons, and that that is a very great problem, but we are doing our very utmost to get a settlement of this dispute.
    Major E. WOOD: Is he also aware that great complaints have been made as to the serious delay in his Department in dealing with this matter?
    Mr. WARDLE: There has been no delay in the Department in dealing with this matter.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an ex-corporal named Albert Edward Parfitt, who served twelve and a half years with the Colours, of which four and a half years were in the recent War, received an appointment at His Majesty's Stationery Office printing works, Farringdon Road; whether a Memorandum was sent by that Department to the secretary of the National Union of Paper Makers, 220, Blackfriars Road, intimating that Parfitt had been engaged, and asking that a permit might be given him pending the granting of a card; whether it is a fact that the union declined to accede to the request of His Majesty's Stationery Office, and that consequently this ex-soldier is precluded from earning his living as a result of his not having been a member of the union in pre-war days; and what action the Government intend to take in order that people who are desirous of working shall not suffer in this manner?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am informed by the Stationery Office that the facts are as stated in the question. I am communicating with the union on the matter.
  Sir F. HALL: Does my hon. Friend realise the importance of this position, and

  605
  what steps are going to be taken in order that soldiers who have served this country and who have saved this country are not going to be victimised by these trade unions in not being allowed to work?
  Mr. WARDLE: I quite realise the seriousness of the situation, but we cannot do anything until we have communicated with the union.
  Sir F. HALL: Do we understand that the Government cannot do anything to protect our soldiers, that they are not to be allowed to work for their living? Are they going to do nothing?
  Mr. WARDLE: My hon. and gallant Friend is not to understand that.
  Sir F. HALL: What do we understand?
  Mr. WARDLE: We are communicating with the union with a view to securing what he has desired in his question.
  Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will put down a question on this matter again early next week and expect a full reply.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of this special application of the Un employment Pay Regulations to ex- Service men, he will arrange for them to be represented on the Court of Referees?
    Mr. WARDLE: Appointments to the employers' and workmen's panels of the Courts of Referees are made on nominations from local employment committees. Ex-Service men who are either employers or workmen are eligible for appointment to the panels, and if, in any district, they are not represented on the panels, I should be pleased to consider favourably nominations made through the medium of the committees.

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (PROMOTION).
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction throughout the Post Office with regard to the present methods of promotion; whether in the Liverpool Post Office he has recently promoted nine

  606
  men over sixty-five to eighty-five of their seniors; if so, whether he will see that this subject is treated as one of urgency by the Whitley Committees which are about to be set up; and if, pending a drastic reform by such committees, he will inform all officers when they are about to be passed over, in order that effective appeals may be made?
  Mr. PEASE: It is the case that the recent promotion of certain sorting clerks and telegraphists at Liverpool to the class of overseers involved the passing over of a number of officers senior to them. I am satisfied that the officers selected were the best qualified for the higher positions. The question of the principles governing promotion can be raised by the staff representatives on the Whitley Committees as soon as these committees are set up. It would not be practicable to comply with the suggestion contained in the last sentence of the hon. Member's question Any officer passed over has a right of appeal to the Postmaster-General.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICES (OVERTIME).
  Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction which exists in the large telegraph offices due to the excessive overtime which the men have been, and are being, compelled to work, especially at Birmingham and Manchester; whether at Manchester 2,000 hours of overtime were worked by the men during the past week; whether he will state the total cost of such extra duty; and whether, in view of the serious financial state of the country, he will endeavour to avoid this expenditure and relieve his staff of these conditions by endeavouring to secure the return of the men who are being retained with the forces?
  Mr. PEASE: The public telegraph traffic has shown a very large increase in the last few months, and I am aware that a considerable amount of overtime is still necessary. No current figures are available, but I am making a general inquiry as regards the amount of overtime worked by indoor staffs throughout the country, and considering what steps can be taken to reduce it. About 6,000 telegraphists have been released from the forces, and every effort is being made to secure the return of all men who are not required for the Armies of Occupation.
  Mr. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that overtime is necessary, in view of the fact that some of the men who were previously employed by the Post Office, and have served their country and returned, now cannot find employment?
  Mr. PEASE: So far as the Government Department is concerned, the greatest endeavour is made to obtain all the skilled men that can be obtained. There is a great scarcity. So far as overtime is concerned, I can only say that my right hon. Friend and myself are very anxious indeed to reduce overtime as far as possible.

  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, ESH WINNING DISTRICT.
  Mr. SWANasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the lack of telephone facilities in the Esh Winning district, county of Durham, and the inconvenience to the public caused thereby; and if he will take steps to supply adequate telephone requirements for the district?
  Mr. PEASE: Inquiry is being made as to the cost of providing a telephone service in the Esh Winning district, and as to the number of subscribers forthcoming, and I will then communicate again with the hon. Member.

  TEACHERS (PAYMENT OF PENSIONS).
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the recent change in the mode of payment of pensions to superannuated teachers; whether he is aware that such change has led to delay in the payment of such pensions and to serious inconvenience to the persons entitled to such pensions; and whether he will take steps to ensure that these persons are paid their pensions punctually at the end of March, June, September, and December, as was done prior to the change?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the North-West Division of Kingston-upon-Hull on the 14th instant.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Has this grievance been removed?
  Mr. LEWIS: The answer that was given on the occasion to which I have referred was that the delay was due to the shortage of staff at the Board of Education, and that every effort was being made to overcome it.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BREAD ORDER.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Food Controller (1) whether the Committee now sitting on the Bread Order, 1918, has yet reported; if not, whether he can see any objection to permitting the supplying of new bread during the summer months; (2) whether he is aware that large numbers of people refuse to eat the stale bread provided by the Defence of the Realm Act; whether large quantities of it are in consequence wasted; and whether he will, now that Peace is declared, permit bakers to supply the ordinary new bread as in pre-war days?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that in certain localities there is a general demand for new bread, but I am not aware that, large numbers of people are refusing to-eat the bread supplied or that large quantities of bread are being wasted. At the request of the War Cabinet, the twelve hours' Clause of the Bread Order has been maintained pending the issue of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into night work in the baking trade. I understand that this Report has now been presented, and I am in communication with the Minister of Labour with a view to obtaining his consent to the revocation of Clause 1 of the Broad Order at an early date.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the Minister of Health consulted before this step was taken?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Not that I am aware of.
    Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the eating of new bread has nothing whatever to do with night baking, and that the bread sold in the afternoon can quite well be new?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am quite willing to accept the assurance of my hon. and gallant Friend.

    LONDON DOCKS (CONGESTION).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Food Controller if he will explain the reason for the congestion of foodstuffs at the London docks; whether these goods are being held for export to Germany, where higher prices may be obtained; and, if so, will he take the necessary action to see that these goods are kept in this country, particularly in view of the shortage of food and the present high prices?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The congestion of foodstuffs in ports is part of the general congestion which is engaging the attention of the Departments concerned. There is no reason for supposing that foodstuffs are being held in the hope of export to Germany at higher prices, since the export of the staple foodstuffs from this country is still prohibited, and there is at present no intention of altering that prohibition. Some of the supplies which were sold by the Government to Germany as part of the Armistice arrangements remain to be shipped, but no new sales of any staple article are in contemplation. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this congestion arises as a result of the jealousy between the executive which is looking after and carrying on the ports and harbours of the country and the executive of the railways?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir; I think the consideration is much more profound than that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we are to sit tomorrow, and, if so, what the business will be; also the business for next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; it is necessary to sit to-morrow, and the business will be the Coal Mines Bill (Second Reading), if we are not able to take it to-day; the Police Bill (Second Reading); and, I hope, in addition, the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill (Report); the War Loan Bill, and, possibly, the Government of the, Soudan Loan (Guarantee) Bill.
Monday—the Peace Bill, and I hope the House may find it possible to allow all stages to be taken.
610
Tuesday—Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill, Report.
Wednesday—Finance Bill, when I hope the Report and Third Reading will be taken.
Thursday—Supply: Navy Vote on Account.
Friday—Housing (Scotland) Bill, Report, and, I hope, Third Reading.
Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that, with regard to one of the PeaceTreaties—namely, the Anglo-French Treaty—there is likely to be considerable discussion? Will he also bear in mind the fact that there will be considerable difficulty in fulfilling the hopes he expresses of taking all the stages of the Bill on Monday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, there is no intention of forcing it in any way through the House of Commons. We all recognise the vital importance of the matter, but I think it may be that the House itself would wish we should get these Bills finished.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that whenever any of us has tried to raise any question on these Treaties he has been told that an opportunity will be given the House on their ratification. Is he aware of the very important Amendment standing on the Paper in my own name?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the fact of the Amendment.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: But the importance of it?
Captain ORMSBY-GORE: In respect to the business before us to-morrow, are we to take it that the Government do not propose to take the Government of the Soudan Loan Bill without some discussion? No statement has been made on it up to the present. May I take it a statement will be made?
Mr. BONAR LAW: A statement will be made, I expect, on the Money Resolution.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will not Monday be the only opportunity of discussing and amending the whole of the Peace Treaty, including the League of Nations and everything else of the sort, and does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that one day is sufficient?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say more than I have said. It will be for the House

611
of Commons to judge. The Government, are anxious to have all the formal proceedings, so far as the British Government is concerned, finished as quickly as possible.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the light hon. Gentleman now give me a favourable reply to the question I put some weeks ago, as to whether an opportunity will be given of discussing the Covenant of the League of Nations apart from the settlement of the Peace with Germany?
Mr. BONAR LAW: That is impossible, because it is part of the Peace Treaty.
Major O'NEILL: May I ask when it is proposed to move the thanks of Parliament to the Navy and the Army?
Mr. BONAR LAW: That question has been waiting until the return of the Prime Minister. If a question is put down next week I will try to answer it.
Mr. ATKEY: Is the Prime Minister expected to address us on Monday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, certainly; he intends to be here.
Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government is going to move a vote of thanks to the profiteers?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Has the hon. Member put down a Motion with that object?
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Ordered,
"That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business, other than the Business of Supply, may be considered before Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Ordered,
"That Revenue Departments Estimates, 1919–20, Vote 3 (Post Office), be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords],
Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes
612
of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the case of Stoney's Divorce Bill [Lords] and in the case of Pallin's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[The Lord Advocate.]

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL,
Reported, with Amendments, front Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 141.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20).
Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1920 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major Baird and Mr. Lyle-Samuel.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: colonel William Thorne.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA).
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Viscount Cave to attend to be examined as a

613
witness before the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area).—[Mr.Kennedy Jones.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Sunderland Gas Bill [Lords] without Amendment.
Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Leeds to acquire lands for providing further housing accommodation; and to construct tramways, street improvements, and waterworks; to extend the boundary of the city: and for other purposes." [Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords.]

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, Etc., BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Newark Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
City and South London Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Sheringham Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
SIR CHARLES HANSON reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.
WELLS PARTICULAR BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL,—"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain charities," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
NATIONAL TRUST CHARITY BILL,—"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity called the National Trust of Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, incorporated by the National Trust Aft, 1907," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
BROOKE ROBINSON MUSEUM CHARITY BILL—"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity called or known as the Brooke Robinson Museum, in the borough of Dudley, in the county of Worcester," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL,—" to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application

615
or management of certain charities," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
EATINGTON WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL PROPERTY BILL,—"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity consisting of certain property in the parish of Eatington, in the county of Warwick, used as a schoolroom in connection with the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel in the said parish," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
PLUMTRE HOSPITAL CHARITY BILL,—" to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity called or known as Plumtre Hospital, in the city of Nottingham," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
HEADCORN BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL, —"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity consisting of the Baptist Chapel and Trust Property in the parish of Headcorn, in the county of Kent," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 142.]
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL,—"to provide for the constitution of Councils and Committees in connection with Agriculture and Fisheries and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909," presented by Sir Arthur Boscawen; supported by the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

SUPPLY.— [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 14th July.]
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: Before I read the Vote to the Committee it will perhaps be desirable that I should explain why in my opinion one of the subjects which, I understand, some hon. Members desired to raise to-day will not be in order. I refer to the question of Colour service counting for Civil Service pensions. I have looked very carefully into the matter, and I find on referring to the Superannuation Act, 1892, and the Superannuation Act, 1887, that the question can only be dealt with by legislation. That takes it outside the scope of our discussion in Committee in Supply.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that on previous occasions we have discussed the matter on this Vote?
  The CHAIRMAN: If so, there has been carelessness on the part of the Chairman whoever he was. It may have been myself—not then having looked into it so carefully as on this occasion. But I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the two Acts to which I have referred, particularly to the Superannuation Act, 1892, Section 4, he will find the terms of that Section are conclusive on the matter.
  Mr. HOGGE: Your ruling will not, I suppose, exclude discussion of other Army questions which do arise naturally. It will not exclude other questions which naturally arise on the Post Office Vote—a discussion, say, on the distribution of war service gratuities by the Postmaster-General, which are paid by the country, but are distributed by my right hon. Friend?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is quite a different question. Anything that is within the limit of the administrative power of the Postmaster-General can be discussed on the Post Office Vote.
  Brigadier-General PAGE CROFT: Does your ruling apply to the case of what is known as the K Company of the Royal Engineers, which is a case where the pensions are not being granted for the ser-
  654
  vices of men actually in the Post Office, and which was dealt with by the Holt Committee?
  The CHAIRMAN: That requires legislation.
  Colonel BURN: When will an opportunity be given to discuss the question of counting the Colour service for special pension?
  The CHAIRMAN: Not on any Vote in Committee of Supply. That is all I am concerned about. In Committee of Supply, on whatever Vote, we can only deal with something that is within the administrative competence of the Minister under existing legislation. Hon. Members who wish to press for amending legislation can use other forms of the House, but not Committee of Supply.
  Colonel BURN: Can it be brought up on the Estimates?
  The CHAIRMAN: No; not on the Estimates.
  Earl WINTERTONWould it not come under the Army Vote for men, seeing there was clearly a promise made to these men that this service should count towards their Post Office pension? The Leader of the House was asked about it the other day.
  The CHAIRMAN: Any promise made by the Minister of War is open to discussion on the Army Vote.

  POST OFFICE VOTE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £25,273,922, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.—£18,000,000 has been voted on account.]"

  POSTMASTER-GENERAL'S STATEMENT.
  4.0 p.m.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The Post Office now covers such a large field of activities—there is both the Post Office business and the work undertaken for other Departments—that it is impossible to deal with all the subjects in one speech. Consequently, I propose to refer only to those questions which have excited criticism both inside and outside this House. That, of course, will confine my remarks to not many subjects. On the two previous occasions that I have addressed the House on the Post Office Esti-

  655
  mates I have not referred much to the financial position. Everyone knows that the position was so obscure that it made it very difficult, and I am afraid that at the present moment the position is not very much clearer. Still, I will do my best, and give the Estimates that I and my financial advisers have made. In the year 1913–14 the profit on all the services of the Post Office amounted to £5,200,000; in the year which has just closed, 1918–1919, the profit amounted to the larger sum of £6,500,000, which is the largest sum, I believe, that has ever been made in the Post Office in any one year. That is one record which I hold during my term of office as Postmaster-General. Unfortunately, it has not continued up to date, and I must present my hon. Friends opposite with a very much worse record. The estimated deficit for the year 1919–20 will amount, in round figures, to about £2,000,000. It is not possible to make an exact estimate, as so many factors have to be taken into consideration. There is the question of demobilisation, the uncertainty of the revival of trade, the extent that trade will revive, and there are possible changes which may take place in the rates of wages and prices of material. I cannot say for the moment that there appears to be any prospect of a reduction in those two last-named items. During the War, in order to make provision, and to meet to some extent the extra cost of the Post Office, there have been increases in charges which, during this year, will bring in £6,500,000 more as compared with the year before the War.
  When we turn to the expenditure side of the account, we find an enormous increase of work for Government Departments, mainly the fighting Departments, the War Office, the Admiralty, and, later, the Air Force. This will continue for the present, though I hope and trust—up to date my hope has not been realised—that it will be on a smaller scale. The prices of materials have very largely increased, and the cost of the mail-cart service has greatly increased. The drivers of the mail carts used to work very long hours—I believe about sixty and over—but now their hours are reduced to forty-eight, without any reduction of pay. Of course, this has made a very large increase in the cost of the mail-cart service. The cause of the main increase in the cost of working the Post Office is the bonus on wages which has
  656
  been given since the War began, and which now amounts to £14,500,000 per annum more than was paid in the year before the War. Against this item the charges which has been transferred to the public only amount to £6,500,000 per annum. We had to consider, in view of this great increase, whether it was necessary or desirable to make a general increase in the charges for the services rendered by the Post Office; but I do not think, during the period of reconstruction, when it is necessary to maintain as cheap and efficient a service as possible, it would be in the general interests of the country to make a general increase of charges all round. Later on, towards the end of the year, or when the year is finished, we shall see whether this is going to be the permanent situation or not.
  The financial transactions which have been conducted by the Post Office on account of other Departments are very large, and are really the direct outcome of the War. Last year the separation allowances alone caused some 179,000,000 separate transactions, and payments amounting to over £157,000,000. The pensions amounted to 38,000,000 separate payments, involving a sum of £34,000,000. Since the Armistice over 3,000,000 cases of demobilisation have been dealt with, and it has all been done hurriedly, involving payments of over £50,000,000. When such large figures as those have to be dealt with, it is not astonishing that in a few instances the regimental paymasters, or whoever the people responsible in the Army happen to be, and the Post Office, should make a few mistakes. There were also other big financial transactions in connection with the War Loans. The amount dealt with through the Post Office before the present War Loan, the figures of which are not complete, was over £401,000,000, and, as most of it was made up of small, or rather small, sums, it is very satisfactory to know that the deposits in the Savings Bank since 31st March, 1914, have increased from £189,000,000 to £252,000,000 at the end of March this year. The latter figure includes, perhaps, £20,000,000 in connection with the payment of war gratuities.
  I have dealt roughly with the general financial position. I propose to go further into the question of the finance of the telephone service, which has been the subject of a certain amount of criticism lately, though whether it has all been directed against the telephone service or whether

  657
  it has been for other motives I am not prepared to say. The National Telephone Company had a capital of some £11,000,000, including debentures, preference shares, and ordinary shares, and on this they paid 6 per cent. dividends on certain deferred stocks, preference shares, and others; but the average dividend on the whole capital for the five years before the transfer to the State was £5.13 per cent. In 1913–14, after the service had been transferred to the State, it showed a profit of £239,000 in addition to an interest charge of £692,000. These two figures together gave a dividend of £4.29 per cent. on the total capital employed. Above this, the National Telephone Company paid in royalties to the Post Office 10 per cent. on the gross receipts from the service. This in the last year of working amounted to £353,000, but, as everybody knows, the provision of the National Telephone Company for pensions and wages paid were not what could be described by anybody as being on a liberal scale. All they provided for pensions in their last year was £13,000. Immediately the service was taken over by the State this sum was increased in 1913–14 to £243,000 per annum. Not only that, but salaries and wages were immediately increased by £158,000 per annum, and, though by transferring to the Post Office the undertaking has benefited by the extinction of the royalties, amounting to £350,000, paid by the company, this is more than set off by the addition of wages and pensions. The latter, in round figures, amount to £400,000 a year.
  The plant was run down, it has been very expensive to keep it in anything near a working state, and in the future it will call for a very heavy outlay of capital in order to bring it up anywhere near to a state of satisfactory efficiency. The dividend which would have been paid had this been a commercial concern is only 1 per cent. less than the average dividend that was paid by the National Telephone Company in the five years before the War, and that is accounted for by the improved conditions and pay of the staff. Before the War and after the system had been taken over by the State the profit, as I have already said, amounted to £239,000, and if the situation had not been so tragically altered by the War I am perfectly certain that it would still be making similar profits, or, at any rate, profits somewhere in the region of those which it was making before.
  Mr. S. WALSH: That is not the profit made by the National Telephone Company?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No; it is the profit made in the first year after the service had been taken over by the State—the year 1913–14. On account of the War the cost of living has increased by degrees, and, consequently, the bonus in the way of wages paid to the telephone workers has been also increased. It began in 1915–16 with a very modest sum of £177,000. In 1918–19 this had increased to £1,440,000 per annum, and this year it amounts to £2,500,000, or more than the wages paid when the telephone service was first taken over by the State. That means that the wages bill has practically doubled since 1913–14. These are not, I am sorry to say, all the inevitable troubles which have arisen. This is a result over which we have had no control whatever. Over and above all this, provision has had to be made for the pension liability which has increased concurrently with the rate of wages. The renewal of the plant will be very much more expensive, and the new construction and extension of the system will be very expensive, and as a consequence the provision for depreciation must be very much higher than it was when the same number of units were put in during the War. An exchange costing £100,000 before the War will now cost very much more, and certainly more than double. Towards all these extra expenses all that was done in 1913 was to transfer to the public a charge of £500,000 a year.
  The present position is that the increased cost of services in labour and higher prices comes out at between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000 a year, and the increased rates have only produced about £500,000. Consequently hon. Members will realise that, it is obvious that the services must either be run at a loss, and so become a charge on the taxpayer, or the charges must be increased to the public. All commercial undertakings in private businesses have increased their charges, and I do not see why telephone charges should not be increased. Everything has increased. Most of our newspapers have doubled the selling price of their wares. This, however, is not quite so simple a matter as it appears at first sight. People not familiar with the administration of the telephones cannot realise the complication involved in constructing a tariff which will be fair and at the same time yield sufficient revenue

  659
  to place the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. Naturally, this is a matter of very great interest to the general public. Almost everyone in the country has an interest in it. I am having schemes prepared which I am considering, and when these are ready I propose to come to the House and ask for a Select Committee to examine them and advise upon them, and undertake all the functions usually performed by a Select Committee.
  Sir F. HALL: Would that be on the whole organisation of the Post Office?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am now referring only to the telephone. The increased cost of working is not confined to this country, but it also affects the service in America. The present rates in New York are a little above the London rates for small users, but for large users they are considerably higher. In London for £6 10s. a subscriber gets 360 calls per annum, as against the charge for a similar number in New York of £8 6s. 8d. I am taking the normal exchange. For 800 calls the charge is practically the same in London and New York, but when we come to the larger number of calls, for 3,000 calls in London the charge is £17 10s. against £26 5s. in New York. The cost of the telephone service in the States has increased very considerably, though perhaps not quite so much as in this country. The cost of their material has gone up about 100 per cent. and wages about 70 per cent. I think the members of this Committee will see that I have shown the reason why the telephones have been run at a loss in this country is the direct result of the War in. increasing the cost which has not been transferred to the public, as has been done in practically every other business or public utility undertaking. This increase in cost is not peculiar to the telephone but extends over all industries up and down the country in varying degrees according to the cost of labour used, the cost of raw materials, and so on. That is all I have to say about the financial position of the telephones.
  I now come to the general position of the telephone service, which has been very much criticised lately by people who, I am sure, are not fully conversant with all the facts and difficulties with which we have to deal. One of the many difficulties we have had to contend with during the War has been the question of staff. When a great demand for munitions was made
  660
  a good many of the telephone staff, who were very efficient and highly-trained girls, went to other positions in various offices and places where the work was easier, and where they considered they were performing more patriotic work than when being employed answering telephone calls all day. A great number left on account of this, and the result naturally has been that a very large percentage of inexperienced staff wore left to man the exchanges.
  In 1915, less than 4 per cent. of the people employed in the exchanges in London had under six months' experience or service in the telephones. Now this amounts on the average to fully 25 per cent., and in some of the exchanges it is at an even higher figure than that. Before the War, when we had a large number of very experienced girls of many years' service, we were able to put them on to the busiest parts of the board and if there was one very inexperienced girl she could be put next to a very experienced one who would be able to help her out of her difficulties. Now the instruments have to be manned by those who have not so much experience, and the inevitable result is that there have been many more mistakes and a great slowing down of the service. Many of these girls, in order to maintain the service at all, are being put on the boards after six or seven weeks' experience in the schools. Not only that but before the War the Government telephone services did not make many calls on the Post Office. We only had then some 107 people who were lent to the various Government offices. At the beginning of the War there was an enormous expansion of the various Ministries—the fighting ones, of course—and over and above that there was a fair number of new Ministries started, such as the Ministry of Munitions, the Air Board, the Food Control, and so on, which caused a very great demand on the trained staff. In 1918, at the time of the Armistice, over 800 were supplied to the various Government Departments, and now the number is still over 700. I keep hoping it will decrease, but it does not decrease with anything like the speed I should like to see. The position, however, has got better, and the supply of recruits is improving, and not so many are leaving, and consequently, slowly but gradually, things are improving, and I hope it will go on at a quicker rate as the year goes by and we shall get more efficiency.

  661
  The average number of daily calls about the time of the Armistice in London was somewhere between 900,000 and 1,000,000 per day, and this has increased now to over 1,250,000 per day. That means we have got a much heavier load to handle by a less experienced staff, and this is one of the principal reasons which accounts for the deterioration of the service since the time of the Armistice. Recruiting is not assisted by the Press and public ridiculing and abusing the telephone operators, charging the girls with yawning and talking together, and reading novels instead of attending to their duties. I wish some hon. Members not conversant with the inside of these exchanges would come and see them. Some hon. Members have done so, and they have been astounded at the activity shown. The girls have no time while they are on duty for reading novels, or sewing, or knitting, or conversing, or anything else. They are continually on the go. I hope as things improve the strain will be less on the girls, but how soon I do not know. On the other hand, the language used by some of the subscribers over the telephone to the girls is such as to make them reply. I should like hon. Members to know that there is a human being at each end of the telephone. They have their irritation, and their troubles and annoyances, just the same as the impatient creature who is trying to call out a number. The best assistance really that can be given—and it is not a big thing to ask—is more patience and forbearance under difficult circumstances, and to try and make the work of the telephone operator more congenial, and if they do that, I am sure they will get a better supply of people, and the subscribers will be more content as well as the operators. It is very easy for an inexperienced operator to make a mistake. Some may have as many as 10,000 numbers to deal with on the board. In order to be accessible, 100 numbers must not occupy more than 8½ inches by 1⅞ inches, and when operators are in a hurry—I know they should not do it—it is very easy for them to connect the subscriber up to a wrong number. All construction work has been suspended for five years, and switchboard positions have been all taken up, all spare wires and cables have been exhausted, and that has made it impossible for us to put on new subscribers who are very
  662
  anxious to be joined up. I have referred to a few of the principal outstanding difficulties.
  I now propose to put before the Committee the remedies which we are going to apply. The recruiting question I have already dealt with. There is a great shortage of underground cables, and this year I propose to spend £250,000 in laying extra cables. But this will not, by itself, relieve the whole of the congestion. It may relieve it to a certain extent in some exchanges, but it will not really be of much relief until new buildings are ready, or the present ones extended—both buildings and switchboards. The latter take one year to make. The first new exchange, which will be in operation towards the end of the year, will be called the Clerkenwell Exchange. It will relieve Avenue and London Wall, two of the busiest exchanges in London. Immediately it is ready it will be able to take 1,700 new subscribers, and I hope that before long the number will be increased to 7,000. The Avenue switchboard is also being extended, and before very long the boards at Victoria, Hop, and Park will be extended. In order to improve the trunk service the shorter trunk circuits are being moved out of the present building, which is very much congested, into another building where there will be more room. I should add that a new exchange will be built on the site of the Inns of Court Hotel. We have not begun pulling down that building yet, but the work will be in hand before long. There will also be two new exchanges at Bishopsgate and Tower, and three more in the West End to relieve Holborn, Victoria, and Mayfair. In outer London seven new exchanges will be built and five others will be considerably extended.
  In the provinces about £250,000 are being spent in laying underground cables in over twenty towns—Perth, Dunferm-line, Saltburn, Lincoln, Grimsby, Dews-bury, Ashton-under-Lyne, Eccles, Accring-ton, Stroud, Newcastle (Staffordshire), Malvern, Cardiff, Porth, Tonypandy, Mansfield, Nottingham, Chesterfield, Market Harborough, Sheffield, Shrewsbury, Norwich, Aldershot—and some smaller places. A new exchange has just been completed at Huddersfield, and is working very satisfactorily. A new switchboard is being provided for the Central Exchange, Liverpool, and exten-

  663
  sions at the Bank Exchange, Liverpool, and at Derby and Leeds. Orders will be placed almost immediately for five new exchanges (switchboards and apparatus) at Carlisle, West Bromwich, Milnsbridge, Northampton, Guildford, and there will be extensions of existing exchanges (switchboards and apparatus) at Lincoln, Cambridge, Birmingham North, and Hove.
  The building programme for the provinces this year includes eight new exchanges — Grantham, Henley-on-Thames, Stratford-on-Avon, Lancaster, Southport, Northampton, Preston, Whitley Bay (Northumberland), and extensions to seven existing exchanges, namely, at Dublin, Swansea, Burnley, Dundee, Canterbury, Fleetwood, and Wigan. A principal item in our work will be the provision of underground now trunk lines from London to Manchester, passing Northampton, Leicester, Loughborough, and Derby. From Derby a line will run to Nottingham, and there will be a new cable from Derby to Sheffield and Leeds. This will be a big undertaking, and will not be finished for about eighteen months. Contracts have been placed for certain underground cables between Liverpool and Manchester, Liverpool and Chester, Leeds and Wakefield, Manchester and Bolton, Manchester and Rochdale, Glasgow and Motherwell, and London and Stanmore (to connect with other routes—Luton, Watford, St. Albans, etc.). Eight underground telephone lines will be begun during the year—London to Bristol, London to Southampton, Loughborough to Nottingham, Derby to Nottingham, Hull to Grimsby, Leeds to Harrogate, Leeds to York, and Paisley to Greenock, In addition, 140 overhead circuits will be provided. Contracts have been placed for new duct lines to be subsequently cabled—Glasgow to Coatbridge, Coatbridge to Airdrie, Motherwell to Hamilton, Motherwell to Wishaw, Glasgow to Dumbarton, Ormskirk to Preston, Rawtenstall to Bacup, Slough to Windsor, and Sevenoaks to Tunbridge Wells. The total cost of these will amount to some £3,000,000. About £1,000,000 will be spent this year, and, in addition, about £2,000,000 on exchange and local work. I should very much like to have been able to say that there are larger sums than these to be spent during the year, but, unfortunately, there will be a good deal of delay and difficulty in getting material and engineers. Many of these men
  664
  are still in the Army—between 3,000 and 4,000 of them—and I can assure the Committee we are anxious to get them released as soon as possible. Government priority has been abolished except in the most important cases, and official calls have now been placed on a par with public calls. During the War trunk lines have been taken over by the fighting Services. Those trunk lines were really absolutely necessary for them to conduct their business, and they numbered in all 342. The number now held by them is 112. This will improve naturally the trunk service to a certain extent.
  Captain W. BENN: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Telegraphs—
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am dealing with the Telephones, not with the Telegraphs. There has been introduced, but only in an experimental stage, in America, what we hope to introduce also in an experimental stage in this country, and that is what is called the Multiplex Telephone system, enabling several people to telephone in each direction over the same wire at the same time. By this it is hoped to get five messages over one wire at the same time in each direction. But this is only in the experimental stage at present, and is not very practicable, as only one wire can be put on a pole. There are difficulties in insulating the other wires, and they can only be used overground and not underground.
  Sir F. HALL: Do you not run a great risk of induction—of the messages being heard by more than one person? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, with regard to the telephone, it has been found on several occasions where there have been two or three messages on one wire, two or three people have heard them all at the same time?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Under certain circumstances that has occurred. It has been due, perhaps, to the bad insulation of the wires. I do not think that the telephone system has really had any fair chance in this country. The National Telephone Company, which was working under a terminable licence, naturally when that was coming to the end of its tether was not going to lay out large sums of money, especially as the amount to be paid was to be settled by arbitrators. Again, the development of the industry by the Post Office had only just begun when the War started, and it had to be suspended. That

  665
  was followed by five years of depreciation of plant which the Government were unable to keep up in an efficient state. A beginning is now being made which will, I hope, as material and labour become available, be extended very considerably. There has been delay this year as the result of severe storms, and it took months to repair the wires which were thrown down. This has held up the development very considerably, but since the Armistice we have not been altogether idle. We have put in over 60,000 telephones in one part of the country or another. I am quite well aware it is not the business of the Postmaster-General to apologise for the shortcomings of the service; it is his duty, rather, to find out what the shortcomings are and to remedy them. I have explained the difficulties, I have also told the Committee what steps are being taken to overcome them. I think hon. Members will agree it is a very extensive programme, but I hope the result will be, in the course of time, although not immediately I am afraid, a very much more efficient service than we have had for some years. Laying underground cables has been a very pressing question for many years. It will prevent a great deal of interruption which has been experienced in the past on account of storms both of snow and wind. With all said and done, I am sure that the telephone system in this country and in London compares very favourably with that of any other of the belligerent countries.
  Captain S. WILSON: What about America?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In the "Times" of the 4th July there was published a long article called "America Revisited," which described the present conditions in the United States as compared with pre-war conditions, and I should like to quote these few words from it:
  "It is with mixed emotions that the English visitor arriving in America finds that the New York telephone service is a good deal worse than that of London. Irritation is tempered with a certain grim satisfaction. For more than twenty years we have had to submit with such equanimity as we could to the jeers of the American in England on our telephone service."
  I desire to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the American telephone service has been under war strain a period of three years less than our own service. Some months ago—
  Captain WILSON: I saw that letter in the paper, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has confirmation of it from his own knowledge.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I was just going to say that some months ago somebody sent me a paper from Boston containing an article over a column long, which said that they wished they could have as good a service in New York as we were having at the time in London. I have not had time to confirm everything said in this article in the "Times," but I know quite well that the deterioration in New York has been considerable. Cables are not, strictly speaking, under the Government, but we have always worked harmoniously with the companies, and we have done what we could to assist one another. As hon. Members know, they are under the management of private companies, with the exception of one or two small ones. The cables generally, however, are showing rather less delay, except for Egypt and Australia. Like the rest of the Post Office services, they are suffering from too much traffic and also from frequent interruption. In addition, there was the cessation of work which went through Germany and Russia, where the cables have naturally not been used since the War began. Under ordinary conditions the capacity of these cables is 253,000 words per day, but on account of the interruptions and various other troubles at present their capacity has been reduced to 167,000 words. Government traffic is enormous. It is eighteen times more than it was before the War. As I said about the telephones, I am anxiously looking forward to the day—it appears to be continually put off—when there will be a substantial reduction in this Government traffic. It is now occupying 25 per cent. of the total capacity of the Eastern cables. I am glad to say that at last the censorship of cables will be abolished as from midnight on Wednesday next. That will allow the introduction of private codes and a consequent decrease of between 20 and 30 per cent. in the traffic. I know the cable companies place it rather higher, but I prefer to put it at a more reasonable figure. Unless there is an increase in the messages, there should be a great acceleration in the service. I am assured by the companies that they are doing everything in their power—I know it is so—to improve their service and make it as efficient

  667
  as possible. Nobody regrets more than they do the great inconvenience caused to business men, especially those trading with the East. The companies are fully alive to that. I am sure the trading community will keep them posted up as they have done me.
  The postal services of this country are gradually being restored. The town district deliveries have been increased from five to seven, and in the sub-districts from three to four, or four to five, or five to six, according to the importance of the locality. The last delivery commencing at eight till nine will be restored before very long. An extra delivery in the East Central district has already been put on. There will be additional facilities in other districts at the end of this month. That would have been done sooner except for the delay caused in dealing with what are called "split duties." I am trying, as far as possible, to do away with those or to diminish them as much as possible, and I hope that in these districts we shall be able to carry on a reasonable service. In the provinces, in towns, three deliveries a day will be given, four in the larger towns, possibly five in some of the largest provincial cities, while the collections will be about double this number. Many have already been put into force, and others will be brought into operation as soon as possible I would like to point out to hon. Members that there are still 27,000 men in the Army, which adds to our difficulties.
  Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the postal deliveries to Scotland? There have been complaints about the delay of deliveries to Edinburgh and Leith.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member did not give me notice that he wanted information about those deliveries. I would remind him that, there are some 25,000 post offices, and if he picks out two of them, I cannot be expected to give all the details. I shall be pleased to give him all the information he wishes, if he will be good enough to give me notice. The restricted hours of business which have been necessary on account of the shortage of labour are being removed to a very large extent. All scale payment sub-post offices are still being opened at nine instead of eight
  668
  where there is no great inconvenience to the public. The closing during the middle of the day has been reduced to one hour. The mid-day closing of offices has been abolished where they are directly staffed by people under the Post Office.
  The road mail services are being improved gradually where it has been possible to get hold of motors or horses as the case may be. I hope that soon they will be very much extended. It does not altogether depend upon the Post Office. In some cases the first delivery is still affected by the restricted railway service. The railway companies have been obliged to cut down the number of trains and also their speed. We have to depend upon them very much, more especially in the country districts, for early and efficient posts. The question of air mails is one which, naturally, has occupied our attention very much during the War. This has been placed entirely, and quite rightly, under the care of the Air Force. It does not do to have half a dozen people interfering with one thing. The results which have been achieved in flying the Atlantic have been very remarkable. The first attempt by Hawker, unfortunately, was not a complete success, but he managed to deliver a small number of letters which he was bringing, and they were quite safely delivered in London. I received a letter from the Postmaster-General of Newfoundland, to which I replied in suitable terms. The next attempt, by Captain Alcock, was completely successful. He flew in sixteen hours from Newfoundland to Ireland, and managed to deliver his mails in a very satisfactory condition and in a short time. What I consider to be one of the most remarkable achievements was that just accomplished by the R 34—the lighter-than-air ship—which went from here to America in an incredible short time, made a round, and came back to this country again. I sent a letter to the Postmaster-General of Canada by the R34, and a few hours after she arrived back in this country his reply was delivered to me at the General Post Office in London. Of course, these things do not make the question of air mails a practical proposition, but it has been shown that there are great possibilities. In the course of time, if the progress made is as rapid as has been made in the flying branch of the Army, before many years the long distance post, at any rate, may be carried by cither lighter or heavier-than-air machines.
  Captain W. BENN: What about internal mails by air in these Islands?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: At present the great difficulty is the state of the atmosphere, I am told there is great difficulty in navigating in a hazy atmosphere and also in landing. I am informed that when that is overcome it will be a practical proposition for the longer distances. I do not know what means are taken to fly and land in thick weather, but I gather that it will not be beyond the resources of the people of this country to do that.
  I have just touched on a few of the outstanding features of the Post Office which have come in for a certain amount of criticism during the War. Hon. Members will realise that the Post Office business has been carried on under the greatest difficulties during the War—difficulties which have been very much accentuated since I became Postmaster-General, which was a few months after the Conscription Acts came into force, when a greater number of men were required for the Army. I would remind hon. Members that over 85,000 men have gone from the Post Office into the Army. Eighty-five thousand men is enough to shake any organisation. It is about one-third of the total number of people employed in the Post Office. It has been a very great tax on its efficiency, but, all things considered, I think the greatest credit is due to the efficiency of the organisation of the Post Office in being able to improvise services which have enabled the general business of the Post Office to be carried on more or less satisfactorily, not only the ordinary business of the Post Office but also the extra business we have had to undertake for other Departments. Now the War is over, everyone is straining every nerve and exerting all their energies to restore the services to the old state of efficiency. I am confident that not only will they succeed in that effort,. but that in the course of time they will make every branch more effiicient than it has ever been in the past.
  5.0 p.m
  Mr. WALSH: Everyone must have listened with real interest and some degree of gratification to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. There were, of course, two or three points which were not very gratifying. I think he regrets himself that he has made his last handsome dividend, and is looking forward with some degree of misgiving to a deficit on the next occasion.
  670
  But his statement as to the developments which are taking place must really be a cause of great gratification to everyone, because during the last three or four years there have been great complaints about the telephones, and particularly about the lack of underground cable communication, when we see that big cities are being put very closely into touch with each other, and there is great development going on in London itself. The establishment of a large number of exchanges is very gratifying, and it is also very gratifying to hear of the very great increase in wages and the very substantial reduction in the hours of labour. The right hon. Gentleman has a very large staff, an army of almost 250,000 people.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Three hundred thousand.
  Mr. WALSH: It is a very great thing indeed for the State that it can have in its employment such a very large number of men and women, and I believe, taken altogether, the conditions are honourable both to the State and to the people. From. time to time a little disquiet and unrest are inevitable. That is the case in every human organisation.
  I should like to refer to the payment of sub-postmasters and mistresses. They really are, and have been for a very long time, doing most useful duties, increasingly onerous, requiring a very great deal of skill. They have given all this labour for a remuneration so small as hardly to be worth mentioning, and I think if there is any body of people in our service whose case ought to be generously considered it is the case of the sub-postmasters and mistresses. I have had in the part of South-East Lancashire with which I am most closely acquainted a great deal of knowledge of the people who perform this work, and broadly speaking they are the best class of citizens we have. They are patient and courteous to a degree. They are very self-sacrificing, they have had all kinds of duties imposed upon them, and they have shown a willingness to perform them which is beyond all praise, and I really think this House would hail with gladness any movement on the part of the Postmaster-General to improve the conditions of service of this very estimable body of people.
  I wish I could speak with anything like the same admiration of the parcel post as of other branches of the service, but I am

  671
  informed that parcels carried by the railway companies for the Post Office pay 55 per cent. of the gross receipts to the railway companies themselves under an arrangement that followed upon the Act of 1882. That is thirty-seven years ago. I understand the Act was to have been reviewed in 1907, twenty-five years after the first agreement, but I am given to understand that no revision has actually taken place, and indeed so onerous are the conditions, and so large is the amount of the gross takings that go to the railway companies, that it is cheaper for the Post Office to send their parcels by coach scores and sometimes a hundred miles, rather than hand them over to the railway companies. If that is the truth—and I am simply making inquiry—it is a very regrettable condition of things, and it is very desirable that it should be altered as quickly as possible. If revision was due twelve years ago it is very pressing now.
  Another point that seems to me, and I am sure it must to the right hon. Gentleman, to be one upon which the nation might very well congratulate itself, is that, though we only took over the telephones in 1913–14 as the result of arbitration between the private companies and the State, we are faced in the very immediate future with tremendous sums for renewals and new plant. It almost seems as if we took over at the time an institution which was very little more than moribund. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself rather feels that there is something in that. Anyway, the State has often been had in this kind of transaction. One can only regret that an organisation which was taken over so recently as five or six years ago, and which was paying some where about 4¼ per cent. in the very last year—[An Hon. Member: "16 per cent."] —were able to make a calculation that it was paying us 4.29 per cent., I think, in that year. Is that so?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Yes.
  Mr. WALSH: The figure of 16 per cent. was clearly the very last percentage which the National Telephone Company was paying before. If they were paying that they were paying inflated dividends and not true dividends. They could not have been keeping their plant in anything like a decent state of efficiency.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I said that the average on the whole of their capital for the five years was 5.13 per cent.
  Mr. WALSH: I suppose it is flogging a dead horse. During the last five years the nation has had the most gigantic task on its hands to which any nation has ever been committed, and, of course, the transaction between the National Telephone Company and ourselves is a thing of the past. But we really may have the pleasure of regret that such a transaction took place at all and that we should be saddled in these days of gigantic expenditure with a good many hundreds of thousands of pounds for renewals and new plant in the case of an organisation such as this. I think an increase in the variety of the Department's activities might very well be made. There is no institution that, taken on the whole, commands such a complete share of the public confidence as the Post Office. We sometimes rail against the inefficiency of its servants. We complain of the telephones, and so on, but after all, a little courtesy and human kindness at our end of the 'phone would enable the work to be performed with not merely greater efficiency but with an increasing kindliness between the operator and the person at the business end of the telephone, so to speak. We find in our own daily life that a little quiet, kindly word to the operator brings almost an instant response, and it would be greatly to the credit of our English race if we exercise a little more courtesy, gentleness, tolerance, and decent human kindness when we are trying to transmit a message. I am sure that would have the effect of sweetening the relations. We hear awful language sometimes. If a. man were heard coming out with that kind of language in his own home his wife and children would be horrified, and it is really due to us, as representing the nation, to enforce the lesson that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to instil, that we ought to be tolerant, and kindly, and human when we are trying to transmit these messages, and think that there is a human being at the other end of the telephone.
  There are only a relatively small number of trains which may be said to be post-office trains, carrying a post office as part of the rolling stock. Why should there not be letter boxes attached to the trains? Everybody wants to write when making a railway journey. It is the easiest thing in the world, and we might be able to get our stamps and postcards and a hundred and one small conveniences during the course of a railway journey or at the railway station. But there seems to be an

  673
  almost perfect lack of this kind of convenience, which would not only be much appreciated by the public itself but would enlarge the scope of the Department's activities and bring it really into greater esteem than it already commands. These are only a few of the matters that I think might very well be brought to the attention of the Department. The more we can enlarge the scope and variety of its activities, the less will be the working cost and the profits will be larger. But the real profit is the increasing esteem that the public gives to the Department. The only serious complaint which has come to me in respect of the relations between the Department and the workmen has been in connection with the conditions of labour and the payment of the partly-disabled men in the service. The complaint has been made that a disabled man is doing the actual work which under normal conditions will be performed by fully able-bodied men. Supposing there had been no War, this particular set of duties would have been performed by able-bodied men at a definite able-bodied wage, so to speak, but I am told— I hope it is not true—that when a disabled man is performing exactly those duties under exactly similar conditions as would have been performed by a fully able-bodied man if no War had taken place, his pension is taken into consideration, and He is pressed to perform these duties at a lower figure. That is not a state of mind that the nation desires to entertain towards our disabled soldiers. There is not a man living who desires that, and there is not one of us but would resent it bitterly if it were brought to our knowledge that men's pensions, for which they have fought and been willing to sacrifice their lives—pensions which are only an expression of the nation's gratitude to the men who saved the nation—are being utilised to lower the rate of wages that an able-bodied man would have received for exactly similar labour, performed under similar conditions. There has been a Committee inquiring into this matter, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman has full knowledge of it. I believe the representations of that Committee have caused considerable heart burnings amongst the people concerned. There is no Department that stands so high in the public esteem as the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and I do not think there is any Department that has such a range of
  674
  potential usefulness. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to take this point into consideration and not to permit any of his chiefs, or any people working under him, to so manipulate the fact of a man's relative disability as to place him in receipt of a lower wage than that which would be paid to an able-bodied man performing a similar class of duty. If we do not put that thing right in a State Department it will condemn us in the eyes of the country. There is no Department that stands higher in public estimation, and the one thing that will down the Department is, if it be a fact, that we are paying a lower wage because of a man's disability.
  Major HURST: I beg to move
  "to reduce the Vote by £1.000."
  I move this Amendment in order to draw attention to the breakdown of the cable system between this country and the oversea markets. The breakdown is having a very prejudicial effect on the all-important export trade of England, and more particularly the cotton trade of Lancashire. No doubt, some improvement has taken place, during the present year, but I do not think the authorities even now sufficiently realise what a very grave handicap this is, and that the length of time it takes to cable from England to the East has a serious effect upon the welfare of our staple trades. At the present time it takes, on an average, nine to eleven days for a cable to pass from England to Calcutta. It takes eleven to sixteen days for a cable to travel from Lancashire to Karachi, seven days to China, ten days to Bangkok. There was a case as recent as last Tuesday where it took nineteen days for a cable message to come to Manchester from Padang, in Sumatra. I ask hon. Members to realise the effect of these delays upon the transaction of business between this country and the oversea markets. Every commercial contract consists of an offer and an acceptance, and in a trade like the cotton trade the offer must depend upon the then value of cotton. That value fluctuates from day to day, and greatly from week to week, and, of course, an offer which is held up for something like a month before the acceptance is sent back goes absolutely to nothing, because by the time the acceptance reaches this country the value of the cotton may be twice as much or half as much as when the offer was sent out from Lancashire. The result is that business is not being done.

  675
  This breakdown is not confined to the cables between England and the Far East. There is great delay in cables between England and Egypt, and an extraordinary delay in the transmission of telegrams from countries as near as France and Belgium, to England. There are many cases, which have come to the actual personal experience of business houses in Manchester, of great delays in the offer or acceptance of business. A telegram offering or accepting business from Paris or Antwerp has been accompanied by a confirmatory letter, and in a very large number of cases the letter has arrived several days before the telegram. There can be no greater condemnation of the management of the present telegraphic system between England and other countries than that, and there could not be a greater drawback to the carrying on of the shipping trade, on which the welfare of so many millions of people depends. I ask the Postmaster-General whether he will not adopt certain specific measures straight away and put an end to this deadlock, so as to give Lancashire and the whole trade of this country those facilities for export trade for which we are entitled to look? It is good to know that the commercial codes are to be allowed again in this country; no doubt that will increase the volume of our oversea trade.
  There are many cases where we believe that the reason why commercial messages from England to the Far East and the Near East have not travelled with due dispatch is due to the cables being taken up by far too large an extent with Press news. We have in Manchester firsthand information that the newspapers in India and Shanghai are in possession of news of utterly insignificant social events in this country within a few hours of their occurrence. There was one case where a social event of very minor importance was actually recorded in a Shanghai newspaper on the 27th March, at a time when they had no later commercial news from England than the 11th March. [Hon. Members: "What was the event?"] It was the Royal visit to Bethnal Green. Hon. Members will remember the well-known criminal case called the Billie Carleton case. News of that case was flashed to every market of the Far East within forty-eight hours of its occurrence. Any social scandal, any celebrated suicide or murder echoes round the world, while the voice of commerce is hushed. I think
  676
  we can justly complain that there is an undue dispatch of Government messages along these lines. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the volume of Government messages over the cables to the Far East is about eighteen times what it was in 1914. No doubt a large number of those messages are exceedingly valuable, but a very large number of them must be of relatively minor importance. It does not need anyone to be particularly imaginative to conjure up the kind of message that is flashed across these cables by the Government. "Soldiers will be demobilised as soon as the political situation allows; compassionate cases will be considered as soon as political exigencies admit," and all the other Government messages of a stereotyped character. These messages choke the cables, and the result is that the great commercial houses in England are unable to carry on business with their markets oversea, to the very great detriment of every interest in this country. It is the practice to accept urgent cables from Hong Kong to this country which do not take longer than thirty-six to forty-six hours in transmission. We should very much like to know whether it is possible to have the same urgent rate available for those who wish to send messages, to Hong Kong. If urgent messages can be sent from places like Hong Kong, why should they not be sent from stations in India, Egypt, and the Near East?
  We are given to understand from the the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there is a difficulty due to the want of efficient personnel. I have had several cases brought to my notice of men who have served during the War in the signal sections of the Royal Engineers, and they say that they would most gladly undertake work in the Post Office if they could be placed upon the permanent establishment. One man wrote to me and stated that he had been four years on signal work at Army Headquarters, that he had passed an examination to be a skilled-rate engineer, able to receive and send forty telegrams an hour, and he and many men like him would be very willing to enter the service of the Government if there is a shortage in personnel, provided that they are given places on the establishment. I understand that places on the permanent establishment are refused to these returning soldiers if before the War they did not happen to be in the employment of the Post Office. On that point I

  677
  think everybody will be in thorough agreement with the observations of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) in regard to the treatment of Post Office servants. If their conditions were made attractive there is no doubt that people would be only too glad to enter into the service. Many of us receive complaints from persons in the employment of the Post Office, and pre-war pensioners, who complain that their pensions are totally inadequate to the present cost of living. We have also complaints about gratuities. We know that many of the 85,000 returned soldiers still labour under a sense of grievance, just or unjust. If the service in the Post Office is made attractive, and if provision is made for highly-skilled, technically-trained returning soldiers, who have not had the good fortune to be in the Government service before or during the War, the alleged deficiency in personnel will be removed, and we may have high hopes that this great breakdown of our cable and telegraph service will be rectified.
  Those who are associated with me in this Resolution have no feeling whatever against the Government in bringing the matter forward. We have put it in this form because the breakdown has a most important bearing upon the great problem of reconstruction which occupies everybody's mind. Reconstruction is in a sense a matter that is moral and spiritual. We want to translate into civil life the high standards that have been followed by our fighting men and by the women who have waited for them at home. But no moral and spiritual reconstruction, and no scheme of social reform, no betterment in housing, health, or education, is of any value unless it is built upon the sound, sure, and solid foundation of prosperity on which Old England rested. It is no good trying to translate ideals into realities unless the country at the same time has a sound economic basis. That is the reason why I wish to call attention to this great stumbling-block to the progress of our staple industries. Before the War we can all recall the shining pageant of the British export trade, the ceaseless flow of English goods, English credit, English influence along every avenue of the world's commerce, and it was this system of cables and telegraphs which has now broken down that acted most powerfully as an agent for transmitting the energy of Britain into every corner of the globe. That system has broken down. Of that system the Postmaster-General is the
  678
  trustee, and it is because we want to see a thorough reformation of that system that I move this reduction.
  Lieut-Commander ASTBURY: In the few remarks which I am about to make I speak, not only as a Member of this House, but as a director of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and their representative in the Associated Chambers in London. Since the Armistice was signed I have seen the disastrous effects which the breakdown of the cables has had on the cotton trade in Lancashire. I do not want it to be taken that every trade is not affected by this breakdown. Other traders are in the same position, but in Lancashire we are very peculiarly affected. As many hon. Members will know, we do our business as low down as sixty-fourths to the penny. We make up for abroad prices of from £90,000 to £100,000—we will say 5,000 lumps of goods. When we make that up we offer it at a price, say, of £3 per lump. Before the War we could get back a reply within forty-eight hours. At the present time, owing to the great fluctuations in the cotton markets, when you cannot get a reply back in less than from nine to ten days, it will easily be seen that the business is lost. I have got here a sheaf of correspondence. I am not going to trouble the Committee by reading it; but we are always asked by Ministers, when we bring up these questions, to prove that what we say is founded on fact. Therefore I will take a few passages from what has been written by some of the largest merchants in Manchester to show the effect on the Manchester trade. What we complain of is that for months we have been complaining to the Postmaster-General and the Board of Trade with regard to these cable delays. We have been promised that the matter would be put right, and that it was having every attention both of the Postmaster-General and of the Government; but notwithstanding those promises, instead of matters becoming better, they are worse.

  As far back as the 10th of June the Postmaster-General wrote a letter to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce with regard to this matter—
  "The present situation is the result of circumstances which could not be prevented. The proper maintenance of the cables was hindered during the War by enemy action and the restorations which have recently been effected were much delayed by bad weather. The Postmaster-General is satisfied that the cable companies have done all in their power to

  679
  cope with the difficulties which have unfortunately arisen, and are endeavouring to have the obstacles to normal conditions repaired as circumstances admit. The American Pacific Cable was restored on the 7th instant. This cable was interrupted on the 11th of April last. Since then the greater part of the American traffic for the East has been transmitted over the Eastern Telegraph Company's cable. The withdrawal of this traffic will materially reduce the traffic of the Eastern Company's system so far as telegrams for the Far East are concerned, but some days must elapse before any marked improvement is effected."
  On the 17th of June there is another letter from the Board of Trade confirming what I have read in the letter of the Postmaster-General. I may now give a few figures with regard to delays supplied by some of the biggest houses in Manchester. The first gives cases of undue delays in the transit of cables to the Far East. It starts on 14th June and goes down to 28th June. No cables were received in less than six days. In the majority of cases—there were about forty cables—they took from ten to eleven days. Then another firm writes that, in reference to cables from Hong Kong, a cable dispatched on 12th June arrived in this country on 19th June; one sent on 20th June arrived on 30th June, and so on in another twenty or thirty cases. Those letters are a sufficient instance of good faith to show what damage this breakdown in the cables is doing the Lancashire trade. Not only is it preventing us from getting the wheels of industry going, but it is keeping men walking the streets out of employment. A letter written to the President of the Chamber of Commerce from another large firm in Manchester, states:
  "We are very pleased with the manner in which you have taken up the delay in cables. To-day we are in receipt of a cable handed in on the 23rd ultimo, so that it has been in transit nineteen days. You will notice the difference in the cost of 5,000 lumps now and when we quoted. It is really impossible to do business on these lines."
  Again I would urge the Postmaster-General that he should use his influence with the War Department and other Departments to restrict these cables, which are very often unnecessary, and that he should see that at any rate the great staple trades of this country have the same opportunity as the War Office have.
  Now with regard to the telephone service. Everybody in Manchester has a bad experience of the telephone service. It is grossly inefficient. We have been told by the Postmaster-General that it was due
  680
  to the War. I am not going to try to depreciate those difficulties. I agree with him to a certain extent, but I would ask him if he were a director of a public company and had to go and face a, meeting of his shareholders with the statement which he made to-day, how would he be received? In the first place I may remark that wherever a municipality or the State takes over a private business it can only end in inefficiency. Before telegrams were nationalised they were yielding a handsome profit on which the shareholders paid Income Tax to the Government. In the year 1917–18 the net revenue accounts showed on the telegraph service a deficit of £556,330. No allowance is made in this account for interest charged on past losses, aggregating by 31st March, 1916, to over £26,000,000. Under the National Telephone Company we had in the telephone service efficiency, courtesy, and cheapness. When the Government took over the National Telephone Company they had paid a dividend, spread over five years, of over 5 per cent. During the time that they were paying the dividend they were paying in royalties to the Government £320,590. In 1917–18, after the Government had taken them over, the sole revenue that went to the Exchequer was £355,468. So that the Government has not made as much money as the National Telephone Company were actually paying to the Government in royalties. Again, we have not had the same efficient service. Every member of the Committee knows that. It is all very well to say that some men are rude over the telephone. We know that all men are not gentlemen, and also that a lot of the telephone operators are not ladies, but I am quite sure that if the Postmaster-General came to Manchester and spent two or three days going round a few of the business places, though he would not use bad language, he would think it.
  Then as to the trunk service in Manchester, I would almost guarantee that you could not get through to London under an hour and a half, if it would not take from two to three hours. How is it, when I was engaged in the Naval Service in Manchester, and I was constantly in communication with London, sending O.H.M.S. 'phone messages through, that I could get into communication with London in under three minutes? If that can be done with Government messages, why should it take one and a half hours for a. commercial message? Again, we experi-

  681
  ence great difficulty in local calls. A picture has been painted of telephone girls reading novels and having afternoon tea, and so on. I have had a great deal of annoyance in getting through these local exchanges. It takes you frequently from fire to ten minutes to get a call through from Manchester to Preston, and you constantly hear conversations going on as to who shall have the next cup of tea, or one thing or another, or who should go to attend to the 'phone. I asked for a number and was told that the number is engaged. To test that, I thought that I would see whether those numbers were really always engaged. I happen to have a friend next to me. I asked for his number one evening, and was told that he was engaged. I put on my hat and went round to his house and asked him, "Has your telephone been engaged during the last five minutes?" and he said, "It has never been engaged to-night." I said, "Would you mind asking for my number?" He rang up the exchange and asked for my number. He was told it was engaged. I went back to my own house. I said to the girl at the exchange, "What did you mean by telling mo that the number was engaged?" She replied, "Oh, but it was engaged." I told her it was not. I asked her also, "Have I been engaged for the last quarter of an hour?" She replied, "No." I then asked, "Why did you tell my friend that I was?" That is the sort of thing that is going on. I do not want to be hard on the telephone operators, for they have a very hard time, but all this is a matter of organisation and system. With regard to the installation of new telephones, I want to give specific instances that concern myself. I happen to have large works near Oldham. Over two years ago I had to pull down a certain building, and the telephone wire, which had to come off that building, was, for temporary convenience, put into the mechanics' shop instead of into the office. I have had made repeated application to have the instrument removed only a space the length of this House. That application has been made over two years, and the work has not yet been done. Any number of cases in the city of Manchester could be cited where wires have been fixed in places of business, and application for further instruments to be put in has been made, seven, eight, and nine times, and they cannot get the work done. What is the excuse? The Postmaster-General has told us that it is labour. I
  682
  should like to inform him for his guidance that there are to-day any number of men walking about the streets of Manchester who are qualified engineers, and that the managers of the different Departments in Manchester cannot take them on. Why? What I am told is this, and I ask here if the information is correct. I am told that in the Post Office the managers of the different sections are not allowed to engage their own men, that there is a sort of employment bureau, that if a manager wants a man he sends his application into this bureau, and that perhaps in a month he gets a man who is entirely unsuitable for his requirements. If these managers were allowed to engage their own men they would very soon bring about a different state of things. I would add only this, that no business could be run on those lines and get an efficient service.
  The Postmaster-General told us of a large deficit he had which is due to the cost of labour and the cost of material. I think he said it was between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000, and that he was getting an increased revenue of only £500,000. We were told not many days ago by the Leader of the House that it was wrong to subsidise coal. Is it not equally wrong to subsidise the telephone service in this country? What are we doing? For the sake of those who have a telephone in their houses or works we are making nine people out of ten, who have no telephones, pay for those who have them. I do not want to advance this as a cause for the rates being put up, because in my opinion there is very little cause for any great increase in the rates. Might I give another instance? In an office in town a gentleman applied for an extension wire to be put in from his general office to his private office. The quotation for pulling in those 3 ft. of wire and the instrument was £14 19s. and the rent was to be from 30s. to £2 a year. The National Telephone Company would have put it in for nothing and would have charged a rent of only 30s.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: What date was that?
  Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: Only quite recently. I want to sum the whole thing up briefly. To a certain extent we know the great difficulties that the Postmaster-General has had to go through, but the difficulties are not such that, had the telegraph and telephone service been in the hands of private

  683
  companies, they would have produced the lamentable state of affairs that exists now. If the director of a business firm came to his shareholders and told them that because the cost of labour had gone up, because the working day of labour had become shorter, because the cost of materials had gone up, the shareholders had to face the huge loss of £2,000,000 a year, what would the shareholders do? I should think they would put the management into new hands. On top of all these things you have a worse service. What I seriously suggest to the House—I hope Members will not laugh at me—is that the Government should hand back the telephone service, or lease it, to a private company and let that company carry on the business. I guarantee that within five or six years after they had got out of the terrible chaos that the Department is now in, we should have an efficient and a much cheaper service. I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: I should not have taken any part in this Debate had it not been for the speeches of the two hon. Members who spoke last. To a great extent I agree with the remarks they have made. I must say at once that I may be greatly prejudiced in the view of this House. From my connection with cable companies there must be attributed to me a certain amount of hereditary sympathy. If the House will bear with me a few minutes I would ask them to look at the question of cable delays in a general rather than in an individual way. On our part we welcome most thoroughly a discussion of the whole question of cable delays; I, in conjunction with my hon. Friends, have asked for such a discussion for some time. Of all the statements made in the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, that in which he announced the ending of the cable censorship was by far the most welcome. We regret all the delays which of necessity have arisen throughout the cable communications of the Empire. The causes of delay might be enumerated under five headings: First, the limitation of the mail services owing to enemy submarines has undoubtedly forced big business houses to send many communications over the cables—communications which before the War were normally sent by post. Secondly, there were the censorship restrictions, now happily done away with. When they were in force the suppression of private codes no doubt
  684
  added enormously to the traffic over our lines. Moreover, every cable sent had to bear signatures in full. Thirdly, no code addresses were allowed; all addresses had to be cabled in full. The necessity for that no longer exists, and the change will make an enormous difference in the future.
  Lord R. CECIL: Can you say how much?
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: I have not the figures at the moment, but I can get them. Another reason for the delay has been the great influx of social telegrams—entirely a war traffic. By social telegrams I mean telegrams and cablegrams sent to their homes by men who had come to fight for us from Australia, Canada, South Africa, and all parts of the world. It meant a very considerable amount of fresh traffic. Fifthly, there were interruptions. It must be obvious to everyone that during the War the cable ship has not been able to go to sea and mend cables in the same comparative safety and with the same leisure as before the War. When submarines are hanging about the open sea is not a particularly healthy place. In regard to that, I might say that we on our part regard with the liveliest satisfaction, and are very proud of, the cable ships and their work during a long and trying time. I will give one instance of what is in my mind. During the Gallipoli campaign a ship had to go up and cut the enemy cables underneath the fire of the enemy guns, and later to repair some of her own cables. A telegraph ship is tied round by the nose to the cable she has on hand, and her movements are hampered. This little ship was hit on two or three different occasions; they wore direct; hits from the guns. The man in command of the ship was rewarded. We look upon men of that sort who are in our service as fine fellows, and I am proud to think we have them in a service to which I have the honour to belong. Other interruptions to which I should like to draw attention are interruptions such as those of the Indo-European Company, over which before the War no less than 50 per cent. of the European traffic to India was carried. The whole of that since the very first day of war has been carried over Eastern and associated companies. The Great Northern Telegraph Company were in very much the same position, their percentage being, I think, 34. The whole of that was also hurled on to our lines, and had to be carried at the same time. All these causes

  685
  of cable delays can, I think, be wiped away in future. At any rate, we can look forward with a fair amount of confidence that they will not affect us very much in future. I now come to the last point, and that is the question of Government traffic. That is, perhaps, the most serious of the lot. I had hoped that the Postmaster-General would in his speech have given us the figures and thus shown the House the exact percentage of Government traffic carried by the cable companies, as compared with that before the War. If the right hon. Gentleman will take this question up with the other Government Departments, I am perfectly certain he will have the support and sympathy of everyone in this House. To me it appears that in future that can be the only serious delay or cause of delay which will hamper us in our work. Twenty-five per cent. of the traffic which is being carried by cable companies at the present time is due to Government work. My hon. Friend who spoke just now said that we are returning to peace and it is time that our trade had a chance of competing with foreign countries in different parts of the world. I do wish pressure were brought to bear on the Departments concerned, and especially on the War Office, where, I am afraid, having had the power in their hands so long, they think they can go on without having any restriction applied to them. If the Postmaster-General were to rise in his wrath and say, "This must now cease," I am perfectly certain that everybody in this House would back him up. Is he going to take that line? I have given a very brief outline of what the cable service regard as the chief causes of delay. In looking forward to the future, now that the censorship is off, and now that the right hon. Gentleman is going to see that there is no more undue Government traffic, we have only one other reason to get over, because cable companies have had their troubles just the same as any other industry or any other commodity during the War we have gone through. During the whole time of the War we have never been able to get the amount of cable necessary to renew those already in existence except in the scantiest amount.
  The question is often asked, What is the life of a cable, and it is certainly a somewhat difficult question to answer. I do not think, even now, after cables have been laid so many years, that we can say
  686
  exactly what the life of a cable is. What we can do is to find out the percentage of renewals, and in that way get a fair idea of the amount of renewals a cable will require to convey the traffic satisfactorily. The figures work out at about 12½ to 15 miles renewals per annum in every cable, and that of course has been absolutely impossible during the last five years. Had it not been for the generous assistance given by the Admiralty and the General Post Office we could not have got enough cable to enable us to carry on, as the Government controlled the whole of it. All the cables have now got to be thoroughly overhauled, and our ships are going to be very busy for some time to come. All the cable that has been made has been practically used up. The Government has used cable for other purposes in connection with mines and submarine work, and there is now very little stock in this country. We are in a position to say that by the end of next month all our existing cables will be in a very advanced state and in very fair working order. Not only that but in October we expect to lay a new cable from this country to Gibraltar and gradually to extend it round the Mediterranean through Aden and on to Singapore. I think that a certain amount of the criticism that has been levelled against the cable companies has not been entirely from those who know very much about it. For instance I saw on Tuesday last a little article in the "Evening Standard" from a Manchester M.P. where the article said the business community is up in arms about telephones and cables—
  "This M.P. told me yesterday that the censorship is not the only trouble and that the submarine cables have not been kept in a proper state of repair during the War and that wireless has been all the official fashion."
  I wondered who this M.P. was or if he were a myth, but since I came down here this afternoon I am beginning to have my suspicions aroused as to who is that Manchester M.P.
  Major HURST: It is not myself.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: I am rather glad to know that, but hunting is a fascinating hobby, and I have got to go on again to try and find this Manchester M.P. I am in entire sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier, and I may tell him we regret the delays, but to a certain extent we have not had any control over those delays. I notice that several questions have been addressed to

  687
  Ministers on the subject. Only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman was asked was he aware of the cable delays, and he must be rather amused when he has been aware of it for four or five years to have his attention called to it the night before the Debate on the subject. He was also asked whether he was aware of treble rates being charged. The right hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that the treble rate has been done away with in this country for some considerable period. Another reason assigned for the delay is mutilation of cables. I think in a supplementary yesterday an hon. Member asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that the cause of cable delays was due to mutilation as they came through. It has not been possible for us to test our operators in the same way since the War as we used to do before the War. Before the War, the percentage of errors hardly ever varied, and was as nearly as possible one error in every thousand words. Since the War we could tell pretty well mostly by the repetitions, and not so much by actual tests, and we found that the percentage has hardly increased at all, and you may take it now to be about 1¼. I think that the House will agree with me that with a staff which has been serving as ours has during all these years, that a small increase of that sort is not very great.
  Let me bring to the notice of the House exactly what these men have been doing. When war broke out there were a great many of our men serving in the tropics due to leave. Every one of them asked to stay on at their posts, and they are gradually coming home now. The usual time to keep an operator in a tropical station is about three years. These men have been out there from the very beginning, and all through the War, and as well they have been doing about three times as much work as they did before the War. I think hon. Members will see that you cannot have the same excellence of work from men who are over-tired and over-strained, as these men have been for the last number of years. I had not meant to say as much about the actual work, but I felt that I could not sit down without saying one or two words publicly as to how proud we are of the way those men have done their work and behaved during the whole of the War. Let me again say, that the only point of difficulty that we can see arising in the future is the point of trying
  688
  to get this Government work cut down. Let me give the amount of actual Government traffic for the years 1913 and 1918. The Government outward traffic in 1913 was 903 words daily, and in 1918 16,609, on an average, amounting to an increase of 1,739 per cent. more words per day. In the inward traffic the Government messages were 1,475 words in 1913, and 28,007 in 1918, making an increase of 1,799 per cent. per day. Let me induce the right hon. Gentleman to take a firm stand on this subject; we know that he is bullied by all the Government Departments in this matter, and he will receive the united support and sympathy of the whole House.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I venture to ask the Postmaster-General a few questions with regard to cables, and to try to elicit from him later on this evening a fuller explanation of what is being done with regard to improving the cable communications of the Empire than we had in the very few remarks in which he referred to this question in his opening speech. A great many Members have already drawn attention to the very large number of places to which it takes an unconscionable time to send a cable at present. It takes something like seven to ten days to get a cable from New York, nine days each way from Manila; Australia, twelve days; Bombay, a telegram I know of took three weeks to England last month; Japan, ten to twelve days each way; and I know of another cable, sent by a relation of mine to Melbourne on 7th May, which did not arrive till the 2nd June. I give these figures as an indication of the sort of delays which are taking place, and although it is true, as has recently been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a distinct improvement in the last few weeks, yet at the same time the situation is anything but satisfactory. The fact that he is going to remove the censorship, and, I suppose, allow codes, will increase the capacity of the cables by between 20 and 30 per cent., probably, but even that docs not meet the situation, and I particularly wish to allude to the question of cabling to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, three of the most important Dominions as regards wealth and numbers. Before the War we had a debate on the Past Office Vote on this subject, I think in 1912, and those of us who were urging the provision of greater cabling facilities strongly urged the laying of a State-owned cable across the Atlantic, and the Postmaster-General

  689
  of that time, Mr. Samuel, replied that it was not thought possible to do it, on account of the expense, which was estimated at something like £25,000 a year, of which the British Government would only have to provide something like £10,000.
  Shortly after that war broke out. The situation then was, as regards cables—and it remains the same to-day, with one small exception— that out of the seventeen cables crossing the Atlantic thirteen were in the hands of the Americans, two were in the hands of the Germans, and two were French. That situation remains to this day, with the exception of the two German cables. Both of them were captured by us, but one has been handed over to the French under the Peace terms, I believe, and the other one is in use by us. Therefore, we have got our All Red Route by using this captured German cable. But I would suggest that if we had laid another cable or leased one of the American cables it would have enormously helped our mercantile business to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Pacific cable, which is the State-owned cable on the other side of Canada communicating with Australia and New Zealand, has, as I think was given in evidence before the Marconi Committee the other day, begun to pay very handsomely during the War. All the messages to Australia are sent by the Pacific cable, and not by the Eastern Telegraph line. In the Pacific cable report last year they drew attention to the fact that a great deal of their business had been curtailed owing to the fact that the connecting lines were unable to give them the business. The exact words are:
  "The international traffic was less by 1,250 000 words. This reduction was due to the enforced curtailment of the cheaper classes of traffic owing to connecting companies toeing unable to accept them."
  The connecting companies were these thirteen cables crossing the Atlantic, which are all in the hands of the Americans. Five of those cables, up to 1912, had been British-owned cables. The Western Union Telegraph Company of America was absorbed by the American Telegraph Company, and they proceeded to freeze out the British companies by saying they would not allow them facilities in America for delivering their telegrams. Hon. Members will remember that in America telegraph offices are not run by the State, but by private companies. The result of that was that the English companies were
  690
  obliged to lease their lines to the Americans, and that was done in spite of our protests in this House and in spite of the fact that the Postmaster-General had ample powers really to prevent that transaction. In the first place, both ends of these cables land in British territory— in Ireland and in Newfoundland— and therefore the landing rights are in the power of the Postmaster-General in this country. I believe that up to 1917 those landing rights had not been granted to the American companies, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman this evening to say whether the landing rights have been given to those American companies yet. The reason I am drawing attention to this is that, owing to our having allowed these British lines to pass in1o foreign control, our own communications with our Empire over our State-owned' cable is seriously interfered with, because by that report they say that the connecting companies were unable to give them business— that is, that the American companies joining across the Atlantic were choked up with their own messages from the American troops, and the result was that our business was put into a secondary position.
  I say that that is directly due to the neglect of our national interests in the past by the Post Office in allowing these cables to be handed over to the Americans, and, secondly, in not having laid a State Atlantic cable or, alternatively, having leased one of the American lines. The Dominions Royal Commission backed up the urgent request of all our statesmen in the Dominions overseas that a State-owned cable should be placed across the Atlantic. It is absolutely an anomalous position that we should have this very long cable owned by the Governments of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand across the Pacific, with a connecting line to Nova Scotia, and that the link across the Atlantic should not be in the hands of the British Post Office. Now we have got a captured cable, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us this evening what steps are being taken by the Imperial Communications Board to increase the cabling facilities of the Empire, which are of enormous importance to our trade and our industry and to the social intercourse and growth of the Empire generally. The Dominions Royal Commission said in their Report:
  "Cable communication tends to quicken the pulse of nationality and forms an effective

  691
  supplement to the broader though slower interchange of thought and sentiment by means of postal communication. It reinforces the feeling of joint life in a manlier not possible by correspondence when two months or more are required for a reply to any letter."
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is being done, or whether he will use his great influence to bring pressure to bear on the cable companies to increase their facilities as soon as possible; and further, whether he is prepared to ask the Western Union Company to lease one of their lines to this country? Before the Dominions Royal Commission, who recommended that course, the European manager of the Western Union said he did not see any insuperable obstacle to that course. There is a case in which our communications with Canada and Australia might be enormously improved if the Post Office would either take over that cable themselves or would get the cable taken over by the Imperial Communications Board and hand it over to the Pacific Cable Board to deal with. There is one; other cable which I wish to draw attention to, and that is the West Indian cable, the duplication of which to the West Indies from Halifax has been urged repeatedly by Royal Commissions, by chambers of commerce, and by other important bodies all over the Empire, and nothing has been done. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will signalise his term of office by also using his influence to try and get an improvement made in that direction? He has told us to-day the very interesting story of great improvements which he proposes to carry out in England, and for that I am sure all of us are very grateful, but the communications of the Empire are also of enormous importance, and if he could tell us anything to-night in that connection I am sure the House would be interested to have it.
  There is a small point I wish to bring up with reference to the Post Office policy as regards the receipt of cablegrams in their London offices. I communicated privately with the right hon. Gentleman some time ago on this subject, and it is only a very small matter, but I suggest that it is in these matters of detail that the Post Office fails to a certain extent, and where I think I might suggest an improvement. The foreign cable companies cater for the trade of the big firms in the City. They send people round to collect
  692
  cablegrams, and they give facilities by granting credit to firms of repute for any number of cables they wish to send. What is the action of the Post Office in that matter? They refuse to send for telegrams. In every town, except London, there are facilities under which you can ring up a messenger to take your telegram to the post office. That means in the first place that you have to pay for the messenger, and in the second place that you have to pay for the telephone call, and it is a great deal more trouble than when a firm comes round and caters for the trade and takes the cablegrams. I call this a parsimonious, a peripatetic, and an absolutely pachydermatous attitude on the part of the Post Office, who refuse to do what every ordinary business firm does, and that is to cater for the trade. Then there is another very small matter, but it is one which really counts when you are trying to get trade for a big-Government Department. I should like to know what private firm would issue the disgracefully bad forms which the Post Office use for foreign cablegrams. I do not think the worst election literature or the worst pamphlets were ever printed on worse paper than that used for foreign cablegrams by the Post Office. When I brought this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, the answer was that the Stationery Office said it was the same that had been used for a very long time. I say that that is the typical bureaucratic attitude, and it is one that ought to be altered by an up-to-date Postmaster-General.
  Major NALL: I rise to support the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Major Hurst), because the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Denison-Pender), who elaborated the difficulties under which the cable companies are working, rather suggested that we were overdoing the case. But those difficulties which the hon. Member-elaborated, of which we are all more or less aware, do not really affect the charge that my hon. and gallant Friend made. My hon. and gallant Friend stated how cases like the Billie Carlton case were printed in full detail in the Indian newspapers within forty-eight hours, whilst urgent commercial cables from Manchester were taking ten or fifteen days. Was the censorship responsible for that, or is the right hon. Gentleman giving some pre-

  693
  ference to Press messages? If he is giving a preference to Press messages, which we must realise in certain cases may be necessary, surely there ought to be some discretion to avoid perfectly useless sensational and harmful nonsense getting preference over urgent commercial messages to India. With regard to cables to Shanghai, on the 27th March the last cable they got from Liverpool was dated llth March, quoting spot cotton at 15.86, a difference of eighteen points on the previous day. It is a very serious matter for commercial men when a cable is held up for sixteen days. I do not want to quote all these different cases; it is quite sufficient if we look at the general run of them.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Denison-Pender) referred to social messages. So far as Egypt is concerned, in 1916, I know from my own experience, that one could send messages from either Suez or Cairo to England and get a reply either just over the week-end or, at any rate, within four or five days. How docs that compare with the present experience? Here is one instance. A telegram and a letter were dispatched from Cairo on 16th June. The letter arrived in Manchester on the 28th June, and the cablegram on the 1st July— twelve days for a letter, and fifteen for a cable. If such a delay is anticipated, it is more reasonable to dispatch a cablegram by post, so that it will at least arrive on the same day. The same thing is happening with messages to France and from France. Telegrams almost always arrive after the letters that are sent in confirmation. Things are rather worse with Sweden, a neutral country, in which America is competing for our trade. We have a case hero of a Manchester firm whose agent cabled to them on the 5th May. His cable has not been received up to date. They cabled out to him in one instance that their cable had arrived after considerable delay. In another case it had not arrived at all, and in one particular transaction, out of their messages to and fro, one important message in each direction has been lost. Those things should not arise. Regarding the Far East, here is a long list showing that from Hong Kong messages are taking over five days. I do want to press the right hon. Gentleman to inquire what is the real cause for these delays in urgent commercial messages at a time when sensational nonsense is going through in Press telegrams in forty-eight hours. If he can give some assurance that that sort of thing
  694
  is to cease, that an obvious abuse of the cable is to stop, then the trading community, who depend on the rapid transit of telegrams to such a large extent, will be—I do not say satisfied, but reassured. We shall feel that there is a chance of things being righted in the near future I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal specially with, that point.
  Mr. R. YOUNG: I listened with great interest to the speech of the Postmaster-General. I congratulate him on having such a large surplus in the year which has gone past, but 1 regret that he is looking forward to a deficit for the current year. I have also listened with pleasure to the criticisms that have been levelled against the administration of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I, for my part, have risen for the purpose of offering some comments in relation to a different matter affecting his administration. I trust. I shall be able to strike a human note. The Post Office, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) said, was the Government Department which attracted the attention, perhaps, of more people in the country than any other Department connected with the State. In my estimation, it is the Cinderella of Government Departments. It does the work, and many of its servants are not very well paid for the work. I, therefore, this afternoon draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the grievances which exist, and which I think ought to be remedied in the interest of fairness to the employés who carry out the State's work. I regard a Government Department, especially when working for profit, as an institution, which should, above and beyond everything else, see to it that its employés are contented, that they are well paid, and, so far as possible, that there may be no reasonable cause for discontent; and, in the second place, that it should supply to the Government the highest efficient service possible at the cheapest possible rate. But, as the right hon. Gentleman will notice, I place the human factor first. I am not concerned whether the Post Office is making greater profit than in prior days by other institutions which the State has taken over. I am concerned in the Post Office being in a position to do the right thing by its servants, and show a better example to ordinary private employers.
  In the Post Office there is a certain class of servants who come under the designation of the scale payment sub-office

  695
  system. I know, so far as I can find out, of no other country where the postal service is organised to secure for the State a method of escaping from its responsibility to those who do a good deal of its work. The scale payment sub-office system, to my mind, ought to be as speedily as possible reduced to a minimum. There can be no justification for it anywhere, except in those villages of our country where there is not sufficient postal work to employ a full-time officer. But immediately you have sufficient postal work to supply a full-time officer, then the State should saddle itself with its responsibility to that individual, and see that he Is well paid for his work, according to Post Office rates of pay, and also that the hours of labour are in conformity with that which is just and reasonable. If, as I say, this system applied only to our outlying villages, probably I would have no reason to complain, but it applies to, and works in, our large cities and our towns, and until it is satisfactorily dealt with, I am sure the Post Office cannot be adequately reformed. There is no general justification for the system. How is the system working? The Post Office work is farmed out to contractors, as it were, who are paid by commission. Just imagine in a country like ours, and at a time when our Prime Minister is talking about this country being made a place fit for human beings to live in— [An Hon. Member: "Heroes!"]— I am concerned about human beings for the moment— the biggest Government Department is practically conniving at the living-in system, which is so pernicious to so many workers of the country, and, at the same time, by this system is escaping the responsibility of the Fair Wages Contract Clause, which should apply in every Department in relation to Government work. As I say, this work is contracted out, as it were, to sub-postmasters. They are paid by commission. They employ their own assistants. They pay those assistants just as much as they can afford to do, according to the state of the labour market— no more. In fact, they pay them as low as is possible, and these assistants' wages and hours are determined by the unskilled and unorganised state of the labour market in the various places.
  I think the Committee will agree that that is radically wrong in as far as a State Department is concerned. I am not say-
  696
  ing a word against the sub-postmasters themselves; it is the system under which they are working. Probably these sub-postmasters themselves are very badly paid even now, although I understand, during the past few years, there has been some slight improvement in their remuneration. At the same time, whatever their remuneration may be by this system of commission, there is nothing to compel them to pay other than unskilled labour rates of wages. So I have no hesitation in saying that the profits of the Post Office largely depend on sweated labour in these sub-offices. Now I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise this important fact, that these servants of the sub-postmasters number in some places three, four, or perhaps more, and that if you can employ two, three, or four through a contractor, you had better do it yourself directly through the State. But the service these assistants render is similar service to that rendered by the established officers in the Post Office service—similar work of equal value, but there are great differences in the conditions. The established servant of the Post Office is established, and he has security of tenure; he is working on a basis in his office, I understand, of forty-eight hours a week, is paid for Sunday work and overtime, is on a pensionable basis, and is entitled to sick pay and holidays. But in these sub-offices hardly any of these things apply in spite of the miserable wages paid in the majority of cases.
  I have here some very startling figures which may be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, Here is a Schedule showing the conditions under which scale payment sub-office assistants are employed by sub-postmasters. For these the Postmaster-General declines responsibility. Those of us on these benches agree that it is not a wise thing for the State to decline any responsibility for any of its servants. Here are the cases— I will not read them all— there is a large list— I will give the right hon. Gentleman a few as examples. I find that in London the daily hours of attendance are twelve and a half and the weekly wage 25s.; holidays in the year twelve, no recognised meal times— meals are partaken during work. Losses have to be made good. There is no payment for overtime. I shall mention the next place to which these abominable conditions apply—the Royal Automobile Club. There are two men employed here for between twelve and thirteen hours daily.

  697
  They get 35s, per week. They have twelve days' holiday, one Sunday duty in four without payment; otherwise the conditions in relation to meals and making losses good are what I have stated. There are three men with twelve and a half hours' work, and 27s. 6d. per week, with twelve days' holiday, and under the same condition of payment. Might I point out that the Post Office wages for similar work is maximum for men, 65s, plus 36s. war bonus, and for women 40s plus 23s. war bonus.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL(Mr. Pease): We are really no more responsible for the payment of the men in the Automobile Club than we are for the railwaymen.
  Mr. YOUNG: But the Department of the right hon. Gentleman is primarily responsible for these people who are doing Post Office, service at the Club. Here is a whole list which I could give him.
  Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member mentioned a club. The Department which I represent is no more responsible for the men who are acting in this respect at the Automobile Club than it is for the men employed by the railway companies.
  Mr. YOUNG: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman is there a sub-postmaster at the club paid by commission?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not gone into that question. I understand there is a man representing the service at the club.
  Mr. YOUNG: The conditions under which the scale payment sub-postmasters and assistants are employed by the sub-postmasters are what I am dealing with. I have been giving figures in relation to the payments made to the ordinary servants who are directly responsible to the right hon. Gentleman. That is in London. The, same sort of thing applies to Manchester. Here you have an eleven hours day, with 25s. weekly wage and one week's holiday. In another case there is an eleven hours day and 10s. per week wage, no pay for Sundays, make up counter losses, and live in. One hour is allowed for dinner and half an hour for tea. This refers to the people employed under sub-postmasters, paid by commission. As I say, they are employed by those responsible at the Post Office. Therefore, I ask him to realise that so long as this sort of system continues we cannot say to him that his Department is carried on on humane,
  698
  economically sound, and businesslike lines. I have other figures with me. I will not read them. But this is interesting—a case in which the normal hours per week were fifty-four; they worked much more. There is a weekly half-holiday, a 20s. wage, living in, one and a half hours for meals, and there is also a week's holiday in the year. There are other cases where sixty-two hours arc worked, the pay being 20s. weekly; and another case of fifty-six, hours and 14s. per week, and to live in.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are these people employed by the Post Office; I am afraid I did not understand?
  Mr. YOUNG: I am trying to point out to my hon. and right hon. Friends there are in the Post Office system a number of people employed by the Post Office who are paid on commission for doing Post Office work, and who employ their servants, some of them three or four, at Post Office work.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are these people employed by the Post Office?
  Mr. YOUNG: I am pointing out that they are doing Post Office work, and ought to be employed by the Post Office. The Post Office is escaping its responsibilities, and the work of the nation is being done, as I indicated, by sweated labour. These people are doing the same work as is done in any of the branch offices in and around this locality. Therefore I ask the Postmaster-General seriously to consider the matter and to get rid of this pernicious system.
  7.0 P.M.
  Might I ask as to the position of the caretaker operators? We have heard something to-day about telephones, etc. I am astonished to know that some of these work from thirty to 168 hours per week, and also to know they get from 4s. to 16s.— free quarters being in some cases the only remuneration. At Tynemouth 105 hours per week are worked and the total remuneration (including the value of the house, and cleaning materials, and cost of coal and light) is 10s. Chorley it is 168 hours per week; the total remuneration is 10s. I have other cases here. They have to be there at all times; they live on the premises. [An Hon. Member: ''They sleep there?"] They may sleep, but they are wakened up very often. I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to another matter. This is rather ancient history so far as the Department is concerned. His

  699
  predecessors in 1911 had a reorganisation in connection with the second-class engineers. That reorganisation benefited at that time half of the second-class engineers; the other half were for some unaccountable reason relegated to a position in which all prospects, future success, find advancement were denied them. I am glad to inform the House that since then there has been a modification in the decision which was reached then. The reason given at that time was that action was taken for the sake of efficiency. There was no real ground for the charge that was implied. Forty-four of those blocked were placed on the list within a year for future promotion. Subsequently they were reinstated in their former positions, and were even advanced to higher positions than they had occupied. The real object, evidently, was that certain young men who had been favoured with a university education should toe interpolated into this particular part of the service. There were thirty of these university young men with little experience. I am not saying a word against university education, even from an engineering standpoint, but I do insist that university or technical knowledge and education is not sufficient in the Government Departments where practical work is to be done— that there must be a combination of both. These young men had practically no practical experience, and yet were advanced over the heads of men who had fifteen or more years' experience. These young men were pitchforked into the higher grades. T would like to read, in this connection, some observations of Sir William Slingo, Engineer-in-Chief, British Post Office. I have taken this extract from the January number of the "Telegraph and Telephone Journal" in 1917. He says, with reference to this matter of technical training in the Post Office,
  "the next attempt was to ask the universities to select suitable candidates who were first submitted to the ordeal by interview. Those who satisfied the interviewers were then subjected to an examination among themselves. This also resulted in failure to get the right class of men. I should indeed have been greatly surprised had any other result followed. In the first place, the prizes offered were insufficient to attract the ambitious and persevering men. In the second place, there is strong objection to asking men in the academic walks of life to select suitable candidates for a commercial and professional industry like that of the Post Office Engineering Department. A few good men were undoubtedly obtained, but with a little meal we had a quantity of husks."
  700
  Since then more men have been reinstated in their former grade, but, unfortunately for them, they have been deprived of something like eight years' seniority. They were put back under a system which has been admitted to have been the wrong one to adopt at that time. My complaint about it is this. The Government is asking us to do what we can—I mean the whole House— to create better feelings and relationships between employers and employed; yet the Government Departments themselves seem to be the last to help along these lines. The Post Office Servants' Society took seven years before they could get an interview on this question. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite was present at that interview. The case was stated, and the request that there might be an inquiry on Whitley lines was made. I should have thought, seeing that it was March this year, that the inquiry would have been readily granted, and that those who have been professing that it is necessary to establish industrial councils and Whitley committees would have seen, when there was a grievance of that character among their employés, that something was done to meet their request. Instead of being met, they were ultimately told that a new investigation had taken place, and, as a result, that a few men would be uplifted and the; others would have to wait until vacancies occurred, i suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not sufficient to have an investigation of this character. It will not allay industrial unrest, and it will not do away with that discontent which is felt when workmen have a grievance. It would be well, in the interests of the Post Office itself, that these men should be heard and that they should have an opportunity to state their case fairly and frankly. A joint inquiry should beset on foot to come to some definite and permanent decision. They have a legitimate and reasonable claim. They have suffered the indignity of being placed on one side as inefficient, without any individual among them having been told why his work is regarded as unsatisfactory. Had these men belonged to a much stronger union, their grievances would have been more quickly attended to. Probably the experience will not be lost upon them, and they will make good in time to come by joining a general engineering union.

  701
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say why it is that the salaries and wages of the technical staff should be determined by those paid to the secretarial and clerical staff. I know no reason why the salaries and wages of the clerical stall should be the basis to determine the wages and salaries of those engaged on the technical work of the Post Office. I should have been delighted if I had been able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the that that there are no grievances among the employés in the Post Office. 1 could have listened with a certain amount of equanimity to complaints in relation to other matters, realising that in time the Post Office would surmount all those difficulties, but this is a matter in which people who have to earn their bread and butter are concerned, and it is a disgrace that any person rendering services to any Government Department should have to work for sweated wages or unskilled rates of pay. The Department repudiate responsibility, but I say that they should accept responsibility for all those who do their work, and if they continue to contract out work they should lay it down that sub-postmasters must pay wages commensurate with those paid by the Post Office to the people to whom they are directly responsible. I trust also that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to eradicate the grievance felt by the sixty engineers or more in his Department. They feel that they have been deprived of eight years' seniority by university men having been pitchforked into positions over their heads. I hope he will do something to remove the injustice under which they labour, and thus bring about a state of contentment among the members of the staff.
  Sir F. HALL: I listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I thought, rather congratulated himself on the position obtained by the Post Office, not only before the War, but during the War. I am afraid, from the letters that I have received, that the general public do not agree entirely with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman as to the manner in which the work of the Post Office is being carried out. The public during the War put up with all sorts of inconveniences, They had a bad telegraphic service, a bad telephonic service, and a bad cable service, and the deliveries and collections of 1etters were cut down, and there were no complaints. We are now, however, in a
  702
  different position. It is true that a large number of the staff—80,000, or about one-third of the total employés— joined the Colours, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Post Office did not do any more than the general business community. The business man is now looking round to put his house in order, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to see if steps cannot be taken to get back somewhat nearer to pre-war conditions. Formerly, if we posted our letters in London up to midnight, we could rely with certainty upon them being delivered first post the next morning. Now we may post them, but we do not know when they are going to be delivered. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who, as we all recognise, is a thoroughly competent business man, realises the difficulties that accrue to mercantile people if their post is not regular. I hope he will give the matter his attention, and see also whether he cannot increase the number of deliveries and collections in London, so as to give us something like the facilities we used to enjoy in old times.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If my hon. and gallant Friend had been here, he would have known that I said that these deliveries and collections were to be increased very rapidly.
  Sir F. HALL: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have been here the whole time. Letters may be posted by the midnight mail, but we do not know what hour the next day we are going to get them. It is an absolute necessity that there should be a more regular post in the future. I want to deal with the telephonic service. My right hon. Friend said that if we could be a little more humane, and if, when there was any trouble of getting connected, we could give a gentle reply to the maiden at the other end, we should get that attention to which, as subscribers, we are entitled. There are two sides to the question. You may ring up in London, and be told that they are engaged. You may ring again and again and perhaps succeed after a quarter of an hour in getting in contact with the subscriber. You say, "Have you been engaged during the past quarter of an hour?" and you receive the reply, "No; this is the first call that we have had." My right hon. Friend is surprised that a would-be caller should get a little annoyed, and he thinks it is unreasonable on his part. It is no more

  703
  unreasonable on his part than it is on the part of the people who try for months to get a connection without success.

  I brought to the notice of the House at Question Time the case of a keen business man who happened to live in my Constituency, but who had many branches and wanted connecting with the telephone. He applied in March, 1918, and he was told that he could not be connected then, but he would get on very soon. We have had the same reply in this House: "There is going to be an improvement, and subscribers will get their connections very soon." After twelve months of this shuttlecock and battledore business between the Postmaster-General and himself, he brought the matter to the notice of his Member, and, owing to the courtesy which is usually extended to Members by my right hon. Friend he was successful. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he would connect this gentleman provided he paid £277. It is scandalous, because the Post Office have not provided themselves with sufficient cables, that would-be subscribers should be told that they must bear the cost of laying the cables which should be borne by the Post Office. This gentleman happened to know that three floors away there was somebody who had been connected and who had given up the telephone because he did not get that amount of use out of it which he desired. If a public utility company had endeavoured to extort from those who were desirous of getting something from them a sum like £277, the Government would have taken the matter up, as it would have been their duty to do, and would have said, "No, we are not going to allow profiteering. You agreed to take so much, and you have got to find the connection." I succeeded eventually in my correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman in getting this sum reduced from £277 to £4. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh at that statement; but I want the public to appreciate that they are not here to have their pockets dipped into to such an extent in regard to things which should be paid for by the Post Office.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: During the War very large surcharges were put on the telephones to discourage people having certain connections on account of urgent military necessities, but these surcharges have now been taken off. The matter referred to
  704
  by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not one of beating me down in price, but simply an alteration in the Regulations.
  Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when these alterations came into force, because I am referring to the last three or four weeks. Considering the Armistice was signed on the 11th November, 1918, I hardly think that a letter should have gone from his Department demanding from a would-be subscriber £277 to enable him to get a connection. I hope there is going to be none of this sort of thing in the future, and everybody should be charged the same. If there are going to be two different prices to subscribers, or demands made from them in some clandestine manner, the sooner the House knows about it the better. I hope in a case like I have brought forward that even a charge of £4 is not going to be made in the future unless it is necessary that everybody should pay the same price. I do not say that the whole of the blame should be placed upon my right hon. Friend, and I am inclined to think that some other Department has been pulling the strings. This may have been a Department which is very careful in parting with some of its money, and that is the Treasury, and if they are to blame, I hope; the fact of its being ventilated here will put a stop to the manner in which they have endeavoured to extract such sums from the public in the future.
  The question of the sub-postmasters and caretakers has been raised. If you are going to say because a man or a woman is a caretaker they are to be asked to work 168 hours per week it might be rather misunderstood. It might be said that in the case of a postmaster working in his own department he works more or less the whole clock round, but I do not think anybody would accept that statement. I am going to plead for the special class to which my hon. Friend refers. There are the redundant engineers, and the Postmaster knows inwardly that these people-have not been treated fairly. The Post Office, if it expects to get the best out of the service, must treat these men fairly, and it is not fair to have men who have been in the service twenty-five years and have other people come in with a service of six or seven months and placed over the heads of those who have been in the Department for years. When we raise-this question, the reply we get is, "Oh, yes; the circumstances are that these men.

  705
  have been put there, although they have only had six months' experience, because they are more capable of carrying out the duties." It is nothing of the sort, because the new people were very often taught by those whom you say are not capable of carrying out their duties. There are some fifty or sixty of these people left, and I know my right hon. Friend has promoted a certain number of them.
  I was told at the Post Office twelve or eighteen months ago that everything possible was being done for these people, and, provided they could carry out their duties, their cases would be considered when those promotions were made. That is what should be done, but I am afraid it is not what has been done. The engineer-in-chief of the Post Office himself stated to a deputation which waited on the Postmaster-General in March last that at all events he did not agree that fair treatment had been meted out to these men. If the head officers on whom we can rely are of opinion that these men have not been treated fairly, can my right hon. Friend be surprised that there should be friction in his Department? I hope more attention will be given to this matter, and that there will be no more shelving of these people, and, as vacancies occur, I hope they will be inquired into, to see, at all events, whether these people can carry out their duties. There ought to be some independent inquiry, and if they can perform these services it is only fair they should be put into those positions.
  Then there is the case of the permanently unestablished staff. I think there are only about twelve of these on the central telegraph staff, and some of them are women. They have a disjointed service, but it runs through thirty and forty years, and in one case I know it is forty-seven years. These people have given anything from thirty to forty, and one forty seven years' service in the postal department, and they are unestablished, although some tenth-rate clerks who joined the service since 1914 have been established. These are just a few who have not been established, and there is no pension to be given to them, and I can see nothing but the Poor Law or the workhouse for them unless some sympathy and help is extended to them by the Post Office. You have had the work out of them, and because they have got married and become widows or their husbands have left them, and they have had to turn
  706
  round and earn their own living, surely the Post Office is not going to say that they are going to allow them to starve after the country has had the benefit of their services! I will give the right hon. Gentleman a list of these people, and 1 feel certain if they cannot be put on the establishment there is some way in which the Post Office can acknowledge their ser-vices and give them something for what they have done, so that it will not be necessary for them to obtain relief from the parish.
  My right hon. Friend stated that he intended to appoint a Commission to inquire into the telephone service. The Post Office is a business body, or at any rate it should be. We always look upon it, as the best-arranged business body in connection with the Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is necessary to appoint a Commission to inquire into the telephone service. I am going to ask him to go a step further and appoint a committee of business men to inquire into the various grievances of the public with regard to telegraphy and telephony, in order to see if they can give any good advice to the Government. They should not be tied down in their inquiry to telegraphy or telephony by red tape, and the Government should not appoint officials from the Post Office, because we want a free and independent Report. Under these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend and the Post Office and the public would derive some great material benefit from such an inquiry.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I did not have an opportunity of listening to the speech made by the Postmaster-General, but I have listened long enough to realise that his Department has not got a Friend in the House. Not one good word has been spoken, for his Department. What would happen if the right hon. Gentleman had been presiding at a meeting of business men and shareholders in an ordinary company if he had received such complaints as he had to-day of inefficient work, increased pay, delays in the delivery of letters, and, at the same, time, great additions to the expenses as a result? I cannot help thinking that if it had been an ordinary business meeting, instead of mild and cooing complaints, we should have heard the business described by the Press very strongly. I do not want to reiterate more than is necessary the com-

  707
  plaints about the telephone service. Everybody knows how bad it is, whether it is in London or over a long distance. It is difficult to talk from one part of London to the other, and very often much more difficult to hear, and it takes longer to get on than it does to get on a long-distance telephone from New York to Washington, Hon. Members who have had any experience will agree that this statement is correct. There is the usual complaint that the line is always engaged, and if you ask to see the supervisor you hang on until one says a bad word, and puts the telephone down.
  Another complaint I have to make with regard to the Post Office authorities is that they are so fond of pulling up the streets. There is one case I would like to draw attention to. In one of the most frequented thoroughfares in the West End near Piccadilly, for the last week there has been an obstruction caused by the Post Office, and invariably there has been one gentleman there sitting on a barrel, smoking a pipe, and apparently doing nothing else. I have never seen anybody working there except on one occasion, yet that is a part of London where there is some of the worst traffic, and for a week this obstruction has been there. I should like to refer for a minute to the postal delays. On Tues day I had to send round a communication to many Members of this House. I posted them in this House at twenty to nine. They were delivered only this morning, it having taken practically thirty-six hours to convey them from one part of the House to another. I know, of course, that they had in the meantime to be sent to the South-Western District Office. Apparently they were there unattended for a period. In my own house this morning by the second post I received a letter posted here last Tuesday evening. I hardly think we can look upon the whole postal service—the cable, telephones, or telegraphs—as efficient It has been held up by some hon. Members as a pattern to be copied by other branches of the industry in this country, but I am rather inclined to think that the sooner we get back to the day when the telephone especially was in private hands, the better it will be for the country as a whole. We have heard from an hon. Member above the Gangway that not only arc the services inefficient, but that the staff do not get proper treatment. Of that I have no knowledge, but I sincerely hope that
  708
  something will be done to get rid of the apathy shown by the general public in this matter and to ensure that a proper and efficient service is provided for the benefit of the taxpayers.
  Lieut.-Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not rise to attack either the system of individual enterprise or of national ownership as exemplified by our telephone service. Perhaps my experience is singular. But when one takes into consideration the exceptional circumstances arising out of the War I do not find that I have much to grumble about with regard to the telephones.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: That is the first kind word.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not think my temper is better than that of anybody else, bat I say I generally get prompt attention and courtesy whenever I use the telephone. If I might make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend it would be that if he wishes to improve the telephone system of this country he should improve the conditions of service. I do not know whether when a telephonist has to deal with three calls per minute there is really very much time for her to attend to her knitting or to gossip, and when she only reaches a maximum wage of 29s. after ten years' service, I do not think she can be regarded exactly as overpaid. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman has lost the services of from 6,000 to 8,000 telephonists in late years, and I can only suggest that if he really wishes to retain experienced operators he should pay them, better and work them a little less hard. An hon. Member sitting on the Labour Benches (Mr. Young) said he wished to look at this question from the human point of view. There is no doubt that the workers of this country, whether in national or in individual employment, are coming more and more to approach these questions from the human point of view. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to introduce the Whitley system into the telephone service. If we are to solve the problems that now humanise industrial and social life and if we are to eliminate waste and inefficiency, there is no doubt we must secure the co-operation of those who work in the industry If we do that we cannot do better than entrust to them a certain amount of responsibility with regard not only to discipline, but also the efficiency of the work

  709
  The same hon. Member gave instances of the bad old autocratic system, and the injustice it brought about. He referred especially to the treatment of the Post Office engineers. In 1911 a revision took place in the status of the second-class Post Office engineers. One hundred and thirty of them were promoted to another class, but the other 130 were told that they were redundant—in other words, they were branded as inefficient, and informed that they had no prospect of promotion. That was a very wrong and unjust decision on the part of the Department. Representations were made to the Postmaster-General by myself and other hon. Members, with the result that forty-four of these so-called redundant engineers were afterwards promoted to the upper category and since that time they have proved themselves officers of exceptional merit and ability and have risen to executive and other positions of very great responsibility. That in itself proves how very unjust was the autocratic, decision of the Department to turn down these 130 people as redundant and inefficient. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich and myself have for some years been bringing these men's grievances to the notices of the right hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has been kind enough to promise that he will personally look into the matter. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think mo disrespectful if 1 suggest that his inquiry should be conducted entirely in the modern spirit, and that ho should enlist the co-operation of their workpeople themselves, as nothing will content this very hardly-used class of worthy public servants if it is not a kind of joint inquiry.
  I want to call attention to the position of the girl telegraph messengers. Some 6,500 of these girls are still in the Government service. I should like to know what prospects they have and what education is afforded them. I put a question to that effect to my right hon. Friend, and he replied that they were encouraged to attend night schools, and suitable ones would be given opportunities of passing into the telephone service. I submit that that is not enough, and that the Department should charge itself with a much greater responsibility in respect of these girls. The form of education which is open to them is by no means educative. It is of a vagrant type, and somewhat demoralising in its nature. A girl who is knocking about the streets all day long cannot get
  710
  much good from that form of education. I submit that these girls should either be dismissed altogether or else should definitely be taken in hand and made to attend secondary classes, and have a proper chance of being absorbed into the national service. Some years ago the boy telegraph messenger service was one of the most disgraceful services in the country, and afforded one of the worst examples of boy unemployment. For a great many years the Postmaster-General said it was quite impossible to give these boys a better chance in life, but eventually after a good deal of pressure the Department gave its mind to the subject, and just before the War a good scheme was devised whereby these young people got a chance of being absorbed in the Post Office service. I suggest that if the girls are to be retained in the service they should have the same chance.
  There is also the question of the scale payment sub-postmasters. An hon. Member opposite condemned the position of this class in very eloquent terms, and he spoke of it none too harshly, because it is indefensible to have a scheme whereby the work of the Post Office is given out to sub-contractors who have a right to engage assistants at entirely inadequate wages. It is a really abominable thing that the Post Office should give out its work and not be able at the same time to control the rate of wages paid to the assistants. The system may to some extent be defensible in out of the way villages, but it is entirely indefensible when used in places like Manchester and other large towns and cities. The hon. Member opposite gave perfectly true instances of sweated wages which are being paid. It is monstrous that the Post Office should get its work done and make its profits on such glaring instances of sweated labour. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would give these three separate grievances his kind attention.
  Lieut.-Colonel BOLES: I wish to ask. the right hon. Gentleman when we may expect some improvement in the postal service in Somerset between Taunton and Minehead? Before the War, that district was served by a motor van, and there was no good reason for complaint. The letters are now conveyed by rail, and are not delivered at Watchet until eleven o'clock in the day. At Minehead, where the sorting-takes longer, letters are not delivered until after one o'clock. In certain places in my

  711
  Constituency west of Minehead, the arrival and despatch of letters are practically simultaneous, making it almost impossible for a business man to answer his letters on the same day that he receives them. At Watchet there are factories of some size, while Minehead is a large seaside town and a very popular place, which will be full of people during the next month or so. I have received endless complaints on the matter, and I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders) has had the same experience. The Post Office have promised over and over again a speedy return to the motor van service, but nothing has been done. I would impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgency of this matter, which is causing a great deal of irritation and annoyance in the district, and I hope he may be able to give me some satisfactory assurance on this subject.
  Mr. HOOD: I desire to call the Postmaster-General's attention to a very deserving class, about whom I have had some correspondence with him, and have received very courteous replies. I refer to the class of auxiliary postmen. I may explain to the Committee that auxiliary postmen are a class of men employed by the Post Office for about four or five hours per day, two and a half hours in the morning for the early delivery, and two and a half hours in the evening. They do not get very much remuneration for that service, but during the middle of the day they have been in the habit of obtaining other employment, as jobbing gardeners, window cleaners, and so on. At the beginning of the War, when the regular postmen were called up to undertake military service, the auxiliary postmen were asked to do full time duties. They cheerfully complied with that request, but now they are told, the regular men having returned, that they must resume their duties as auxiliary postmen. The effect has been to reduce their remuneration from 49s. to 28s. a week. That is totally inadequate for a man to keep himself, his wife, and family,
  Mr. PEASE: The amount of work is reduced also.
  Mr. HOOD: Of course, but the unfortunate thing is that in many eases which I have investigated personally the men have not been able to regain their original employment in the middle of the day, therefore the 28s. a week is the only remu-
  712
  neration on which they have to keep themselves, their wives, and families. I respectfully suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should make representations to the Treasury, and that a small gratuity, at any rate, should be given to these men for some little time, until they have had an opportunity of obtaining full employment again. I would also suggest that when he has an opportunity of appointing full-time postmen he should extend to these men the privilege of taking those situations.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am afraid that what one or two hon. Members have said is true— that the Post Office has not very many friends, especially as regards the telephone service. There is every justification for that. Of course, one has every sympathy with the Postmaster-General in pleading the War, bat it does not account for the state of the telephone service. That service was bad long before the War. It always has been bad. It has never been fully satisfactory, but it was much more satisfactory in the days of the National Telephone Company, and it would have been much more satisfactory even in these days had it not been for the arbitrary hand of the Post Office, which fell heavily upon it. The telephone company paid the Post Office or the Treasury a royalty of 10 per cent, on its gross receipts. Imagine what a royalty of 10 per cent, on the gross receipts of any business would mean! It was an extraordinary thing. Why did it pay that to the Post Office? Nobody knows. The Post Office had no telephone. The telephone was one of the most wonderful and delicate inventions ever conceived by the mind of man. The inventor himself could hardly understand how it came about. By some extraordinary legal misdecision in the eighties, someone decided that the telephone was something like a telegraph, and the Post Office jumped in and laid its heavy hand upon it. From that time the telephone service became worse. Then the Post Office took over the service. Why should the Post Office have taken possession of a delicate engineering problem of this kind, one of the most difficult to undertake? It is an organisation fairly well fitted for one of the most simple and elementary jobs known to man, the delivery of letters which only requires care and accuracy, but not for anything in the nature of science or skill. Yet this body came in and took over this delicate scientific system and strangled it. It led to an enormous expenditure of money.

  713
  The telephone company gave 10 per cent, of its gross receipts to the Post Office. If any landowner or duke had received a royalty of that kind I can see Mr. Smillie having something to say to him. It was a successful company. In Glasgow, not so very many years ago, we could get a, perfectly satisfactory telephone in our dwelling houses for 25s. a year. It was an admirable and most successful telephone at that price. I would like to see the telephone in every home. If we are going to have our people housed over wide districts why should not the telephone be put in the homes of the working men?
  Mr. SEXTON: God forbid!
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member must be one of the gentlemen who has had trouble with the telephone ladies. I have never had trouble with them. The telephone ought to be available for practically everybody. There is only one way of doing that. You will never make a job of the telephone service so long as it is in the crude and clumsy hands of a Government Department like the Post Office. I have always noticed a curious feature about Members of the Government. Instead of taking up a quasi-judicial or public attitude in regard to the particular Department they happen to represent, they always, defend it, with all its blunders. You can never get them to admit there is anything seriously wrong. You may question and cross-examine them, but they always speak up for their Department. That is a mistaken notion of loyalty. If a proper investigation were made into the working of this telephone system, if it was realised that it was there for the benefit of the public and that one of the first things we had to secure was a cheap and efficient telephone, everyone would see it is impossible to administer this complicated system as a mere sub-branch of the Post Office. What we really want, if we cannot retrocess it to a private commercial concern—of course taking care that the tariffs are duly limited—
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would they take it?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am sure they would. I have been in communication with one man who says he would put it in a satisfactory position in twelve months. Remember that the company paid £3,500,000 in royalties for nothing to the Post Office. It must have been profitable.
  714
  We want a special telephone authority like the Port of London Authority, a body whose business will be to do nothing else but to see that the telephones are administered in the public interest and not merely run as a sub-branch. Then we should have an authority which might possess a little of the same spirit which works in the ordinary commercial concern. In that case the employés know that if the ship goes down they go down with it. That is a marvellous stimulus to the ordinary man. If the employés know that it does not matter what happens and that all the cost comes out of a boundless exchequer, they will not care. We all know what Government Departments are and have been for all time. It is extraordinary to hear the demands made for the further development of Government Departments. One would have thought that the experience of any hon. Member in trying to get a man demobilised or a telephone fixed up in his house would have made him say, "God forbid we should have any more of it!" I hope that when this Committee is appointed there will be some real live business men on it. It is no use having Government officials. They cannot do anything.
  Mr. PEASE: I think an hon. and gallant Member referred to a Telephone Committee, but my right hon. Friend said that was a Committee which would be appointed to deal with the question of telephone rates—that is, the financial aspect of the question.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: One knows what that Committee will recommend— a raising of the rates. They cannot report in any other way. I remember once, in a certain department, in a great corporation where there was a deficiency, a certain superintendent was asked to make a report on the deficiency and how to cure it, and he took the very simple way that all officials do. He simply doubled and trebled the rates for everything. One of them happened to be a swimming-bath, and the representative said to him, "If you raise the rates three or four times like that, you will not have nearly so many people making use of the premises." "Yes," he said, "there will be as many, only they will not come so often." That was a type of the official mind. This Committee is only to deal with rates. I want to see a Com-

  715
  mittee which will examine into the whole question and see if it is not possible to construct something more like an ordinary commercial concern and something more scientific. You might as well have handed over the aeroplane service to the Post Office as the telephone service. It had nothing to link it with the Post Office. It was the worst Department that could possibly have had to deal with it, because it only had the simplest of Government activities to perform, namely, the collection and delivery of letters. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will prevail with his chief to do something much more effective than merely overhauling the rates, and will go into the whole question of the desirability as to whether this Department should maintain its grip of the telephones. From the very day it took them over it began to work them inefficiently, in a costly manner, and to the great dissatisfaction of the whole public.
  Dr. D. MURRAY: I cannot say much about the telephone system of late years, but the Post Office generally, up till quite recently, used to be considered one of the most efficient and best-run institutions in the whole country. Whether it has changed of recent years I do not know, but a few years ago it used to be recognised as a very efficient institution. This Committee has been likened to a shareholders' meeting, but shareholders would not be demanding post offices here and extensions there, and the spending of money in some other quarter, as some of us have been doing. It interested me greatly to hear hon. Members talking of having only six, seven, eight, nine, or ten postal deliveries in the day. I want to speak about a place where we do not have postal deliveries except perhaps occasionally, if the weather is good, twice a week. I am not speaking of the local parish pump post office, but of the postal communication with the whole of my Constituency, the outer Hebrides. Certainly in the Northern part of the constituency there is a daily mail, but in two-thirds of the area there is only a mail twice a week, by steamer. I am not talking of internal communications; they are bad enough, but they might be worse, and I am quite content to leave that to the Post Office, but I do not think it is too small a matter to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the extremely defective condition of the postal services to the outer
  716
  Hebrides. At this time of day any considerable population in the country should have a daily postal service. I do not think that is too much to expect. Of course, I shall be told it will not pay. I quite admit that. In every part of the country there are areas that do not pay in the conventional economic sense of the term, but I think it pays the country from many other points of view that there should be a good postal service, as good as we can afford, in every part, so that in these islands I think it is quite a fair claim to make that we should have a daily service between them and the mainland. In Lewis there is a daily service. The only complaint we have to make there is that the Highland Railway Company is a bit slow in its methods of progress. It is suggested sometimes that you can take a walk to vary the monotony of a journey. There is a good deal of lost time at the railway stations on the way, so that the mail boat which brings the mails to the whole population of Lewis, which is 30,000, has been a good many hours later in the last few years than in former years. The boat used to arrive in time for an evening delivery. Now it arrives at midnight and you do not get the mail until the morning.
  There is another matter which I think the Post Office, if it took a broad view of its functions, might take into consideration and that is the suitability of the boats. I do not allege that they are not quite safe to carry the mails, bur. the Post Office could largely help the population with regard to the passenger service if, when making their contracts, they made it a condition that the boats should be suitable for carrying passengers at every time of the year. Post Office subsidies arc a valuable addition to the finances of the steamboat companies, and I would very strongly impress on the Post Office, who are the only people we can directly appeal to, that they should lay down severe conditions when the Post Office subsidy is granted that the boats should be of sufficient size to carry the usual number of passengers and that those who travel in these parts should be carried with a reasonable degree of comfort in winter as well as in summer. There is quite a considerable population in the southern part of the constituency, but the only communication with the mainland is twice a week, and, as a rule, the two days are consecutive. I do not think that is fair treatment of a population that has

  717
  given a good deal of support to the nation in the time of stress through which we have recently passed. Before the War they had a daily service, and, of course, they miss it much more now than if they had never had it. The people naturally think, now that we have had peace for some months, that some tendency should be shown, to have these services improved and that the return to a daily service should be made as soon as possible. I hope the Postmaster-General, although this is only an out-of-the-way corner of the country, will endeavour as soon as possible to raise the postal service within measurable distance of the level of civilised life.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member (Mr.R. Young) blamed the Post Office for sweating labour, which it does not employ, and praised it for not making a profit which it does not make. As the hon. Member is a lecturer, presumably on economics, this gives occasion for thought. For if it is a praiseworthy thing to manage a Department without making a profit, one wonders what is to happen when great industries are to be nationalised, as the hon. Member would wish, in the near future. Having been both a business man and a Government servant for long years, I sincerely hope the sphere of Government management will be as contracted as possible. A good deal has been said about delays in cabling, and two hon. Members from Manchester made most interesting speeches on the subject. Manchester is, perhaps, more affected than any other centre in England, but any persons interested in the cotton trade, no matter whether they get their cotton from the banks of the Nile, from the Zambesi, from the Mississippi, from Nyasaland, Egypt, India, or America, are all interested in Manchester. They all have their cotton brokers at Manchester, and all of us who are interested in the cotton trade have suffered severely from the delay in the cables. Nothing can exceed the trouble, annoyance, and loss to which business is put by these delays, whether or not they are due to the Post Office or to the telegraph companies, as to which I am not in a position to express any opinion. Delay has been our portion in London in regard to cabling and in regard to telephoning, and over and over again when I have been waiting for an answer to a cable in the City from the East I have been reminded of the Eastern letter-writer. In every Eastern city there
  718
  is a man whose business it is to write letters. He site, on the floor with his materials, and all and sundry come to him to write letters, whether it be business letters, love-letters, or letters of any description whatsoever. A man came to him one day and asked him to write a letter. He said, "I cannot, because I have a bad leg." He said, "It does not matter. I do not want your leg. I want you to write a letter." He said, "In my case it does matter, because when I write a letter I have to walk to the recipient to read it to him and to explain it to him. Consequently, when I have a bad leg it is no use my attempting to write letters." I declare that in London on the telephone it is almost quicker, if you have not got a bad leg, to walk to the person you want to talk to rather than wait to get connected and talk across the telephone. The telephone system is inconceivably bad in London. Nothing is altogether bad in itself, but only in comparison with something else. Take the telephones in other countries. They are immeasurably superior. In Scandinavia you see children getting on to stools because they cannot reach the telephone, and having long conversations with other children in localities some distance away. Along the Baltic coast and in the interior, you can telephone to the remotest village without the slightest difficulty, and if you have left behind your hat, your umbrella, or your walking stick, you can arrange to have it returned very quickly by telephone; but here in the greatest city in the world the telephone is the worst I have ever known. I do not know why the Postmaster-General does not gently chide these ladies who are so suspiciously ready to say, "Number engaged," or who cannot be got to the telephone for such long times. I am sure they are very charming ladies, and their occupation is exceedingly boring and troublesome, as one realises when one sees them at work on their key-boards; but, at any rate, it is their occupation, and they ought to be patient, and there ought to be some means of getting an early answer to a call. One hon. Member says he has never had any trouble with the telephone ladies. That must be because his "is a melodious voice that floats along the languid wires." Most of us have great difficulty.
  I did not get up to attack the Post Office; I have great sympathy with Government Departments, because I have spent most of my life in Government Depart-

  719
  ments, and I realise that it is impossible for them to do their business in a manner comparable with private management. I am sorry for a Government Department. I realise that the men are as good as they can be, but in the element in which they work, and the conditions which prevail, they could not, if they were angels come down from heaven, compete with business men, who have to make their living by the success of the business they manage. If there could be some retrocession of the telephone to private enterprise I believe it would be an extremely good thing for all concerned. There is one matter to which I should like to draw attention. Eleven miles from London there is a, village which is just outside the London radius. Anybody living in this village, on the border of Hertfordshire, can telephone to St. Albans or to Harrow, but people living eleven miles from London do not have a great deal of business with St. Albansor Harrow. They may also telephone to Watford; but whenever they want to telephone to London, to which place, obviously, they would want to telephone, every single telephone is a trunk call. In other countries you have zones of distances within which calls are local or trunk calls. Why is it that the line if drawn so narrowly as eleven miles from London, from some centre in London which may be Piccadilly Circus, or Nelson's Monument, or some other place. It is an absurd line, and seeing that the area of London extends into several counties, the area within which calls can be permitted without making trunk charges, should obviously be extended to a radius of more than ten miles from some London centre.
  Mr. PEASE: What is the name of the village?
  Sir J. D. REES: When I mention the name of the village the hon. Member may say it is an insignificant place, although it is entitled to the prefix of "Great." It is called Great Stanmore. I happen to live there, and I think in this I represent the inhabitants who are anxious to get the privilege—which should not be a privilege—of telephoning to London, not as a trunk call, but by way of getting some return for their subscription, which presumably is of some use even to a Government Department. I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F.
  720
  Hall), and the Noble Lord my colleague in Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) concerning the redundant engineers. It is unfortunate when one gets the title of redundant. It would almost seem to justify a policy of procrastination as the appropriate thing for anyone called redundant. I wish they were called by some other name, because I think these men have not been fairly treated. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who is a fair-minded, generous man, and must see there are strong points in their case, will give ear to their plaint, and that it will have favourable consideration. The Postmaster-General has now returned, but too late to hear what I said about the telephones. It would not be fair to repeat it, although it would lose nothing in the repetition. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate to him what I have said, and tell him in the politest manner possible that as a traveller throughout the world I regard ours as the worst telephone system in it.
  Mr. HAILWOOD: The hon. Baronet has been criticising the Postmaster-General for referring to some of his employés as redundant engineers. I do not wish to be a redundant Member of this House, but I have to revert to the question of the telephone system, and the position of affairs in Manchester. Perhaps the Committee is not aware that we had a snowstorm on the 4th January this year, which dislocated one-half of the telephone instruments in the city of Manchester, and they remained in that condition for something like two months. Imagine the condition of a telephone service in a city like Manchester— if there is any other city like Manchester—the hon. Member has been referring to the importance of Manchester all over the world in regard to cotton goods—when one-half the offices in the city had their telephone service out of order and the other half were unable to use theirs on account of the lines of the other subscribers being broken. I do not know which people were in the worse condition—those who had their lines broken or those who had not. I suppose the Postmaster-General will tell the Committee that that breakdown and delay was caused through the snowstorm.
  Mr. SEXTON: Did the Post Office order the snowstorm?
  Mr. HAILWOOD: My contention is that if this had been a private concern, the engineer would have been called over the coals immediately. Any business house

  721
  would have discharged the engineer who so arranged the lines that they would break in consequence of a snowstorm. I do not happen to be an engineer myself, but there must be something wrong with the system of erecting telephone wires if they have got to break because we have a snowstorm. One would think that fewer wires could be put on each pole, or that the poles might be put more closely together in order that they might not bear the same weight of snow, or that the wires might be put underground to avoid snowstorms. The Postmaster-General has also pleaded, as other Government Departments have done, difficulties in consequence of the War. But it is not only from the Post Office that men were drawn for the Army. Every business man in the country had to run his business denuded of men, and in some instances a larger proportion of men was taken than from the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that all through the War he always happened to have bread on his table. The difficulties in the bread trade were just as great in consequence of the War as in the Post Office. Yet the industry has been carried on. The Post-master-General has no right to expect bread on his table all through the War if he is not prepared to see that there is an efficient telephone service for the interests that are necessary in order to produce the broad.
  There is another matter which I wish to raise with the Postmaster-General. I cannot conceive a more glaring example of what I might call official stupidity in dealing with cases like this. There is a firm of India rubber manufacturers in Manchester which makes rubber tyres for the Post Office, the firm of Moseley, a well-known firm. They delivered a parcel of tyres to the Post Office in Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, in October, 1916, for which they hold the railway company's receipt, and this firm is unable to obtain payment for this parcel of tyres because the Post Office say that they have not received them. Correspondence has been going on since 1916. To my mind the proof is absolutely clear that these tyres have been received. But to show the way the Post Office run the business, this firm wrote to the Post Office pointing out that this parcel had been delivered, and produced the signature of C. W. Brain, which the Post Office admit is one of their employés at this establishment in Birmingham; but the Post Office said that this parcel came from
  722
  Aylesbury. The firm took up the matter and traced this parcel, and proved that it had not come from Aylesbury. Then the Post Office people said that this parcel came from Todmorden. Then the Post Office changed again, and said that the parcel came from Rochdale; and this firm went to the trouble of tracing all these different parcels sent by different firms, and they ended up by producing four signatures for four different parcels. The Post Office are only prepared to admit that they received three parcels. It is quite possible that this parcel may have been stolen in the post office, and because they have no record in their own books they deny responsibility. The firm actually sent one of their head men down to Birmingham to argue the matter out with the people there, and still they are turned down. The Postmaster-General acts as a sort of stone wall in this case, and in a letter written so recently as 10th June he says:
  "Nothing further has been elicited to throw light on the matter and in the circumstances the Postmaster-General regrets that ho can accept no responsibility for the matter."

  If a case of this sort were brought in a County Court, the County Court judge would have no hesitation in giving a verdict for the plaintiff. I do not know whether it is possible to sue the Government in a County Court. I suppose it is not. The only possible thing is to bring a case of this sort before Parliament. But the correspondence in this matter has been going on for nearly three years. It is only a matter of £2 13s., but the principle is there. The Post Office, because of some defect in their own system, or because of some peculation in their own establishment by which this parcel may have been stolen, will not admit liability. Cases of this sort are a disgrace to the public service, and if this is a sample of nationalised industries I do not know what is going to happen when we get some more industries nationalised. However, I hope that we shall all be Government servants in those days rather than Government contractors selling goods, if this is the way they are treated.
  Mr. WIGNALL: During the whole of this Debate we all seem to have forgotten that there has been a war on, that we have passed through the five most trying years in the history of this country, and that when we did take over the national telephone service it was almost on the eve of war. I am not yet in a position to judge

  723
  it exactly as we find it, but I am trying to compare what it is with what it might have been if the Government had not taken it over. As an ordinary man I am as frequent a user of telephones and telegrams as any other ordinary man in the Labour movement all over the country, and I have heard some hot language, and the only marvel tome is that the whole system has not been consumed. There are even some Members of this House who know how to talk over the telephone in a very haughty manner. It is true that an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway encouraged us at the start of this speech to believe that he was going to stand up in defence of the Department. However, he eventually joined in the attack. An hon. Member on the other side of the House talked a good deal about a snowstorm which broke down the wires. I do not know that we can blame the Post Office for that. We must wait until we have all the wires underground. Our telephone service is not all that we would like it to be, nor is it anything approaching that. Probably it would have been very much better but for the War. Looking back upon the period of the past five years, with its troubles and difficulties, I am not going to find fault and blame the authorities for all the mishaps. All I can say is that if it had not been for the War, if the course had been clear and the chances had been fair, I would be one of the first to condemn the postal authorities for not giving us a better service than that which exists now. We have to look at facts as they are. I do not know whether the little system of telephones that has been adopted in the town of Newport, Mon., was an experiment intended to be extended. It is a peculiar system, which I have always found great pleasure in using, and have always found quick and efficient. I was informed that it was installed there as an experiment, and that if successful it would be extended. From my experience, I should say that the system could be extended to the benefit of the users. It does away very largely with the exchange. You ring up, turn a little wheel, get your number, and you are in direct contact with the person with whom you want to talk.
  Mr. PEASE: You mean the automatic telephone?
  Mr. WIGNALL: I do not know the exact description of it. There is a little
  724
  wheel and a circle of numbers. You give the wheel a twist until you get your number, and you are through to the person you wish to communicate with. I think it is a most efficient service, and I hope it will be extended on a much larger scale. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. In the scattered area of the Forest of Dean there have been great difficulties during the War on account of the road service. Questions have been asked and answered, and the road service is now, I understand, to be extended. One of the troubles in some of the towns is the collection at the week-end. I am not going to plead for a constant delivery of letters. I do not think it is necessary to have deliveries four, five, and six times a day, except in very large business centres. I think that two or three deliveries daily in the residential areas are ample. Nor am I going to advocate the increase of Sunday work. I hold that we could do very well without postal deliveries on Sunday. If the great and mighty City of London can go without letters on Sunday I do not see why the rest of the country cannot do the same. When I am in the country I look out for the post on Sundays the same as on other clays. When I am in London In ever trouble about the postman on Sunday, because I know he is not coming, and sometimes I am grateful to know he is not coming, for one has at least the assurance of a quiet day. I mention this incidentally because I think we sometimes expect a great deal more than we have a right to expect from Government service. Although I am not pleading for deliveries on Sunday in the area I have referred to, I think there ought to be an additional collection to cover the week-end posting. During the election I posted some letters on a Saturday evening in the town of Cinder-ford. Some were addressed to the North of England. I was informed afterwards that these letters would not be cleared until some time on Monday morning. I traced the letters and found that those I had posted on the Saturday evening were not delivered in Middlesbrough until Wednesday morning, and this was all because of the break in the collection from the Saturday evening till the Monday morning. I am informed that that break has always been the custom, and that it has been the subject of complaint. If arrangements could be made for an extra collection early on the Sunday morning, or at midnight on the Saturday, it would

  725
  remove the difficulty and be a great convenience in all these towns. I feel sure it is only necessary to bring it before the notice of the authorities for the matter to have consideration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I make no apology for going back to the table question, because I have a constructive suggestion to make. The Debate, so far, has been nothing but criticism; not one suggestion has been made except the handing over of the telephone service to private enterprise. This cable question is of tremendous importance, as we all know, especially in the East and in China, Things are in such a state that it takes many days to get commercial cables out to China. One of our greatest commercial competitors, Japan, is on the spot, and is not under this disability. America is not troubled with delay in getting her cables from the Pacific Coast ports to the China ports. I mention China particularly because I happen to know the facts. We do not use wireless. I know that the Imperial chain is not completed, but that could be made up, and I would suggest that the Government examine very carefully the feasibility of using our cruisers on foreign stations for this purpose. Those cruisers, fitted with the C. and W. wireless installations can communicate over very great distances, and could be used to convey Government messages. During the War in the height of the submarine campaign, wireless was used for such messages because of delays in the cable, and we used the wireless also for messages to French and Italian ports and to Malta and Gibraltar. That was at a time when cable delays were more serious than they are even now when we are engaged in a great commercial struggle to regain markets. Some Government messages which are sent are simply scandalous, because of the small things they deal with, and yet such messages take priority over the most urgent commercial messages, the delay of which may mean the losing of a particular order or even a whole market, and that in a time of world reconstruction, when we are trying to get the wheels of commerce and industry going again. This is a matter of very great importance, and I have raised it by questions in the House. I do suggest to the Postmaster-General most earnestly to consult with the Admiralty on the subject, but before doing so to see the Prime Minister, as otherwise the Admiralty will tell him we have never done this sort of thing before and we can-
  726
  not do it now. Therefore I advise the Postmaster-General, in the interest of the commercial community, to short-circuit the Admiralty by seeing the Prime Minister and then pressing for this concession. Wireless operators in ships on the Navy might do this outside work until the cables get into order again, but that will have to be pushed by the Postmaster-General or it will never go through.
  There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the complaint which is sometimes made about the sharp manners of the staffs of post offices, especially in provincial towns. Speaking personally, I have never had any complaint to make and I have always been treated politely, so that in raising this matter it is not in any way personal. But one does get complaints, especially from elderly people or those who may be a bit slow that they are treated with discourtesy. Sometimes Government servants think they are little tin gods. That feeling has grown during the War, and they may be apt to think because they are employed in the Post Office that the people are there for their convenience and not they for the public convenience. I dare say that the Postmaster-General has bad complaints on this subject before, and I would ask him to see that everyone is treated with the courtesy deserved. I believe a Whitley Council has been set up in the Post Office. It will not be a success unless the heads of the Post Office make it so, and help to make it so. I know that the employés want to make it a success, and that, so far as the Postmaster-General is concerned, it will be a positive blessing to him if it is. Referring to the question of wages, I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the item in the Estimates giving the salaries paid in London in the Stores Department, and on page 4 of those Estimates he will find that the superintendent of typists is paid the princely salary of 45s. per week. When we come down to the humble typist, who may be keeping a widowed mother or a disabled mother, we find that she is paid 20s. per week, rising apparently by yearly or bi-yearly increases of 2s. to 26s. per week, and that in London for typists.
  Mr. PEASE: The war bonus is not included in that.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the cost of living is coming down, and I think it would be really more

  727
  generous and just if the permanent wages had been raised. The permanent salaries of the Army and Navy have been raised, and the Post Office, I think, should receive the same concession. We do not know how long the war bonus is going to remain, and if it is removed I hope that the established salaries will be increased. On page 36 I see that in the Secretary's Office in Edinburgh there is a female typist, twenty-one years ago, who receives a salary of 19s. per week. Really, that is sweated labour.
  Mr. PEASE: The bonus is not included there
  Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: We know there has been a bonus, but, nevertheless, I would like an assurance that that salary wall not drop back to such a low level, and that a lead will be given to private employers in this matter, and that the Post Office will not act as a sweater of labour. Let me say a word about the telephone. It is the fashion now to crab the telephone service or any proposal for nationalisation. No one has talked very much in recent weeks about the London tubes, for instance. An hon. Member opposite spoke about bread, and we had many complaints about war bread. The 4-lb. load is now 9d., and there is a subsidy of £50,000,000 per year, so that I think-that illustration, compares badly with the telephone service. I use a telephone, and honestly, when we consider the difficulties connected with all telephone materials required for the front, and the fact that operators had to go abroad, and that many of the telephone girls joined the picturesque V.A.D. or the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and left the equally important work of the telephone, and when we remember the number of vast hotels occupied by bureaucrats with the telephone in every little cell, and when we know there was no delay in getting them, I really think that on the whole the telephone service is not so bad. I have not experienced any discourtesy in connection with the telephone, and I think there is a good deal in the way you address people in a matter of that kind. The Telephone Service in Paris has deteriorated very much since the War. knew Paris before the War, and the deterioration of the Telephone Service there is most marked. I was in Paris in 1918, and one noticed it there, and all this controversy had not then come about, and
  728
  I think it is not a little strange that Member after Member should abuse our Telephone Service and then say, "Now, how can we possibly nationalise anything else? Had not we better give back the telephones, the trains, and everything else to private enterprise?" I do not often praise the Government, but on this occasion I think there is a lot to be said for them, and I think we shall see an improvement soon.
  Mr. JODRELL: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the present postal service in the county of Norfolk, which is an agricultural county. It is a county that is almost by nature an island, and it is thinly populated. The railway service was never very complete, and it is extremely roundabout in its methods. The result of this has been that since the post carts have been taken off, as they were some two years ago, the agricultural communities in the outlying villages do not get their letters till ten o'clock or afterwards in the morning, whereas they used to have the best postal service that any country could wish for in getting their letters very often before seven in the morning. It will be within the memory of the Assistant Postmaster-General that a very strong deputation came up from the county to protest against the taking off of those carts, and the Noble Lord who then represented the Post Office said it was the most important and convincing deputation he had ever received, but in spite of that, the carts were taken off, and the county goes on suffering now. It is not a light handicap on the working of a very difficult productive industry. There exist there men in outlying farms very far from the centres who are professors of agriculture of no mean order, and who get their letters so late that it is impossible for them to take the only train in the morning that takes them to Norwich. I have a word to say about the Telephone Service, and that is the extraordinary way in which the lines are not linked up in certain places in the eastern counties. It has been brought before the Post Office on many occasions, but now I think the time has come when something, surely, can be done. It has been applied for by the police, by the guardians, by the county council, and by numberless individuals. There are three spots there, in Norfolk alone, where the telephone is prac-

  729
  tically within sight, yet it does not come to the village that most needs it. These things are, I believe, before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and I therefore do not wish to take up the time of the House in dealing with them in detail; but the people down there are really suffering serious inconvenience, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew how serious, I am sure it would soon be removed.
  9.0 p.m.
  Captain W. BENN: I do not wish to criticise in a hostile way the administration of the Post Office, because all of us who listened to the Postmaster General's statement must realise that he has been contending, with some success, against tremendous difficulties. When he gave us the figure of the men taken away for the War, one began to understand what a very hard task he has had. In passing, one must notice that even now a service which is so essential to the industrial reconstruction of this country as the Post Office is still handicapped by the absence of some of its men at the front. That is an illuminating commentary on what the military adventures of the War Secretary really cost this country. First it is the farmers, who cannot get men for the harvest because they must be sent to Russia, and now it is the Post Office. Of course, that is not the Postmaster-General's fault, but it is worth while to notice what it is costing us to go on with the sort of military adventure to which this Government appears to be committed. That is the only controversial point I wish to make on this occasion. This is the appropriate occasion on which to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman local difficulties in connection with the administration of the service, and I have had some correspondence with him about the delivery of letters in the North. He spoke of Edinburgh and Leith as only two of 24,000 towns in the United Kingdom. Of course, I cannot admit that they are the only two, but it is true that the mails from London to the North do not get delivered in Leith until half-past twelve in the morning. You must get your mail first thing in the morning in order to get your business to work, as every hon. Member who knows anything about business matters is aware. The right hon. Gentleman was very courteous in investigating the matter when I brought it to his notice. It is a matter which presses very hardly on Leith, and I would remind him that Leith is the com-
  730
  mercial part of the Edinburgh district. I would like to remind him, too, of the great delays in the transmission of telegrams and cables between Leith and the Dutch and Belgian ports. I have had cases brought to my notice where a firm only got an advice of the sailing of a ship from a Dutch port the day after the ship had actually arrived in Leith, and it is obvious that if that sort of thing happens it makes the cable worse than useless. It is not a selfish interest I am pressing, but the general interest of the commerce of a very important centre.
  I want now to touch on a matter which is not a complaint, but which, I hope, will have a stimulating effect on the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and that is the question of aerial mails. The War Secretary made a speech the other day in which he said, proudly, that we wore at the head of aviation in the world. I am sure we would like to lead, and I am sure we have got some of the best manufacturers in the world, but I am not at all sure that in practical ways we are at the head of aviation, particularly in this matter of aerial mails. We all know that developing new aerial routes is a very expensive matter. It will be, in my judgment, a very useful development indeed, and I think the commercial possibilities of an aerial mail service in particular are considerable, because a mail does not weigh very much; it is not like carrying passengers. But you cannot expect private firms to do this out of their own funds; it is too expensive. The risks are too great, and it is a service which properly should be undertaken by the Post Office, in conjunction, of course, with the Air Ministry. Of course, being, as I am, a most firm believer in the necessity of unity in the Air Service, I should foe against the right hon. Gentleman in his Department starting a little air service of his own. It must, of course, be done by the Air Ministry, but then the Postmaster-General should be an employer of the Air Ministry, and use them for this very necessary service. I ventured to interject a remark during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, touching this matter, and he replied that it could not be done owing to the atmospheric conditions. I think he has rather overstated the difficulties. It is not necessary for an aerial mail service to fly high. It is not necessary to have very swift machines—it is advisable to have them for long distances—but a sort of machine like the D.H. 10, which lands

  731
  very slowly, and could be used for this purpose, would very much diminish all the dangers of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I think you could get a very large measure of success—I will not say 100 per cent., but certainly 90 per cent. of success. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to that, because the Air Estimates are very large— £65,000,000—and you can only justify estimates of that size if the Air Ministry sees that we do not fall behind other countries in civil aviation. It would be lamentable if we allowed the great lead we secured during the War to be taken away from us.
  Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman of some of the things that are happening in the world in the direction of aerial mails. In the forefront is the United States. It is more than a year ago since the United States instituted a daily aerial mail between Washington and New York, with one stop at Philadelphia. As people very often say that these islands are not big enough to have an aerial mail, it is interesting to notice that the distance between Washington and New York is about 210 to 220 miles, and the whole of last and during this year this service has been run with very great success. I want to mention the various countries in which the thing has been done, in order to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice the possibility of doing it. During the War there was, I believe, a daily mail service between Vienna and Budapesth; in Denmark, a daily service between Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Christiania; in France, there were several, including a very constant service, used for Government purposes, between London and Paris; in Germany, a daily mail service between Berlin and Munich, with an average time of four and a half hours. In Greece, a daily mail service has been attempted. In Italy, the submarine difficulty was overcome by sending mails to Sardinia by aeroplane, and, as a matter of fact, there were many other services. As regards Brindisi and Valona, one can see the enormous advantage of sending mails over the neck of the Adriatic. In Spain, there are two projected lines. Surely, the example of these foreign countries should be sufficient to encourage this country to make a bold start. It seems really lamentable that even now, with the War over, and with hundreds of surplus machines, we should not make a start. The
  732
  Air Ministry has got large contracts with the manufacturers, and the manufacturers, I believe, are ordered to continue them. I think I am right in saying that in many hangers in this country machines are pouring in, are being heaped up and are deteriorating, and never see the air at all. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has not utilised any of these machines even for an experimental air service.
  This is such a fascinating subject that if I did not check myself, I am afraid I should weary the whole Committee, but they have even got so far as to have aerial stamps. In Newfoundland they produce stamps for the Atlantic air post. In Tunis, they have a converted 35 centimes postage stamp. In Switzerland, they have a stamp for the air post between Zurich and Lausanne, and elsewhere, so that other countries are getting to work in every way to develop this air service which we are neglecting. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say in reply to this, "It is all very well, but what would happen would be that you would start the thing, everyone would send their letters, there would be a great many failures, and the whole idea would-be discredited." That is the sort of answer I anticipate. Let me give him. some figures which I got only a fortnight ago, showing the success of the service in the United States. These are not newspaper reports, although those reports are very often more illuminating than official documents, but these figures I am giving have all the sanctity which belong to papers issued by Government Departments. The first annual report of the aerial mail service between Washington and New York has been published, and this is what it says:
  "Out of a possible 138.000 miles for flying "—
  That is the number of journeys added together—
  "128,000 miles were actually flown—a performance of 92.73 per cent. Out of 1,263 trips, only fifty-five were abandoned owing to the weather, and during the twelve months there have been only thirty-seven forced landings, and the balance sheet"—
  This will surely induce the right hon. Gentleman to consider it favourably—
  "shows a surplus of 10,000 dollars."
  That is all I have to say, but I do think it is much more than merely a wild dream of those who, like myself, are enthusiastic over aviation. I think it is a practical step, which the right hon. Gentleman. would do well to consider seriously.
  Mr. KILEY: One realised that, during the War, the Postmaster-General was unable to give us the service to which we were entitled. That was due to circumstances beyond his control, but, since fighting has actually ceased, one wonders if the Postmaster-General has done everything in his power to put our postal service on a proper basis, and as evidence of that I came across a case of an expert linesman in the postal service, a conscientious objector, who went before a tribunal, and they decided in their wisdom that the man should make a sacrifice, so they ordered him to become a farm labourer. He willingly complied, and did his best as a farm labourer until December last. He then applied to the Postmaster-General to be restored as an expert linesman. The Postmaster-General, in his wisdom, said he could not put him back until all the demobilised postal service men were able to return to their duties. [An Hon. Member: "Quite right!"] I quite agree there was some-tiling to be said for that. But let me give another case. A telephone operator, who is still serving with the Colours, and was not claimed by the Postmaster-General, wanted to know why, and I sent a communication to the Postmaster-General, asking why this man should not be claimed, as the telephone service was not to my mind working satisfactorily. The reply I got from the Postmaster-General was to the effect that they could do without the service of this man. Here is one man willing to return to his job, now the fighting has ceased, but he cannot be employed until those serving are restored to their jobs. But the Postmaster-General is not claiming these men, or all these men. Therefore one wonders whether some of the drawbacks which we are experiencing now are not due to what seems to be some lack of zeal on the part of those employed by the Postmaster-General.
  What about the female operators, of which I am the victim almost every day? When I want to use my telephone, I fail to get satisfaction, although I complain to the operator and the superviser. I have also pitched in letters to the Postmaster-General, and yet without any satisfactory result. I think there may be something due to the men who are on military service, but one wonders what is wrong with the female operators—there seems to be some mysterious reason for the drawbacks and disabilities from which we
  734
  suffer. I just rose to emphasise the point that many other Members have made, that our telephone service is much less efficient in my judgment than it should be, and in my judgment could be.
  Mr. HURD: I want to make a small constructive suggestion to (he right hon. Gentleman and perhaps the best way I can go about it is to give a personal experience or two. Last Saturday morning from my house I rung up my office. I gave the lady operator the telephone number. I heard that number repeated first of all to the local exchange, and then to the Victoria exchange, and ultimately I was put on to the wrong number. Taking the advice of the Postmaster-General I at once rung up the Victoria superviser. I said to her, "We are told the best way to correct mistakes is at once to inform you that a wrong number has been given, or any detail of the sort." The lady took details. I asked, "What are you going to do?" The reply was, "I am sorry you have been troubled." "The regrets are mutual," I returned. "Doubtless you will at once take up this matter, find out the cause of the wrong number being given, and put a mark against that operator so that if this-mistake is continuously repeated you may know you have an inefficient person"—which in an ordinary business undertaking would follow the usual line. Tea minutes later I rung up the supervisor. I inquired what she had done, if anything. The reply I got was, "We have no means of tracing where the fault lies." Really, that is not a business undertaking. If you cannot trace where a fault of that kind lies, I suggest to the Postmaster-General that lie should devise some means by which mistakes of that sort can be detected at once, and inefficiency dealt with.
  I also wish to refer to another matter in connection with which I have been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. That is the question of cable delays. A fortnight ago he made a statement in the House in reply to questions. He first explained the delays in the Atlantic cables. The information he gave to the House was utterly at variance with the actual experience of business firms in the East End of London. There was no correspondence whatever between the information given in the House and the knowledge of business firms who had suffered. I hope, for instance, in the case he gave of a delay of six hours in Press messages

  735
  he will make further inquiry, for as a matter of fact that same company that same morning had informed me that they were unable to take any cables at all on the proper Press rate. This is most discouraging, and especially dangerous and harmful I when you are dealing with Empire relations. We have next year a great Empire Press Conference in Canada, and this question is coming up as a matter of urgency. It would be a great service to the Empire and the new relationships we want to bring about between the peoples of the Empire if the Postmaster-General were able to talk over in friendly conference with the companies these questions of communication by cable and wireless, and see if we cannot get the whole affair put upon a more equitable and sensible footing. I am told that these relations would be greatly promoted through the wireless system. I believe it is a fact that the wireless people are now approaching the Postmaster-General in order to got more facilities, or some new facilities, high power stations, etc. If this means an escape from the present delays, then I sincerely hope the Postmaster- General will take that line of deliverance.
  There is another matter. I believe it is a fact that the Government is paying a large sum yearly to Reuter's Agency in order to promote Press communications between the various parts of the Empire. That, I think, is a most dangerous proceeding. It is not right to choose one particular undertaking in this way, pay it, and j use it as a Government channel for sending out Press communications. It is a wrong principle altogether. I am persuaded there is only one proper function for a Government in the matter of cable communication of this kind, and that is to bring down the rate for everyone, and not to subsidise any particular agency, but to lower the cable rates all round, and leave it to the ingenuity and enterprise of those dealing with the supply of news on both sides of the Atlantic to give what is required to the public. That is the only principle we should go upon, and I sincerely hope we may hear that the Reuter's subsidy is stopped, and the money, with other money if necessary, is used in order to bring the cable system up to date and give a more effective service to those who wish to use it.
  Mr. PEASE: First, I should like to express to my hon. Friend opposite my
  736
  thanks for the statement he made in regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that many of those who criticised the various parts of the Post Office to-day did not have the opportunity of hearing that speech. I think that my right hon. Friend explained many difficulties and troubles which have been experienced by the Department I represent, and hearing the explanation would have saved hon. Members the trouble of stating grievances of which my right hon. Friend is well aware. Personally, as one who has been connected with the Post Office for four years, and has been associated with two other Postmasters-General, I may say that I think we ought to look upon this subject from a very broad point of view. I am not one of those who is going to try to defend the telephone system of this country at the present time. I realise it is bad. What this Committee wishes to do, individually and collectively, is to try to make it a great deal better, if possible. I can give a good many reasons for the position in which we are placed. The first, and a very broad reason, is that there is no class of the community in this country to-day which is giving as good work as that given five years ago for the same money, or for nearly double as much. And if the telephone system is not even as good as before the War, it must be remembered that the men and women have not had that amount of education and experience they ought to have received. It would be a perfect miracle if things were different. It is really not very extraordinary if we do not find the telephone system in that condition it should be.
  In regard to questions of the amount of difficulty experienced by individuals in various parts of the country, I would say that the correspondence which I have received, which is very extensive, suggests that the difficulties are more in London than anywhere else. In criticising the Postmaster-General, the first question one would ask is this: "If I were Postmaster-General, what would I do under the circumstances?" I am inclined to think, from my twenty years' knowledge of the House of Commons, that most of those who have criticised ray right hon. Friend to-day would be doing exactly what he is doing—that is, trusting the men who have been responsible for the telephone service when it was more efficient than it is at the present moment. I can-

  737
  not believe that in existing circumstances, when the country is suffering the strain of the War, that there are many reasons why the telephone girls in particular are not working as well as they did in the past, but to make a change would be inadvisable. I notice in a leading article in the "Times" this morning we are told:
  "The Postmaster-General, who will tell Parliament to-day as much as he dare about the telephone, must feel like the man of whom it was said it were better that a millstone were about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
  The writer goes on to say:
  "We persist in hoping for the best."
  Well, as far as this Debate is concerned to-night, I would like to deal with the various aspects one by one, and to endeavour to give as brief a reply as I can to each. First, let me thank the right hon. hon. Gentleman for what he said in regard to other points of the service. There is the question of aviation. That is a question in which personally I take a very great interest. I agree with him that it is not a question which ought to be thrown aside or considered as a wild dream. I believe that the possibilities of aviation for commercial purposes, so far as the Post Office is concerned, are very great. It may be that in a very short time we shall be able to send letters to China or Australia or other distant parts of the world in a comparatively few hours, and that the whole basis of our commercial business will be changed. So far as the telephone service is concerned, I would like to say that I have had some little experience of the automatic service, and 1 believe that would be a way out of our difficulties.
  There is no doubt that controversy has arisen as to whether telephone management in America is better than it is in this country, and also whether it is possible for us to proceed on the same basis with regard to the extension of the telephone service as the Scandinavian and other countries. One thing is certain. There is absolutely no complaint in regard to the automatic service, though the capital expenditure of putting in the plant is very great indeed. The hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) said that we had no Friend in the House of Commons. As far as his telephone experience is concerned, there have been a great many difficulties, but some of the difficulties arise from the way in which individuals themselves deal with the telephone. It is a small matter, Taut it is really
  738
  a rather important one: The majority of people do not mention their names when first they speak on the telephone. At both ends they say, "Hallo!" and then they proceed to talk. People who speak to me at the General Post Office often do not mention their names until they have had a long conversation with me. It is a matter of very great importance, because it means that the system is being wasted and that a great deal of time is being occupied quite unnecessarily. I shall be very glad to look into the question raised by the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset (Mr. Hurd) and communicate with him in regard to it.
  Mr. HURD: Which question?
  Mr. PEASE: The question with regard to finding out who is responsible for action on the telephone. I do not know whether his suggestion can be adopted or not I would like to refer to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. Young) in regard to the question of wages. I have had the opportunity for many years of listening to Post Office Debates, and on some occasions in the past I have taken part in them, and so far as the Debate today is concerned the question of wages has not arisen to any great extent. It may be due to the fact that neither the Postmaster-General nor the Assistant Postmaster-General now deal with the question of wages. As the Committee knows, it is dealt with by separate arbitration. I would like to point out, however, that the increases have been enormous. When the hon. Gentleman on one of the Back Benches said that it was remarkable that the charges should go up after these large increases of wages, I could not follow him in the least. I will put before the Committee a few of the increases with regard to two classes of labour in the Post Office Department, to give an idea of the increases that have taken place in wages. It is a comparison of weekly wages in 1914 and in 1919. In 1914 the wages of telephonists in London of eighteen years of age and over ranged from 16s. to 28s., and in 1919, for the same work, they ranged from 37s. 10d. to 52s. 2d., including bonus. Similarly, as far as the provinces are concerned, the wages of telephonists in 1914 ranged from 14s. to 26s., and in 1919 they ranged from 35s. 5d. to 49s. 10d., including bonus. One can, therefore, see that to mention wages without bonus would be absurd, because the bonus is a very largo part of the total wages paid. The wages

  739
  of sorters, telegraphists, and counter clerks and telegraphists (male) in London in 1914 ranged from 20s. to 65s., and at present they range from 41s. to 101s., including bonus. I could give a large number of extra figures.
  I will look into the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) and see what can be done, and I will also look into the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Jodrell) and see whether what seemed to me to be a reasonable suggestion cannot be me. I want now to deal with the question of noises on the telephone which has been raised, though, perhaps, not so much in this Debate as on former occasions. Very few people realise that if one places his mouth a long way from the telephone the person at the other end only hears his voice as if he were a long way off. It is under those circumstances that many people decry the telephone. They do not speak into the tube, and therefore do not give the person at the other end an opportunity of hearing their voice. There is no doubt that insufficient maintenance of wires produces bad insulation, and that the double wire circuits used for telephones are thus more apt to be affected by induction from neighbouring wires or by the currents which escape from electric light and power circuits in the vicinity. The same results are produced by faulty joints in switchboard connections. My right hon. Friend referred at great length to the question of plant. If hon. Members take an impartial view of the question, they will agree that there is very good reason why the plant of the State telephones should not be as good as it was five years ago. When we consider that an enormous number of men have left this country for foreign parts in various theatres of war we realise that it is quite impossible without these skilled men with technical knowledge to do the same work that was done in times gone by. While faults of every kind are more numerous than they should be, I do not think that they are any greater than they were, though latterly people have been more acute in their criticisms.
  I should like to say one word with regard to the question of surcharges. It is a Treasury question to a large extent. When people like my right hon. Friend and myself, who have both had some experience in business, are mentioned as repre-
  740
  sentatives of a State Department and are compared with business men, it is hardly realised what a difference it makes if you have the Treasury to deal with. The reasons I will not go into to-night. With regard to the surcharge introduced during the War, it was intentionally designed to restrict the number of applications in regard to the more expensive installations when labour and material were not available to provide them. As was stated earlier in the Debate, the Treasury have agreed to make an alteration in this respect, and the charges have been reduced in many case. The extra mileage charge for installations beyond one mile (two miles in London) for the Exchange will be increased.
  On the general revision of the telephone tariff the surcharge will probably be merged in an increased rental. I would like to say in regard to that question, as I had so much correspondence, that there was no desire on the part of the Post Office to make a large amount of money out of it. The difficulty was that there were over 200,000 orders which were not complied with, and therefore it was essential to do something to render the position more possible. In regard to wrong numbers it is very easy to condemn the Postmaster-General because a certain number of girls in the Post Office or the telephone service cannot tell the difference between five and nine, and say a line is engaged when it is not, and make mistakes of that kind. It has been stated by the Postmaster-General that during the War a majority of the best female employés in the telephone service went to other Government Departments. Everyone knows that a great many of those girls were able to obtain very large wages in munition works and other places, and at the end of the War it was found that the telephone was far more defective than it ought to have been. We did not realise last year that at the present time there would be an increase of more than 25 per cent, in the number of calls required compared with the first day of this year. We must also realise that that means a very large increase in the demand for staff, and although we are educating these telephone girls at our school as quickly as we can, it must be some time before they are efficient.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any explanation of that 25 per cent. increase?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no explanation, but there is undoubtedly a very considerable amount of business activity in this country at the present time. As far as these girls are concerned, I have great hopes that they will improve in future. I would appeal to every employé of the telephone service and every other part of the Post Office service to show that splendid spirit of patriotism shown at the beginning of the War. If everyone tried to put in the best they could at this very critical time, there might be a very great change so far as the Department is concerned, and everyone knows, who has any knowledge of business, that it is on that that the interests of this country depends to a very large extent.
  With regard to another question which has been raised, I consider that the Post Office have been treated badly by other Department. People hardly realise what the duties of the Post Office are, and that is shown in particular by the criicisms we have had this afternoon in reference to the Censor's department, because that department is not under the Post Office, but under the War Office, and therefore the whole of the criticisms made in regard to the censors full to the ground. I would like to give a list of the automatic exchanges which are being put up in this country. They have been erected in Accrington. Blackburn, Chepstow, Darlington, Dudley, Epsom, Grimsby, Hereford, Leeds. Newport, Paisley, Portsmouth, and Stockport. Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite who referred to the ex-changes hardly realise that an automatic exchange means the depletion of the staff to a very large extent.
  I come now to the question mentioned by a considerable number of hon. Members, and I have to make a brief statement in regard to it, and that is the question of the redundant Post Office engineers. I was asked by some of them to receive a deputation in the Post Office in March last, and I did so. They placed their case before me very ably and fairly, and I endeavoured as far as possible to consider the matter with my right hon. Friend. Anyone must realise that this is a question of extraordinary difficulty, and therefore, under the circumstances, there is no doubt the best way out of the difficulty, after the alteration I am now going to mention, is for this question to be taken up by the Whitley Committee which is to be appointed, and that Committee can deal with the question, which I hope will then
  742
  be removed from the area of the House of Commons. This is the statement I wish to make upon the case of the redundant second-class engineers:
  "The revision of the Engineering Department in 1911 was devised to meet important changes which had then occurred recently in the work of the Department. Post Office engineering had long been comparatively simple and the qualifications of the officers recruited for the Engineering Department were accordingly not of the highest class. But developments affecting electric power, high-speed telegraph instruments, wireless telegraphy, etc., had created need for much more thorough engineering training, and it became essential to recruit officers trained to a higher degree of technical skill. The authorised scales of pay were not calculated to attract men of the required type, and accordingly a new class of assistant-engineers was created with scale superior to that of second-class engineers.
  It was not doubted that the second class of engineers comprised a considerable number of men whose capacity was equal to the duties of the new class. The qualifications of all members of the class were reviewed by the then engineer-in-chief, who selected 148 of the whole number of 263 officers as possessing knowledge and aptitudes equal to the responsibilities of the new class. The excluded officers were left in possession of their title of second-class engineer, and their scales of pay, and were placed against vacancies as chief inspectors under the new revision.
  The revision further provided for the recruitment of the new class of assistant-engineers by examination, half of the vacancies to be given to candidates from within the service, and half to outsiders, with the same standard of qualification in either case; and thus an avenue was provided for the excluded staff to demonstrate their fitness for the new class. But before this could happen so many appeals were received from the excluded officers that it was thought well to review their qualifications a second time, and this board of three engineering officers was appointed for the purpose. This board recommended that seventy-one of the excluded second-class engineers should be regarded as qualified to become assistant-engineers as vacancies occurred. The magnitude of this recommendation created surprise, but as the new engineer-in-chief was confident that recommendations of the board maintained a proper standard of qualification, forty-four of the redundant officers were promoted. Other promotions having been made from time to time there remained thirty-six excluded officers. The engineer-in-chief reports that some of these officers have worked hard to improve their qualifications. He has now again reviewed their aptitudes, and it has been found possible to regard a proportion of them as having attained a standard of qualification which will admit of their promotion should they be found equally well qualified when vacancies occur. The Society of Post Office Engineers is being told, however, that it is not possible to indicate beforehand either the total number of officers likely to be selected or the Particular individuals on whom the selection will fall."
  In my humble opinion, this question will never be settled, without controversy,

  743
  until Whitley Committees are appointed, which will be almost immediately. That will be the best way to settle this question. I have considerable sympathy with these gentlemen. They placed their case before me in a very fair way. I was very anxious indeed to meet them if possible, and I promised that each case should be reviewed again. That review has taken place, and a certain number of them have received the positions which they desired.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that some of the new men referred to were taught by these people, who yet were placed on the redundant list? Will my right hon. Friend also tell me what he is going to do with regard to the few women in the Central Telegraph Office, to whose case I referred?
  Mr. PEASE: With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is true that these men did instruct the other men, but as far as that is concerned, one cannot judge a question of this kind in that way. Since I have been at the Post Office, I have found that one of the greatest difficulties in dealing with the question of promotion has been in regard to the reasons why men are promoted. Amongst servants of the State there is a, strong feeling that they ought to be promoted in the order in which they stand on the seniority list, but anyone in private business knows perfectly well that that is a very great mistake. In a private office you may have a large number of people with extraordinary qualifications for doing work, and these may be placed over others who, from their own point of view, are equally qualified to accomplish the work in hand. In some Departments of the State there are cases where men in lower positions who have been Brought forward have been doing the best work during the War. It is found in offices of State as well as in private offices absolutely impossible to give any particular reason why men are promoted. With regard to the other question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, I will have the matter inqiuired into and will write to him on the subject. I should like to say a word or two in regard to what was done by the Posit Office in the War, because I think it is due to the Department which I represent to say something in respect of the war-work to which certain allusions have been made in the course of this Debate. Very few people realise that it is owing to the service of the Post Office, to a very
  744
  considerable extent, that this country is in its present position. I had the extreme privilege of visiting Headquarters in France towards the end of the War; I was in Peronne on the day 5,000 prisoners came in. I visited various stations, and while I was at the Headquarters of General Rawlinson's Army there were no fewer than 7,000 telegraph and telephone messages dealt with at that headquarters. That is something which it is almost impossible to conceive—one headquarters and 7,000 messages in one day. Of course, the Post Office was not. responsible for the signal section, but there were a good many men employed in the Post Office working there in the service of the country. When we consider that during the War no fewer than 2,000,000,000 letters were delivered to the troops, most of them without any delay, it will be realised that we did a great deal to help the men by securing them delivery of home news and parcels so quickly. I should also like to make a statement with regard to what the Post Office, telegraph and telephone service did in the War for the Army. With regard to the personnel, from the staff of engineers, skilled engineering, workmen and telegraphists, the Post Office supplied to the Air Force, the Navy, and the Royal Engineers, no fewer than 609 officers, and 20,000 non-commissioned officers and men. This, of course, is included in the total of 85,000 to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  The Stores Department is a Department of the Post Office which rarely comes under the notice of the House, but it is really one of the most important Departments of the State, and it performs many functions which are quite unknown in the House of Commons. For instance, it has a great Inventions Scientific Department, and the machine which provided information as to the distances guns were firing, the range-finder—without aeroplanes going up in the air—was invented by a man in the Post Office Scientific Department. The Stores Department of the Post Office took over in 1915 the work of supplying telegraph and telephone stores to the Army abroad and at home. In the early months of the War there was great difficulty in supplying these stores owing to the unprecedented demand. The total value of the stores supplied by the Post Office to the military authorities during the War was about £6,500,000. The whole of these

  745
  stores were examined and tested by the Post Office staff. They included over 90,000 poles and over 400,000 miles of copper, bronze and iron wire of the value of over £2,500,000, 45,000 miles of trench cable of the value of over £3,500,000, and switchboards and telephones of the value of over £500,000. With regard to the question of special apparatus, before the War the telephone apparatus used for military purposes was very simple, but a demand quickly arose for more complicated means of communication with special devices to meet the novel conditions of trench warfare, and the Post Office designers and Research Branch were employed in the production of this apparatus. May I say here, that if any hon. Members of this House would like to visit the stores, and will let me know, I will make arrangements, and I am sure they will be shown something which will astonish them, and which will be of great value to them as Members of the House. During the War four new telegraph cables containing twelve circuits were laid between England and France for military purposes, whilst four new telephone cables, also containing twelve circuits, were also laid. One Post Office ship was lost through striking a mine.
  May I say in regard to what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said this afternoon about cables, that there is no doubt it was quite impossible for us to mend cables as we should wish to do in time of war. So far as regards sending out cable ships, which was. suggested in some speeches made this afternoon, that was utterly impossible. I should like to say one word in regard to the question of instruction in telegraphy so far as the War was concerned. This is a matter of considerable importance, and one which is not generally known. A staff of telegraph instructors was supplied to the Royal Engineer Signal Training Centre in 1915. A staff of fifty instructors in telegraphy and telephony, each provided with demonstration sets of apparatus, was recruited for the purpose of training the Royal Artillery in telegraph and telephone signalling. About 60,000 Artillery signallers attended the courses of lectures and subsequent examinations. In 1915 a Wireless Telegraph School was staffed with instructors and partially equipped by the Post Office and the Royal Air Force, and Post Office instructors also took part in the training of many hundreds of wireless tele-
  746
  graphists for the Air Force at the Polytechnic in London. With regard to the arrangements for air raid warnings, probably the Committee will have some knowledge of the work which was done and also of the recognition by His Majesty of the splendid bravery shown by many of the girls employed in the telephone service. These are the same girls about whom there has been complaint made to-day. I would like to mention one case of a girl in London who went to one of the big stations and a very big bomb fell on the station within a, few yards of her. Several other people round her all went away, but she got down to her horse, stroked his nose, talked to him, got on the mail cart again, and drove away. There has been nothing more magnificent than the courage shown by these girls.
  An HON. MEMBER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the girl?
  Mr. HURD: Did she receive an honour?
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. PEASE: I can easily give the name to my hon. Friend, but for the moment I cannot remember it. She did receive an honour. With regard to home defence communications, which is also an important point, on 'the outbreak of war a chain of naval war signal stations on the coast was connected with Naval Headquarters, and to a considerable extent staffed by the Post Office. The bases of the Grand Fleet, the dockyards, and the wireless stations of the United Kingdom were placed in direct communication with the Admiralty. Communications were also provided for the Naval Coast-Watching Stations of the United Kingdom, and for the stations of the Naval Air Service. Special cables were laid to many lightships. For Army purposes high-speed telegraph and telephone circuits were provided on the outbreak of war. When the New Armies were being raised many thousands of telephone lines were provided for the barracks, camps, and billets in which they were housed and trained. Complete systems of emergency communications to be brought into use in case of invasion were provided for the Armies of the Home Defence Force. For the Anti-Aircraft Defence Service a complete network of communications was provided, connecting 450 gun stations, with 700 range-finding circuits, 750 searchlight stations, 450 observer posts, and numerous squadron headquarters and flight stations of the Royal Air Force, for which no less than 600

  747
  aerodromes of various kinds were equipped with telephone installations. The new telephone and telegraph works provided by the Post Office for war purposes cost altogether £2,335,000, in addition to which over 48,000 miles of existing overhead wires and about 50,000 miles of existing underground wires were used for the same purpose. I am very glad to have had an opportunity of giving the Committee that information with regard to the war work done, because we are inclined to look at these questions to-day from rather a narrow point of view. We often hear condemnation of the Post Office, generally in regard to some particular instance. An hon. Member will come to me and say, "I think it is the worst service I know in the world." The reason is that he has seen somebody sitting on a barrow smoking a pipe, or perhaps someone in his house has not done the amount of work he ought to be able to accomplish in a few hours. It is no excuse, of course, but, at the same time, the people of this country, owing to the nerve strain of the War, are not able to or do not at the present time in any walk of life accomplish the amount of work in the same time they did previously. I would now refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) in regard to the telephone service. He referred to the sale of that service to the State, and thought that the State had made a bad bargain. That may or may not be so. It was done when I first came into the House. So far as the amount paid is concerned, I should like Mm to remember that the amount asked for by the National Telephone Company was £21,000,000, and the amount awarded by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who were the arbitrators or referees In the matter, was £12,000,000. The day after that was announced the stock fell by 30 per cent., which is a very considerable amount.
  I would also refer to the question of the employment of disabled soldiers and sailors. I can assure my hon. Friends that there is no body in this country more anxious than we are to employ, if possible, these men who have served this country and who have made such great sacrifices, so far as their strength is concerned, as the Post Office servants. The ex-soldiers and ex-sailors appointed to permanent or
  748
  quasi-permanent Post Office situations are as follows: This is for 1919—January, able-bodied 62, disabled 13; February, able-bodied 192, disabled 36; March, able-bodied 396; disabled 56; April, able-bodied 804, disabled 83; May, able-bodied 1,106, disabled 136; June, able-bodied 1,521, disabled 219.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage that is of the total number taken on by the Post Office?
  Mr. PEASE: It is impossible for me to say at the present moment because of the number of men who are coming back from the front. In connection with that I should like to say that, so far as my answer this afternoon was concerned, there is a demand in the Post Office at the present moment, especially in the Engineering Department, for skilled men. There is any number of applications, for which there are not many vacancies, by men who are not skilled. I could not follow what was said by an hon. Member just now with regard to skilled men not being able to obtain employment, unless it is a question of establishment. If he would communicate with me on that question I should be very glad to look into it further.
  I should like to say something with regard to the services which are performed by the Post Office. One might have the idea that the work is comparatively small. It has increased year by year, and anyone who thinks of what the Post Office was able to accomplish ten years ago and realises what they have to do now will see that the quantity and quality of the; work has completely changed. The additional services performed by the Post Office, outside what is generally considered to be Post Office work, comprise facilities for the remittance of money orders, a Savings Bank, which represents an enormous amount of work. The number of clerks in it at present is between 3,000 and 4,000, most of them women. It invests small sums on Government security and performs services in connection with Government Loans, which is a very great item. it transacts annuity and insurance business for the National Debt Commissioners; it sells certain local taxation licences for county councils; it pays Army and Navy and other Imperial pensions, and Army and Navy allowances by means of allowance forms or money orders for the War Office, Admiralty, and other Government Depart-

  749
  ments. That is really a very serious matter, and makes a great many of those difficulties, which we have to acknowledge, for others who are trying to do business in a particular post office. That is, to a very great extent, the reason of much of the criticism we have heard. It receives duties and taxes on behalf of the inland Revenue by means of money orders. It pays bankruptcy dividends, by means of money orders, for the Board of Trade. It exhibits throughout the country. Government notices which require wide publicity— for instance, recruiting notices for the War Office and Admiralty, and notices regarding emigration for the Board of Trade, the Colonial Office and other offices. It pays old age pensions. It distributes cards and sells stamps in connection with national health and unemployment insurance, makes payment on behalf of various Government Departments by means of postal drafts, arranges for the disposal of currency notes withdrawn from circulation, and exchanges mutilated currency notes for the public for the Inland Revenue. These are only a few of the extra items which many hon. Members do not realise the Post Office accomplishes.
  Sir A. FELL: Does the Post Office make a charge for these very large services which it renders to other Departments?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes, in the commercial accounts. I should like to mention the question of the restoration of road services for the mails. In a number of places, during the War, road services were taken off and the mails transferred to the railways. The road services are being restored where the absence of suitable trains causes delay, and my right hon. Friend is extremely sorry for the great inconvenience which has been caused to communication. I get an enormous number of letters, and I should not be a bit sorry if I did not see most of them till the next day, but I can realise that it must be a matter of very great annoyance to hon. Members when they do not receive their letters within a reasonable time in the morning, but have to go out before the post arrives. The general standard is that delivery should be completed by 8.30 a.m. in the central parts of a town and by nine in the rural district immediately surrounding it. In a number of rural areas the first delivery is still affected by the restricted railway
  750
  service. As far as Aberdeen and many Scottish towns are concerned the delay caused by the slower train service is, to a great extent, put down to inefficiency in the arrangements made by the Post Office. If there is any blame it should not fall on us but on the railway companies.
  Captain W. BENN: Does that apply to Leith?
  Mr. PEASE: I am inclined to think it does, but 1 would not be perfectly certain without looking into it. With regard to the mail services to the provinces, as far as towns are concerned, in the future there will be three deliveries a day, four in the larger towns, and possibly five in. some of the larger provincial cities. Collections will generally be about twice the, number of deliveries. In the rural districts a second delivery will generally be provided when it existed before the War. In some cases the restricted train service prevents this being done at present. A third delivery will only be given in places like the Home Counties, where a large number of letters are available shortly after the first delivery, and at large villages and industrial districts and in the outskirts of the larger towns. With regard to several complaints which have been made in the last few days in regard to the rural districts, great, headway has been made in. trying to arrange pre-war conditions as far as delivery is concerned, but naturally the difficulties have been considerable. The daily deliveries in town districts will be increased from five to seven, and in sub-districts from three or four to four, five, or six, according to the importance of (he district, An extra delivery has already been provided in the East Central district, and in other districts the additional facilities will be working about the end of the month. The last delivery from eight to nine will be restored.
  Dr. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the Western Isles, which have only two mails a week?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not forgotten the hon. Member's speech in regard to the four islands he represents. I could not say anything definite in regard to it without looking into the question, but I will do so, and will communicate with him. With regard to foreign mails, a conference was held in Paris in March last with representatives of the French Post Office, as

  751
  the result of which the mail service with France and places beyond has been materially accelerated. There are three cross-Channel services available for the French mails, two viâ Boulogne, and the third viâ Havre. Letters posted in London before 10.45 a.m. are delivered in Paris the next morning, and letters posted before 4.30 p.m. are delivered in Paris next afternoon. The time of transit is thus about twenty-four hours. No material acceleration can be expected until it is possible to restore the night service across the Channel, which will enable letters posted in London in the evening to be delivered in Paris next morning. With regard to Switzerland and Italy, the mails leave Paris on the evening of the day on which they are dispatched from London. Mails should arrive in Switzerland twenty-four hours after dispatch from London and Italy thirty hours after, but there is considerable congestion, both on the Swiss and Italian railways, and the actual course of post is longer. With regard to Belgium, mails are dispatched by Dover and Ostend, and letters posted in London in the evening are delivered in Brussels thirty-six hours later. Mails to Antwerp are dispatched direct by Harwich twice weekly. The service to the United States is still somewhat irregular, but it has considerably improved. Since 1st January there have been, on the average, five sailings in three weeks. The duration of the voyage was about six days in 1914, and in 1918 it was from nine to eleven days. Now it takes seven to eleven days. At present nearly every steamer is required by the Admiralty to call at Halifax, which extends the voyage by at least one day. In regard to the Indian mails, about which I have had many complaints, the weekly overland service was restored in January last. The mails take three weeks to Bombay, as compared with fourteen days before the War, the difference being due to the much slower ships which are available, and which cannot be remedied.
  Captain BENN: By the aerial mail.
  Mr. PEASE: That is in an experimental stage. The ocean mail service generally will be improved as ships are released from Government service, but they cannot be restored to the pre-war standards until the losses of fast ships during the War have been made good.
  752
  With respect to the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member for the Taunton Division, I would say that some days ago authority was given for the acceptance of a tender for the restoration of the road service for the Minchead and Taunton mails, and we are waiting for a local report as to the precise date when it will be restored. In regard to the Post Office Relief Fund, the established liabilities are £316,000. To meet these the present rate of subscription continued until the end of August will be sufficient. On the books of the fund there are over 3,700 widows and 4,500 orphans. At the time of the Armistice it was supplying parcels of food to over 900 Post Office prisoners of war.
  I come next to the question of cables. This is a difficult question, and I was rather relieved of my responsibility by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wandsworth, who replied to the previous speeches in a much more able way than I should have been capable of replying, because he is interested as a part owner of one of the cable companies. He went very fully into the difficulties and told how they had sought to overcome them. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more, but I would advise hon. Members who did not have the privilege of hearing the hon. Member's speech to read it as an answer to the various speeches on the subject. I realise to the full, and my right hon. Friend realises, the extraordinary importance of a good cable service. It is essential that we should realise this and try to overcome the difficulties.
  I understand that one hon. and gallant Member is desirous of having a State-owned Atlantic cable, worked in connection with a State-owned Pacific cable, in order to establish an "all red" cable route to Australia and New Zealand. As Germany has now signed the Peace Treaty, under the terms of which she renounces all claims to cables, which have been taken over and used by the Allied Governments, there appears to be no objection to a public announcement being made concerning the Government Atlantic cable. One of the German cables between Emden and New York viã the Azores was diverted in July, 1917. to Penzance and Halifax (Nova Scotia) and has since been worked between the Central Telegraph Office. London, and Halifax. All telegrams handed in at post offices for Australasia are sent by

  753
  this cable, unless the senders mark them for transmission by some other specified route. All Government traffic for Canada and Australasia is sent by the cable. The Halifax station is worked by the Pacific Cable Board on behalf of the British Post Office, and the traffic for Australasia is forwarded by the Board over special lines across Canada to Bamfield, whence it is dispatched over the Pacific cable, thus completing an all-red route between this country, Canada, and Australasia. It is not possible for mo to follow all the figures given by the hon. Member for Salford in reference to the cable delays, but the figures which I am about to give the Committee will show that to some extent at least those of the hon. Member are incorrect, unless we are speaking of different periods. The present average delays for ordinary full-rate traffic are as follows: Egypt, outward 4 days, homeward 1; India, outward 4, homeward 1 to 11/2; Straits Settlement, outward 4, homeward 2; China, outward 4, homeward 2; South Africa, outward 4, homeward 2; Australia, outward 5, homeward 1. This shows the following improvements as compared with last month: Egypt, homeward 6 days; India, no alteration outward, homeward 5½ days; Straits Settlement, outward 1, homeward 5½ China, outward 2, homeward 2½; South Africa, outward 2, homeward 2½. In the case of Australia and Egypt there has been an increase of 1 day in the outward direction. The daily average of outward and homeward traffic (in words) over the Eastern Telegraph Company cables in 1913 and 1918—the latest dates for which statistics are available—was as follows: In 1913 the outward average was 31,678 words, and it was 86,313 in 1918, an increase in percent age of 172. My hon. Friend cannot hold the Postmaster-General responsible in any way for the difficulties which have occurred in regard to the cable services. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend did everything that he possibly could to improve the services, and it must be evident to all who take an impartial view of these things that during war-time and for some time after war-time it is impossible to maintain as efficient a service as was maintained in the past.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: There is some little misunderstanding about the removal of the cable censorship on the 23rd. I have no doubt myself that it
  754
  means that the whole cable censorship will be removed, and that there will be-no restrictions. Some hon. Members-seem to think that private codes will not be allowed in full. I believe that they will be but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make some statement, first, as to whether private codes for all commercial business will be allowed, and second, whether there will be any restrictions of any kind or whether cables will be as they were before the War?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The censorship on cables will be entirely abolished on midnight next Wednesday, private codes will be used, and everything will go on precisely as it did before the War.
  Mr. PEASE: I should like to appeal to the House to-night to give us this Vote without a Division. I believe that the service generally was a good service to this country during the War. I have recognised to-night that many of the services are at present not so good as they should be, and I realise to the full that the commercial prosperity of this country-depends to a very great extent on the service. I would appeal to the public to look at this question from a broad point of view, to be a little kind to some of the sins of the Department. I have not received any rudeness on the telephone, though I have used it for thirty years, but 1 have been annoyed on many occasions. I believe it will improve, and I hope that a little patience may be shown in regard to it, in spite of the great daily trouble which some people experience. I recognise to the full the great generosity which has been shown to my right hon. Friend and myself recently in regard to many questions which have been raised. We have endeavoured, as far as we could, to meet criticisms and to look into grievances, and in future we shall always endeavour to take up the same position.
  Captain W. BENN: Before the Vote is put could we have a word about the pension claim of K Company of the Royal Engineers?
  Mr. PEASE: That, I understand, has been ruled out of order.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Could something be said in reply to a question 1 put earlier in the evening about the land-

  755
  ing rights of the Western Union cables in England and Newfoundland, and as to the duplication of the Halifax-Bermuda line, which was recommended by the Dominions Royal Commission; and, lastly, the question of leasing another American cable from the Western Union?
  Mr. PEASE: I am sorry in regard to Bermuda. I ought to have been able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information, but it escaped my memory. I will look into the whole question and write to him.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: As one who served for some time with an expeditionary force in the East, I should like to pay my tribute to what has been said about the work of the Post Office. The celerity and regularity of the delivery of letters in different places struck one with amazement, and the way in which the work was done is a matter for legitimate pride. There is another question I wish to mention. It is a matter of same importance to the city of Aberdeen that the train arriving from the South with the mails reaches Aberdeen so late in the morning that letters are not usually delivered until between eleven and twelve. It is a considerable handicap to the business community of Aberdeen and other places in the North of Scotland. The inconvenience was accepted willingly during the War, but I sincerely hope that it may now be removed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: We were very glad to hear the Postmaster-General's statement regarding the employment of ex-soldiers, but it was a little difficult to understand owing to his being unable to give the proportion of such appointments to the total appointments, ex-Service and otherwise. He also stated that it was difficult to fill certain appointments for which skilled men were required. That is rather borne out by an answer of the Postmaster-General on 27th February, 1919. He was asked,
  "If it is intended that the 50 per cent. of vacancies in the Post Office reserved in the past for the Regular ex-Service men will still be available?
  Mr. Illingworth: All vacancies for postmen and for 'porters which are not required for ex-boy messengers will be given to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. I hope that the 50 per cent. will be exceeded during the period following the end of the War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1919, col. 1957, Vol. 112.]
  756
  That referred only to postmen and porters. The Assistant Postmaster-General also implied that they found it difficult to get skilled men from amongst ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. I suggest that clerks and sorters and sales clerks, and even telegraphists, could be found from amongst those who have served in His Majesty's Forces. The Ministry of Labour is paying considerable sums of money, and quite rightly, or is going to, and I hope it will soon get started, for the training of ex-soldiers in various employments. Would it not be worth while for the Post Office to take on even unskilled men, and train them in the same way as the Ministry of Labour propose to train them for private work? I do think, after this great War, that we should arrive at a decision that there should be no appointments to any public service, and especially the Post Office, of men who have not served in His Majesty's Forces while there are men who have served, disabled or not disabled, who are waiting for jobs. There is an enormous number of unemployed men, and I think the Government should set an example and give a pattern by taking on no man, probably for some years to come, except those who have served in His Majesty's Forces. In the future we may find considerable difficulty in recruiting sufficient forces for His Majesty's Army, and the best solution of that difficulty might be to provide what would be a greater alteration than extra pay or conditions if there, was some assurance that these men, who joined His Majesty's Forces in the future, would, on the termination of service, have a claim on Government employment. That is another reason for pressing the claims of ex-soldiers, both now and in the future. I do not suggest that a certain amount has not been done.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the restoration of deliveries in country districts and road services, but I heard no mention of any restoration of those sub-offices which were closed down during the War. I know a good many of those cases over the country and in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent. I hope the Postmaster General will consider the desirability of restoring those sub-offices. The answer I suppose is that they are not economic, and do not pay, but does the whole Post Office pay? We have heard there is a loss on the whole of the Post Office service. I submit there is a considerable claim for the opening of

  757
  these sub-offices. Many old men and women have to draw pensions and get stamps, and they have to go a long way to the central office because these sub-offices are closed. That causes a good deal of grievance and discomfort in small rural districts. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the reopening of most of these sub-offices, unless there is very strong reason shown to the contrary and little business done. There is certainly one office in my Constituency which he did promise to consider directly after the War was over that has not yet been opened.
  Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON:I should like, first of all, to bear out the remarks made by the hon. Member beside me (Sir J. Hope) in his contention that we should, so far as possible, employ ex-Service men; I think we are all agreed upon that. I should like to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent service which has been maintained during the War under very difficult circumstances, and I know of nobody who has shown greater service to the country than the right hon. Gentleman, who is most conscientious and most industrious, end has contributed in a very largo degree to the efficiency of the service. I have three points to pub to him, and the first is the dissatisfaction felt by many with regard to the delay in the delivery of telegrams. This morning I got a telegram from my son saying he had been delayed in coming up from Salisbury Plain, which I received about an hour and a half after he arrived. That, of course, is a very grave defect in the telegraph service. There was apparently no reason why the telegram should not have been delivered before, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into that matter. In regard to the telephone service, the public think, rightly or wrongly, that they have a very legitimate complaint as to the difficulty in getting their telephone messages through. We all know that you ring up the exchange, and sometimes you get an answer and sometimes you do not, and there is a very great delay, which causes enormous inconvenience to the public. That, I think, my right hon. Friend will put right. The third point to which I wish to draw attention is this, that in the country the telegraph service and the telephone service are claiming that certain trees are obstructing the wires which run past private property. I have suffered
  758
  from this myself, and therefore I speak feelingly. I am only too delighted that any branches of my trees which are in the way should be removed, and I should be very glad to remove them myself, but when you find men coming down and taking charge of the matter without any notice at all to the owners, and removing branches in the most rough and ready way, dropping them on to your fences, breaking down your trees and undergrowth, it is a matter which requires some attention. I am sure nobody would be more sympathetic in regard to that matter than the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he is the very first person to be anxious to remove any such cause of grievance.
  Amendment negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill seeks to give effect to the promise of the Government with regard to the Report of the Sankey Commission. May I remind the House of the terms in which that promise was given? On 20th March the Leader of the House made this statement:
"I say now on behalf of the Government that we are prepared to adopt the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter, and to Lake all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1919. col 2346, V0l. 113.]
A certain amount of delay has arisen because the Report left some points to be settled locally, and the Government attempted to settle those points with representatives of the miners and representatives of the owners, and, unfortunatey, they failed. It will be noticed that the Bill provides that, "as from the 16th day of July"—that is, yesterday—"this Act shall have effect," and so on, the gist of it being that "seven hours" is substituted for "eight hours" in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, the Act which limits the hours of working below ground. The Report of the Com-

759
mission, to which this Bill seeks to give effect, recommended that the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, should be amended by the substitution of the word "seven" for "eight" as from 16th July, 1919. Owing to reasons which I have given, it has not been possible to get legislative sanction to that decision, with regard to which I dare say there is no difference of opinion in any part of the House. Everybody is agreed that the pledge of the Government must be adhered to in the letter and in the spirit. Steps have been taken by the Coal Controller to ensure that the new maximum shall come into force as from 16th July, 1919. The Coal Controller still possesses authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to carry out that step, and that has been done, so that from the point of view of giving effect to the promise of the Government, the failure to bring in this measure earlier has not had any untoward results.
The first part of the Bill is quite straightforward—the substitution of seven hours for eight hours in the working day of the great majority of the men employed underground in the mines. There is another class of men—the firemen, onsetters, fan men, and pump minders, and a few others — who, under the Act of 1908, work nine and a half hours. In the Report of the Commission it will be seen. at the end of the first Section, that there is a recommendation to this effect:
"Certain adjustments must be made in the hours of the class of underground workers specifically mentioned in the Act."
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (7) of Section 1 of the Act of 1908. It is in regard to these men that the Government has attempted to come to some arrangement, and has failed. We have, therefore, decided to put into the Bill eight hours in substitution for nine and a half. I say quite frankly that the representatives of the miners desired that these men should have a seven hours' working day like the rest of the men working underground. The representatives of the coal-owners, on the other hand, wanted longer hours for these men. whose work is of a different character, of a more responsible and difficult character than the work of the underground miner. In the view of the mine-owners it would not be possible to carry on with safety and good management the work of the mines if these hours were reduced to the hour we have put in for the others. Under the circumstances, all we could do was to be guided by our expert
760
advisers, and the Chief Inspector of Mines is of opinion that the eight hours affords every necessary facility for the Regulations regarding safety and good management to be adhered to, and at the same time it is unnecessary to point out that a reduction from nine and a half to eight is a still greater reduction than from eight to seven, which is the reduction given to the ordinary miner. We have, therefore, endeavoured to reach a settlement which we hope will be accepted by the House, and which appears to us to be fair and workable. There is, however, one exception. These special class of men comprise firemen, examiner, or deputy, onsetter, pump minder, fan man or furnace man, and we have excluded the onsetter. He is the man who regulates the loading of the cage, who is responsible for the signals, and without whom it is impossible to carry on the working of the shaft. It has been felt that if the onsetter goes down with the first cage and comes up with the last cage in a shift it would be possible for him to discharge his duties, and therefore the onsetter has been excluded from the category of men for whom a special proviso is necessary, and he is included among those to whom the reduced seven hours apply.
We now come to paragraph (b), with regard to which I would ask hon. Members to refer to the latter part of the first section of Mr. Justice Sankey's recommendations. Subject to the economic position of the industry at the end of 1920, it is recommended that there should be the substitution of the word "six" for the word "eight" as and from 13th July, 1921. That, obviously, is a very grave step to take, and, in view of the Government's undertaking to carry out the recommendations of this Report in the letter and in the spirit, I do not think that any hon. Member would consider that we had been as good as our word if we had omitted any reference to that important part of the recommendation. At the same time, it is clearly impossible to say now, in 1919, whether the conditions in 1921 will be such as to justify the considerable alteration foreshadowed in this Report, or whether the economic and general conditions of the country will warrant so momentous a change. It is accordingly provided in paragraph (b) that the decision in this grave matter shall rest with what should be the greatest and most competent authority to deal with matters of overwhelming importance, namely, Parliament.

761
Therefore, it is left in this paragraph to Parliament to decide by a Resolution of both Houses whether or not the economic conditions in 1921 do, in fact, justify the change foreshadowed as possible in the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey. There is a proviso at the end of Sub-section (1) to deal with the exceptional conditions which are provided for in Sub-section 7 (b) of Section 1 of the Coal Mines Act, 1908, dealing with occasions when it may be necessary fur the purposes of safety that there should be continuous working in the mines. As there has been some misunderstanding with regard to the effect of the new proviso, perhaps the House will allow me to deal rather fully with the point. If hon. Members will refer to the Act of 1908 they will see that Sub-section 7 (b) of Clause 1 is in the following terms:
"Where the work of sinking a pit or driving s cross-measure drift is being carried on continuously, no contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to take place as respects any workman engaged on that work if the number of hours spent by him at his working place does not exceed six at any one time, and the interval between the time of leaving the working place and returning thereto is in no case less than twelve hours.
Without the proviso working under these conditions would have contravened the terms of the Act, which everybody knew meant working more than one shift of eight hours in the course of twenty-four hours. This enables the men to work two shifts of six hours in the course of the twenty-four hours. It is an enabling and permissive Clause destined to meet the emergency—not the rule, but the exception, and framed for the purpose mainly of meeting exceptionable cases where the safety of the miners would be at stake.
The proviso does not contravene the continuance of the system provided for in the Sub-section which I have just read, but it says that if conditions appear to render it necessary in exceptional circumstances that work should be carried on continuously by day or by night, men may be employed below ground for more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours. May I draw attention to the effect of this? It is as follows: it enables a man, in cases where sinking or diving work is being conducted on a system of six-hour shifts, to do more than one shift (and so exceed the eight hours' limit) in any twenty-four hours, and the result is exactly the same as if eight-hour shifts were being worked. Suppose work is going on seven days a week, seven days
762
will contain twenty-eight six-hour shifts. These, divided between three sets of men, will give each set nine and a half shifts, equal to fifty-six hours, which is the same as if they worked eight hours on each of the seven days.
The House will forgive me for going fully into that point, because it is a new feature in the Bill, which has been inserted for the purpose of providing for the safety of the men in exceptional circumstances and without it there would have been a grave gap. The rest of the Bill needs no further explanation. This measure merely gives effect to a clear and definite promise given by the Government in circumstances of great gravity, endorsed by the country and this House as a whole, and I express the hope that the House will pass the measure and enable the Government thereby to deal with the subject as quickly as possible.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. REMER: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words
"this House, while deeply sympathetic towards the provisions of this Bill, declines to proceed further with the Bill until trade unionist leaders abstain from advocating restriction of output in collieries."
In the "Times" yesterday, this passage appeared from their Parliamentary Correspondent:

"It is said the Government do not anticipate any difficulty in getting this stage of the Bill, more particularly as they hope the news from the Miners' Conference at Keswick will make it unnecessary for Mr. Remer to proceed with the Motion for rejection which he has placed on the Paper."
I am not aware there is any news of a favourable nature which has come from Keswick; indeed, the rumour which has reached me is that the news is unfavourable. I should have thought the first thing the Under-Secretary for the Home Office would have done would have been to give us some information as to what is taking place there. I would remind the House that coupled with the promise given by the Government there "was a very distinct pledge by Mr. Robert Smillie to Mr. Justice Sankey, in which he said, in exchange for the reduction of hours to seven, and ultimately to six, he would promise an increased output from the mines. I think we have sufficient evidence that there is no such increased output. The fact of the matter is that there are two very distinct parties on the

763
Labour Benches opposite. There is, first, the party which openly advocates direct action, and restriction of output. The two things are almost identical. I am sorry to say there are hon. Members in this House who have publicly advocated restriction of output in the coal mines. I have a passage from the hon. Member for Hamilton speaking six weeks ago, in which he said:
"My advice is that miners should restrict output of coal; it is only by that policy we can secure the nationalisation of the mines."
It is unnecessary for me to quote from the speeches of Mr. Robert Smillie. They have been extensively reported, and in one speech he made only this week at Keswick this passage occurred:
"They believed that the output could be enormously increased under nationalisation."
Then he goes on:
"They do not believe that the miners were likely to strain every nerve merely to build up private fortunes."
Hon. Members cheer that statement. May I point out that no private fortunes are being made at the present moment out of the collieries, because the profits are distinctly restricted? I would point out, in any case, that the question of nationalisation is not the issue at the present time. It has not been decided on by the country. Under these circumstances I do not think we ought to proceed with this Bill if, as we may assume by their cheers, hon. Members are supporting the view of Mr. Smillie, which means nothing else than a restriction of output. The second section of the party are those like the hon. Member for Abertillery, whose speech won admiration from everybody for its moderation and straightforwardness last Monday. He said,
"Restriction of output does not exist."
He prefers to put the blind eye to the telescope, for he says
"We do not believe there is."
I would like to follow that speech a little closely. In 1915 he says you came to us and appealed to us, and we secured an increased output. In 1917 the same thing occurred. It was a case of appeal and trust. You secured our co-operation. I think that is a fair summary of the words he used. But what were they doing in 1913 and 1914, and what are they doing at the present moment? Is it necessary for Ministers to go to Labour leaders now to ask for an increase of output? Obviously,
764
it should be forthcoming without such an. appeal when the leaders knew it was not forthcoming as promised. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the suspicion existing between employers and workmen. He could not have heard of Mr. Robert Smillie and all the mischief he has done in order to cause the grave suspicion that exists. There can be no doubt in the minds of hon. Members that restriction of output is going on seriously in the collieries at the present moment. Hon. Members who disagree with me will say that they require proof of that. The proof of that is like the proof of most other things. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When we find that more men are employed in collieries at the present time and that less coal is being secured, that proves my point. I know that all kinds of excuses are made for the lessened output. Some of them, I have no doubt whatever, are very real. I am quite prepared to admit the railway delays and all that kind of thing. But there are some which are not real. There are some which have been mentioned in this House, and by Mr. Smillie and Mr. Hodges, that are not correct. They say the shortage is caused by the shortage of pit-props. I happen to be in that business and I know that at the present moment there is no shortage whatever of pit-props. [Hon. Members: "Oh, oh!"] I have at this moment pit-props which I cannot sell and for which I cannot get a market. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not worth having"] Yes, they are That story is eighteen months' old. There was a shortage of pit-props eighteen months ago, but I am quite satisfied that it is quite cleared away now.
I was discussing this question within the last few days with an American—since my Amendment appeared on the Order Paper. He said that my Amendment was like the Constitution of the United States —it was founded on a lie. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members assent to that. He said that because the Constitution of the United States started with the words
"All men are equal"
therefore it was founded on a lie. I say that my Amendment is founded on a lie because it states that trade union officials are trade union leaders. That is the biggest lie ever stated in this House. To call trade union officials to-day leaders of Labour is a grotesque statement. They

765
are nothing but a miserable flock of sheep. They wait to watch which way the flock is going to run before they move. There never was such a miserable case of the tail wagging the dog as is the case of the so-called Labour leaders of the present day. In dealing with the coal mines they do not consider what is in the national interest; they think of the popular clamour which is going to secure the greatest cheers.
In moving this Amendment I have a claim to sympathy. All my life I have been an advocate of shorter hours and higher wages. I am not only an advocate of them; I put them into operation in my own works. I am quite sure that shorter hours and higher wages are the one way, not only to secure greater efficiency, whether in a works or a coal mine, but as a means to secure increased output. If there is this deliberate method of restricting output, that is the greatest way to defeat the very object I have at heart. It will be said the employers are to blame. I have no doubt there are some employers who are to blame, but two blacks do not make a white. I believe it is the secret of our industrial success that our workpeople should have plenty of money to spend and plenty of time to spend it in; but this policy of restriction of output, which has gone very deep into the minds of some workpeople, is a most pernicious policy and means nothing else but our industrial doom. I have never yet seen a report of a speech by any trade union official which has condemned this policy. I have never seen any report of them going to their constituencies or down into their mines or amongst their people and telling them the truth about this question. Not only the steel trade, but also other trades in which my own Constituency is very deeply interested—the pottery trade, for instance-rely upon coal not only for the purpose of power, but for heating, and the pottery trade will be killed unless it gets coal at a reasonable price and in adequate quantity. This restriction of output must increase the cost of production. It means increased unemployment, distress, and poverty. I agree very heartily with the Leader of the House, who believed we should come through all right. I believe people only have to be appealed to, and they will get over this pernicious doctrine. The British soldier is a civilian soldier. He is the same man as the British working man. I believe the people only want to be told the truth. We want to tell
766
them we are not a rich but a poor nation, and instead of having foreign investments we have foreign debts. If we are to recover our position we must all work hard—workmen in every sphere of life, and especially in collieries. The capitalist, too, must employ his capital to the best advantage, and particularly in collieries. If this policy of restriction of output goes on, it means a very considerable emigration of capital and of the life-blood of our people. Capital can disappear from the country by a mere stroke of the pen. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) has probably stood on the Liverpool landing-stage and has seen the people emigrating, and he will agree that there is no more distressing scene. If our country is to be the real country of the future, she must be industrious, and must produce the maximum output in every sphere of life.
Sir F. BAN BURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I listened with a considerable degree of interest to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office, and I want to ascertain the reasons for bringing forward this Bill at the present moment. As far as I can understand his speech, his reasons were that the Government had given an undertaking, either to Mr. Justice Sankey or to Mr. Smillie—I do not know—that the Report of the Commission would be carried out both in the spirit and in the letter. The Government can give a pledge that they will recommend a certain course to the House of Commons, but they cannot bind the House. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether or not they think the reasons which have been advanced by the Government are sufficiently good to induce them to follow the course recommended by the Government. Everyone will admit that when two people make a bargain, if one of those persons breaks his share of the contract, the bargain is at an end. That is a principle which docs not need any defence. What has happened? The Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission recommended that the hours of labour should be reduced to seven, on the understanding that the output would be maintained. What are the facts? The output has not only not been maintained, but it has been diminished at the rate of 25,000,000 tons a year. Therefore, the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government are bound to carry out the bargain entered

767
into falls to the ground, because one of the parties has broken his share of the contract. What is the argument brought forward in favour of the Bill? Is it a good Bill? Is it going to advance production in the country? Is it going to ease the situation with regard to the production of coal? I could not gather from the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had any argument to adduce in support of the Second Reading from the point of view that it was a good Bill, except that in certain circumstances more than one shift could be worked in the pit. What did the President of the Board of Trade say last Monday?
"There are many reasons operating to strangle the flow from the collieries, and one of there reasons is this: the coal, after it has been loaded on the wagons is longer on them than it used to be, because they cannot be cleared at their destination."
Why cannot they be cleared at their destination?
"The reason for the difficulty of clearing these wagons, of emptying them at their destination, arises in. this way: we have now got an eight hours' day in force on the railways."—[Official Report, 14th July, 1919, col. 79.]
Therefore the reduction of the labour on the railways to eight hours, according to the President of the Board of Trade, has diminished the output because the railway wagons cannot be cleared. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the reduction of hours in one industry reacted on all the industries of the country, with the result that the production of the most vital industries was reduced. But now the Government propose to reduce the hours still further. Therefore, according to the President of the Board of Trade, they are going still further to reduce the production of the country. That is not a statement of mine, but a statement of the Government made only three days ago. I was glad that on that occasion the Government did not introduce this Bill, though they had suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule to do so. I presume that the reason was that they had made a proposal to the miners that they should agree not to strike during the next three months, and they would carry out the undertaking given by Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission, and the output should not be reduced, and that they would not do certain things. Did the miners agree? I read in the "Times" that 150,000 miners in Yorkshire are on strike at present.
Mr. SEXTON: They were out before Monday.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then they ought to have gone back if they were going to carry out the proposal made by Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission, and going to meet the proposal made by the Government. But in addition to those on strike in Yorkshire there is also a considerable number out in some parts of South Wales, and if rumour is correct—-and I notice that my hon. and gallant Friend carefully avoided the subject—the miners have refused the terms offered by the Government last Monday. Silence gives consent, and if my statement was not correct I should have been interrupted at once not only from the Front Bench, but by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore I may assume that my statement is correct.
Mr. HAYDAY: You must not take for granted, because you are not interrupted, that what you say is correct.
Sir F. BANBURY: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is incorrect, suppose that the miners have not yet given the reply—and my recollection is that they were to give it to-day—why have they been such a long time in giving their reply, and if they have not given their reply up to the present moment, why does not the Government put this off until they have done so? I think it is evident that an indication of the nature of the reply has already been given to the Government. Let us consider what we are doing. We have had two very weighty speeches from leading Members of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House, two of the most weighty speeches I have heard for a long time. What was the subject of those speeches? That it was absolutely essential, if this country was to be saved from bankruptcy, that every man should work his utmost. In the face of that the Government come down and say that for the future the output of the mines, the most vital of all our industries, is to be reduced from eight hours to seven, with a further reduction in two years' time, supposing there is a Resolution of both Houses—not a Bill, but merely a Resolution, which may be brought in after eleven o'clock, with the Eleven o'Clock Rule suspended, in order that there may not be too many Members

769
in the House to contest the wishes of the Government. This is really a most important question. If we are to retain our supremacy as a commercial nation we must not play the fool with this sort of thing.
The miners already—there can be no question about the cost of living—have more money than they know what to do with, and the proof of that—I have provided myself with the OFFICIAL REPORT, in order that I might not make any mistakes—the proof of that is the statement made in the White Paper, and confirmed by the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller—namely, that the miners can earn sufficient for their needs by working only a certain number of days per week. I say that shows they have more money than they know what to do with. Under those circumstances, to come down to this House and to say that the hours are to be reduced from eight to seven, and still further to six, is to set an example which will not encourage output in this country, but will do much to encourage all workers in a belief which is leading to the destruction of the commerce of this country—that the less they work the better and happier they will be. I do hope that the Government will move the adjournment of this Debate. Let the country know what the answer of the miners has been to their proposal, and then let them decide whether or not it is advisable to go on with this Bill.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: My excuse for intervening again in a Debate so early in my career is that probably of all the Members in the House, including the miners' Members themselves, I have had not so long, but a much more varied experience of the coal industry. My duty and business for fifteen years have called me to work at pits up and down the country. My experience has been that on the whole the relations between capital and labour, or, rather, between the management and the workmen in the pits are better in this than in any other trade. Throughout the whole of England, or at all events, right down from Northumberland to Staffordshire, again and again I have been struck, for years past, with the very healthy relations that exist between the owners of collieries and their men.
We have got cases again and again where there has been a local strike, and that strike has been carried on with
770
thorough determination on both sides. I have been there on the spot, and, in spite of the fact that they were fighting one another tooth and nail, there has been thoroughly good feeling between management and men. That occurs in my own county of Lancashire, Staffordshire, and in the Midland counties. There are, of course, many strikes and stoppages which we do not hear of, and those are the cases in which the feeling on both sides is determined. I do not wish any remarks i make to be taken as criticising the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), because, with his age and experience, it would not be becoming of me to treat anything that ha has said except with the greatest respect. I wish particularly to ask hon. Members to consider the form in which the Mover of this Amendment put it. To my mind, it is the form in which that Amendment is brought forward that ought to convince hon. Members to vote against it, whether they like the Bill or not. I may say, for myself, I do not like this Bill. 1 have always been opposed to, and fought against, State interference with business, but I wish to protest most thoroughly against the apparently underlying spirit of the Amendment. I may be mistaken, but there appears to be a deliberate intention to have angry passions aroused by putting it in that form. Everybody knows that this country is passing through a very critical time in all industries, and particularly in the mining industry. Whatever our opinions are about the wisdom of this Bill and about the wisdom of the Report on which it is founded, and I know there are very varied and strong opinions—I am not going to give mine, though I think it is pretty obvious what I think of the whole thing—at a moment like this to introduce an Amendment—apparently, I say, as it is not for me to lay down what the motives of hon. Members are— drawn in such a form that even if the intention is not there the effect will be there of rousing passion at this time, is thoroughly bad for the country and everyone in it. I do appeal to the miners' Members to endeavour if they possibly can to let me take the burden off them or resenting that, and that they will not attempt to reply in the same spirit that is apparent in the Amendment, and I make that appeal to them not only on grounds of proper feeling but of policy so far as their own aims are concerned. I ask them if they are speaking on this Amendment to endea-

771
vour to control their feelings. I must apologise for offering any advice to Members very much older and more experienced than myself. I think, in spite of my lack of oratory, I have made my meaning pretty clear. The whole point is that at a time like this, no matter what our views may be, we need not surrender them on principle, but we must treat one another with patience and forbearance because there is no other possible way of getting this, at the moment, unfortunate country out of industrial trouble. I do hope whatever has been said by the opposite side that those responsible in this House for the representation of the miners will do their level best, at any rate for their part, to maintain that spirit of forbearance until we have got normal conditions, and then we can fight one another on fair terms and without raising those issues.
Mr. S. WALSH: I am only going to say a very few words indeed, but they will be words of appeal to the House to help the Government to pass this Bill and to give the miners a real chance of carrying out whatever promises have been made. After all, the Government is pledged to this Bill in good faith. The Government pledged themselves to this Bill three months ago. I am speaking within a few weeks. It must be between three and four months ago since the Government stated that whatever were the results of the Commission that was set up with the authority of this House they would put the findings of that Commission into effect. Those findings were reached very many weeks ago, and long before any question of an increase of 6s. in the price of coal came up. The two things were entirely independent of each other, and it is surely a very unwise thing for any Government to break promises so lately made. I have not the slightest idea that the Government will break that promise. After all, the conference that is meeting this week in Keswick, while it is very important, has not, in my opinion, done anything that would destroy the confidence of this House or the nation in the mining industry. It is almost impossible for leaders of trade unions to bind large bodies of workmen. I am not quite sure that it would be a good thing even if they could. While, on the one hand, we pride ourselves upon the possession of a decent independence, on the other hand constant appeals are being made to the leaders of trade unions to tie
772
their men down. The two things are inconsistent. I am convinced, however, that every responsible miners' leader can and will go to their men week by week and month by month, and will urge upon them to carry production to the highest point in the interests of the nation and so that the nation may feel entire confidence in the motives of the miners. That has been done repeatedly. I myself on scores of occasions have done it, and hon. Gentlemen who are here know perfectly well that meetings of thousands upon thousands of the most responsible people that any country could produce have been held under our auspices, and that the finest results have been brought about. We are all suffering, as my hon. Friend for one of the Divisions of Manchester said, from the aftermath of war. The old relations which were often kindly have been very largely embittered, but it is not by acrimony that any good results will be achieved. If any words of mine can be of force in this House, they will be used to appeal to this great representative Assembly to set aside bitterness as far as possible and to try and lift our Debates and our points of view from the rather narrow lines that have recently existed, and really believe in the country for which we profess responsibility.
After all, the country depends a great deal upon this Assembly. The temper, the tone, the attitude, the points of view of the public outside, are largely coloured by, and dependent upon, the temper and tone of this Assembly, and it is because of that that I am rather sorry to see the Motion on the Paper set down by my hon. Friend opposite. I have no doubt at all that if this goes to a Division the House, by a very great majority, will support the Government. The House, after all, is a. House which is faithful, which, when it once gives its word, I believe it does its very best to carry that word into effect, and I have not the slightest doubt at all that if we have to go into the Division Lobby the Second Heading of the Bill will be carried by a tremendous majority. There are some small points which I think we will have to raise in Committee, but I do not anticipate any serious opposition of any kind. We will do our very best, of course, to carry our points, but they are not points of principle. They are only points of detail, and only Committee points. Short of that, I do myself most sincerely hope that the policy of the Government to which statutory effect is being

773
given in this Bill, will be a policy conceived, as I believe, in the highest interests of the country, and I do most earnestly hope, when the policy is developed, the country's prosperity will be found to be in no way inconsistent with it.
Mr. R. M'LAREN: I rise to address the House upon this occasion as one who has had a life-long experience of mines. Beginning as a miner, going through all the various grades, managing a colliery, and managing a colliery still, and for thirty-two years an inspector of mines, down a mine five days a week, I think I can speak with some knowledge on the points raised to-night. I am not at all in sympathy with the Amendment as proposed. I think it is perfectly evident to the House, and must be, that the Government pledged themselves upon this point, and I think the Government are bound to carry it out. I am not at all against tile principle of the seven hours for this reason. When the Government, to begin with, gave forty-eight hours a week to railwaymen and other grades of employment in other industries, it was only right that the miners should receive seven hours a day. As to that, I am in perfect agreement, but I do not agree with the Bill in certain respects. To begin with, in the Bill we find that one class of men, the firemen, are to have an hour and a half taken off instead of one hour. I do not think there is any reason at all for that. We have been told to-night 'by the right hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Bill, that that was done because they had seen their expert adviser. May I remind the House that the same expect adviser for the Government upon this occasion was the same expert adviser who, in 1908, advised the Government that the firemen should work an hour and a half longer in the interests of safety. I cannot understand why he has changed his mind so rapidly. One thing, of course, is this. I believe it is the case that a deputation of firemen went to see the Home Secretary and put forward the case, and it was due to that more than the expert advice that this question has been raised. I entirely object to the Home Secretary, or any other Minister of the Crown, receiving a deputation from one side, and not hearing both sides. Why was it that the men who are to carry out this Act and the Mines Act of 1911— the managers of the mines—were not asked to discuss the question when the firemen alone saw the Secretary of state? It is the most unfair thing I have
774
seen since I came here. The House of Commons is losing very fast its control over finance, and now over the Ministers of the Crown. No Minister of the Crown has any right to make a bargain with any man or body of men and then conic here and ask us quietly to acquiesce in what he has done. The system is wrong, and on that account I do not care for this Bill. The question of the firemen is a most important one. I trust the House will take the view that I venture to put forward in respect to Regulation 50 of the Coal Mines Act. The fireman, or the deputy, is a most important person in connection with the mines. Upon him rests a great responsibility. First of all, two hours before the start of the shift, he must go down the mine. He must examine the roof, the sides, and examine for fire-damp, and see that everything is correct before the men come in and commence their shift. He has to go round the face, the various roadways, and so on, and see that the Act is carried out so that the men are working in complete safety.
What I object to is this. It has always been a principle in connection with mine inspection and the safety of the mine, that the fireman should begin the shift in the morning and should remain through the whole shift till it comes to a close. That has been the principle all along, and that is the reason why the expert adviser of the Government, acting upon the advice of myself and other practical men, advised the Government in those days that the fireman, in the interests of safety, should work an hour and a half longer, so that he could be there at the start and remain to the end of the shift. What will hap pen now? If the fireman begins two hours before he must of necessity come up before the shift ends. In the mines where there are three continuous shifts extra men must be employed to carry out—
Mr. SWAN: Is the hon. Member aware that these men are working seven and a half hours and the firemen eight now, and not nine and a half?
Mr. M'LAREN: My experience does not extend to the district mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am speaking of Scotland and of the Scottish miners. What will be the result? It is this, that four men must be employed at six hours each. Men who are there at the beginning of the shift will not be there at the close. That will be to

775
the detriment of the mine and will not be in the interests of safety. Four men will be required where there arc three consecutive shifts. That means more money. We heard a good deal last Monday that the cost was to be very considerably raised. We want it reduced, yet by this Bill we are further adding to the cost. Take a single-shift mine where the single shift is worked. It means there must be two men for the eight hours working, four hours each, adding again to the cost of the industry, greatly to the detriment of the trade in general. I myself have heard from these benches the Leader of the House tell us about the Sankey Report. I understand that this Bill is destined to carry out the pledge given by the Leader of the House; but I do not think that the Leader of the House made the statement that any section of the community should have one and a half hours taken off the regular day. On the contrary, it was distinctly stated here that there was to be a seven-hours day, and that the 1908 Act would be changed because of that. I see no reason why this matter should be dealt with in such a way. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill spoke about Section 7, and of a certain proviso as to men who worked under curtain conditions longer than eight hours. The Bill provides that the Home Secretary's sanction muse be obtained before the longer hours can be worked. Those, acquainted with mines know that to obtain the sanction of the Home Secretary to the working of longer hours on any shift will take some time, and the mine cannot stand it. Several things might occur to necessitate working extra hours, and if you have to wait until the Home Secretary sends word that he permits it, the thing will never be done. It is a great mistake to put in this proviso.
While I am not prepared to vote against the Second Reading, I trust that in Committee the matters I have mentioned, with a few others, will be rectified. This is a time when we require to use our best endeavours not to raise issue6 that would bring about a state of affairs worse than we have to-day. I trust that the leaders of the party opposite and the trade union leaders will devise a means of inducing the hot heads in the party to bring about n better state of affairs. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman opposite spoke as he did to-night. I am sure that he and owners like him will do all they can to that end. I can assure the House as a practical man
776
knowing all the details and as a mining engineer, that, in regard to last Monday's Debate, with the present output the total of 217,000,000 tons will not be reached. It will scarcely reach 200,000,000 tons. It is a very serious matter. I was glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade, who gave us such a gloomy picture, say that on the question of 10 per cent. he was rather sanguine. The miners, after all, are a respectable body of men—the majority of them—and they desire encouragement. If the leaders will do their beet to advise the men, in a short time the output, which has gone down considerably more than it ought to have done, will be considerably increased and the country, which is now in a serious state, will begin again to prosper and we shall have reason to thank the miners for the efforts they have put forward to save the country from disaster.
Mr. CASEY: I should like, as I have been a mine-worker all my life until recently, to offer a few observations on this Bill. It would be good policy if we took very little notice of the Amendment moved1 by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). I happen to be a trade union leader. I have lived among the miners all my life. I know all the miners representatives in this House and there is not one of them who would advocate what he has said to-night. While I support the Bill, there is one particular matter is regard to pump men and fan men which is very unfair. It is quite true that the Act of 1908 specified that they should work nine and a half hours, but it must, be understood that there are very few pump men working that number of hours. So far as Yorkshire is concerned, we have not a single underground pump man working more than eight hours. We have obtained that by negotiation with the employers. While the Act says the men may work nine and a half hours, we have been enabled to obtain a reduction of their hours to eight per shift. Now, why should there be any differentiation between the miners' hours and those of the underground pump and fan men? On the one hand, you give a haulage man—a mechanic who works underground—a seven hours' shift. If the haulage man is in charge of a small machine—no matter how small, it may be a 10 horse-power machine—the fact that he is on haulage entitles him to the seven hours' shift under this Bill; but if he is in charge of a pump or a fan machine—which may be 100 horse-power, with more

777
responsibility and requiring greater attention than the winch of a small haulage machine—yet, because he is in charge of a pump or a fan, he is not entitled to the seven hours' shift; and I say that the men in charge of some of these pumps and fans underground have much greater responsibility than some of the haulage men have. Then why should the man who has the less responsibility be conceded seven hours' shifts and the man who has the greater responsibility be compelled to work eight hours for his shift? You have that differentiation, and while you want a settlement of the industrial workers in the collieries you are simply perpetuating a miserable principle which is calculated to increase the unrest that is found right through the British coalfields.
12.0 M.
You have the 12½ per cent. given in the engineering industry. What did that do? Any man who understood the conditions of the workers in the engineering industry, and the temper of the men, never would have conceded the 12½ per cent. under the circumstances and in the way in which it was conceded. As soon as ever it was conceded to one section, other men in the same industry immediately claimed that they should have the 12½ per cent. as well. You had hundreds of applications from all over the country to be paid the 12½ per cent., and it kept the tribunals continually at work at a time when otherwise they would have had practically nothing to do. The same thing will happen here. You concede seven hours to various sections of men employed underground, but you are going to compel other sections underground to work eight hours. The result will be discontent and dissatisfaction. As a matter of fact, I know that if this Bill becomes law in its present form the whole of the pump men, so far as Yorkshire is concerned, will not work at all; you will have another strike. The right hon. Baronet referred to Yorkshire to-day in his speech. The whole of the Yorkshire collieries are out to-day; there is not a single colliery working, and why is it? In the Bill we have no prospective legislation so far as colliery surface men are concerned, and we are told that their hours and conditions of labour must be fixed through local negotiations and arrangements. They have simply broken down, and as a result of not having in this Bill provisions applicable to surface colliery workers we have the whole of the Yorkshire collieries
778
stopped to-day, and others in other counties as well. You will have the same thing going on unless and until you treat every man in the colliery industry exactly alike. You have the winder. I have been a winder for twenty-five years at one of the largest collieries in England, and there, in local negotiations, you have the owners telling us, "You are not going to get any advantage and not going to have any hours reduction. You simply have to work the same time as you always had to work." These men will now claim, as they have been deliberately and intentionally left out of the Bill, the same consideration and rights as the other colliery workers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers the point in Committee, will agree that the pump men and fan men—and there are only a handful of them—shall be brought in the same category and be entitled to the same claims and be allowed to work the same number of hours per shift as the other classes. Some employers say, "It cannot be done. You can only divide twenty-four by four sixes or three eights, and if these men have a seven hour shift that means twenty-one. What are you going to do with the other three hours?" The employers can always find a way of reducing the cost of management if they like. We have had some advances in Yorkshire for the pump men. They have been working three shifts right through the week end. We find they can cut off a shift at the week end and close the shaft, and the pumps can remain standing for a number of hours without anyone attending to them at all. That will be done in this case. But if it cannot be done the men have to remain the eight hours. We do not want overtime. They would finish at the end of the shift proper if the men had to work the eight hours. We say they should be paid extra for the time they have worked. We shall insist, undoubtedly, that there shall be no differentiation between men who work underground whatever their rate of labour, whatever their responsibility, and I hope in Committee the Government will see their way to put the pump men and fanmen on the same footing as the winders themselves.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I should not have intervened if it had not been for what I consider the calumny which was thrown at the miner by the hon. Member (Mr. Remer). I am a miner. I want to

779
say to my hon. Friend that it is a dangerous thing to have a little knowledge in this matter. I know that my right hon. Friend who occupies the Front Bench does know something of the Durham mines and he would not belittle himself to say such things as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) has said. Some of us know only too well that the miner will do anything to earn money to give greater comfort to himself and his wife and family. Has my hon. Friend any real knowledge of a miner and his work. Evidently he is not aware of the bad conditions under which these men work and which are still going on. There may be a diminution in the output of coal, and I may probably have to accept the figures of the President of the Board, but I think the Government should seek information from the miners as well as the owners with regard to the output, and then I feel sure a different story might have to be told to hon. Members. I am sure that the check-weighers could tell a story that would be worth listening to. In Durham we have been working not more than seven hours a day for a long time. It is a very strange fact that on the Coal Commission Inquiry it was proved that despite working shorter hours we produce more coal. Hon. Members should recollect that working in a mine is not like working on the surface, and the physical power of a man is exhausted sooner working underground than it is in God's broad daylight. These men work in a vitiated atmosphere always, and you cannot do as you probably want to do. We have heard something about shirkers. Ask your commanding officer in France if the miners were shirkers? I ask the Government whether the miners who were left behind here did not put their backs into it to save this country? I hope we have heard the last of this calumny upon the miners. We can increase the output. Unfortunately there has been a war which has brought down the output. Pits have to be reopened and this causes great difficulty in producing coal and in getting the output that otherwise could be got, and there are many such difficulties as these that have got to be overcome. These things in my judgment have largely been the cause of a reduction in output. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend say he was in the timber trade, because there is no doubt timber has been the cause of a serious decreasing output. Does the hon. Member (Mr. Remer) think the manager is going to supply timber in the
780
same quantity as he did before when pit-props that cost 6d. before the War cost 5s. 6d. now? The men must keep themselves safe, and when they are short of timber must leave the face till some is brought to them. That is occurring every day. Then, again, the class of timber that is being supplied to them is not the same as in pre-war days. The prop must be of such a length that it can easily be put in in the least time, but to-day it has to be wedged up, which takes probably five or six times the time it took before the War. All these things are tending and will tend for some time to reduce the output. The responsibility for the decreased output does not lie with the miner, but with either the management or the Government. Tubs are a serious matter. There was in one of our Northern papers recently an interview with one of our local agents who declared that the men in the pit at which he was employed were getting only 50 per cent. of what they could do if there had been tubs for them to get the coal away. All these things are causes of reduction. While I admit miners are not angels and, like other classes, we probably have wrong men amongst them, take the miner all round he is as honest a workman as you can find in-this country. I trust the Government will persevere with the Bill. Some Amendments will have to be moved on matters of detail, and I hope we may come to an agreement. In Durham I have not worked more than seven and a half hours in my whole experience, and I believe Durham holds its own with any other county with regard to output. These things ought to be carefully inquired into. I wish to thank my hon. Friend below the Gangway who, though not a miner, is man enough to say that in his opinion the miner was not what the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member (Mr. Remer) would try to make the House believe. I trust the Gonvernmcnt will pass the Bill. I feel the House is with them.
Sir W. DAVISON: We must all associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) that this matter should be dealt with without bitterness. It is, in my opinion, a matter of business entirely, and I hope hon. Members opposite will give credit to those of us on this side who think this should not be rushed into, but should be postponed and taken time over. It is not with any idea of

781
belittling what the miners have done, or their patriotism, that we take this action, but because we believe there is something greater than the interests of the miners or of any section of the community, and that is the interests of the country as a whole. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) on Monday uttered a sentence which received applause from every part of the House. He said this House, in dealing with expenditure, must see not only that it is desirable, but that we can afford it. This is not directly a matter of expenditure, but indirectly it is. Debates on the coal question generally have, in my opinion, been too much conducted by people who arc directly concerned with the industry—by miners on the one side and coal-owners on the other. It seems to be assumed that this is a matter which only affects the coal-mining industry, and that if the interests of the coal-owners on the one hand and the miner on the other are considered, that is all that need be said. When the Coal Mines Bill was before Parliament, after hearing a series of speeches by the coal-miners' representatives and by representatives of the coal-owners, I said that though a new Member I intervened with the more assurance as I had no connection cither with coal-miners or coal-owners. I represent a Constituency of consumers, and a large number of these consumers—clerks, Civil servants, professional men, and pensioners—who are not in trade, and cannot add to the prices which they charge for their goods, neither are they in receipt of a war bonus—these men are vitally affected by the price of coal, and not only by the price of coal which they burn in their grates, but by the indirect effect of the increased price of coal on food and all other commodities. Therefore, I invite the House to consider carefully the words used by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), and ask ourselves whether we can afford this, before we pass the Bill. This is not a question whether we would like to shorten the hours of the miners—I am sure they are entitled to that, if it can be done—but at this crisis in the history of the country we must, as representatives of the community as a whole, ask whether we can afford it. In that connection let me read the words that were addressed to the Coal Miners' Conference sitting at Keswick by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), who, all honour to him, carried out the pledges which he gave to this House, in these words:
782
"We have to deal with a most serious situation. Unless the nation can get more coal than it is getting at present this nation must perish as a first-class commercial and industrial Power, because coal is the key to the prosperity of every industry; the spindle upon which the whole commercial world runs. This is the day of days when we must, even at some sacrifice to nationalisation, have some regard to the claims of humanity as a whole."
No words could more fitly or better put the point which I am endeavouring to make. In dealing with this matter, we must put forward the claims of humanity as a whole, and the claims of the people of this country in particular. We must consider at this time that it is vital not only for the protection of our families from disease, by having warmth in our homes, but it is vital in connection with the setting going once more of our industries, to have coal at a reasonable price. Can we afford to give a Second Reading to this Bill until we have seen that the output can be increased? I regret very much the last phrase in the Motion, because I do not think the aspersion which it throws upon the trade union leaders of the miners is justified. I do not know whether I should be in order, but I would like to suggest that instead of saying "until trade union leaders abstain from restricting the output of coal" we should insert "until the pre-war output of the mines has been restored or secured." That, I believe, is the meaning of the Motion, and that is what I mean.
Sir F. BANBURY: If the Amendment go to a Division, the Question will toe, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," and after that Question has been decided it will be open to the hon. Member to put in other words.
Sir W. DAVISON: That may be a way out of the difficulty. I am very glad that there is a way, because I agree fully with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) that this matter should be conducted without bitterness. It is not right in these days for one class of the community to feel that they are trying to steal a march on another. It is not wise in these days, when it is essential to restore industry, of which, as the right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) has said, coal is the key to do anything to restrict the output of coal. Therefore, I support the proposal that the Bill should not now be read a second time.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): We have had a very interesting Debate upon this Bill. We have had valuable expert opinion upon both sides, which I am sure will be not only interesting but also instructive. But it is getting late. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Heading as soon as possible. There have been some objections made to this Bill which are not so much Second Reading objections as Committee objections, and, so far as those are concerned, I do not think it advisable to take up the time of the House with them, because they will be discussed in Committee. But, dealing with the general principle of the Bill and its object, may I remind the House that this Bill is brought in in accordance with a pledge given by the Leader of the House not to Mr. Robert Smillie, not to any individual, but to the House itself? Nor were any of its provisions the result of any private negotiations with any individual. It was suggested by one hon. Member that in some way or other we had a Bill making a bargain behind the back of the House of Commons with some private individuals. No such thing ever took place. I cannot say that the deputation to which he alludes did not see me, because I do not know to what deputation he is alluding. Either I or my Department have seen deputations of owners and of workers, and I do not know whether he is alluding to any of those; but we have made no bargain with any individual at all. We made a bargain with the House that we would bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission, and that we have done. I have no doubt, speaking for myself, and from the experience which my hon. Friend has reminded me I have had in the coal fields of Durham and Northumberland, that, whatever else may lead to a shortage of output, reduction of hours certainly will not.
As he says, it was proved, and I have known it for long, that in the county of Durham, where they work fewer hours than in any other coalfield, they have the best output per man of any coalfield in the country. We must recollect many things. In the first place, we are, all of us, tired; we are living in a tired world; and you cannot expect men as yet to be quite the men they were before the War. That will come, I hope, in a very short time. That they are doing their best I have no doubt whatever. I am equally
784
satisfied that, as one of the causes of reduced output, there is to be reckoned the shortage of tubs, of railway wagons, and undoubtedly a shortage of pit-props. You may have plenty of wood that will cut into the shape of a pit-prop, but if it is not the proper kind of wood the men cannot manipulate it. In the course of a shift a man may have to spend five or six times as much labour in keeping his place safe as he did before the War.
Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a single colliery that is short of pit-props u have plenty, and cannot sell them.
Mr. SHORTT: I am sure there are plenty of collieries that want pit-props, but not timber of any sort and description. It stands to reason that a man cannot get as much coal in his shift if he is obliged to spend so much time in keeping the place safe instead of winning coal. All these matters have been carefully taken into consideration by Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. The Report is not only the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey; it is a Report in which he is joined by three well-known business men of high experience in all industrial matters. It is that Report which we are seeking to carry out. I feel convinced that the House will be of the opinion that this matter has been thoroughly thrashed out. Therefore, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. There arc, no doubt, matters that will have to be dealt with in Committee. I realise some of the points that will be brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). To suggest that we should not pass this Bill because somebody has made a remark that was perhaps ill-advised—I do not know whether he did or did not—and to urge that on that account we are to break our word with the whole of the miners of this country would be grossly unfair. I know that, as a whole, they always loyally carry out any pledge they give, and the last thing their worst enemy can accuse them of is that they are shirkers. Pass this Bill and I feel confident that time will show that the result of reducing the hours will be to have men more vigorous during the whole time they are at work, and an increased, instead of a decreased, output.
Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Before this Bill goes through I think my Constituency has a right to foe heard on this

785
great question which is now before the country. I represent the town of Middles-borough which, as hon. Member's will know, is dependent on the iron trade for its very existence. It is situated midway between the Durham coalfield on the north and the Cleveland iron-stone mines on the south. Both the coal and the iron-stone mines are affected by this Bill, and we shall be doubly hit by its operation if it becomes an Act. We are also dependent for our existence on our export trade, and with the present increase in the cost of fuel and of raw material we are in great jeopardy of losing that trade. At the outbreak of War the price of coke delivered to the furnaces was 17s. 6d. a ton. With this new advance it is now 62s. a ton, and the cost of making pig-iron, which, at the outbreak of the War, was £3, is now over £10. That cannot go on; there is only one end to it and that is commercial disaster. I am perfectly certain that a halt must be called to this increase in the cost. There is a more serious matter still which, I think, is due directly to Government control. I ask the Coal Controller to give his attention to it. At the outbreak of War it took 21 cwt. of coke to make a ton of pig iron; to-day it takes 27 cwt. This increase is due to the deterioration of the quality of the coke sent down from the pits, it containing now as much as five-tenths or seven-tenths of moisture. You can complain until you are tired of doing so and no one appears to take any notice. Besides, the same price has been and is being paid for good coke, bad coke, and indifferent coke and, like Government bacon or Government beer, it has all a toad name.
There is a further matter (which I believe to be due to the coal control. The Coal Controller has been in the habit of making advances retrospective. This new advance, made under Mr. Justice Sankey's award, is ante-dated, I believe, to 1st January—that is the 2s. The coal-owner protects himself against these ante-dated advances. The result is that he will not sell to the pig-iron producer on a clean contract, but takes care to stipulate that the buyer shall make good to him any advances which he is ordered to pay by the Coal Controller on any coke supplied—not even on coke which is to be delivered at some future time, but on coke which ha3 already been delivered. With the decrease in our export trade, it is quite impossible to cover the purchase price of fuel by the sale of pig-iron.
Sir EVAN JONES: May I remind the hon Member that the Prime Minister gave an answer before the Commission reported that any increase in wages arising out of the Report of the Commission would be made retrospective.
Colonel WILLIAMS: I am aware of that, and it is the system against which I am protesting, and protesting very strongly. If that state of things goes on, the coke producer will naturally not sell to the pig-iron maker at a fixed price, but must protect himself. That will have the effect of making business impossible. This system of retrospective advance is falling like a blight on the whole trade. I do not want at this hour to go at all fully into the question of nationalisation, but I should like to say this one word. Let the Government make up its mind once and for all what it is going to do; let it formulate its policy. If it is going to nationalise the mining industry, let it say so; let it lay its policy before the country, and go to the country upon it. Certainly the Government have no mandate on this question at present. They have a number of other mandates, and one of them was to hang the Kaiser, which they have now solemnly undertaken not to do. But I declare that they have no authority from the country to proceed to the nationalisation of mines. Meanwhile, this uncertainty about the future of Government control is surely strangling our trade. It has fallen like a blight upon this country, and no greater blight has fallen on any country since the blight fell on the land of Egypt.
Mr. SWAN: I did not intend to speak, and I will not even now take up the time of the House except in order to deal with the point mentioned by the hon. Member who has just sat down. He said that the price of coal had gone up to 52s. a ton. I want to say that that is no fault of the miner. Nor do I think it is due to control. We realise that the claims now put forward on behalf of the miner are only reasonable, and are long overdue. When hon. Members know that the miner is simply being paid one and one-sixth per ton they will at once recognise that the fault for such a high price of coal cannot be attributed to the mine-workers. The speech which has been made by the Home Secretary to-night ought itself to convince the House, as I am sure it will, that the shortening of the hours of labour,

787
instead of hampering the industry of this country, ought to accelerate it. 1 am convinced by experience that whenever the hours have been shortened the output has been increased. I do not want to introduce anything acrimonious into the discussion which has been marked up to now by good temper, but as the Home Secretary has said, decreased hours do not mean decreased output. I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. Member for Hamilton that the miners would not increase their output. That statement was taken away from the context, and the reason for its having been made at all was that when the output was being increased, efforts were made to reduce the wages. That was what militated against the output. Remove such hindrances to increased output and take the human element always into account, and I am sure that this Bill, instead of hampering the coal and other industries in the way hon. Members have feared, will actually tend to accelerate output. We can, and do, appreciate the difficulties that are in the way, but they can be overcome if calm reasoning prevails. Above everything else we must recognise the considerations of security and safety for the miners themselves. That point has already been referred to in the Debate. Undoubtedly it is the fact that the shorter the hours worked the fewer the accidents. In the warfare which goes on in the mines of this country, over 1,370 persons lose their lives every year, and altogether 160,000 accidents of a more or less serious nature occur. Fewer hours will reduce the number of accidents, and I ask hon. Members to recognise frankly the conditions under which the miners have to work. In some cases they have only 2 ft. of head in the mines. Can it be reasonably expected that they should work more than the number of hours for which this Bill makes pro vision? In the interests of humanity we expect that this Bill will go through and that the Government will fulfil their pledges.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

TREATY OF PEACE [EXPENSES].
Considered. in Committee.
[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers."-—[Mr. Baldwin.]
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether it is worth while asking my hon. Friend at a quarter to one with about six people in the House to explain this rather intricate provision, which seems to have got a little lost on the Paper. I think it would be advisable if the hon. Gentleman were to give an undertaking that if we allow it to go through at this stage, he will give a full explanation at a later stage.
Mr. BALDWIN: (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The course suggested by my right hon. Friend is the one we proposed to follow. This Motion stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is unable to be here. I gave an undertaking earlier in the evening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles that a full statement would be made either by myself or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow, and also that I would circulate in the Vote Office a brief statement of the reasons for this Financial Resolution. I hope that with this short explanation the Committee will be good enough to pass this Resolution to-night, as it is most desirable to introduce the Bill on Monday.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Friday).
The remaining Orders were read. and postponed.
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved,
"That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before One o'clock

PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  OPERA GALA PERFORMANCES.
  OPERA GALA PERFORMANCES.
  SOLDIERS (LEAVE AND TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  SOLDIERS (LEAVE AND TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION.
  AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (MAINTENANCE).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (MAINTENANCE).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  JAM (PRICES).
  JAM (PRICES).
  FRUIT (PRICES).
  FRUIT (PRICES).
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  STOCKS.
  STOCKS.
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
IRELAND.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, ENNIS (DENTIST).
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, ENNIS (DENTIST).
  LABOURERS BILL.
  LABOURERS BILL.
  CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITISH EXCHEQUER.
  CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITISH EXCHEQUER.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATIONMASTER, NEWMILLS.
  STATIONMASTER, NEWMILLS.
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  3RD GLOUCESTER REGIMENT.
  3RD GLOUCESTER REGIMENT.
  MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  ELECTION POSTER, HORBLING.
  ELECTION POSTER, HORBLING.
  INFANTRY BATTALIONS (MARRIED ESTABLISHMENT).
  INFANTRY BATTALIONS (MARRIED ESTABLISHMENT).
  POST-WAR ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
  POST-WAR ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
  PADDINGTON MILITARY HOSPITAL.
  PADDINGTON MILITARY HOSPITAL.
  REPATRIATION (WILLIAM K. LINDSAY).
  REPATRIATION (WILLIAM K. LINDSAY).
  SALONIKA FORCE (SICKNESS).
  SALONIKA FORCE (SICKNESS).
  WESTGATE HOTEL, NEWPORT (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  WESTGATE HOTEL, NEWPORT (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  PRINCESS CHRISTIAN TRAINING COLLEGE, MANCHESTER.
  PRINCESS CHRISTIAN TRAINING COLLEGE, MANCHESTER.
  MILITARY ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRES (MAINTENANCE)
  MILITARY ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRES (MAINTENANCE)
  ARMY CLOTHING STORES, GODMANCHESTER.
  ARMY CLOTHING STORES, GODMANCHESTER.
  SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (TRANSFER OF PATIENTS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (TRANSFER OF PATIENTS).
  ARMY (PAY AND PENSIONS).
  ARMY (PAY AND PENSIONS).
  KEIGHLEY TRADE GRAMMAR SCHOOL (BLANKETS).
  KEIGHLEY TRADE GRAMMAR SCHOOL (BLANKETS).
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, UPPER THAMES STREET.
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, UPPER THAMES STREET.
HOUSING.
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  SURPLUS ARMY HUTS.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  EAST SUFFOLK AERODROMES (WAGES).
  EAST SUFFOLK AERODROMES (WAGES).
  ANTI-FIRE DEVICES.
  ANTI-FIRE DEVICES.
  AMSTERDAM EXHIBITION.
  AMSTERDAM EXHIBITION.
  AEROPLANE CONTRACTS.
  AEROPLANE CONTRACTS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSION REVISION (REGULATIONS).
  PENSION REVISION (REGULATIONS).
  9TH YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE C. RAYWOOD).
  9TH YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE C. RAYWOOD).
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  RE-ENGAGED SOLDIERS.
  RE-ENGAGED SOLDIERS.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  RHINE ARMY OF OCCUPATION (REGIMENTAL OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES).
  RHINE ARMY OF OCCUPATION (REGIMENTAL OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES).
  PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
  PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
  SEA TRAINING FOR BOYS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  SEA TRAINING FOR BOYS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, BOURNEMOUTH.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, BOURNEMOUTH.
INDIA.
  ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  INCOME TAX (EVASION).
  INCOME TAX (EVASION).
  PUNJAB RIOTS.
  PUNJAB RIOTS.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL, KOHAT.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL, KOHAT.
  ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
  ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  POLICE INQUIRIES (ASSISTANCE).
  POLICE INQUIRIES (ASSISTANCE).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  EIGHT-HOUR DAY.
  EIGHT-HOUR DAY.
  TRADING WITH GEEMANY.
  TRADING WITH GEEMANY.
POST OFFICE.
  ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN (PROMOTION).
  ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN (PROMOTION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (CLUBS).
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (CLUBS).
  GERMAN SHIPS, SOUTH AMERICA.
  GERMAN SHIPS, SOUTH AMERICA.
OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN.
  EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, HOLLOWAY.
  EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, HOLLOWAY.
  STEEL WORKS, MONMOUTHSHIRE (DISPUTE).
  STEEL WORKS, MONMOUTHSHIRE (DISPUTE).
  LEA VALLEY (FLOODING).
  LEA VALLEY (FLOODING).
  RABIES.
  RABIES.
  ALLIED COUNTRIES (LEGISLATION CONCERNING ALIEN SUBJECTS).
  ALLIED COUNTRIES (LEGISLATION CONCERNING ALIEN SUBJECTS).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (TECHNICAL STAFF).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (TECHNICAL STAFF).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order):
Clause 1:
Duty of local authority to prepare housing schemes.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), to consider the needs of their area with respect to the provision of houses for the working classes, and within three months after the passing of this Act, and thereafter as often as occasion arises, or within three months after notice has been given to them by the Local Government Board, to prepare and submit to the Local Government Board a scheme for the exercise of their powers under the said Part III.
(2) A scheme under this section shall specify—

(a) the approximate number and the nature of the houses to be provided by the local authority;

(b) the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the localities in which land is to be acquired;

(c) the average number of houses per acre;

(d) the time within which the scheme or any part thereof is to be carried into effect;

(e) the total estimated cost of the scheme;

(f) the estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses in the scheme;

(g) the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme, and the portion of that deficit to be charged upon the rates;

and the scheme may contain such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions (including provisions as to the subsequent variation of the scheme) as may appear necessary or proper for the purpose of the scheme.
(3) The Local Government Board may approve any such scheme or any part thereof without modification or subject to such modifications as they may think fit, and the scheme or part thereof when so approved shall be binding on the local authority; but if the Board consider the scheme inadequate they may refuse to approve
700
the scheme and require the authority to prepare and submit to them an adequate scheme within such time as they may fix, or they may approve the scheme or part thereof subject to the condition that the authority prepare and submit to them a further scheme within such time as they may fix:
Provided that local authorities in preparing, and the Local Government Board in approving any scheme shall take into account, and so far as possible, preserve existing erections of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality.
(4) If the Local Government Board consider as respects any local authority that an occasion for the preparation of a new scheme has arisen they shall give notice to that effect to the local authority, and thereupon such an occasion shall be deemed to have arisen.
(5) Where the local authorities concerned or the Local Government Board are of opinion that a scheme should be made affecting the areas of two or more local authorities, such a scheme shall be prepared by the local authorities jointly and may provide for joint action being taken by those local authorities and for the apportionment amongst the authorities of any expenses incurred in carrying the scheme into effect, and for the purposes of this subsection "local authority" shall in any case where the consent of the Local Government Board consent, and subject to any conditions which the Board may prescribe, include a county council.
(6) Local authorities in preparing, and the Local Government Board in approving, schemes shall make inquiry respecting and take into account any proposals by other bodies and persons to provide housing accommodation.
(7) Where any proposals as to the provision of houses for the working classes have before the passing of this Act been submitted to the Local Government Board by a local authority and those proposals have been approved by the Board, either before or after the passing of this Act, the proposals may if the Board so direct be treated, for any of the purposes of this Act, as if they were a scheme submitted and approved under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraphs (e), (f) and (g). The noble and learned Lord said: Consequential on this proposal there is another Amendment on the Paper to insert, as a new subsection, at the end of subsection (3)—
"(4) Before the Local Government Board finally approve a scheme, the local authority shall furnish to them estimates of the cost of the scheme and of the rents expected to be derived from the houses provided under the scheme."
I felt, up to the last moment, great hesitation as to whether I should ask your Lordships to reverse the decision reached so short a time ago, and reached after debate, but, forming the best view I could, it seems to me to be my duty to ask your Lordships at least to reconsider the decision which was then arrived at. I do it with a sense of gravity, because I hardly exaggerate

701
when I say that those who are responsible for making these proposals feel that the Amendment which was adopted during the Committee stage is of such a character and will have such an effect as to paralyse the attempt which is being made to meet this pressing national need.
After all, the Government have the responsibility of dealing with a situation of quite unexampled seriousness. Nobody else has that responsibility and, on behalf of the promoters of this Bill, it is my duty to tell your Lordships, and I do tell your Lordships, that in out view the usefulness of the Bill will be enormously reduced if the Amendment to which your Lordships assented in Committee is retained. Having regard to the view of your Lordships that the matter should go to the House of Commons and then come back here, I would gladly adopt that course even now—if that be the opinion of those who supported the Amendment—before any further pronouncement upon it by your Lordships, so that you should have the advantage of hearing the view of the House of Commons. If that be the sense of the House I shall not press my Amendment at all. But I am led to suppose that it may not be distasteful to your Lordships to reconsider the matter even at this stage.
When the Amendment was moved, in the name of Lord Downham, inserting these paragraphs, I opposed it on two main grounds—in the first place, that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve a most serious and fatal delay; and, in the second place, that any estimates of cost which the local authorities submit at the outset would, as a rule, be of no practical value, because they could not be based on detailed plans and specifications. The Amendment was carried in spite of those arguments. I am not sure that some noble Lords who supported it did not do so under some misapprehension of the real intentions of the Government. For example, my noble friend Lord Salisbury, referring to the provisions under the draft Regulations which empower the Local Government Board to reduce the Exchequer subsidy in the event of extravagance in construction, said—
"That is the method of cheek which is proposed, but as I have shown, or tried to show, it will operate only after tin house is erected; and for the reason which I have explained, that the first fixing of the amount of Treasury contribution does not take place until after the houses are actually in existence and ready for letting."
702
While it is quite true that the amount of the subsidy will not be fixed till after the houses have been erected, it is by no means the case that this is the first occasion on which the Local Government Board can check the cost. The whole case which I. tried to snake plain was that the cost can only be properly checked if estimates based on detailed plans and specifications are before the Local Government Board, and this is simply impossible at the first stage. The cost is most carefully checked—it must, of course, be carefully checked—at each stage, in the light of estimates which are based not on mere assumptions but on detailed information, and the detailed estimates are minutely examined before the scheme is finally approved and before any sanction is given to the borrowing of money for the purposes of the scheme.
I attach great importance to one consideration. The original plan of the Bill is in accordance with the recommendation of the Finance Committee, which was appointed under the chairmanship of a most eminent accountant to supervise the financial aspect of the housing programme. A special finance official, assisted by an expert staff, has been appointed whose duty it is to examine every scheme from the financial standpoint in the initial stages. The Amendment will bring the Bill into line with the actual method of operation which has been recommended by the Finance Committee, and at the same time will secure those safeguards to which Lord Salisbury, Lord Downham, and others of your Lordships' House quite rightly attach importance. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will commend itself to the House as a reasonable attempt to reconcile the views expressed by these noble Lords with the actual administrative machinery which has been devised after careful consideration by the Housing Department and the Finance Committee.
In ordinary circumstances I should not have asked your Lordships to revise a decision so lately given, but the circumstances are a little extraordinary. The imperious need for this Bill is conceded by everybody. Those responsible for it be-live that in the shape in which it left your Lordships' House in Committee it will involve a degree of delay which will defeat the fundamental objects we all have in view. I therefore earnestly ask your Lordships to consider favourably this

703
Amendment; adding that if those who think it is not quite respectful to ask that a decision so recently reached should be reversed, I should certainly not put this proposal to the test of a Division, but wait until your Lordships have had the advantage of ascertaining the considered opinion of the House of Commons upon your Amendment. I confess that I should regard it as a great advantage if it were possible for your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 4 to 9, leave out paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DOWNHAM: As the author of the Amendment (kindly moved for me by my noble friend opposite) to include paragraphs (e), (f) and (g), in the first clause of the Bill, I desire to say a few words in support of that Amendment. The noble and learned Lord was, I know, opposed to the Amendment from the very first. He said then, as he has said now, that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill it must involve considerable delay. I have never been impressed by that argument, and I am not impressed by it now.
At the same time if the Lord Chancellor says, speaking for the Department which, after all, has to carry out this great housing scheme, that the effect of this Amendment generally will be to delay schemes being put forward by local authorities I should have to consider seriously whether I should press the Amendment on your Lordships' notice; more especially as the noble and learned Lord has undoubtedly made a great and valuable concession in the direction in which all noble Lords were thinking when we argued the case before. But when he says with great authority that if this Amendment is included it will cause great delay in schemes being put forward, let me give him what is my own personal experience. The London County Council have recently put forward large housing schemes—to build 10,000 houses within two years, and another for building 19,000 houses on certain conditions within five years—and in doing so have not only stated the approximate number and the nature of the houses to be provided by the local authority, the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the localities in which land is to be acquired, the average
704
number of houses per acre, the time within which the scheme or any part thereof is to be carried into effect, but we have also stated the total estimated cost of the scheme (something like £30,000,000), the estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses, and the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme. We have gone so far as to state the portion of that deficit which is likely to be charged on the rates. We have had no difficulty in doing this, and I have never seen why any difficulty should arise.
Where any local authority sets to work and goes so far as to pick out the land on which it is going to build, states the kind of houses which it is going to build (three-roomed, four-roomed or five-roomed houses), it is compelled by the original Bill to go as far as this, and states the average number of houses which it is intended to build per acre and the time within which the scheme or any part of it can be carried into effect; if you go as far as that you are almost bound to take into account the total estimated cost of the scheme. What did your Lordships ask in putting in this Amendment? Nothing but an estimate of the total cost of the scheme. The price of land is known, we have had much experience of what builders are likely to charge for erecting these houses, and we also know the estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses. The Ministry of Health have given us some guidance. They say you must look at houses of a similar kind in the neighbourhood and ascertain what kind of rent people are obtaining for them, and by that you must make the best estimate you can as to what rent you are likely to obtain from the houses you build.
I admit it is difficult, but we only ask for an estimate of the cost and then the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme. All that has been worked out by the London County Council on a far larger scale than is likely to be submitted by any other local authority. We are able to state the deficit which will result, and how it will result; and I am sorry to say that the average deficit on the whole of the 29,000 houses is likely to figure at nearly £36 a year each. We are able to state all these things. I cannot understand how the Minister of Health can be in a position to approve the schemes unless he knows the cost, or has an estimate of the total cost, an estimate of the rents

705
which are likely to be received, and unless he knows—and he is bound to protect the Treasury—what deficit is likely to arise.
Or is it this. That the Ministry of Health are going to order all local authorities to build houses at whatever cost. On the London County Council we were unformed by the Housing Board that we were not to inquire too particularly into the cost, that we were to build houses at any cost. I said "At any cost?" and the answer was, "Yes, you are to put down the foundations for 10,000 houses before Christmas. Never mind the cost, get on with the houses." If that is going to be the order of the Ministry of Health then there is no need to have any estimates at all. I will not take the responsibility of delaying the building of houses. The noble and learned Lord has, I admit, met me to a large extent. I would ask him whether he could not meet me a little further. He is willing to give to your Lordships this Amendment—
"Before the Local Government Board finally approve a scheme, the local authority shall furnish to them estimates of the cost of the scheme kind of the rents expected to be derived from the houses provided tinder the scheme."
Will my noble and learned friend give me (g) as well—the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme. Why not? If you have made out your cost and your rents and all the deductions you will have to make by way of your sinking fund, for your returns, empties, and management. All these are matters of very easy calculation, and it is to my mind most important that the Ministry of Health should know, and we should know though the Ministry, what are going to be the deficits on these Schemes.
It is all very well for the local authorities to be told "What does the deficit matter to you: beyond the cost of a 1d. rate you will not be affected." We are not only here to protect the rate-payers, we ought also to protect the tax-payers and the Exchequer, and we ought to see that in carrying out these schemes we carry them out as economically as possible; and even if the total deficit falls upon the taxes instead of on the rates the local authorities ought to be just as much the guardian of the public purse of the tax-payer as of the purse of the rate-payer. How can we set up ourselves as champions of economy, how can we try to reduce the prices of the builders for erecting houses, if we are not
706
to be in a position to form any of these estimates? I still think that the Amendment which we carried was a most reasonable Amendment. I believe that on consideration it would commend itself to the House of Commons, but I am aware that my noble and learned friend has stated that this would paralyse the operations of the Ministry of Health and strike a fatal blow at the scheme of the Ministry of Health. If he states that upon his authority, I feel that we ought not to oppose him, but I will ask hint to reconsider the matter anti ace whether even now he will not go a little further and add (g) to ask each local authority before schemes are filially approved by the Local Government Board to put down the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad that my noble friend does not find it necessary to resist this Amendment, and if I may say so I think he is right in the conclusion he has reached. I do take absolutely the responsibility which he attributed to me. In the opinion of all the responsible advisers of the Government his Amendment would introduce so much delay as greatly to jeopardise the primary object of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attitude, and he has asked me whether I will agree to the insertion of the original subsection (g) of his Amendment. I am not sure that the noble Lord does not sometimes forget that ail local authorities are not equipped with the trained, qualified technical advisers of the county council over which he presides with so much dignity. There are many bodies by no means so fortunate in this respect.
I ask the noble Lord to bear this in mind. I have given him all the substance for which he asks, and I do not think he should press me any further. In the consequential Amendment which I shall move at page 2, line 28—and I derive this suggestion front his speeches in Committee—I propose to insert as a new subsection: "(4) Before the Local Government Board filially approve a scheme, the local authority shall furnish to them, estimates of the cost of the scheme and of the rents expected to be derived from the houses provided under the scheme." The noble Lord knows that the staff of the Local Government Board, the moment they are given as they must be estimates

707
of the total cost of the scheme and of the rents expected to be derived from the houses, will be able to arrive at a very reliable economic estimate. I think that my noble friend, if he considers the matter, will come to the conclusion that I have very fairly met him.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord who is responsible for the Amendment ran away rather too soon after he had shown quite clearly that what has been done in the Bill could be done without substantial delay. We have most of us read in The Times the Report of the London County Council, setting forth in a very clear way what the cost will be and what the loss, and I want to lay stress upon this point on this Amendment. The noble Lord referred to recommendations issued and instructions given not in an Act of Parliament but by a Government Department., as to what was to be the basis of rental of these houses, having regard to the existing rentals of other houses of the same class. I do not admit for a moment that that is to be the basis of the rental of these new houses. They are going to cost a great deal more, and I believe I ant not wrong in saying that if you put the rentals on a commercial basis at about half of what they should be they would still be greatly in excess of the rentals which are now paid, especially as you must remember that rentals are now fixed by Act of Parliament, which prevents landlords raising them to an economic basis: and however much you may try to make the working man happy by subsidising his house at the expense of the taxes he will still have to pay more than at present.
But we are left in a region which is certain to lead to a great deal of discontent, resentment, and disaffection, because we have had statements by Ministers holding out hopes which will be contested as promises which bind Parliament and the country. For instance, we have been told that both now and hereafter the burden upon the rates is not to be more than a 1d. in the £. On the other hand we have been told by the same authority that when the five or seven years are up, during which the transitional or high cost will have passed away, this rent is to be put at such an amount as to lead to a commercial return upon the capital invested, the difference
708
being taken over by the State, and we are told that the State will require the local authorities to put the rents at such a figure as will secure the Central Government from further loss; but it seems to me that we are in great danger, if we submit the estimated economic deficit, that that will mean when things are stabilised, and it will be a question whether the Governmental Department which has to pass the plans has to pass them accepting the statement that the ultimate economic deficit is so much, or whether it will have to take into consideration the matters to which I have referred above.
We are threatened with this as a sort of emergency measure which we were told, as a kind of pistol at our heads, we must accept as it was presented or take the responsibility. I think it is the duty of Parliament to see that things are sound, and as to this expenditure we do not know where it will lead, because it is quite obvious when you begin to build very good houses with the expectation of letting them to what are known as the working classes at perhaps half the economic rent, and that is rather higher than these people are willing to pay, you will find it hard to exclude the lower middle class man, the clerk earning say £150 a year. He will ask why he should pay a higher rent and heavy taxes in order to give his neighbour a house at half the price. The whole thing is so mixed up at present that it is sure to lead to great heart burning and discussion when the Act comes to be put in force. I think the local authority, which builds the house and accepts plans even under Government supervision, ought to accept responsibility for bearing the loss. But whether' you do that or not, you ought to put it plainly in this Bill that you will force both sides to give full information. I deny that that would delay any scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord into a discussion of the financial provisions of the Bill. Your Lordships are aware that many have great doubts whether the economic position of the Bill is sound, but that really is not the point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord, I thought, spoke in very appropriate language of the respect due to your Lordships, and of his wish not to ask you to reverse what you did in

709
Committee on Report. I share entirely the view of the noble and learned Lord, and if it were a question of reversing what your Lordships did in Committee I should recommend such a course to the House with very great reluctance. But in truth that is not the case.
The Amendment which was passed nominally on my Motion, but really on behalf of my noble friend below the gangway, is not to be reversed in substance bat only to a limited extent. The greater part, or at all events that part of it to which I attribute importance, is re-enacted in the form of an Amendment by the Lord Chancellor. The truth is that there is no provision on the face of the Bill which would lead any one to suppose that any check was to be exercised over the proposals of the local authority until after the houses were erected, except those checks which were recited in this clause, and as the Bill reached us from the House of Commons it did not include any question of the expenditure which was involved. My noble friend below the gangway called attention to that, and said that if any particulars were to be furnished to the Local Government Board which were necessary before their consent was given, the expense which was involved was certainly in the first instance essential, and that is now conceded by the Government. It is a very great concession. Though I admit my noble friend has not got everything he asked, yet he has got the greater part of it, and in this imperfect world that is about as much as one could reasonably hope. I venture to suggest that your. Lordships would be well advised to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had an Amendment on the Paper, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "and in order to secure that houses proposed to be built or reconstructed by local authorities under the provisions of the Housing Acts, shall be of suitable architecture, and that the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, a local authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Local Government Board under this Act, employ an architect who shall be selected from a panel of architects nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects, to advise local authorities in the preparation of housing schemes."
The noble Marquess said: The next Amendment standing in my name I will move in two or three sentences. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I was fortunate enough to persuade the House to accept an Amendment of 'nine up to a certain point—that is, the Amendment which now stands in the Bill in line 24. It is a proviso which makes it possible for the Local Government Board or their representatives to consider the question of architectural and picturesque amentiy before they give their consent. The principle is conceded in the Amendment which the Government accepted upon the Committee stage, but there is no machinery for carrying the principle into effect. I therefore was anxious that the Government should accept certain machinery which was set forth in Committee stage. I was not able to persuade the Government at that moment. I think they had hardly had time honestly to consider the proposal and to appreciate it, but I hope I may be more fortunate on the present occasion.
I believe that I should be more likely to be successful with the Government if the terms in which I move this Amendment were slightly modified, and if I may I would move it not in the form as it is upon the Paper, but in the form I will now read to your Lordships. It comes in at exactly the same place, after "locality," and would read as follows—
"and in order to secure that the houses proposed to be built under the scheme shall be of a suitable architecture, and that the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, the Local Government Board may, in any case where it appears to them that the character of the locality renders such a course expedient., require as a condition of their approval the employment by the local authority of an architect to be selected from a panel of architects nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects."
I am rather similarly placed to my noble friend—namely, that as the Government cannot accept it in the form on which it is on the Paper, and as I cannot get all I ask, I shall be content to get a great deal. I am prepared to take it in the form that I have indicated if I have the assent of the House.
Honestly I tell the House that I should like to make it the ride, almost without exception, that local authorities should employ architects when they build these houses. I do not mean an architect of European repute. I do not mean a gentle

711
man who would expect and deserve a very high fee, but I do mean somebody who is trained to consider building from the point of view not merely of what is strictly useful but what is becoming also, for a greater disaster there could not be than that we should scatter over England and Wales 400,000 or 500,000 hideous cottages which will be a discredit to this country not only during our life time, but during the life times of our sons and grandsons at the very least. I should have liked to have provided that architects should be essential in every case. The words which I have read will not ensure that, but will only do it when the Local Government Board consider that the circumstances of the case are such as to require it. That is I admit a very great limitation, still if your Lordships are kind enough to let me put those words into the Bill it would go back to the House of Commons in that form and I should not be surprised if the House of Commons were to dot some of the i's, if I may use such a phrase. We should then have made the provision much more effective. I therefore move the words which I have read out.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert: ("and in order to secure that the houses proposed to be built under the scheme shall be of a suitable architecture, and that the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, the Local Government Board may, in any case where it appears to them that the character of the locality renders such a course expedient require as a condition of their approval the employment by the local authority of an architect to be selected from a panel of architects nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was pointed out in the discussion on Committee stage that the cost of these architects was to be a charge on the capital sum, and that being so, local authorities probably would be quite ready to incur that expenditure. No doubt the proposals made by the noble Marquess opposite do more specifically carry out what I may call the "buried" intention, and will insure some amenity among these numerous groups of houses to be built. The Government are quite ready to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment in its amended form.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I was rather surprised to hear the noble Marquess say that, following the example of the noble Lord below the gangway, as he could not get all he wanted he would be content to get
712
something. But he is asking for much more in his amended Amendment than he asked in the original one, because he is now, if the Local Government Board think it desirable, putting compulsion upon people who have to build and incur the expense. He has put "they may require them to employ an architect." Therefore there is no discretion left to them. The noble Marquess suggested that you should get a cheap architect, not a man at the top of his profession, but I think if any architect were to undertake to work for a local authority below the trade union rate, as I may call it—now 6 per cent.—he would be treated as a blackleg, if not worse, by the Royal Institute of British Architects. You are not going to get architects who will under-cut the recognised professional scale of remuneration. I should also like to ask what happens supposing you add by your picturesqueness at least £50 to the cost of each house.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is under a complete delusion. It is not more expensive to build a beautiful building than an ugly one. It is a matter of how you do it.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not know whether the noble Marquess knows the picturesque cottages near his own house and others at a distance. There was a cheap architect to whom the noble Marquess referred, and I put myself into communication with him, and anything more gloomy looking than the cottages he designed I cannot imagine. People have referred to Port Sunlight. I believe the cottages built by Lord Leverhulme there have been from £150 to £200 dearer than other cottages which are plainly constructed. At any rate, a workman who takes a cottage, if begets good conveniences, a bath room and other things, will not like to pay an extra £1 a year or more for ornaments which will please the eye of the tourist.
The question is, Will this extra cost increase the economic rent, and will it fall on the nation? Is the nation to incur expense on these million cottages which are to be built merely in order to ensure picturesqueness? If the Government accept this Amendment, I suppose it will go through, but it is only another illustration of the reckless manner in which we incur any amount of expenditure, though

713
yesterday we were all in the gloomiest state, and talking about the country being on the verge of bankruptcy owing to reckless expenditure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection: "(4). Before the Local Government Board finally approve a scheme, the local authority shall furnish to them estimates of the cost of the scheme and of the rents expected to be derived from the houses provided under the scheme." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment needs no explanation, having regard to the discussion which has taken place. It will carry out the assurance which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Downham.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, at end, insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection: "(4) Where it appears to the Local Government Board that in or in the neighbourhood of the area to which any such scheme relates, there are existing houses which from their situation or for any other reason are most suitable and are required for occupation by persons of the working classes employed in agriculture, but which are in fact occupied by persons not so employed, it shall be the duty of the Board to consider whether in determining the approximate number of houses proposed to be provided by the scheme, the local authority has had sufficient regard to the existence of such houses as aforesaid and to the demand for the same by persons of the working classes employed in agriculture."
The noble Lord said: I may remind your Lordships that I moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack expressed considerable sympathy with the object at which I and others were aiming. He expressed doubt as to whether the Amendment was moved at the right place in the Bill, but suggested that it would receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of the Government before the Report stage. I may remind you that a rural area may be quite fully equipped
714
with the houses necessary for its normal industrial population, that is to say, in the main a population employed in agriculture, and yet at the expense of its local ratepayers may have a scheme forced upon it for the benefit of urban workers, miners, the employees of Government, or the local authority, or even well-to-do "weekenders," as I believe they are called—persons who are prepared to take picturesque rural cottages at some distance from the towns and occupy them at the week-ends only.
This operates as a very serious injustice not merely to the agricultural labourers, who should be placed for their work as nearly as possible in the vicinity of the farms upon which they work, but also to the unfortunate rate payers of those areas who may have to go to very considerable expense in providing for a population which is not normally there. We do not know what the future of our agricultural industry is destined to be, but it seems almost impossible to believe that, in any case, the agricultural labourer will be able to pay as high a rent as the employees of most urban industries. The arable area has considerably increased in the last two years, involving a large increase, for the time being at any rate, of the rural population. There is great scarcity of cottages in the rural districts, in consequence, and in those very areas we find a very large number of persons who are not rural workers at all, and who are occupying cottages which rightfully belong to those who work on the land.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: As my noble friend Lord Bledisloe stated, the Lord Chancellor expressed sympathy with the general object of the Amendment on the Committee stage. Time noble Lord has moved his Amendment in a considerably modified form, but, after all, what does the Amendment amount to? He says that in a particular locality several houses, which in his view ought to be occupied by the agricultural population, are inhabited by coal miners and others, or even by persons whom he describes with something of a touch of contempt as "week-enders." What does that amount to? It simply means that there are not sufficient cottages for the rural population. If that is so, that is not the last, but absolutely the

715
first consideration which would enter into the mind of the local authority in considering the general needs of the neighbourhood. It would mean there is a shortage of cottages, and that shortage of cottages it would be the first duty of the local authority to remedy.
What I suggest to my noble friend, therefore, is that he is only pushing an open door. He is, in a specific Amendment, directing the local authority to take into consideration one of the factors which it is already its duty to take into consideration. Is it wise to insert some specific administrative provision of this kind in the Bill? Because, if you lay stress upon a particular matter that ought to be considered by the local authority, then ought you not to enumerate all the considerations that would apply to the local authority? Is my noble friend really wise in picking out this particular one which must, as I say, be the first that comes into the mind of the local authority?
I suggest to my noble friend that it is hardly worth while pressing an Amendment of this kind. He knows the unwisdom of putting surplusage into a clause. Moreover, there is some doubt as to the actual words employed by my noble friend, whether the words in his Amendment "consider whether the local authority has had sufficient regard to the existence of such houses" would be in any sense really operative; because all that the Board do is to go to the local authority and ask them the question, and they would obviously be satisfied in this case with the reply. Therefore, while having every sympathy with the end aimed at my noble friend, I suggest that he really would not further his aim by pressing this Amendment, and perhaps lie will leave the general obligation of providing for the needs of the agricultural population on the local authority, where it now rests.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel it is a little difficult to justify the insertion of this provision in this particular place. I should have liked to have seen it in a different part of the Bill if the Bill had been from my point of view suitably framed. I do not want to delay the proceedings of the House on this Bill by further consideration of this Amendment. I can only hope that as the present Minister of Health is himself the son of a leading agriculturist lie will bear these considerations in mind.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (5), to leave out from "jointly" to "and" in line 40 ["and for the purposes of this subsection"] and to insert "and the local authority of each area to which any part of any such joint scheme applies may, or, if the Local Government Board after giving the local authority an opportunity of being heard, so direct, shall carry out that part of the joint scheme." The noble Marquess said: It will not take me snore than a second or two to explain this Amendment to your Lordships—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I desire to inform the noble Marquess that I propose to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out from ("jointly") to (`"and") in line 40, and insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("the consent of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to authorise county council to act in place of local authority.
3.—(1) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a local authority have failed or are not prepared to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under this Act, or their obligations under any such scheme, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any such obligation should be performed by the county council instead of by the local authority, the Board, after considering the circumstances of the case and giving the local authority and the county council an opportunity of being heard, may, if they think fit, by order, transfer to the council of the county in which the district of the local authority is comprised the obligation to prepare and carry out a scheme, or to carry out in whole or in part the provisions of a scheme prepared by the local authority.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, in subsection (1), after "may" ["may, if they think fit"], to insert "with the consent of such county council." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to what seems to be the very unsatisfactory position of the county councils under this clause as it now stands. Your Lordships will remember that county councils have

717
only limited staffs with which to get through the large amount of work placed upon them, which work in the last few years has been much increased. In fact, the county councils at the present time have as much as they can possibly do to look after their county work. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is essential for the good working of local government in the counties that all the authorities in the county should work harmoniously together.
May I give your Lordships a case in point? Take the County Council of Nottinghamshire, of which I have the honour to be chairman. In that county there is the City of Nottingham, with a population of nearly 260,000. What would be the position of the county council if they were suddenly called upon under Clause 3 to "transfer to the council of the county in which the district of the local authority is comprised the obligation to prepare and carry out a scheme, or to carry out in whole or in part the provisions of a scheme prepared by the local authority"? It would be practically impossible for the county council to do it. I would ask your Lordships to consider what would be the feeling of the City of Nottingham if they had a scheme forced on them against their wish. There are other boroughs in the county consisting of 40,000 inhabitants, and some rural and urban districts with populations of over 20,000. The effect of this clause would be to try and force these matters on county councils and to create friction and ill-feeling in the whole of the county.
I am aware that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill may tell me that it is not likely that such a step would be taken by the. Local Government Board as to ask the county council to force a scheme upon such a large place as the City of Nottingham. But after all is said and done, although I know that the noble Lord would carry out his assurance to the full, an assurance of the noble Lord given in this House is a very different thing from an Act of Parliament. A great many of us have not that confidence in a bureaucracy to tempt us to leave words in an Act of Parliament which might give a bureaucracy greater power than we wish it to have. It seems to me that it would be very much better if the words I suggest were put in here. The county council, knowing the local feeling, would know its ability to do the work with its staff,
718
and certainly it would be most unfair to the ratepayers of the county to ask the council to increase its staff and thereby impose a greater rate on the county, in order to carry out schemes of this sort. If the local municipal or other authorities fail in carrying out the scheme surely it is the duty of the Local Government Board to force it on the various local authorities and not bring unnecessary and undeserved odium on the county councils by their having to do work outside their province.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of such county council").—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would submit to my noble friend that this Amendment is really unnecessary. In the first place I would merely allude to the case of Nottingham, to which the noble Viscount has referred. Nottingham is a county borough, and therefore that case would not apply in this instance. However much my noble friend may distrust bureaucracy, I suppose he will assume that bureaucrats like other people do not want to do things that are a trouble to themselves—that they would take probably the line of least resistance. Already in the clause they consult the county council before any such action is taken; and does my noble friend really suggest that, after they have consulted the county council and after the council have shown by every reasonable way that it is not really possible for them to undertake this work, the bureaucrats are going to say, "They shall do it"? What would be the result? The result would be that there would be another interminable delay, and in the end the Local Government Board would have to step in and do the work. The Ministry of Health would be entirely responsible for the delay, because they would have consulted the county council, heard the whole case, and then they would be acting directly in defiance of the reasonable views of the county council. The only other possible case one could imagine is that the county was acting unreasonably, and the plea of my noble friend is that the county council should, although it is acting unreasonably, be able to stop the building of houses. If it is reasonable the Ministry of Health, of course, would not intervene.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The county council could not stop the Local Government Board or the Ministry of Health going on with their work.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No. That is precisely what I am pointing out. If they had good reasons for not doing it the Ministry of Health would say, "Very well, certainly we shall not call upon you to do it; we will do it ourselves." You must allow some degree of common sense to the Ministry of Health. My noble friend is really assuming that when it has been shown that the county council cannot reasonably undertake the duty nevertheless the Ministry of Health will force it upon them, cause another interminable delay, and then have to do the building of the houses itself. I submit that this Amendment is really unnecessary. We must assume the Bill to be carried out in a reasonable way.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5:
Power to act in default of local authority under Parts I and II of principal Act.
5. Without prejudice to any other powers for enforcing the provisions of the Housing Acts. where the Local Government Board are satisfied that any area within the district of a local authority is an area in respect of which the local authority ought to exercise their powers under Part I or Part II of the principal Act, the Board may by order require the local authority to make a scheme for the improvement of such area under Part I or under Part II of that Act and to do all things necessary under the Housing Acts for carrying into execution the scheme so made, and if the local authority fail within such time as may be prescribed by the order to make a scheme to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board, and to carry the scheme into execution, the Board may either authorise the county council to make and carry out a scheme, or themselves make and take such steps as may be necessary to carry out a scheme, and the provisions of the last two foregoing sections of this Act in regard to the powers of county councils and the Board, as the case may be, shall apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out, "authorise" and insert "by order empower."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("authorise") and insert ("by order empower").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 7:
Power to recoup losses.
7.—(1) If it appears to the Local Government Board that the carrying out by a local authority, or by a county council to whom the powers of a local authority have been transferred under this Act, of any scheme approved under section one of this Act, or the carrying out of a re-housing scheme in connection with a scheme made under Part I or Part II of the principal Act, including the acquisition, clearance, and development of land included in the last-mentioned scheme, and whether the re-housing will be effected on the area included in that scheme or elsewhere, or the carrying out of any scheme approved by the Board for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council or a statutory committee thereof, has resulted or is likely to result in a loss, the Board shall, if the scheme is carried out within such period after the passing of this Act as may be specified by the Board with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay to the local authority or county council out of the moneys provided by Parliament such part of the loss as may be determined to be so payable under regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Treasury, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by those regulations.
(2) Such regulations shall provide that the amount of any annual payment to be made under this section shall—

(a) in the case of a scheme carried out by a local authority, be determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss resulting from the carrying out of any scheme or schemes to which this section applies, subject to the deduction therefrom of a sum not exceeding the estimated annual produce of a rate of one penny in the pound levied in the area chargeable with the expenses of such scheme or schemes; and

(b) in the case of a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council, be an amount equivalent to thirty per centum of the annual loan charges as calculated in accordance with the regulations on the total capital expenditure incurred by the county council for the purposes of the scheme:

Provided that the regulations shall include provisions—

(i) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of the local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out and administration of a scheme or otherwise to comply with the conditions prescribed by the regulations;

(ii) for the determination of the manner in which the produce of a rate of one penny in the pound shall be estimated; and

(iii) for any adjustment which may be necessary in consequence of any difference between the estimated annual produce and the actual produce of the said rate of one penny in the pound.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "council" where that word first occurs, to insert "or a statutory committee thereof." The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential upon the insertion in the Committee stage of similar words in Clause 7, page 5, line 40. It is merely a matter of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, after (`"council") insert ("or a statutory committee thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK had on the Paper an Amendment id subsection (2) (i), after "scheme," to insert "(including any deficiency of estimated income which the Local Government Board consider to be due to the insufficiency of the rents proposed to be charged by the local authority or county council)." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Local Government Board, in making regulations under the Act, shall make regulations to ensure that the houses erected by the local authority under a scheme are let at a reasonable and sufficient rent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether it would shorten the business to say that the Government are in sympathy with the object of this Amendment and are perfectly prepared to accept it, but suggest that another form would be more efficient and shorter. The suggestion of the Government is to insert, after the word "scheme" in line 31, the words "to charge sufficient rents," which I think entirely meets the point of the noble Earl. If he will be good enough to move the Amendment in that form, the Government will accept it at once.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: If the noble Viscount is of opinion that the words suggested will have the same effect, I am perfectly willing to accept them and to substitute them for the words I have in the Paper.
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: The variation suggested by the noble Viscount will have the same effect which the noble Earl seeks to attain, and that effect will be obtained in a more satisfactory manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, One 31, after ("scheme"), insert ("to charge sufficient rents"),—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Borrowing powers of county councils in connection with the housing of their employees.
8.—(1) Where money is borrowed by a county council for the purpose of the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council or a statutory committee thereof, or of acquiring land for such houses, the maximum period for repayment shall be eighty years, and as respects money so borrowed eighty years shall be substituted for thirty years in subsection (5) of section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888.
(2) When a loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to county council for any such purposes as aforesaid, it shall be made on the same terms and conditions as a Joan to a local authority for the purposes of the Housing Acts.
(3) A county council shall have power and shall be deemed always to hare had power to provide houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council or a statutory committee thereof, and for that purpose a county council may be authorised to acquire land in like manner as a. local authority may be authorised to acquire land for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act.
(4) In this section the expression "county council" shall include any such board or body as is mentioned in section seven of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert: "(4) This section shall apply to any such board or body as is mentioned in subsection (5) of section 7 of this Act in like manner as it applies to a county council, with the substitution of a reference to the provisions fixing the period within which such board or body is required to repay loans for the reference to subsection (5) of section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1888."
The noble and learned Lord said: This matter is extremely technical, but in effect the Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment. A number of boards and bodies are mentioned in Section 7 of the Act, but obviously it is only those boards and bodies mentioned in subsection (5) to which reference should be made in this place. The Lancashire Asylums Board and West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Board will not borrow money under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1888, but under their- own special Acts—namely, the Lancashire County Lunatic Asylums Act and the West Riding of Yorkshire Lunatic Asylums Act. It

723
follows that in applying the provisions of Clause 8 to these bodies it is necessary to substitute the reference to their borrowing powers and special Acts for references to the borrowing powers of county councils under the Local Government Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 8 to 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provisions as to assessment of compensation.
9.—(1) Where land included in any scheme made or to be made under Part I or Part II of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and not on account of the sanitary condition of the premises thereon or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be the value at the time the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building by-laws for the time being in force in the district:
Provided that if the scheme requires that provision shall be made for the re housing of persons of the working classes on the land or part thereof when cleared, or that the land or a part thereof when cleared shall be laid out as an open space, and compensation payable to all persons interested in any land included in the scheme (other than as aforesaid) for their respective interests therein shall be reduced by an amount ascertained in accordance with the rules set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.
(2) The provisions of sections twenty-one and forty-one of the principal Act shall cease to apply as respects lands to which the provisions of this section apply, in so far as such first-mentioned provisions are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this section.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "but so that the compensation shall not be reduced in the case of any person in respect of his interest in the land unless it is shown that having regard to the alteration in the law by this Act affected, and in the existing conditions of the building trade he has had a reasonable opportunity of rendering the premises sanitary or suitable for habitation."
The noble Earl said: When this Bill was in Committee I moved the Amendment which now stands in my name on the Paper, and at that time my noble friend Lord. Downham also moved an Amendment, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in charge of the Bill asked that we should withdraw our Amendment
724
at that time, in order that the Government might have the opportunity of considering the clause. Now that the Bill has been reprinted and is before your Lordships' House, it is in exactly the same state in which it was when the Bill was in Committee, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that a considerable hardship is inflicted on those owners of slum property who cannot be blamed for the conditions now obtaining. No one can hold any brief for the owner of slum property, whether he be leaseholder or freeholder, but I confess that this Bill goes very far on the road towards confiscation in dealing with the owners of slums—certainly in dealing with the reversionary interest of the freeholder in regard to giving him compensation for the clearing away of slum property.
Apparently the system of assessment which is being adopted is totally different from that in any other. Bill with which the Government is dealing—for example, in the Acquisition of Land Bill. Another very important matter is that the landowner, whether he be an hereditary owner or an owner who has bought the land as a speculation, is not directly to blame for the shortage of houses which calls for this Bill. The foundation stone of that shortage, I do not mind saying here in your Lordships' House, though, perhaps, we do not wish to allude to these painful matters was the Finance Act of 1909 1910; and unfortunately, in 1914, the situation was still further aggravated by the war. That being so, I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, will give this clause consideration before the Bill becomes law. It is true that Clause 28 of this Bill gives the freeholder power to enter upon the land and reconstruct the slums, but it gives him that power at a moment when it is practically useless on account of the difficulties in regard to labour and material. This fact the Government has fully admitted by proceeding to deal with the housing problem themselves by means of this Bill.
There is a further argument in favour of considering somewhat generously the position of the freeholder—namely, that he has frequently, indeed almost always, not been in a position, before this Bill, to enter upon the land at all. As long as the covenants were kept he was debarred from entering upon the land Moreover, there is another question which

725
those of your Lordships who know the East End of London, and London generally, will probably appreciate—namely, that the class of inhabitants has changed. Houses which were inhabited 50 or 100 years ago by a well-to-do class of persons have become occupied—I am sorry to say it is more and more the case year by year—by the undesirable alien, and the result is that that class of property has depreciated. The leaseholder has to get the rent as best he can, while the freeholder is unable to interfere. Therefore, although I do not want to detain your Lordships at this stage of the Bill, I venture to hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will consider the arguments in favour of giving some better terms to the owner of land for his dispossession.
There is only one further point which I should like to make. Take the case of two properties, side by side and say that each of them is valued, for the purpose of death duties, at £10,000. In the case of one, under this Bill, you first of all value the site clear of buildings—call that £2,000, reducing the £10,000 to £8,000. Further, suppose that under this Bill the land shall only be used as a site for working class dwellings or for open spaces, that reduces the value further, and, finally, you discover that the property which has been assessed at, and has actually paid death duties on, a value of £10,000, is worth only £3,000, which is a very considerable reduction, and that money has been lent on the land up to £6,000, or double the actual final value. In the case of the second property, which is valued at the same figure, £10,000, the landlord may enter upon that cleared site, erect factories or some other buildings, and so increase the value of his property. It is not always the fault of the landowner that his property is a slam property, and I would say in conclusion that I believe in many cases, where a landowner has been desirous of improving his property and pulling down houses, he has been asked by the local authorities not to reduce the number of houses, in order not to make the housing question more difficult. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will consider this Amendment and do something in regard to the matter before the Bill is passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at end insert ("but so that the compensation shall not be reduced in the case of any person in respect of his interest in the land
726
unless it is shown that having regard to the alteration in the law by this Act effected, and in the existing conditions of the building trade he has had a reasonable opportunity of rendering the premises sanitary or suitable for habitation").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would remind the noble Earl that this clause, as it stands in the Bill, is the result of a compromise between two schools. One school took the view that the full commercial value should be given for the value of the slum-land cleared of buildings while the other view, which is very strongly held in certain quarters, is that as this property has been so mismanaged, really all that should be given is the housing value of the land subject, of course, to the local by-laws. That would amount, in many cases, to a value considerably less than the commercial value. The clause, as I said, is really a compromise between those two views. That is to say, the ordinary case would be that the commercial value of land would be given to the land but in some cases, where houses for the working classes were built on a portion of the site, that value should be diminished by the difference between the housing value and the commercial value, and that difference should not be laid merely on that portion of the land where the houses were to be built but should be proportionately assessed or divided amongst the different owners in proportion to their holdings of different parts of the site.
I think some fear was expressed during the discussions in Committee that this would generally be done—that the local authority would desire to rebuild upon a site and that in some cases, possibly, they might not. The true value to the owner depended not so much on the value of the site itself as on the purpose for which the local authority thought the site ought to be used. I think I must infringe, to some extent, upon an Amendment to be moved by the Lord Chancellor on the same clause in which he proposes to put in the words "in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme." It is not, of course, the general intention, nor the intention at all, of the Ministry of Health that where these slums are cleared, houses for the working classes should be built upon them. It is, on the contrary, their desire that the houses should be built in other places and that the population in the slum portions of the town should

727
thereby be relieved. The matter is not left to the local authority. There may be some exceptions. There may be some cases where some of the people living in that particular area must be re-housed in that area because the necessities of their work make it desirable that they should not live far from their work. In those exceptional cases the Ministry of Health might modify its general policy, but this would only be done where the Ministry of Health itself, not the local authority, considers that it should be done.
Therefore these cases are exceptional, and, moreover, they are only done where the central authority thinks it really necessary they should be done. Is it therefore unreasonable in these cases that there should be some abatement of the full value of the land? What would happen if that was not done? It would mean that the local authority would have to bear the whole loss, and the difference between the housing and commercial values would be placed upon the ratepayers. My noble friend has argued in misericordiam of certain classes of owners. My noble friend alluded to a shortage of houses, and I ought to point out that this has nothing to do with the shortage of houses.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No! but the Bill has.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl invoked the Act of 1909 and other causes. But t his is merely a question of keeping existing houses in proper repair for human habitation which, my noble friend will admit, is a totally different thing. When he pleads in misericordiam of the owners of this land, let him remember that in many cases the owners will benefit very heavily by the clearance which is effected by the local authority.
Another point is that they cannot improve their houses because they are let on long leases. The land is cleared not for their benefit, but because of the bad state in which the houses have got, and they immediately, perhaps, reap a large reward, because the difference between the housing value of the land and the value at which the property can be sold may be very considerable, so that, long before they have any right to expect it under the terms of the lease, they enter on a goodly inheritance. Therefore, there must be that consideration against the other consideration that certain owners
728
may, to a limited extent possibly, be penalised because they have not the right to enter on the land.
A further point which my noble friend made is this. He says that they may have power wider the Act to enter on the land and to do all that is needful to put the houses in a proper state of repair—why not suspend the operation of the clause until they have an opportunity of doing it themselves? I am afraid the Amendment of my noble friend is so indefinite in its proposals that it may defeat the whole object of the clause itself. May I take just one point? It does not disclose to whom it can be shown that the person in question had a reasonable opportunity of building. Secondly, what are these particular conditions which would, so to speak, mitigate the sentence? What high prices in the building trade would be held to be a mitigating circumstance? What are high prices? Would my noble friend suggest that high prices were any prices higher than those which prevailed before 1914? Or are they to be 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. greater? He will see that the actual framing of the Amendment, apart from the principle, makes the clause so indefinite that it would defeat its object.
I appeal to your Lordships on the broader grounds. It is the general policy, the declared policy, of the Local Government Board to build not on slum property but elsewhere; the commercial value of the land will be realised long before it would naturally be realised by the owner; and in some cases only will there be an abatement of the value because of the special conditions prevailing, and that this should fall on the owners rather than on the ratepayers. Taking all these considerations together I hope your Lordships will consider that the clause as it stands is not unreasonable and will maintain it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think the noble Viscount has quite done justice to my noble friend. I admit I have some difficulty in discussing this clause because I have never been able to understand the First Schedule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will explain it to the noble Marquess. If he finds any difficulty in understanding the First Schedule he cannot have applied his mind very strenuously to it or he would have understood it. All it means is this. If one-fifth of the particular land in question is to

729
be used for the houses of the working classes, to be assessed at its housing value, there will be a loss, say of £10,000, which will have to fall upon somebody. The suggestion in the Schedule is that the £10,000 should be spread equitably over the whole of the property, and therefore the owners of each fifth would have an abatement of £2,000 from the amount they would otherwise receive. In a particular area if you took one portion it would be rather hard that the whole of the cost should fall on the man who owned the particular land, and therefore the loss is spread equitably over the Whole.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. His explanation is much clearer than the Schedule. What, in fact, it means is, that any loss involved shall be "pooled" by the owners of the area in question. That, however, does not get rid of the difficulty because there might be two pieces of land subject to two different schemes, both of them slum property, and in the same position exactly. One would imagine, therefore, that the compensation in each case should be equal, yet in the one case, because it is an area to be devoted to rehousing the landowner would receive a much higher compensation than the other. That is inequitable as it stands, and that was the criticism with which we met the clause in committee.
The noble Viscount said that in some cases under this clause landowners would get an undue advantage, and he seemed to think he could set that off against any undue loss other landowners would incur. That does not appear to me to be a principle of justice. I have no wish that slum landlords should get an undue advantage. I do not want them to have any advantage at all, and it is no use saying that because one slum landlord gets an undue advantage the other slum landlord, who gets an undue loss should be content. I cannot think legislation on those lies is really satisfactory.
The real point of the Amendment is this. My noble friend says that the Government recognise that superior landowners are not in a position to put their property in proper order under the present law. The Government recognise this and they have a provision in the Bill to enable a landowner to do it. If that is recognised, is it not unjust that in an earlier clause in the Bill they should punish him for not doing
730
what they admit he cannot do? He cannot do it because, being the ground landowner, until the ground lease falls in he has practically no control over the property whatever. Your Lordships may think that the whole system of ground leases is bad. I am rather inclined to think that in its present form it is a bad system, but none of us are responsible for it, and from personal experience I know the great difficulty of dealing with large areas, which may be slum areas, in order to put them in proper order. There are some slums, I am sorry to say, on my own property, but I have no control over them and until the ground leases fall in I have no means of putting them in order. It is true there may be certain covenants which one might enforce, but any one who is familiar with these covenants knows that you cannot enforce them because the persons are so poor that they could not fulfil the covenants if you put them in force.
I think my noble friend has really established the case that there is a substantial injustice in the clause as it stands. How do the Government meet it? They say that only very rarely will the difficulty arise; that it will be very seldom you will require to re-house the population in these slum areas. I hope your Lordships will not think that I defend slums. I am far from doing so, and I do not think anybody should be entitled to compensation because of the slums themselves. That is common ground. Slums ex hypothesi condemned are not entitled to compensation. But when we come to the site it is different. The Government say that it would be very rare for re-housing to take place on these sites, and I suppose, if we were to pursue a really enlightened policy, it is true. The whole modern trend of housing policy is that re-housing should be centrifugal; that you should get re-housing not in the congested centre but in the circumference outside. Therefore the Government say that it will only happen rarely, and that only a certain number of landowners, and a limited number, will suffer under the clause. As the clause stands I do not think the number would necessarily be very limited because the schemes which the local authority might put forward may not pursue this enlightened centrifugal policy.
I understand we are to be asked to consider an Amendment of the Lord Chancellor's on this point which provides that the local authority shall not be a free agent

731
in the matter, and that the Local Government Board, or the Ministry of Health, shall sit over the local authority and see in the great majority of cases that this centrifugal policy is pursued. It is only with their consent that re-housing will take place on the old sites. I admit that is a concession because it makes the mischief at which the Amendment is directed a comparatively small one. I think my noble friend has established his case. Whether he thinks it right to press the Motion to a Division, having regard to the concession which the Government are prepared to grant, is a matter for him to decide. I will not discuss the actual Amendment of the Lord Chancellor now; it would be more fitting to do so when we reach it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has undoubtedly rendered considerable service by calling attention to what was an omission in the form of the Bill as originally drafted, but I share the hope expressed by previous speakers that he will not think it necessary to carry the matter to a Division, especially in view of a subsequent Amendment standing in my name. I might suggest an argument which may have some weight in leading him to that conclusion. I doubt greatly whether as drafted the Amendment would be practicable. Its vagueness would I think make it impossible. The noble Earl proposes, for instance, "that the compensation shall not be reduced in the case of any person in respect of his interest in the land unless it is shown." No Court of Law could construe that. Then he goes on: "and in the existing conditions of the building trade he has had a reasonable Opportunity." In the interests of useful draughtsmanship I think it would be necessary to define what was a "reasonable opportunity." I very much hope in these circumstances that the noble Earl will rest content with having called attention to this matter, especially in view of what I am about to move.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: With the leave of the House I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, and will do so unless any noble Lords wish to go to a Division. Personally, I am satisfied with the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "the scheme requires that provision shall be made" and to insert "in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is that to which reference was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and by the Marquess of Salisbury. I think it will readily be understood that this Amendment if accepted will go some way towards removing the difficulties to which expression has already been given by several noble Lords. As Clause 9 stands it is true that the phraseology might suggest that the questions whether re-housing should or should not be ordered might depend upon the arbitrary authority of the local authority. Powerful arguments were addressed in Committee with the object of showing that any such arbitrary authority would be very unfair to the owners. I was impressed with those arguments. Of course as a matter of fact the question whether re-housing on the cleared site should or should not be required depends in the last resort on the Local Government Board requiring that a scheme be prepared, but the object of the Amendment is to call attention to that and make it quite clear. It has a further advantage that it gives statutory effect to what was the intention of the Government, namely, that persons displaced by a clearance scheme should be re-housed on a new site, and that re-housing on the cleared site should only be required when absolutely necessary. The noble Marquess was quite right when he said that the policy of the Government in this matter is on a centrifugal basis. I hope that the Amendment which I now propose may give reasonable assurance to those who felt and expressed apprehensions during the Committee debate.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("the scheme requires that provision shall be made") and insert ("in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Additional powers as to acquisition of land and houses.
12.—(1) The powers of a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III of the

733
principal Act shall fie deemed to include power—

(a) to acquire any houses or other buildings on the land proposed to be acquired as a site for the erection of houses for the working classes; and

(b) to acquire any estate or interest in any houses which might be made suitable as houses for the working classes, together with any lands occupied with such houses;

and the local authority shall have power to alter, enlarge, repair and improve any such houses or buildings so as to render them in all respects fit for habitation as houses for the working classes.
(2) The purposes for which land may be acquired under Part III of the principal Act shall be deemed to include—

(a) the lease or sale of the land, under the powers conferred by this Act, with a view to the erection thereon of houses for the working classes by persons other than the local authority; and

(b) the lease or sale under the powers conferred by this Act of any part of the land acquired with a view to the use thereof for purposes which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate, including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses and gardens, factories, workshops, churches, places of recreation, and other works or buildings for or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working classes and other persons.

(3) Subject to the consent of the Local Government Board and to such conditions as the Board may prescribe, a local authority may for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act contract for the purchase by or lease to them of houses suitable for the working classes, whether built at the date of the contract or intended to be built thereafter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection 2 (b), to leave out "churches" and to insert "places of worship." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("churches") and insert ("places of worship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE had on the Paper an Amendment to insert, after Clause 12, the following new clause: "13. Where in rural districts the local authority requires land for housing; under this Act, and the land is occupied by a tenant for life, who is restricted in any manner from transferring the land in fee simple, but, apart from such restrictions,
734
would be willing to transfer the land without payment to the said authority, the tenant for life shall be entitled to transfer the land with or without payment of legal charges, and consents to such transfer, shall be deemed to have been duly given for the purpose of establishing the title of the said authority."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Marquess would be content, to move this Amendment on Clause 29. I understand that it would come in more conveniently there.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Certainly.
Clause 14:
Power to acquire water rights.
14. A local authority or a county council may, notwithstanding anything in section three hundred and twenty-seven or section three hundred and thirsty-two of the Public Health Act, 1875, but subject to the provisions of section fifty-two of that Act, be authorised to abstract water from any river, stream, or lake, or the feeders thereof, whether within or without the district of the local authority or the county, for the purpose of affording a water supply for houses provided or to be provided under a scheme: made under the Housing Acts, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply to such houses, and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction, in like manner and subject to the like restrictions as they may be authorised to acquire land for the purposes of the scheme: Provided that nothing shall be done hereunder to affect prejudicially the supply of the existing users of such water:
Provided that no local authority or county council shall be authorised under this section to abstract any water which any local authority, corporation, company, or person are empowered by Act of Parliament to impound, take or use for the purpose of supply within any area, or any water the abstraction of which would, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, injuriously affect the working or management of any canal or inland navigation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "and" ["for affording a water supply to such houses and"], and to insert "subject to a prior obligation of affording a sufficient supply of water." The noble and learned Lord said: The words, which it is proposed by this and the consequential Amendments to leave out were inserted on the Committee stage on an Amendment moved by Lord Ancaster. The Government on that occasion pointed out the objections to which the Amendment was open, and particularly that it gave statutory rights

735
to persons who at present have no such rights, and it might be added that the words "affect prejudicially" are so vague and so wide that I really think they might render, if construed in a Court of Law, the whole of the clause inoperative. The Amendments which I now propose on behalf of the Government have I hope got over the difficulty, and at the same time afford protection for existing users.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("subject to a prior obligation of affording a sufficient supply of water")
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("of sufficient water supply") and insert ("thereof")
Page 11, line 41, leave out from ("scheme") to the end of line 42.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it is only right to say that I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has met me on the question of water rights. There is one other aspect of the clause which I confess I do not quite understand. The clause as it stands protects the water supply at any house or agricultural holding, and there is no protection as far as I can make out for industrial undertakings. Perhaps this is not the right place or moment to raise this, but I think we ought to have some definite statement front the Government regarding industrial undertakings. Among the lakes of Scotland it would be easily possible to change the whole water-shed, and thereby deprive people using the water for industrial purposes of their water supply. I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord if there is any clause which would prevent the local authority from doing something which would practically ruin a man who had a mill or other industrial undertaking dependent upon water supply. It seems to me important to consider this question in view of the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has in the next clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is something in the contention of the noble Earl. It may not be convenient to discuss it now, but if the noble Earl will on Third Reading move words to cover industrial undertakings I will see if I can accept them.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the circumstances I will do that.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15:
Powers of dealing with land acquired.
15.—(1) Where a local authority have acquired or appropriated any land for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act, then, without prejudice to any of their other powers under that Act, the authority may—

(a) lay out and construct public streets or roads and open spaces on the land;

(b) with the consent of the Local Government Board sell or lease the land or part thereof to any person for the purpose and under the condition that that person will erect and maintain thereon such number of houses suitable for the working classes as may be fixed by the local authority in accordance with plans approved by them, and when necessary will lay out and construct public streets or roads and open spaces on the land, or will use the land for purposes which, in the opinion of the local authority, are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate in accordance with plans approved by the local authority, including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses and gardens, and other works or buildings, for, or for the convenience of, persons belonging to the working classes and other persons.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, towards the end of subsection (1) (b), after "gardens" to insert "factories," workshops, places of worship, places of recreation." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the insertion of similar words in Clause 12. Clause 12, as your Lordships will recollect, sets out the periods in which the local authority is empowered to acquire, and Clause 15 sets out the powers of the local authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, after ("gardens") insert ("factories, work-shops, places of worship, places of recreation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In regard to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord that the noble Earl who spoke just now should on Third Reading move an Amendment to protect industrial undertakings, may I point out that the Standing Order having been suspended I am afraid that owing to the Rule of the House the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is not a very practicable one, and to adopt it would mean a breach of the Rule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I ask the noble Lord who knows the Rules very well, Is it not the case that if no objection is taken the noble Earl would be fully entitled to move his Amendment on Third Reading in spite of the fact of the suspension of Standing Order?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that must be so. If the Amendment is moved and no objection is taken to it, the Amendment can be carried. I think the noble Lord will agree that that can be done if there is no objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have known that to be done, but by leave of the House only. I cannot say, however, that it is a breach of the Rule which ought to be very much encouraged. It is very dangerous to alter things on Third Reading when the last moment has arrived, and they cannot be altered afterwards. I have not had anything like the experience of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but, as I say, I have known it to be done by leave of tile House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I suggest that if it is to be done the words ought to be carefully arranged and settled before we come to the stage at which they will be moved.
LORD BLEDISLOE: On this particular Amendment I should like to say that I regard with some apprehension this plan of specifying or attempting to specify all the purposes for which land or any other property may conceivably be put in the public interest. When you begin to try to specify you do not know where you will end. You are in danger of leaving out some purpose which would be just as useful as the purposes specified. It has occurred to me that in addition to factories, workshops, places of worship and places of recreation, many people would wish that you should add public baths and public libraries, and I should also say, having regard to our experience during the course of the war, you ought to add allotments. We discovered during the war how extremely difficult it was to obtain sufficient garden or allotment ground in the immediate neighbourhood of cottages where working people could cultivate it. I think that possibly on Third Reading the noble and learned Lord may devise some better method than this of framing this particular
738
clause because with due respect it cannot be regarded as artistic. It is quite clear that as originally drafted it was intended to apply to houses for habitation or similar purpose, and was never intended to apply originally to all these other purposes which the Lord Chancellor intends now to include. I very much fear that many of the usages that some of us would like to see included will be omitted if such words as these were inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that these words are really in effect only consequential on a certain Amendment which was introduced in Clause 12 of the Bill in committee. If my noble friend who has just sat down wished to alter this Amendment he would, if he were to be as logical as he always is in arguments before your Lordships, have to alter Clause 12 also. But as Clause 12 stands the local authority is allowed to acquire land for certain purposes, therefore they ought to be able to deal with it for those same purposes.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In reply, may point out that, as regards the previous clause, Clause 12, that applies to schemes which are settled by the local authority itself. This particular clause applies to a case where the local authority is, in fact, parting with its land to a contractor or other person who will carry out the scheme according to his own plans. In the case of a local authority it is already open to them under sundry Acts of Parliament to provide all the amenities and facilities which are thought necessary nowadays for the working classes. If they part with their land to another person altogether, that other person is not compelled, even on the representation of the ratepayers, to provide these other conveniences, such as public baths, libraries and the like. I suggest therefore that it is even more important in this case than it was in the former that the words should be sufficiently comprehensive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess is really perfectly right. Clause 12 sets out the purposes for which the local authority are empowered to acquire. Now it is necessary to set up the powers of a local authority for dealing with the land when acquired.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Loans to private persons.
21. During a period of two years from the passing of this Act, the money which may be advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes on the security of a mortgage of any land or dwellings solely may, if the Commissioners think fit and if the houses are constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Local Government Board, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the principal Act, but shall not exceed seventy-five per centum of the value of the estate or interest in such land or dwellings proposed to be mortgaged, and advances may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the houses on the land mortgaged progresses, so that the total of the advances do not at any time exceed the amount last mentioned, and a mortgage may accordingly be made to secure advances so to be made from time to time.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE, on behalf of Earl GREY, moved, after "solely," to insert "shall, in the case of persons being members of a buildingsociety incorporated under the Building Societies Act, 1874 to 1894, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which stands on the paper in the name of Earl Grey is intended to give effect to the scheme which he outlined in speaking on Clause 7 on the Committee stage. As the Bill stands, very little, if anything, is done for the great building societies of this country. Their funds are very large and have increased enormously during the war. They lend money out in order to build houses, and the sums so advanced are repaid by instalments. Of course, as these instalments are repaid, they are lent out again for the building of further houses. During the war building very largely stopped, and therefore the building societies had no opportunity of lending their money out again. The result has been that the repayments made to these societies have accumulated, and I understand that now they have something like £30,000,000 available for use in building houses. These societies are composed almost entirely of working men—the type of owner-occupier which every one of your Lordships, I am sure, wishes to see increased in numbers, and to assist in every possible way. Therefore, if we can help them by this Bill I think this Amendment will appeal to your Lordships.
What is proposed is that the tenant purchaser should advance 10 per cent.
740
of the cost of the house, that the building society should advance 40 per cent., and that that advance should be a first mortgage, which will be paid as to capital and interest by 15 annual instalments of 10 per cent. of the sum advanced; that the State should advance the remaining 50 per cent. on a second mortgage, and that this second mortgage should not receive any interest for 15 years, but, after that, the interest should be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. for 50 years, which will repay the Government loan, and it will not be an excessive charge on the occupier during the currency of the loan.
How it works out is this. If you take a house, say with a parlour, kitchen, scullery with bath, and three bedrooms, with cubic capacity of 10,125 feet, the cost at 1s. 3d. at cubic foot comes out at £632 16 s. 3d. Under the scheme proposed by my noble friend the State would advance £253 2s. 6d., the building society £330, and the tenant purchaser £49 13 s. The payments work out on these lines:—12 s. 6d. per week to the building society for 15 years, by the end of which time their mortgage would have been repaid. Then, from the sixteenth to the sixty-fifth year the tenant would repay the State at the rate of 5s. per week,plus a small payment to recoup the local authority for purchasing the land and making it fit to build upon. The loss to the State for not getting any interest on the loan for 15 years comes out at a subsidy of £13 18 s. 5d. a year for 15 years; whereas under the terms of the Bill it works out at a subsidy of £10 8s. 10 d. for 50 years. Therefore, under this scheme the State will have to find a great deal less money than it does under the proposals of the Bill.
That, I think, to most of us is a very considerable advantage and the scheme has these additional advantages. In the first place, you will make use of these big building societies and their funds, which are available for this purpose, and you can employ them as agents for the State. They will be able to see that due economy is exercised in the building of these houses, and I see no reason why they should not be the agents of the State in collecting the rents after their own mortgages are paid off. It is obviously to the interest of the societies that the houses should

741
be built at the lowest possible cost, because they themselves have to find such a large part of the capital outlay.
Then, in addition, it enables building societies, to employ the small men in building these houses. Under the terms of the Bill I am afraid that very often we may find that the local authority has to make big contracts which will be taken by large employers of labour, and the little man will be left very often without a job. We have to get the largest number of houses built in the shortest possible time. We have therefore to employ, not only the large, but the small employer of labour, and it seems to me that this proposal has very great advantages.
The Amendment, as it stands on the Paper, is not complete. It will be necessary to move in another place certain other weds to give effect to the scheme which I have outlined. The whole of the Amendment will be as follows:—To insert, after "solely, ''shall, in the ease of persons being members of a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and which shall include power to remit interest over a term of years not exceeding fifteen." When my noble friend talked about the scheme on the Committee Stage it met with a very favourable reception from the Lord Chancellor, who, of course, desired further time to consider the matter. I hope very strongly that His Majesty's Government may now be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, after ("solely") insert ("shall, in the case of persons being members of a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I desire to press very earnestly on the attention of His Majesty's Government the advantages of the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend. He has stated the case so fully and so clearly that it is quite unnecessary to go into the merits of the subject. I merely desire to say that I have received strong representations from some of those who are thoroughly entitled to speak on behalf of the class to be benefited, as we believe, by the insertion of some such Amendment as this—that is to say, the
742
very pick of the working classes in many parts of the country. We all know that the subscribers to building societies re present the solid type of British working man, and anything which can reasonably be done without undue loss to the community to encourage the admirable system of these societies surely ought to be done. My noble friend has clearly shown that, although the initial expense to the Government is somewhat greater than by the ordinary operations of the Bill, even after making the necessary discount for the complete absence receipts for the fifteen years, over the whole period there is a definite gain to the taxpayer in the procedure which is involved. It is true, no doubt, that all Amendments of this kind, involving changes in the pecuniary allocations of the provisions of the Bill, have to be moved here in truncated form, and in one sense are more suitable for introduction in another place. On the other hand, there are so many noble Lords here who are directly interested in the work of these and kindred societies—I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Grey is unable to be present, although his place could not have been better filled than it has been by Lord Stanhope—that I am sure the House will feel that there is distinct propriety in our making a move in this direction.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment has been strongly supported in general terms by the noble Marquess, and I suppose every one will assent to the general principle that it would be a great pity if these large sums of money which have been accumulated by the building societies during the last few years should not have an outlet in their proper duty of providing houses for the working-classes. My noble friend has described the method by which that money is usually used. He also discussed a rather intricate scheme by which the State might be to some extent a partner with the building societies in building these houses for the working-classes and allowing them to buy them.
I do not know whether all your Lordships have followed in detail the particulars of that scheme, and I am not quite clear, therefore, how far I ought to go into it. I understand that there are two forms of that scheme. The first, which was referred to by my noble friend, was that two-fifths of the money was lent by the Commissioners at first, they were to forego all

743
interest for the first fifteen years and that, at the end of that time, when the building society would have been paid off by the individual person repaying to the Treasury the interest and sinking fund on the three-fifths of the five-fifths, the State should step in and be the only creditor of the individual. I believe some objections were taken when that scheme was examined by the Treasury on the ground that they did not want to be in a position to find more money at that time; and as the building societies had a great deal of money there was some objection t) the scheme.
Then I think another suggestion was made, for which, I believe, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was responsible. My noble friend alluded to it but not in any specific terms. By that scheme the noble Marquess tried to avoid the difficulty which was felt by the Treasury of finding two-fifths of the money at such an early stage when they were finding so much money for other schemes. The suggestion then made was that the Treasury should in effect borrow two-fifths of the money from the building societies and pay 5 per cent. for it during the first fifteen years, that they should pay off the money at the end of fifteen years, and then, the building society having been entirely paid off, there would be only one relation established between the Government and the individual. Although that is described as being a loan of two-fifths of the money from the building societies to the Government, in effect it would be that the Government would be paying 5 per cent. to the individual in order to enable him to meet his liability to the building society. It was not clear, from the scheme as I saw it, what the security of the Government was to be after the first fifteen years. Although the interest and sinking fund repayments over the period were so calculated that the interest paid by the Government during the first fifteen years was included in them, it was not clear what the security of the Government would be.
EARL STANHOPE: The security would be the house itself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The mortgage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not so stated in the scheme, but I am glad to hear that. There might be many variants of that particular scheme. The whole case rested, I understand, on the building society
744
getting its money repaid in fifteen years in order to be used for other purposes, Whether the Government is justified or not in coming in as a partner of the building society and assisting it to get the money repaid in fifteen years, is a matter on which at the present time I should not like to pronounce. First of all because, interesting as these schemes are, they are not really closely relevant, if I may say so, to the Amendment before your Lordships with which I want to deal. I would preface my remarks about this Amendment by saying that the Government would be ready at any time carefully to consider any scheme by which the building societies were enabled to make use of the large sums they have accumulated for this particular purpose; but the Amendment itself is a thing to which I would ask your Lordships to address your minds. The words are "After 'solely' insert shall, in the case of persons being members of a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and'."
The clause generally, as at present drawn, applies to loans which may be advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to private persons. The effect of the Amendment would be of a very limiting nature because it would limit the operation of the clause in the matter of loans advanced to persons who are members of a building society, and thus go far to cripple the clause. That I am sure is not the intention of my noble friend. Secondly, as to the terms on which the Commissioners may lend the money. Under Section 67 of the Act of 1890 the terms on which the Commissioners may lend money are from time to time determined by the Treasury. The insertion of these words would add nothing to the powers possessed by the Treasury, either in the matter of the loan or in the obligations of the Public Works Loan Commissioners; therefore I am afraid that the clause would be partly inoperative and partly dangerous. Consequently I hope that your Lordships will not press the Amendment. At the same time I wish to say everything that can be said of a sympathetic nature towards the idea represented by my noble friend, and to state the anxiety of the Government, perhaps at some later stage, to find some method of assisting the building societies in using their funds, and if they can do this they will be glad.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that my noble friend has not been able to go further in receiving this Amendment. Your Lordships will be aware that the great blemish on this Bill is that it crushes out all private enterprise. I yield to no one in desiring the passage of this Bill which I believe to be of vital importance; but it is a very severe criticism that it crushes out private enterprise.
So far does the Bill go in this respect that I am confident it cannot remain where it is. There must be an amending Statute. It is impossible to believe that the Government will be content to pass a law and to leave it the law, under which all the public utility societies with which we are familiar, the Garden City of Hampstead and all that, will be put an end to—I do not mean the Garden City itself, but the development of it—owing to the operation of the Bill. The whole of that great movement is over for the moment and, in addition to that, all the operations of the great building societies are put an end to by this Bill. That is a most serious indictment of the Bill, and I do think that the Government ought to have provided machinery under which these two great classes of building effort should be helped forward and maintained. But it is otherwise.
My noble friend Lord Stanhope comes forward, I admit at the last moment, and he says, "I have a scheme under which, at any rate, we can include the building societies. I have a plan which has been worked out by the building societies and which is entirely watertight as a financial operation." No doubt, as my noble friend opposite said, there are certain variants. He said that I had a variant. The difference between my plan, such as it is, and that of my noble friend is very slight. In any case, we ask that the Government should be responsible for two-fifths of the purchase money; but in one case my noble friend proposes that they should put down the capital, and in the other case I suggest, in order to avoid throwing an extra capital charge on the Treasury; that the Treasury should borrow capital and pay the interest on it. That is the only distinction. The money really comes out of the taxpayer's pocket in either case, but the difference is whether it should come as a lump sum or in a form carrying 5 per cent. interest for fifteen years. It is a perfectly watertight plan, and it is a plan under which
746
the Government would not spend so much money as they do if they operate through a local authority or a county council or a public utility society under the provisions of the Bill.
This is cheaper for the Government than any of these plans. That is to say, it does not throw a 30 per cent. charge on the undertaking as the Government plan does. What my noble friend really offers the Government is a more economical plan than theirs for producing the houses, and to do it by including in the building resources which are to be laid under contribution these great accumulated funds of the building societies, which are most valuable, not merely because of their money value but because of the great incentive they are to prudence and thrift in the working classes. That is the proposal. How does my noble friend propose to do it? He proposes to introduce into the clause words that will make it possible for the House of Commons, if they are willing, to put in the full scheme when the Bill goes back to another place. Under the practice of Parliament, unless we put in an Amendment of this kind, the House of Commons cannot deal with it any more, because, as your Lordships are aware, they cannot deal with any part of the Bill when it goes back to that House except those parts where we have inserted Amendments. Therefore, if we insert this Amendment, which is intended to be really little more than a colourless Amendment, then the House of Commons will have the whole field open to them and they can insert this scheme, to which I have ventured to refer and which my noble friend has described very clearly and in detail. They can insert it all.
The Government have lots of time between now and the consideration of the Lords' Amendments by the Commons to think the whole thing out and put it in perfect order. All we ask the Government to do is to let us open the door. I do not think the fears which my noble friend has, properly from his own point of view, expressed as to the drafting of the Amendment need trouble him, because it is only to be useful if the Commons agree to it; and if there are small faults in drafting the Commons will put them right. I suggest that the Government will be well advised to accept the Amendment and to keep the door open.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: One of the objections of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was that the Amendment would have a limiting effect on the application of the clause. I think the noble Viscount has been wrongly advised. All that the Amendment can do is to give exceptional and favourable terms to a particular class of possible investors in house property. The rest of the clause, if read carefully with the Amendment, will be found to apply to the other private builders or promoters exactly as the clause stands at present. I am quite sure the noble Viscount has been wrongly advised.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I had no opportunity, owing to illness, of taking part in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am only induced to rise now by the speech made by my noble friend, the noble Marquess behind me. I can offer, from quarters in the Government itself, some confirmation of what he said just now. It bears so strongly on what he said that I desire your Lordships' permission to say a few words about it. I begin by asking this question—To whom and to what is the dearth of cottages at the present time very largely, if not mainly, due? Why, it is a fact that it is due, for the most part, to the legislation of 1909–1910, to the Budget of that day, which inflicted enormous injury upon the building trade of this country. And the Government were not without warning. The position was pressed on the Government at that time. I remember it perfectly well, and I have recently referred to the debate. I will quote as my witness Mr. Bonar Law, the present Leader of the House, who was then sitting on the opposite side of the House. What did he say? You will find it in the Report of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in 1909, in Volume 6, column 330 of Hansard. What did he say then?—
"I say that most undoubtedly the effect of these proposals will be to injure, and injure permanently, the building trade in this country."
Knowing that those were Mr. Bonar Law's views I cannot think that he has departed from a statement of that kind with all the information we have had at our disposal since then to confirm it, and which I am going to quote to the House directly. Therefore, that is another reason why your Lordships' House should pass this Amendment and give the House of
748
Commons another opportunity of reconsidering their opinion.
I said I would give some figures in support of Mr. Bonar Law's statement at that time. His statement was a warning and a prophecy which has been most literally fulfilled, as the House will agree in a moment when they have heard the figures that I shall set before them. Take the figures for the increase in the building of cottages for the last ten years. I have had figures taken out from Table 84 of the Fifty-fifth Report of the Inland Revenue, page 79—everybody can verify them for themselves—with the assistance of the very able Librarian of the House of Commons. What do I find? There was a great and steady increase in the building of houses for ten years amounting to something just short of 900,000. What happened the year after that Budget was passed? It fell to an increase of 10,000 houses, and it was directly owing to the hindrances which were put in the way of the building of houses at that time; the diminution was entirely owing to that legislation, and was predicted, not only by Mr. Bonar Law but by dozens of other speakers day after day in the House of Commons, at the time. I rather think my noble friend Lord Crawford was one of the speakers himself; no doubt he will remember it perfectly well.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think I shared the view of the noble Viscount, but I venture to point out that it scarcely arises on this particular Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think it does. It arises out of what was said by a previous speaker. Still, if I am not out of order, I should like to say a few more words on this point. How many cottages do you want to build? I have read that the Government have ordered 800,000,000 bricks and 22,000,000 slates. We have never been told how many houses are required. And what is going to be the cost? We are entirely in the dark. We are entering upon a most enormous undertaking at a time, when as we were told by Lord Inchcape yesterday, one of the first considerations of Parliament and the country ought to be the most rigid economy. None of these great new Ministries should be continued, expenses should be cut down, and at least we ought to be informed what our liability will be in connection with all these great new schemes

749
that are now being put before the country day after day. Some day there will have to be a reckoning. The Government have been warned over and over again, and they will have to bear the responsiblity. Although I have only been able to attend, owing to illness, a portion of these debates, I have heard enough to make me feel that I should be wanting both in duty and in courage if I did not utter the most emphatic protest in my power against the policy which has been pursued, far too long now, of engaging the country in enormous expenses of every kind without giving us even an estimate of what we are making ourselves liable for.
EARL STANHOPE: I am advised that in adding the words "in any case" I shall meet the point raised by the noble Lord opposite. I will accept those words.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have only two things to say. It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Viscount, and I should not be so impolite as to imply, that his observations would have graced the Third Reading of the Bill. I want to make it quite clear that the Government view with great sympathy every attempt made to assist building societies, and they are anxious to tap the huge resources which are in time hands of these societies, and make it possible for them to use them. I have not had time to consider whether the additional words would meet the point, but even if the clause is no longer limited I am afraid nothing much could be done under it as the powers of the Commissioners are settled in the manner already stated, and this clause would have no effect upon them. It would be useless for me to pretend that by accepting the Amendment I should do any good to the building societies. It would hold out a suggestion which would have no issue in fact. I trust my noble friend will not press his Amendment. I should reiterate the anxiety of the Government to explore every path by which the funds of building societies could be utilised for the purpose.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved, after Clause 22, to insert the following new clause: "Any bricks or other building materials in the possession of a Government Department which are available for pur-
750
chase by a local authority for the erection or improvement of houses under the Housing Acts shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any owner of a house or building who enters into an agreement, with such security as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board to use all building materials so purchased by him in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes."
The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment because I think the Government have not sufficiently considered the position of private owners after this Bill becomes law. Viscount Chaplin a few moments ago gave some startling figures with regard to the reduction in the number of houses built in this country before the war. We are in this position, that not only was there a considerable shortage before the war but that repairs have been made almost impassible during the war by the lack of labour and the difficulty of providing materials. What is going tobe the position of private owners, who did 95 per cent. of the whole of the work of providing houses up to the time of the war? What is going to be their position after They will have to compete with such a scheme as was never yet proposed by the Government for extending houses in every direction. They will have to compete, in obtaining workmen, with the sort of prices which the Government are now paying men whom they employ. In the Slough neighbourhood they have actually robbed the country, not merely of every technical man, but of all the labourers, who are themselves learning to assist in the construction of these buildings.
I wonder if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill realises what the position of private owners will be in a few months from now. They will have the greatest difficulty in retaining any workmen. They will have to bid for all materials against municipalities and the Government, whose purses are practically bottomless for this purpose. It really will cause an absolute stoppage of all repairs, unless you make some arrangement for providing materials. I know with regard to labour it is impossible. No arrangement can be made. I myself have known what it is, even within the last few months, to be unable to obtain the most necessary materials. Not merely have the Government taken up a very large amount of the bricks of the country, but

751
I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is not likely that within a few Months practically the whole of the timber and lead and other supplies may be taken over by the Government. They may find it absolutely necessary to ration for the purpose of great schemes, and in that rationing the private owners will have no share of any kind.
There was an undertaking given earlier that the Government would do whatever they could in the matter, but Parliamentary undertakings do not hold good as against an Act of Parliament, and private owners should have their cases considered in the Bill. I cannot imagine anything which is more likely to bring odium on the private owners of this country than to make it clear that for five years to come they cannot attempt to do the duty which they want to do, and which they always have done, and which at no time has it been more necessary they should do than at the present time. I have figures before me this very morning of an estate with 300 houses, on which repairs have constantly been done, and at this moment the cost of labour, plus the cost of materials, will more than swallow the whole of the rents of those houses and leave the landlord with a deficit annually of several hundred pounds. Of course some landlords, like those in your Lordships' House, who have regarded their people as being a first charge on the estate, may be willing to go on losing money in that way; but we know that that cannot be the general effect and that these things must have a commercial basis. It is because I feel that without some such provision we shall do great injustice I ask your Lordships to insert this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think that all your Lordships in considering this Bill must have recognised that nothing except the extreme urgency of the present situation would have rendered the Bill a wise and acceptable measure, because in truth it is going to strike a deadly blow against all private enterprise in building houses—a blow from which it appears to me that private enterprise may never recover. I think it is plain that the houses that will be built under this scheme cannot in many cases, and may not in any cases, be let at an economic rent. There will therefore
752
be state-aided competition with private effort, in which the public will be called upon to pay for the disadvantage with which the position is charged as against the private builder.
As I say, every one recognises that the urgent need of restoring, as far as we can, proper building accommodation for poorer people, is a matter of such essential and vital importance that people are prepared to sacrifice the strong feeling that they hold in favour of private and individual effort, in favour of State enterprise in this respect. But is there any reason why, if opportunity offers for private work, that they should be utterly restrained from getting the materials which will enable them to carry that effort into effect. This amendment, although I think its words may require some consideration, is really nothing but a provision which enables a private owner, if the local authority has access to building materials, to have access to the same materials on the same terms, for the purpose of carrying out the same work.
What I should very much like to know is what is the objection to such a proposal? The bricks are to be used in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes. They will be used in connection with that work, subject to the heavy disadvantage to which I have already referred, and it does seem to me that it is an oversight in the Bill, as originally drawn, that some such provision was not introduced in the first instance. With regard to the Amendment, if the noble Viscount will permit me, I cannot help thinking that it might be modified advantageously in one or two respects. I do not think he intended that the whole benefit of this Amendment should be confined merely to the owners of houses or buildings. I think probably the owners of a site was intended to be included, because otherwise the only person who could use this Amendment would be the person who had already got a structure. I think if the owner of a site enters into an agreement, with the necessary security, he should be provided with materials for carrying out his own work.
There is no need that I can see to stifle or kill all private enterprise in this country. This Amendment does leave a very narrow door through which a few people will be able to enter. It does leave a way for private enterprise, and I hope that your Lordships will not close it. When the noble

753
Viscount referred to the losses occasioned to owners who desired to keep their property in proper repair, he forgot to mention that after paying for repairs they have the privilege of paying Income Tax at 6s. in the £ on money which they never receive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has moved an Amendment of very great importance at a very late stage in the history of the Bill. The Bill has been through all its stages in the House of Commons, it was debated at considerable length in this House on the Committee stage, and at the very last moment or almost at the last moment the noble Viscount has proposed an Amendment which in its present form I do not think anybody suggests can be adopted. It would be even difficult to construe by the means that one usually applies to Statutes. It says: "Any bricks (and so forth) in the possession of a Government Department which are available for purchase by a local authority … shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any" private owner of a house. Who is to decide whether, even if they are available for purchase by the local authority for the purpose, they can be made available for the same purpose by a private owner?
I should think the noble Viscount will agree that it would not be possible to accept an Amendment of this nature on a notice so short. At the present moment the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Munitions are placing orders for building materials, and elaborate discussions have taken place with the manufacturers. It really would dislocate the whole machinery if at this stage an Amendment of this kind were introduced into the Bill. There is after all a broad distinction of principle which I should have thought the noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) would have been the first to recognise in this matter. For good or for bad the structure of this Bill is such as to impose a duty upon the local authorities, and we have provided ourselves with ample powers for dealing with those who are in default.
As showing the reasonableness of the scheme of the Bill, I may point out that the local authorities who are in default can only be compelled to discharge their duties if in the first place the bricks and the building materials are placed at the disposition of those who are compelled by the Bill to build. It is not the scheme of the Bill
754
to compel private owners. If it were I should be most unwilling to assent to it. It is idle to suppose that the Government are out of sympathy with the object which underlies the Amendment of the noble Viscount. I can tell him that I hold in my hand at this moment a long list of recommendations and arrangements the sole object of which is to see that, so far as the public requirement permits of it, those owners who can produce reasonable evidence of their willingness and power to carry out building operations will be afforded every facility for doing so.
Let me assure the noble Viscount that the Government are most acutely alive to the vital importance that private enterprise in building should survive, and I will say this to the noble Viscount, that the Housing Department of the Ministry of Health have already formulated detailed proposals in the direction of enabling private owners, in the exceptional circumstances referred to in this Amendment, with materials of this class. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not think it reasonable at this late stage and under these circumstances to press this Amendment on the Government. I am quite sure, if he will place himself on my introduction in communication with the heads of the Housing Department of the Ministry of Health, he will see that everything that is reasonably possible, having regard to other needs, is being done.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is scarcely fair to my noble friend Lord Midleton in complaining that this Amendment is introduced at a late stage of the Bill. It might, no doubt, have been introduced on the previous stage, but it is not uncommon in your Lordship' House for Amendments to be introduced on Report rather than on the Committee stage. It is not any satisfaction to us that His Majesty's Government want to read the Bill a third time to-day. That is their proposal, and it is done for their convenience. Therefore I confess that I can attach no importance whatever to the fact that this Amendment is being moved on Report rather than on Committee stage. My noble friend would no doubt have been glad if he could have moved it one stage sooner.
As regards the terms of the Amendment, my noble friend Lord Buckmaster called

755
attention to what is at any rate one omission from the purpose which the noble Viscount has been held to desire. The Amendment as it stands seems to deal rather with repairs than with the erection of new buildings, though it does not exclude the latter, because it indicates that materials should be available for purchase by the owner of a house for building, but does not mention the owner of a site. By simply adding the word "site" and saying "house or building site" the double purpose would thereby be served. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that it is a fact that although a definite obligation in the Bill rests upon the local authority, the owner of land is subject to no such necessity. He is not under compulsion, whereas the local authorities are. But I had always supposed that it was the definite desire of those responsible for the measure to encourage private enterprise in this purpose, and so far as I know that is what the local authorities are doing. When a scheme in a rural district is in preparation it is the general custom of the local authorities in the first instance, after the number of houses in a particular parish or area is decided upon, to ask the owner or owners of the land if he or they are willing to put them up themselves. That is a very reasonable course to pursue, but it ceases to be a reasonable course if the materials for the erection are not to be made available.
The noble and learned Lord has told us that although His Majesty's Government, for some reason which I do not quite apprehend, objects to the insertion of this provision in the Bill, yet by Regulation—the fashionable method now—they are prepared, apparently, to give the same, or at any rate similar, opportunities to those who are desirous of erecting houses themselves I cannot help wishing that statement, which of course we most fully accept from the noble and learned Lord, had been rather more specific. And again, perhaps, we might have complained that it is only made at the last moment, whereas it would have been important and interesting if we could have been apprised of this at an earlier stage of the Bill. Whether in the circumstances my noble friend desires to press his Amendment, of course, is purely a matter for himself. I am not called upon to give him advice on that one way or the other.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If your Lordships will allow me, I will make two re-
756
marks. The first is that I fully recognise the justice of the criticism made by the noble and learned Lord behind me. Unquestionably a man who has a site ought to be treated on the same terms as a man who has a house or building, and I would ask the noble- and learned Lord's leave to insert words which will bring that about.
The second point is this. Circumstances justify pressing the Amendment. I cannot say that I was thoroughly frightened by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who referred two or three times to the paramount importance of arming the local authorities with all that they require for this great work. I venture to say that there is an equally paramount importance that the whole of the private owners throughout the country should not be debarred from carrying out building and that is the position in which we are at this moment. Every word that fell from the noble and learned Lord stating the difficulties of the Government with the manufacturers shows how acute this scramble will be and how badly those who are private owners will come off for the next five or ten years in their desire to do their duty by their tenants. I therefore must ask your Lordships kindly to allow me to press the Amendment in the amended form, as follows:—
"Any bricks or other building materials in the possession of a Government Department which are available for purchase by a local authority for the erection or improvement of houses under the Housing Acts shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any owner of a house or building or site who enters into an agreement, with such security as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board to use all building materals so purchased by him in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes."
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment which stands in my name to Clause 23 is to meet a point taken by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, after ("local authority") insert ("or, on appeal, the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 29, leave out("pursuance of a scheme") and insert ("accordance with plans and specifications").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
clause 25:
Byelaws respecting houses divided into separate tenements.
(7) The annuity shall be of such amount and extend over such number of years as the county court may determine, but if either party are dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority the question of the amount and the duration of the annuity shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors Institution.
(8) Subsections (3) and (4) of section thirty-six and section thirty-seven of the principal Act, and section nineteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, shall apply to charging orders and annuities under this section in like manner as to charging orders and annuities under the said section thirty-six.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (7), to omit all words after "may determine." The noble and learned lord said: This is a consequential Amendment which is necessary on account of the change made in the Bill by my acceptance of Lord Bledisloe's Amendment substituting the county court for the local authority as the body which is empowered to relax the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out lines 1 to 4 inclusive.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, like the last, is consequential on the substitution c.): the County Court for the local authority.
Amendment moved——
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("Subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("Subsection (3)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 6, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("except subsection (4)")
Page 23, lines 16 and 17, leave out. ("by the local authority") and insert ("on the application of the local authority by the county court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIEDLETON VISCOUNT MIEDLETON moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:
"26.—(1) Where an undertaking carried on for profit is established in any locality after the passing of this Act, and the provision of additional houses for the working classes is necessitated in the locality of the undertaking by reason of the number of persons of the working classes who are or who are likely to be employed by the owner of the undertaking, any local authority within the meaning of Part III of the principal Act whose duties under that part of that. Act are affected by the establishment or carrying on of the undertaking may make an order requiring the owner of the undertaking to erect such number of houses suitable for the working classes as may be specified within such time as may be specified in the order, provided that within twenty-one days of the receipt of such order the owner may appeal to the Local Government Board as if the order was an order under Part I of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, and thereupon the provisions of that part of that Act relating to appeals to the Local Government Board shall have effect.
"(2) If the owner of an undertaking fails to comply with an order under this section, he may on the application of the local authority concerned, be restrained by the High Court of Justice from carrying on the undertaking in respect of which the Order was made."
The noble Viscount said: The question which I bring forward now is, I quite admit, open to the reproach of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it was not brought forward at an earlier stage, but it is a great question of principle, and T earnestly hope that the Government may see their way to consider it. At the present moment you are laying the duty on the local authority to provide all accommodation which may be necessary within their districts. In other words you are going to put a burden on the ratepayers which unless all these houses are let at the highest economic rents must be a very heavy one. This is not an amendment which is in any way on behalf of capital. If anything, it is open to the reproach that it is putting a burden upon capital, but I think from the point of view of all those who are dependent on this Act for their houses that it is probably one of the most necessary proposals which have yet been put forward.
What is the present position? Any commercial firm or any commercial individual may comeinto any place and buy a piece of land and erect a factory which requires for its working 100, 500, 5,000, or more individuals. There is no obligation whatever to build a single house or to make any provision of ally description for housing all those persons whom they call into the

759
locality for their own profit and advantage. Parliament has recognised indirectly the liability of those who dispossess members of the working-class to re-house them. No railway company is ever allowed to extend itself over a large piece of land occupied by houses without buying and erecting an equivalent number of houses. That has been the law, and it has kept back some of the largest terminal improvements in London for many years. Then again your Lordships will recollect how much criticism has been directed lately against the owners of collieries because the houses which they control, and which they have put up in places where there did not exist a demand for housing before, have been (it is contended) inadequate to the needs of the population.
In order that I may show that this is really a case of the most onerous description on the ratepayers I will take two instances. This Bill does not apply to Ireland but the application of the principle will no doubt come before us in the Irish Bill. About three or four years ago Mr. Ford, who was born in the county of Cork, wishing, I believe, to do a great service to the county of his birth, made up his mind to erect a factory for motors of all descriptions on a very extended scale in Cork itself. He began the buildings. They were to have included 10,000 workmen. When they were partially completed and work had begun to a small extent Mr. Ford was stopped by the Government, who were unable to allow him to continue to use the material. which was necessary during the war. Whether these buildings are to be continued now or not I do not know. I have heard it said that the circumstances of labour in the district do not encourage Mr. Ford to pursue his original scheme.
But your Lordships will see that it is a very curious instance. Had there been no war Mr. Ford would have gone on with the erection of the building. Simultaneously the municipal authority would under this Bill have seen that their existing accommodation must be improved by provision for at least 8,000 out of the 10,000 workmen. For there are not many empty houses. They would have begun to build, and then, if Mr. Ford changed his mind, as he has a perfect right to do and put the buildings up on a far smaller scale, those houses would have been there, the charge would have been on the municipal authority, and Mr. Ford withdraws his factory,
760
or limits it to one-fifth or one-tenth of the size he intended, and the municipal authorities are left with the accommodation and all the expenditure which they need never have provided.
That is not a fanciful picture. Look at what is going on at Slough just now. I am not going to argue the case which was put before us the other night. But the fact remains that some 4,000 workmen have been employed. Those who are employed there now are going from London at a special expense, which I believe very nearly doubles their wages, for special trains and the like to take them there. They must have houses in the district. I am informed that the amount which the local authority will have to borrow to house those men unless the Government do it themselves will amount to something like £700,000, and will be more than double the ratable value of the district.
I cannot see, and I do not think your Lordships will see, any reason why in these cases, where a factory on a vast scale is to be started for gain the capitalist who puts it up should not have the responsibility of bearing the loss to such degree as may be necessary for housing the individuals he is going to employ. No one would wish, of course, not to use the resources of the district to the largest extent; no one wishes to put an undue strain on men who are public-spirited enough to push great enterprises; but now that it is recognised that it is no longer a question for a private individual but a question for the district—seeing that the districts have no choice whatever as to whether this large factory is to be established amongst them—I suggest that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the labouring classes, in the interests of the ratepayers, and in the interests of public peace, that you should not lay this excessive burden on those who have no choice whatever in the matter.
There is only one other point of view that I wish to lay before your Lordships. Does any one suppose that municipal authorities will be in a hurry to incur this enormous expenditure to please some private individual or individuals who wish to establish a factory amongst them? It will be a matter in which all the powers of the Local Government Board will be brought to bear, every avenue of escape will be taken to avoid burdening themselves to this unusual degree. Therefore, instead of pushing the object of the Bill I believe,

761
in the absence of this proviso, that in the eases which of all others must appeal to the sympathy of all persons—the cases of those who are anxious for employment but who cannot obtain decent housing—this Clause ought to be considered most favourably by the Government. I would urge upon them that if they themselves would only go into the figures, if they would only consider what the misfortune has been in the colliery districts of an insufficient attention to these very points, they would see, whether it is late or whether it is early in the Bill, that it is most important for this proviso to have a place.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am entirely in sympathy with the extremely socialistic proposal of the noble Viscount; but I would like to point out that the matter is not quite so simple in fact as he apparently thinks. Choosing one of the illustrations to which he himself referred I should like to ask him in the first instance whether this clause is intended to apply to the Government? Because he has given you as an instance the condition of housing at Slough. In common with some other of your Lordships, it has been our duty to consider that question recently, and we there find that there is introduced into a sparse agricultural district a very large demand for labour and no corresponding provision for housing is made by the owner of the factory. This clause ought to apply to that if it is to be effective.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I cannot see any reason why the Government should be exempt from that which affects private employers. Having been responsible for Woolwich for a long period, I find the greatest difficulty in reconciling the attitude of the Government towards housing to the number of persons employed there.
EARL RUSSELL: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, and I think it would be impossible for the Government to enforce such a condition on private owners if they did not observe it themselves. Much as I am in sympathy with this proposal, and much as I think public opinion is in sympathy with proposals of this kind, the actual difficulties are so great that I think any clause intending to enforce it would have
762
to be carefully considered by a Select Committee, drafted by lawyers, and drafted after evidence from those who have experience of what actually obtains.
We are, perhaps, a little too apt in dealing with things of this kind to think of business men like Ford, or Lever Brothers, or any big people of that sort, who have plenty of capital behind them, and who, if they decide to plant down a factory on a particular site, are in a position if necessary at the same time to put up the housing. But that is not the way all industries start by any means. There are a great many industries which, starting so to speak from their beginnings, could not possibly start at all if this obligation were imposed upon them to this extent. Let me give as an example the firm of Rolls-Royce, now a wealthy firm, when it first went to Derby. They were probably not in the financial position to find the housing, nor in fact did they employ anything like the number of men they now employ. And you also have cases, quite usual cases and eases which have really made for the welfare of the country and for the growth of industry in this country, where people start some new process, or some new way of doing something, and start it on a small scale, perhaps with twenty men or with fifty men, and then the factory gradually grows as does the necessity for accommodation. Now, it would be really impossible in the case of a demand for, say, fifty men, to say it had affected the demand for housing in the neighbourhood if it were a reasonably populous one, and if you impose a clause in these terms it will be almost ineffective.
I see that the local authorities are apparently to be the judges; because the words of this clause are that any local authority whose duties under that part of the Act are affected by the establishment of the undertaking can make an order. Apparently the local authorities themselves are to decide whether they are affected. In simple, clear cases like big works employing 1,000 men, or if you like 500 men—or 500 to 5,000—planted down in a new locality, it is easy for the local authority to say that their duties are affected. But in intermediate cases it would be difficulty; and if you leave it entirely to the local authority injustice may be done in some cases. I think this is a clause which it would be impossible for the House to accept or to insert in the Bill at this stage, because the subject is a really difficult and technical one.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think that most of us are in sympathy with the idea underlying this clause, but there are one or two more criticisms I should like to bring forward to show that it is difficult to introduce it now. In the first place, the clause is limited to the establishment of an undertaking for profit after the passing of the Act. But supposing a certain works were established before the passing of the Act and then doubled in size, it would have been extended after the passing of the Act. Then in rural districts the introduction of a very small industry, which might require only about ten houses, would be felt entirely to upset the balance of housing and accommodation in that little parish. Take, again, a great railway company. A railway company is a well established undertaking for profit. Suppose they developed large sidings and shunting stations, as the North Eastern Railway propose to do at Northallerton. They might bring an enormous population there, but it would be an established undertaking before the passing of the Act. I do not think that this thing can be considered now on a clause like this, but must be brought up independently.
LORD DOWNHAM: I agree with some of the criticisms which have been passed, but I hope the Government will express a very deep practical sympathy with the object of this clause and will themselves—they can do it if they like in another place—frame another and better clause which will at all events give us the hope that the owners of large factories, and railways, and collieries, which necessitate an enormous increase of houses in localities, themselves shall have the obligation put upon them to build those houses.
I say this with all the more emphasis because my noble friend who is now in charge of the Bill knows perfectly well that the Government are offering very special financial facilities to public utility societies. It is possible for collieries and for the owners of factories to turn themselves into public utility societies; and if they do that they will get a substantial financial grant, I think it is 30 per cent. on all the annual charges on the loans which will have to be raised for the purpose of housing, and I believe, if the Government were to revise the rules and Regulations which they have put forward in order to encourage public utility societies, if they were to be a little more generous than they
764
are at present, that they would get an immense amount of building done by the public utility societies; they would get it done better, and they would get it done by those who, in my opinion, ought to do it. It is perfectly possible for the large collieries and large factory owners to put a certain amount of capital into public utility societies. They ought to be content with a small percentage on that portion of the capital which is invested for the purpose of housing their own employees. Surely it is more fair, if any loss occurs, that it should fall on them rather than on the rates of the agricultural community whose area has been invaded by some big factory owner or someone of that kind.
My noble friend, in answer to a question just now, said it was his intention that the Government should come under the clause, so that where the Government employ a great many men and, by so doing, necessitate a large provision of houses, they should also come within the operation of the clause. Let me point out that the words are "an undertaking carried on for profit." We have not yet discovered the Government carrying on anything for profit. Although my noble friend wishes to include the Government in this clause, he has singularly failed, when he confines its operation to undertakings which are carried on for profit. I am certain that, if we want to solve the housing problem, we should do more than we have done at present to encourage public utility societies and lay a far greater obligation on railway companies, colliery companies and factory owners to do their fair share in housing those from whose labour they derive their profits.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a very interesting Amendment, which has been moved with great force by my noble friend opposite. My noble friend realises, of course, as much as anybody, that this is a very large and very serious new principle to introduce at this stage of the Bill. It is very far-reaching, because it affects not only housing but all new industries that may be set up in this country. I think it has a wider application than has been suggested by some noble Lords. One noble Lord suggested that some industries began and grew into larger ones and it was difficult to tell at what stage fresh buildings should be introduced. The words of the Amendment are "an undertaking carried on for profit." My noble friend Lord

765
Downham has been speaking as if all these undertakings were large manufacturing undertakings, but these words affect anybody who is carrying on any undertaking for profit. If a shopkeeper comes into a town and employs a certain number of employees and his retail business becomes prosperous, his is an undertaking carried on for profit. Is it really suggested that the duty should be laid upon all such people to undertake to put up buildings for their employees? It certainly is a matter which would have to be very thoroughly considered and very carefully guarded.
There are many other considerations which come in also. I understand that the duty put upon these undertakings would be to build houses, not for other people but for their own employees. If this were so I would suggest to your Lordships that considerable difficulties would arise with trade unions and working classes, because these houses would be described as "tied" houses and I think they would be "tied" houses. That is to say, if houses were put up by each undertaking, it would be hard to suggest that they should be used for any other purpose than that of the undertaking. What would happen? Take the case of the representative workmen in the town. Should these houses be put up by the business or factory or by the local authority? If they were put up by the local authority they would be open to anybody to take, but is they were put up by a particular industry or business they would, in effect, be tied to that particular industry or business. Though my noble friend did not mention that consideration, I am sure he had it in mind. I think it is one which should be well weighed before any general, far-reaching obligation of this kind is put upon business.
I think, too, that there is another point of view from which you can regard the matter. It is not very easy to get capital now for fresh industries. Does my noble friend suggest, when it is very important that you should get every sort of employment, when a large number of people are unemployed, that you should suddenly put this fresh burden on all industries which commence? They would have to raise more capital and it is difficult to know how much. It is not at all easy, when you are setting up a business, to know the number of employees you are going to employ, or what the development will be, or even whether yours is going to be a prosperous
766
undertaking or not. I mention these points to show the great difficulties of detail which do circulate around what otherwise might be the attractive proposal of my noble friend.
Let me put another point also. The judge in these cases, I understand, is to be the local authority. The local authority has to spend on these buildings as much as a penny rate. Is the local authority, therefore, to say to these industries, "We are not going to build the houses, but you shall build the houses, because if we build them we shall have to pay a penny rate, though it is true that everything above a penny rate will be borne by the State"? Would the industry think it a fair thing that the local authority should be the judge, when the local authority gains, anyhow to the extent of this penny rate, by placing the duty on someone else? What I am afraid of is that you would get more delay in the building of houses by local authorities. There would be a long wrangle between the business that was starting and the local authority the local authority aiming to cast the burden on the business and the business trying to prove that it ought to be cast on the local authority.
My noble friend omits to state that when the business is started and, therefore, houses are to be built, there is a fresh rateable value on which the local authority can charge. Then there is another point, to which I think reference was made. It is, perhaps, a drafting point, but it is worth considering. You may have a new business competing with an old business and on that new business is cast the duty of building fresh houses, but the existing business, which doubles or trebles its business, does not come apparently within the Amendment. What unfairness that would engender, what heart burning and difficulty would be created between the local authorities and these different businesses. There is a further point with which I would like to deal. It is perhaps a drafting point, but in subsection (2) the sanction supplied by my noble friend is a very severe one—
"If the owner of an undertaking fails to comply with an order under this section, he may … be restrained by the High Court of Justice from carrying on the undertaking."
That is surely very drastic. Because a sufficient number of houses have not been built the business may be actually sus

767
pended. That would be a very great blow, not only to the business but to the men employed in the business. But that is the only sanction suggested by the Amendment for carrying out the operation of the clause.
Perhaps I have said enough already to indicate that there are very great difficulties surrounding the application of the principle which my noble friend wishes to enforce. I do not in the least wish to take up an unsympathetic attitude towards the general principle, the socialistic principle as it has been described, and, indeed, the Government undertake that in any future legislation on the subject they will carefully consider the suggestion made by my noble friend. The position he takes up may grow rather more important in the future—in five or six years time—than in the next three years, because during that period the Government subsidy is given, and therefore the question will be of less immediate importance. If I give an undertaking to the noble Viscount that the Government will carefully and sympathetically consider the proposal with a view to future legislation he will agree that I have gone as far as it is possible to do upon his Amendment, especially when the great difficulties of carrying it into practical effect are considered. I hope he will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I confess that this time I have a certain sympathy with the complaint of the Government that this proposal only comes forward at this stage of the Bill. I am sure Lord Midleton will agree that the subject is one of such far-reaching importance that it would have been far better if it could have been fully considered in Committee. At the same time the proposal is one which the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, indicates inspires no little sympathy. It is most easy to imagine, and not difficult to quote, actual instances of hardships which may occur owing to the sudden incursion into quiet districts of new industries in the manner described by Lord Midleton of the Ford works at Cork. But whether it is possible to proceed precisely in the way my noble friend proposes, I confess I somewhat doubt. I was impressed by what fell from Lord Downham with regard to the advantage of employing public utility societies, and that great industrial enterprises should work through these societies to a greater
768
extent than they do. That I hope will be a system which will spread, and I trust also that local authorities, town councils, and urban district councils, will also attempt as far as possible to work through public utility societies with the aid of their experienced advice rather than depend entirely on their own local officials.
There is no doubt that the main objection which will be taken by many to a proposal of this kind is that which Lord Peel describes—namely, the creation of a number of tied houses. That is an objection which would be largely felt by those who have a right to speak for labour, and it is a very real difficulty. In the case of collieries the collieries, we know, depend almost entirely upon tied houses. I have known some cases to the contrary. I remember being told of a colliery which had no houses attached to it at all, and the men employed had to walk about a mile or a mile and-a-half to the neighbouring town, with the result that when times were good on a wet day very likely 20 or 25 per cent. of the men did not turn up. Therefore it is necessary in certain industries.
My noble friend Lord Downham mentioned railway companies and the obligation resting upon them. I live in the immediate neighbourhood of what is, I believe, the largest railway colony in the country. There are 7,000 or 8,000 men employed at the railway shops and they are entirely housed by the railway company. The same thing, I imagine, holds good both at Derby and Swindon, but there may be cases in which railway companies have not entirely looked after the housing of their employees. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, the proposal goes a great deal further than that, and although some of the difficulties which have been suggested, for example those contingent to the use of the single phrase "undertaking carried on for profit," could be removed, yet I feel that these difficulties are so considerable, both in number and in magnitude, that it is hardly to be expected the Government could accept the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. I wish myself that it could have been accepted in some form, merely on the ground that an opportunity would have been given for a discussion of the whole subject in another place, an opportunity which, of course, will not arise if the Amendment is rejected altogether. I confess in its present form I should myself find some difficulty in supporting it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: After what has fallen from various noble Lords I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I am afraid the Government will find, unless they take up the subject in some form or another, that very grave consequences will follow in certain districts, and especially in regard to the immense charge upon the ratepayers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26:
Power to authorise conversion of a house into several tenements.
26. Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on an application by the local authority or the lessee of a house that, owing to changes in the character of the neighbourhood in which such house is situate, the house cannot readily be let as a single tenement but could readily be let for occupation if converted into two or more tenements, and that the provisions of the lease do not admit of such conversion, the court, after giving any person entitled to any interest in the house an opportunity of being heard, may vary the terms of the lease so as to enable the house to be so converted subject to such conditions and upon such terms as the court may think just.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendments on Clause 26 carry out the obligation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to meet in Committee stage. The effect of them is that whereas the Bill refers only to the provisions on restricted covenants (Lord Dynevor's Amendment referred to the restricted covenants of the estate on which the houses are situated) words are introduced to give effect to the wider obligation which the Lord Chancellor said he would accept. One of the Amendments deals with the case mentioned by Lord Sheffield, where there are covenants which apply to the leases of the whole estate, and it is to meet such a case that instead of using the words "entitled to any interest in the house," the word "interested" is substituted. I think that meets the case.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 38, leave out ("the lessee of") and insert ("any person interested in")
Page 24, line 2, after ("that") insert ("by reason of")
Page 24, line 3, leave out (" do not admit of such conversion ") and insert (" or of any restrictive covenant affecting the house or otherwise such conversion is prohibited or restricted")
Page 24, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("entitled to any interest in the house") and insert ("interested")
Page 24, line 6, after ("lease") insert ("or other instrument imposing the prohibition or restriction").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like to express my grateful thanks for the way in which the Government have met the points that were raised.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following new clause:
"28. In the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes, the name and address of the medical officer of health for the district and of the landlord or other person who is directly responsible for keeping the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation shall be inscribed in every rent book or where a rent book is not used, shall be delivered in writing to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy and before any rent is demanded or collected; and if any person demands or collects any rent in contravention of the provisions of this section he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings."
The noble Marquess said: I do not know whether the Government intend to accept this Amendment. As I ventured to point out in Committee, it is directed to giving poor people who live in houses the knowledge necessary to vindicate their rights. I do not think there can be any doubt that there ought to be this remedy, and the only objection, or the principal objection, taken by the Government in Committee was that I had not inserted any sanction in case what was prescribed by the Amendment was not carried out. That omission has been remedied in the present Amendment, and I provide a fine in case of non-compliance.
I hope the Government will stop me the moment they are convinced, and I cannot help thinking that can be done. I hold in my hand a number of cases of the opinions of various public bodies and social workers in all parts of London, and they all agree that some such words are absolutely required. May I read the view of a social worker of great experience in Pimlico and Fulham—
"People have no idea to whom to apply for repairs. They have a vague idea that the [a great landlord in that district] is responsible, but have no idea where to End him! They accuse him of all sorts of things from smoking chimneys to leaking roofs. They often do not know the landlord to whom they pay their rent. A man comes round with a book and their payments are entered. This man has no responsibility beyond collecting rents. He stands at the door, receives money and does nothing more—"
Very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the occupier. Then a Superintendent of Peabody Buildings "thinks that it would

771
have the effect of bringing agents and persons responsible up to the mark." Here are the opinions of some clergy. I do not know that all your Lordships have the great regard for the clergy which I have, but you will all recognise that they have great knowledge of the difficulties and sufferings of the poor. They say—
"Press the amendment all you can, it would be of great help to social visitors who could help people to get repairs done if the landlord was known. It would also help enormously in the matter of houses of ill-fame. These houses are sub-let at a high rent because the landlords can shield themselves. The bringing home of responsibility would be a great thing."
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships any more. The point is that these small occupiers should know in the first place the name and address of the landlord against whom they have rights for landlord's repairs, and secondly, that they should know the name and address of the medical officer of health, because it is his business to put the sanitary law in force. Those are two provisions which should be legibly inscribed upon every rent book or corresponding paper, and I think it would be of great value, if your Lordships are good enough to consent.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I earnestly hope that your Lordships will consent to this Amendment. I have been brought in contact with this matter for many years, and again and again efforts on the part of the tenants and on the part of those who even more than the tenants have the tenants' interests at heart, are defeated by the impossibility of ascertaining the names of the persons who are really responsible. The tenant is not capable of understanding his rights and does not often readily understand the advice which is given to him. Every day this difficulty is cropping up, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will introduce this Amendment. We wanted it years ago in regard to another Bill. I believe it is absolutely necessary if we are to carry on the work of this Bill with efficiency.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I desire most earnestly to support this Amendment. There is nothing more pitiable than the complete ignorance of the poorer people
772
of this country of the rights which they possess. The amount of unjustifiable oppression to which they are subjected by unscrupulous people, who impose upon that ignorance, is only known to those whose privilege it has been to know some thing of the wants and needs of the poorer people. One thing that we need beyond everything else is to introduce into these houses some knowledge of the laws of health, and we want to avoid people thinking that every person in authority is their foe. You want, if you possibly can, and I think you can secure it, sympathetic consideration by the Medical Officer, who will be ready to understand their needs, point out to them the mischiefs from which they are suffering, and the ways by which they can be remedied, and I think it would be of the utmost importance that it should be possible for them to know at once to whom to go in case of difficulty. If that were done I feel sure the assistance of the Medical Officer would be of immense service in improving the healthy condition of the houses in which these people live. The houses are often made insanitary through their own carelessness, and ignorance as to how they are to be dealt with.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Marquess has been supported not only by him but by others far more strongly than it was on the Committee stage. The noble Marquess has fortified himself by placing a penalty in the Clause. The absence of that penalty was one of the reasons why the Government thought less of the Amendment than they otherwise might have done. Another reason why the Government was a little afraid of putting this proposal in the Bill was that it might not be operative.
It was difficult to see how this duty was to be laid upon the Rent Collector, of supplying this information in writing when no rent books were used, and it was thought also that it might be difficult, where rents were collected week by week, to prove that this piece of writing, giving the name of the landlord, had not been presented to the tenant. Moreover, I do not think it is quite clear that it is really the duty of the landlord to supply the tenant with the name of the Medical Officer. It would rather seem to be the duty of the local authority. It does not seem to be one of the necessary duties of ownership, to my mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say that I think no good landlord would object to doing such a thing. Why should he? Why should he possibly object? Any one of us would be only too delighted to do it. It is only in case of reluctance on the part of some careless landlords. We do not legislate for careless landlords—at any rate we do not legislate to save them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Before adopting an Amendment of this sort you have to consider it on wider grounds than that, and consider whether it is a duty which should be placed upon the landlord. I was suggesting that there was doubt whether it was one of the duties which ought to be fairly cast upon the landlord. If noble Lords are of opinion that an Amendment of this kind will do a great deal of good, or be of value, I do not wish to offer any opposition. All I wish to say is that I have some doubt whether it will do the good that noble Lords think.
THE EARL OF MEATH: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that it has already been proved a success, because Miss Octavia Hill carried out these very principles with very great success.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29:
Extension of Powers under Settled Land Act, 1882.
29. The powers conferred upon a tenant for life by the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, shall include the following further powers:—

(a) A power to make a grant in fee simple or absolutely, or a lease for any term of years, for a nominal price or rent or for less than the best price or rent which could be obtained for the purpose of the erection thereon of dwellings for the working classes or the provision of gardens to be held in connection therewith. Provided that no more than two acres shall be granted as a site for such dwellings or gardens in any one parish without payment of the full price or rent for the excess, except under an order of the court;

(b) A power, where money is required for the provision of dwellings available for the working classes, to raise the money on mortgage of the settled land or of any part thereof by conveyance of the foe simple or other the estate subject to the settlement or by creation of a term of years in the settled land or any part thereof or otherwise, and the money so raised shall be capital money for that purpose and may be paid or applied accordingly.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE moved in paragraph (a), after "Provided that no more than two acres," to insert "in the case of land situate in an urban district, or ten acres in the case of land situate in a rural district." The noble Marquess said: I am grateful to the noble Viscount opposite for giving me an opportunity of speaking on this clause. I think that most of your Lordships will agree that Clause 29 is one of the most important in the Bill. It is an extension of the powers under the Settled Land Act of 1882 which a good many of us remember. If it had not been for the Act passed in the second year of one of Mr. Gladstone's Governments I do not think there would have been many of us here, anyhow as tenants for life. This clause is an improvement on that. It gives tenants for life the power to make a grant in fee simple or absolutely, or a lease for any term of years, for a nominal price or rent. A nominal price is I believe the same as a peppercorn rent. It practically means giving the land. There is a proviso "that no more than two acres shall be granted as a site for such dwelling or gardens in any one parish without payment of the full price or rent for the excess, except under an order of the Court."
With the sanction of the noble Viscount opposite, I propose to ask your Lordships to accept an Amendment as regards rural land only. I do not venture to interfere at all with urban property. The House will see that not more than two acres can be granted. Two acres really are not enough in rural districts. Let me if I may give one example. I have a parish in the north of the County of Bucks. There are about thirty or thirty-five cottages on it. As a tenant for life we have no property at all except in land. I have done the best I could and built eight or ten cottages and a school and school-mistress's house, but there are twenty cottages which are certainly over 200 years old. They have been patched up and made wind and watertight, but they are not what cottages ought to be on the land. I have done the best I could, and I can do no more. I am one of those persons who cannot of himself help himself. But fortunately the local authority comes in and says "We are prepared to build you twenty cottages, and we want to know what price you will be good enough to ask for the land, and in what position you will be good enough to allow these cottages to be built?" I at once said,

775
what I think every one in the House would have said, to the local authority, "For God's sake get those cottages up as quickly as you possibly can. You can have as much land as you want, and where you want it." It means practically rebuilding the village, and taking an obligation off my shoulders which I am unable to discharge.
Under the Bill I think you are not to put more than eight cottages on an acre in rural districts. Really you ought not to have more than four per acre, for every cottage ought to have a quarter of an acre of land. That would involve au expense of about £200, but you cannot build twenty cottages under present conditions for less than £8,000 or £9,000. Therefore I think it is only right that if an obligation is taken off the landlord's shoulders he ought in equity to give the land free. I should have liked this to have gone a great deal further. I should have liked to have made it an obligation for the landlord to have to do it, but naturally there would have been some difficulty in carrying that out, and so I propose this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 5, after ("acres") insert ("in the case of land situate in an urban district, or ten acres in the case of land situate in a rural district").—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Application of Act to New Forest.
35. The provision of houses under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, shall be deemed to be a local sanitary requirement for the purpose of the New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act, 1902.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "provided that the total area of land being part of the New Forest which may be sold or let for the provision of houses shall not exceed twenty acres. "The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendment in my name I have the honour to represent the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Kyrle Society, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty, and the Society for the Promotion
776
of Nature Reserves. I need not say that those societies, as I am myself, are all greatly in favour of the Bill before your Lordships' House. We recognise the necessity of building large numbers of houses especially for the working classes, and my Amendment does not in the least desire to limit that number of houses built.
What I want to know is whether it is absolutely necessary to do what Clause 35 suggests. This Clause was put in when the Bill was in Committee and I believe it was inserted at the instigation of the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, who I think is Chairman of the Hampshire County Council. The clause which was inserted (Clause 35) runs as follows:—"The provision of houses under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, shall be deemed to be a local sanitary requirement for the purpose of the New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act, 1902." Your Lordships will notice that under this clause there is no limit whatever, if it be passed without any Amendment, to the extent which the local authority can claim for a sanitary requirement.
What is the new authority? I need not at this hour go into its history. Every school child knows that the New Forest is of very ancient date, and was a hunting forest of the King in which there was a lamentable and tragic occurrence that impressed itself upon the minds of everybody. This is the largest open space that we have in the United Kingdom. At one time it was of excessive size, but gradually has been diminished. Even at this date, however, its extent is 128,000 acres, which, curiously enough, is almost the same as the extent of Greater London. Of those 128,000 acres almost half—that is to say 65,000 acres—can be built upon at this moment. There are 20,000 acres which belong to the Crown. Of course, they are to be purchased. And the remainder out of the 65,000 is possibly to be built over by purchase, owing to the fact that there are ancient rights which cannot be infringed with regard to enclosures. That leaves us with 63,000 acres of waste land. Why should the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, and why should the Government accept the clause which empowers buildings to be erected upon these 63,000 acres when there are 65,000 acres which can be purchased by the County Council of Hampshire or anybody else?
Who wants the land? We are told, though it is not in the Bill, that the Hampshire County Council want it for certain menders of roads. That is a very legitimate demand. How many menders of roads are there? If they had three acres and a cow I suppose that would be considered enough for each man. I suppose there are about half-a-dozen; that would be eighteen acres. Supposing there are more, these organisations do not in the least want to limit it. We only want to know. The general public are not going to build houses all over the New Forest.
How is the New Forest regulated? In 1877 there was an Act passed by Parliament to preserve the New Forest. The open wastes in the New Forest are managed by a Court of six elective and one official verderer. Section 8 of the Act of 1877 provides that the ornamental woods and trees in the forest shall be preserved and that the forest shall remain open and unenclosed. I wish to draw your attention to that. The one exception was that the Act gave the Crown power to enclose and plant 20,000 acres of the open lands in the New Forest, of which the area under enclosures is not to exceed 16,000 acres at any one time.
There have been two other attempts to get hold of this magnificent national park. America has its national park; Canada has its national park. We have nothing except the New Forest. I do think that Parliament would not desire to go back upon the Act of 1877 and permit any large enclosure of such a magnificent open space as the New Forest. There was an attempt made to build in 1902. It was defeated. There was a second attempt made in 1909, and our organisations defeated it again. Now this is a third attempt under the plea of sanitation, but sanitation for what? They already have powers to arrange for sewage, and therefore that cannot be it. What is it they want to do? We understand that it is for these road-makers. By all means let the road-makers have houses, and as much land as is necessary. But we believe that twenty acres ought to be amply sufficient for this purpose.
I hope that your Lordships will not permit the Act of 1877 to be overridden or the special clauses which were put in the Act of 1909 which prevent the land being built over without the consent of Parliament. I would also point out that the New Forest is the home of the largest
778
and most successful group of small-holders to be found in England, whose success has been mainly due to their rights to turn out stock to graze upon the forest wastes. These rights alone enable the raising of the famous New Forest ponies, and it would be a calamity if they were interfered with.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("provided that the total area of land being part of the New Forest which may be sold or let for the provision of houses shall not exceed twenty acres").—(The Earl of Meath.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): I quite recognise that an area like the New Forest, when it is passing out of public control, should be most jealously safeguarded. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite raised the point when this Clause was first introduced. I pointed out that there were certain safeguards in the Act of 1902 which protected the rights of the public against undue encroachment. But at the same time I realise, as the noble Lord has put it, that bodies interested in the preservation of the New Forest may be alarmed at the indefiniteness of this proposal. There are obvious objections to putting in an acreage limit. If you put in an acreage limit you are, on the one hand, perhaps obliged to put in a covering figure. It is quite impossible to foresee the future requirements of the local authority. On the other hand, if you do put in a covering figure, you may be misunderstood, and it may be supposed that your intention is to utilise the land up to the limit of those figures.
But I should be prepared to accept an acreage limit. I feel that we ought to try and allay any public feeling on this subject. The real purpose of the clause is that where lack of housing can be established, and where there is no other suitable land outside this area available without undue expense, and where the particular site is suitable; both as to extent and situation, and where the local authority has further obtained the consent of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is the custodian of common rights, that up to the limit of—I should like to say—forty acres the Commissioners shall have power to sell. When I say forty acres it is quite impossible for us to foresee at this present moment whether one of the local authorities in the Forest may not be compelled to come to us for consent to apply to the Local Govern-

779
ment Board to try and satisfy these requirements. I do not think that for years to come such an area as forty acres can be used, and any part of that area would only be used if it could be established that there was no other suitable land available outside that area. I hope that with that limitation the noble Lord will be satisfied.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: As I am responsible for the insertion of this clause in the Bill, may I say I think the noble Earl is needlessly alarmed as to what might be the result of this clause, if passed in its present form. The noble Earl has pointed out that a large part of the New Forest is woodland and heather and is very thinly populated, and obviously in those districts no houses would be required.
Perhaps I may explain that I originally put down an Amendment so as to enable the local authority to acquire a limited area, limiting that area to twenty acres in the New Forest. I did that because I happen to be chairman of the Hampshire County Council, and, somewhat selfishly perhaps, I looked merely to the interests of the county council in order to provide a sufficient acreage for erecting houses for our roadmen, our constables, and other persons in our employment. The noble Lord asked how many roadmen will be put in the Forest? We propose to build 240 cottages for roadmen in the county area, but perhaps only half-a-dozen will be necessary to be built in the forest. Many of our main roads traverse that large district. It is very desirable that these roadmen should be housed in close proximity to their work, and in many cases the only land available is in the possession of the Crown.
At the present moment our roadmen have to live where they can, sometimes at a considerable distance from their work which is uneconomic for the work of the county council, or they have to take houses which might be occupied by other persons, or take lodgings which produces overcrowding. I put in the words "twenty acres" because I believe twenty acres would be sufficient for the purposes of the county council. Representations were made to me that the local authorities under the Bill—that is, the urban and rural district councils, might also require land for housing purposes, not in those wild parts but in the neighbourhood of large villages and small towns where there may be a need. In those cases, again, sometimes the only land
780
suitable and available would be Crown land, which cannot now be taken owing to the Act to which the noble Lord has referred which empowers the Commissioner of Woods to sell that land only for sanitary purposes. I therefore hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will be prepared to accept the suggestion made by Lord Ernie just now, and to limit the amount which the Commissioner of Woods and Forests will be emplowered to sell up to forty acres. That, I believe, would be sufficient for the purpose.
The noble Lord has pointed out the vast extent of the New Forest. I do not think that anyone can seriously suggest that the abstraction of forty acres from an area of something between 80,000 and 90,000 acres can possibly be said in any way to prejudice the interests of the commoners. These schemes which will have to be submitted to the Commissioner of Woods and Forests; there will have to be a local inquiry, and they will have to be approved by the Local Government Board, and I think we can rely upon it that both those Departments, before they grant permission for the scheme to go through and the land to be sold, will satisfy themselves, first, that the interests of the commoners will not be prejudiced, and, second, that the houses shall be placed in such positions and shall be of such a character as in no way to destroy the natural beauty of the landscape.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, those of us who are interested in the preservation of open spaces, above all of spaces of such extent and beauty as the New Forest, are obliged to the President of the Board of Agriculture for the sympathetic spirit in which he has received the suggestion that has come from my noble friend, Lord Meath. Personally, I also feel the force of what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. As those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the New Forest know, there are very large stretches of open country, covered mostly with heath, sometimes with swamp, and sometimes with fir and other trees, where it is difficulty to find any place for a road-maker to live and attend to his duties; and if he could be in a place where if any accident occurred help could be given—because there are large solitary tracts in the Forest—it is very desirable that the cottages should be erected in such places. Therefore I feel the force of the argument

781
used by the noble Earl on behalf of the Hampshire County Council.
But when we come to the question of the local urban and sanitary authorities the position is very different; because the villages and the small towns are on the outskirts of the Forest or in places where there are enclosures. There are very considerable enclosures—amounting I think, to something like 45,000 acres—inside the general ambit of the Forest, and there it is almost impossible to acquire land by purchase. On the outskirts land could be had. Therefore I do not feel that there is any very strong case on behalf of the local urban and sanitary authorities who live along the Forest. I should have thought that the space for which the Hampshire County Council have asked, twenty acres ought to be sufficient; and I should have been glad if the President of the Board of Agriculture could have seen his way to stop at the twenty acres for which an undoubted case has been made out. Your Lordships will remember that we are dealing here with an open space which is unique not only in England but in Europe; there is no piece of sylvan scenery in all Europe comparable with the New Forest, and that is why we should be careful to see that no harm is done to it Here we are departing from the principle which Parliament has previously laid down t hat the open spaces of the Forest should be considered sacred; and when you set up a precedent, especially when you depart from the practice of Parliament hitherto, you ought to be very careful indeed; and I feel that this new precedent ought to be kept within the narrowest possible limits.
Let me take this opportunity of saying that I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will look upon the right of supervision, or veto, which is vested in him as being a very important part of his functions. That is not the only case by any means in which large open spaces, great commons, and forests, have been threatened by local authorities, who are by no means always enlightened bodies, and who are too much tempted to infringe on the rights of the people generally for the sake of getting land cheaper than they would otherwise get it. Consequently I hope that the Board of Agriculture will take a very serious view of their responsibilities and will restrain all these attempts to be "penny wise and pound foolish" to get land a little cheaper, while sacrificing the
782
interests of the commoners and of the general public who find in these great open spaces one of the simplest and best methods of recreation and enjoyment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: This subject was considered by the Verderers of the New Forest (of whom I am one) last Monday week. No objection was raised at that Court to the insertion of some such clause as is now proposed by Lord Ernie. As a matter of fact, we were frightened at any unlimited acreage; but I would suggest to the Government and to my noble friend Lord Meath that, if we split the difference between the twenty acres and the forty acres and call it thirty acres, all objection will be removed. In reply to Lord Bryce, I would say that not only do the county council want land for their road men and police, but others also want land for their men. Many roads are district roads, and they are just as much isolated as the county roads.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am sorry if I appear to be aloe to æesthetic considerations, but it surprises me that the President of the Board of Agriculture should express satisfaction at so small an area as forty acres out of something like 63,000 acres available, in view of the provisions of the Forestry Bill which has recently been introduced into this House. I live on the borders of the Forest of Dean, and I am bound to say—I am sure the noble Lord opposite will agree, because he knows the district—that the housing conditions in that more populated area, under Government control, are by no means a credit to the Governments of the past. The houses are huddled together, and are the result of personal efforts which have had no sympathy whatever from the Government of the country. If it is a fact that you are going to re-establish afforestation in this country, that you are going to have a large number of persons employed not merely in the forests but in forest nurseries and in woodland industries, surely there is a prospect of your requiring far larger accommodation for the local population than you have required in the past. At the same time, if you are only now thinking of road men and other employees of the county council, you are not taking full account of the possible developments of the Royal Forest and the possible requirements of a much larger housing accommodation in the future than is in contemplation at present.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It is only the speech which has just been delivered that induces me, as one who has lived for a great many years in the New Forest, to explain to him that he is treating the New Forest as if it were all Crown land and there was no other land available. As a matter of fact, throughout the Forest, there are distributed large manors with private land which offer plenty of opportunities for acquiring the land which is required for other purposes. Around Lyndhurst and Ringwood there is any quantity of private land. I myself feel that twenty acres is an ample amount for the Crown to take out of the Forest. In fact, I think it is too much. If they want other buildings for forestry purposes I think they had better go to some of the private land which is comprised within the New Forest. I do not know whether my noble friend sitting on this side is acquainted with much of the land of the New Forest. I hope, if he is not, or if he is, that he will give little encouragement to the Government to try experiments in planting a large part of the land which was stated in evidence before the Royal Commission to be land which would starve a Scotch fir.
LORD ERNLE: I should like to plead to the House for the limit at least of thirty acres. That I would be prepared to accept. I take the decision of the verderers who really know the Forest better than any other body of men and who tell us that in addition to what is wanted by the Hampshire County Council, there are the requirements of their own road men and local authorities These thirty acres would be a reasonable compromise and would, at the same time, safeguard the interests of the Forest. I would agree to the motion of the noble Earl if he will alter the twenty acres into thirty.
LORD GAINFORD: Would it meet the Government if other words were added to the effect that land would only be taken if no other suitable land in the immediate neighbourhood was available?
LORD ERNLE: That is in the Act of 1902 to which reference is made.
THE EARL OF MEATH: Personally I am very grateful to Lord Ernle for the sympathetic way in which he has spoken Although I must bow to the decision of the
784
House and of the noble Lord in regard to the thirty acres, still I should like to say that I look upon this as a very dangerous precedent. I am afraid that you will find county councils and local bodies looking out for commons and saying, "A certain amount of land was given for building in the New Forest, and we do not see why the Hampshire County Council should be the only one to receive land free."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The question is that these words shall be added—" provided that the total area of land being part of the New Forest which may be sold or let for the provision of houses shall not exceed thirty acres."
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment to Clause 39 is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("be deemed to have") and insert ("have the like effect as if it had").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment to insert in the proviso, after "and the Board," the words, "before giving their approval shall consult the council of the county within whose area the land is situate and." The noble Marquess said: I do not propose to move this Amendment, and I think Lord Strachie would be content if I moved the Amendment to Clause 41 which really covers the same ground, and which, I believe, the Government are willing to accept.
Clause 41:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move to add the following new subsection:
"(2) Subsection (2) of section fifty-six of the Act of 1909 shall have effect as if the following paragraph were added thereto:
"'For securing that the council of the county in which any land proposed to be included in a town planning scheme is situated (1) shall be furnished with a notice of any proposal to prepare or adopt such a scheme and with a copy of the draft scheme before the scheme is made, and (2) shall be entitled to be heard at any public local inquiry held by the Local Government Board in regard to the scheme.'"
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 22, insert the said new sub-section.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44:
Power of Local Government Board to require town planning scheme.
44.—(1) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a town planning scheme ought to be made by a local authority, the Board may by order require the local authority to prepare and submit for their approval such a scheme, and if the scheme is approved by the Board to do all things necessary for enforcing the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively, and for executing any works which, under the scheme or under Part II of the Act of 1909, the authority is required to execute.
(2) Any order made by the Local Government Board under this section shall have the same effect as a resolution of the local authority deciding to prepare a town planning scheme in respect of the area in regard to which the order is made.
(3) If the local authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Board within such time as may be prescribed by the order, or to enforce the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively, or to execute any such works as aforesaid, the Board may either authorise the county council to act, or may themselves act, in the place and at the expense of the local authority.
LORD DOWNHAM LORD DOWNHAM moved to leave out Clause 44. The noble Lord said: On the Committee stage of the Bill I moved to omit this clause. I did not persist in the Amendment because some hope was held out by my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill that he would put certain safeguards into the clause which might be satisfactory to the local authorities. My noble and learned friend has put down certain Amendments and I would like to know from him, or my noble friend, Viscount Peel, who is in charge of the Bill at the present moment, whether he intends to accept the proviso which is put down in the name of my noble friend, Lord Islington, and myself. If the Government could see their way to accept that proviso, it would relieve me of the obligation that I feel of going to a Division on the omission of the clause. I put down the Amendment partly because the clause was not in the original Bill and that this is not really a town planning Bill. The main object of the Bill is to get local authorities to build houses as soon as possible, to convert old houses so that they may be used by the working-classes, and to improve generally the dwellings of the working-classes. I said then, and I say now, that I ant no enemy of a system of town planning.
I should like your Lordships to look at the Bill. If you look at Clauses 40 and 41 you will see that, when this Bill is passed, any local authority can, by merely passing a resolution, prepare or adopt a town planning scheme, or it can adopt any town planning scheme which has been proposed by all or any of the owners of any land with respect to which the local authority are themselves by this Bill authorised to prepare a scheme. And if they do voluntarily so adopt a town planning scheme, the Local Government Board can make Regulations that will secure that the local authority, after passing such a resolution, shall proceed with all reasonable speed with the preparation or adoption of the town planning scheme. Therefore, there is ample power in the Bill already for any local authority merely by resolution to adopt a town planning scheme. I have no doubt a great many local authorities will do so. I hope they will, and this clause makes it compulsory on all local authorities to adopt a town planning scheme, without any local inquiry being held and without any financial aid at all from the Exchequer. The Government forces an expensive town planning scheme on any local authority without giving a farthing towards the expenses, although the local authority might already be burdened with an exceedingly heavy rate and might point out that the particular scheme which the Government wanted to force upon them was exceedingly expensive, and might lead to a 1s. or even a 2s. rate.
I am glad to find that the Lord Chancellor has put clown an Amendment to meet me on the subject of the local inquiry. He is willing there shall be a local inquiry before action is taken by the Government to force the local authority to adopt a town planning scheme. That is something. The Lord Chancellor has also put down another Amendment to limit the kind of land to which a town planning scheme can be applied; to land which alone could be the subject of town planning under the Town Planning Act of 1909. That Act defines this land as land fit for development as building land, but which is not yet built over. I do not think those two Amendments deprive this clause of its very drastic and compulsory nature, and I do not think we ought to apply it to our local authorities.
We ought to do everything we can to encourage local authorities to apply their

787
staffs, and their administrative powers, to building new houses. That is what we have to do. We can have more drastic town planning clauses hereafter. There will be plenty of time for them I deprecate this new idea of the Government that they must always be coercing local authorities instead of presuading them After all, local authorities are elected by the people to do certain things They are the trustees for the ratepayers of the locality, and you ought to prove a very grave case of default against a local authority before coming down and saying, "notwithstanding you have an intimate knowledge of your locality. a very heavy rate, and difficulty in raising money yet we are going to force you to adopt a very expensive town planning scheme as we think we know a great deal better than you do what is suitable for your area. You must either carry out the scheme or we shall carry it out for you, and put the whole of the expenses upon you."
I have had a document sent to me by those who are enthusiastic about town planning schemes. I share their enthusiasm. It states that in France a law has been passed by which all local authorities will have to put in force some town planning scheme. If you will read that law you will see that the Government, whenever they are going to compel local authorities to make plans of that kind, also give very substantial financial assistance. There is nothing in this clause about substantial financial assistance. The whole of the expense is to fall upon the local authority. I think we ought at least to insist that we have the proviso standing in the name of Lord Islington put into the Bill. If that proviso is carried, by which both Houses of Parliament will have some veto whenever a Department of the State forces an expensive town planning scheme on a local authority, then, perhaps, we may allow this clause to go up to another place. I think it is better, unless we put in the safeguard of the proviso, that the clause should be omitted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I really think that my noble friend is rather unreasonable in moving to omit Clause 44. We had a long discussion on two clauses on the Committee Stage—on the clause which refers to the method by which the State can put compulsion on the local authority which does not make a town planning scheme where it ought to do; and on the clause which
788
made it compulsory on every local authority to produce a scheme. After a long discussion the Lord Chancellor agreed that he would omit the first clause. That was in the nature of a compromise, or arrangement, but immediately that compromise is made my noble friend on the Report stage wishes to do away with the compromise, and omit the other clause as well. I ask your Lordships not to agree to an arrangement of that kind. We have already given away one clause. My noble friend is really insatiable and now says the Government must give away the other. The Lord Chancellor has put down two Amendments which have altered the situation. There is the one relating to land included under the Act of 1909, and the other with regard to the establishment of a local inquiry, when there will be full opportunity for the local authority to state its case.
As was pointed out when the Bill was in Committee there already exists in the Act of 1909 the power to coerce a local authority under the power of mandamus. We are not introducing a new principle at all in coercing a local authority, but we are introducing a new method—allowing the central authority to proceed to make the scheme itself if the local authority will not do so. Under these circumstances I ask the House not to support the Amendment. I really think my noble friend has been fairly met in every way possible and reasonable. If he really takes away this final power from the State, what will happen? We shall only be thrown back on the old and cumbrous method of mandamus.
This is a time when great new building schemes are being put forward. If there had been proper town planning schemes put forward and carried out during the last forty years Bills like the present one would have been unnecessary. Surely we are not going to fall into the same mistake again. The bulk of local authorities do their duty well, but when there are cases of local authorities who are not doing their duty, who are not preparing schemes, but allowing the same difficulties to spring up which have sprung up in the last forty years, the cause of such misery and trouble, there ought to be a final power in the State to enforce it upon a local authority if it is not doing its duty. I shall have to offer the most firm resistance to this proposal. I shall be sorry if the noble Lord thinks it necessary to divide

789
upon it. The Government have done all they can to meet him, especially by the two Amendments of the Lord Chancellor.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that Lord Downham will not press this Amendment. In my humble judgment, having been a student of this subject for many years, it is really necessary that town planning should have a great forward movement. I am sure there is a strong feeling in the country to that effect, and I know there is a strong feeling in another place. People have a right to expect that the towns in which they live should be properly planned and organised and if there is to be anything in the idea that after the war we should have our local administration on better lines than it was before, I think this Question stands in the forefront. There ought to be some means of saying in the interests of the community that where a local authority neglects its duty there should be some machinery by which that should be corrected. I should be sorry to see this clause disappear from the Bill.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I want to ask a question, though not with any idea of opposing Clause 44. I want to ask this—Does the Town Planning Act provide for schemes of town planning for districts which are not urban councils but merely parts of a rural district council, because it seems to me it is very important that when a town begins to grow, and has the first rudiments of population, somebody, either the district or the county council, should have power to make a town planning scheme.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes. They have power—the district council.
LORD DOWNHAM: I have no desire to press my Amendment to a Division. I raised it in the form of omitting the clause in order to draw attention to the inadequacy of the safeguards which had been inserted. Grateful though I am for those. I shall certainly divide unless the proviso which we have put down to the Bill is accepted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next three Amendments are intended to carry out the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor in Committee.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 7, after ("satisfied") insert ("after holding a public local inquiry")
Page 32, line 9, after the first ("authority") insert ("as respects any land in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made under the Act of 1909")
Page 32, line 24, leave out ("authorise") and insert ("by order empower").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "either authorise the county council to act or may" and later in the clause to insert other words. The noble Marquess said. I believe the Government are willing to accept this Amendment, It is designed to prevent any possibility that the county council should be called upon to act in default, in the place of a large urban authority. That would naturally produce friction, and I do not think it is intended by the Government. It is quite right that the county council should be called upon to act in default of a small borough or urban district, but not, in the ease of a large urban authority. The Amendment is designed to confine the possible action of the county council either to rural authorities or to small urban authorities, the limits of which are fixed by a great number of Statutes as 10,000 in the case of boroughs and 20,000 in the case of urban districts.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, leave out ("either authorise the county council to act or may")
Page 32, line 25, after the second ("act") insert ("or in the case of a borough the population of which is less than 10,000, or of an urban district the population of which is less than 20,000, may, if the Board think fit by order, empower the county council to act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking on this matter, and I think the Amendment of the noble Marquess is rather more generous, and I therefore accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that before exercising powers conferred by the provisions of this subsection, the Board shall make an Order specifying the action they propose to take thereunder, and shall publish notice of such last-mentioned Order in the 'London or Edinburgh Gazette,' as the case may be, and if within twenty-one days from the date of such publication, any person or authority

791
interested objects in the prescribed manner, a draft of such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft. Order."
The noble Lord said: I ask the Government to give this Amendment favourable consideration, because I feel that the Amendment relating to public inquiry, while it undoubtedly strengthens the position of the local authority to a considerable degree as compared with what it was in the original Bill, does not really protect the local authorities sufficiently. In moving this Amendment I desire to express in the most emphatic terms that I do so in no sense in hostility to the town planning movement as such. The reason why I am anxious to see full protection given to local authorities is, and I am sure all noble Lords will share my view, that the conditions under which we are living to-day will probably deteriorate more and more, and anything which is to be imposed arbitrarily by the central authority, which will add to the expenditure of local authorities, should only be done when the whole public are satisfied there is a real necessity.
I will explain as briefly as possible what my Amendment means, and the justification which I venture to think that I have for moving it. Clause 44, sub-clause (1), enables the Local Government Board to make an Order requiring the local authority to prepare and submit a scheme for approval. If the local authority carry this out, then the whole matter is finished and the scheme proceeds, but if the local authority object, as they undoubtedly will, perhaps in the majority of cases, then the powers of sub-clause (3) are naturally invoked, and they are very drastic powers, as you will observe. I am advised that this will necessitate a second Order by the Board dealing with the action embodied in the sub-clause, and this is the one that I venture to suggest should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for the period suggested in my Amendment. Its insertion in the Gazette gives the opportunity for full publicity, while the laying on the Table gives opportunity for any objection to be raised.
I would ask my noble friend to bear this well in mind in answering me—and I
792
hope he will give me a favourable answer—that this proviso is to be found in the 1909 Act, in Section 54, subsection (4), where the Local Government Board are empowered to authorise a local authority to prepare schemes. Here it is implied that the central authority takes the initiative. In that case authorisation is suggested, and any one who reads carefully that section of the Act will see that it really implies initiation on the part of the local authority to the central body. In this case the central board requires the local authority to do it. Therefore I venture to suggest that if this proviso was embodied in the 1909 Act, as it is in Section 54, there is a stronger case for it to be included in this Bill.
I do not think it is necessary for me to argue this case further. It has been argued in debate already to-day, and was argued the other day in Committee, but before these schemes are enforced upon any local authorities in the years to come it should only be done in the first place after full inquiry has been made, and should only be in the second place after full opportunity for objection has been advanced from any representative body. I would also once more repeat, what I regard as a very important aspect of this problem of housing and town planning, that with the further drastic reform of by-laws in recent years, and the reduction of houses upon an acre from a very large number to a very modest one, the actual by-laws of housing as enforced in this Act come very close to what a few years ago would have been regarded as a town-planning scheme. As therefore the reform of housing conditions goes forward, as I am glad to see it has with lightning speed in the last few years, to that extent correspondingly the importance of town planning must recede. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 26, after ("authority") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Islington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very sorry that I am not in a position to accept my noble friend's Amendment, and I should like to say why. He stated that there should be no enforcement of a scheme of this kind first of all until full inquiry has taken place. By the Amendment which the House has already accepted that inquiry will take place. Therefore the first condition is met, and no scheme will be enforced until every one has had an opportunity of stating

793
what they feel on the subject. The noble Lord also said that owing to the improved conditions and regulations in the matter of the number of houses per acre and so on, the necessity for town-planning schemes had been to some extent diminished. I think there is some truth in that statement, but the necessity is by no means abolished, because it is quite clear that all these questions of roads and arterial communication are just as important in a town-planning scheme as every they were.
The Amendment of my noble friend is that before any of these Orders are enforced the intervention of Parliament should take place. His Amendment on that subject is very elaborate: "A draft of such Order should be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament." And there are to be addresses, so that after the local inquiry, and between the making of the final Order by the Central Government, you refer the matter as it were back to Parliament, and Parliament has to intervene, or may intervene if it likes. I submit that this is an administrative matter which ought not to be brought before Parliament. If you confuse Parliament with matters that are purely administrative you take it away from its proper duty. I submit further that there will be unnecessary delay if this Amendment be adopted. You must leave the final decision to the Ministry of Health which has the duty of deciding whether in a particular case, after inquiry, the local authority has done its duty. That should be the final decision. I ask your Lordships not to introduce a further elaborate procedure which can only make for considerable delay.
LORD ISLINGTON: Before the Question is put, I would like to remind my noble friend that I am only asking for the same proviso to be put into this Bill as was put in the Act of 1909. The Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate in Committee the other day said he would be only too ready to place these safeguards into the Bill which are already in the Act of 1909.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a few moments, but as this is the last occasion we shall have I want to say a very few words. I was, for causes wholly outside my control, unable to be here when the Second Reading was moved and carried, and was obliged to leave to another Bishop the task which lie amply discharged of welcoming this as a measure not of convenience merely but a measure of paramount necessity from our point of view, not for physical well-being only but for the moral and religious wellbeing of the whole community.
Since then the discussions which have taken place in this House about a great many details—economic, municipal, industrial, sanitary, architectural—have been admirably carried through by noble Lords who have made themselves familiar with the whole subject, led by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who has for so many years both in public affairs and personally identified himself with all that makes for the better housing of the people of the country. We have been ready to leave that in the hands of those who are amply qualified to deal with it. But before the Bill finally leaves us may I be allowed to reiterate the sense which those for whom I speak have of the vital necessity of this matter in relation to all that makes for the higher well-being of the English people. The statistics which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave on the Second Reading of this Bill as to the condition of housing at this moment in the country were of a sort to satisfy any one who looked at them not merely as to the advantage or expediency of this Bill, but as to the need there was to go forward on such lines without an hour's delay.
It is not merely difficult at this moment, it is simply impossible, for a large number of people in this country to rise to the level to which their own aspirations would lead them, because of the conditions in which they are housed, and this Bill will go far to make better conditions possible. The housing question must come first. It is a mere mockery to urge a great many of the other things that we are constantly urging, unless the housing conditions are first ameliorated. Of course, it must cost a great deal of money, as do all our improvements—so does our education, so do our industrial reforms, so do questions connected with physical health. This also will

795
cost a great deal of money, but without it we cannot go forward on any of these other lines, and we regard it, not merely as something that we are anxious to obtain, but as something that it is imperatively necessary that we should carry through as rapidly as may be, cost what it may.
The parish clergy of this country have perhaps as large an opportunity as any body of men of helping to give effect to the provisions of this Bill, of helping to open people's eyes to what is happening and of stimulating local and central interest in the matter. We have in our Convocation of the Clergy especially thrown our strength into commending this Bill, and all that it carries with it, as something that belongs to the moral and religious life of the country. So far as my influence goes, and the influence, I am sure, of every Bishop on the Bench, I can assure your Lordships not merely that it will be used in trying to help the clergy to give encouragement and assistance, but that they will throw their strength into it and try and make effective the provisions that we are building up. It is a responsibility which properly belongs to us, and we wish the Bill with all our hearts God-speed.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have an Amendment to move to carry out a pledge which was given.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 11, line 37, after ("holdings") insert ("or other premises").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that this Bill do pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Repeal 18 & 19 Vict. c. 23.
3. Section four of the Intestate Moveable Succession (Scotland) Act, 1855, and the definition of "moveable estate" in section nine thereof are hereby repealed.
LORD STANMORE: The only Amendment which I have to move to this Bill is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 1, line 18, leave out from ("1855") to ("hereby") in line 19 and insert ("is").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I think I need only say that it in no way deals with the whole question of the Police; it is a Bill which affects the Police Force of the City of London, and its provisions are, I think, sufficiently explicit as set out in the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): In moving the adjournment, perhaps I had better make a statement as to the business for the beginning of next week. The arrangement which I had contemplated for this afternoon, under which we had hoped at about the period of half-past five to take the Second Reading of the Ways and Communication Bill, broke down, and we are now confronted with the necessity of taking that Bill on Monday, instead of to-day. The first Order on that day is the Report Stage of the Forestry Bill. I should propose therefore, if, as I understand, it can be done with due regard to judicial business to meet at three o'clock

797
on Monday in order to finish the Report stage of that Bill. I am told that it is not likely to occupy much more than an hour. We shall then be free to proceed with the Second Reading of the Ways and Communications Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, there is the Enabling Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh yes. The Third Reading of the Enabling Bill will then be taken, but will not occupy, I understand, a great deal of time.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Five minutes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then we will take the Second Reading of the Ways and Communications Bill, which will be moved by my noble friend Lord Lytton. There are down upon the Paper two Motions to be moved at that stage, but I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, is not going to move his Motion, which stands first, but is going to second the;Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, which is at present second on the Paper. I presume, therefore, that they will follow my noble friend Lord Lytton. I would propose on Monday to sit after dinner in order to carry the discussion on the Second Reading as far as we can, but whether we shall be able to get the Second Reading on that evening I do know. That will rest with the House to determine. I should like to do so, if we can.
If we cannot do that, then we must continue the debate on Tuesday, when I should hope to get the Second Reading at an early hour. We have another Bill on that day in the name of the Lord Chancellor, the Acquisition of Land Bill, which he would, as matters at present stand, move as the first Order of the Day. If a portion of the afternoon be required to complete the Second Reading stage of the Ways and Communications Bill, I should hope that between five and six o'clock that stage might be completed and that the House might be able to take the Bill which I have mentioned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite sure my noble friend will recognise that it was due to no fault of any noble Lord that the proceedings upon the Housing Bill took so long. The dis
798
cussion was necessarily long. Now the noble Earl says he proposes—and it is a very natural proposal—to take the Ways and Communications Bill as the third Order on Monday. I do not know that the Forestry Bill will take long, and I have no comments to make upon that part of my noble friend's speech, but I would call attention to the fact that the Ways and Communications Bill is, without compare, far the most important measure which has been submitted to Parliament during this Session. It is a Bill of simply capital importance, involving interests of vast magnitude, establishing precedents absolutely novel and, whatever may be said for the Bill—I have no doubt we shall hear a most admirable speech from my noble friend Lord Lytton—it is a matter of very great difficulty, and of great concern to all those who are interested in the transport system of this country.
In these circumstances, to suggest that we could probably finish the Bill on that day, is I suspect, absolutely illusory. I do not think that the House will be willing to do so. It may be so, but I should think it is most unlikely. Indeed, I really think that to press forward these Bills is what I am sure my noble friend upon reflection will see that the Howe is very unlikely to accept. I should have thought that we ought to take the Ways and Communications Bill, which will be the principal business on Monday, to carry it on to the usual hour when we adjourn before dinner, and to finish it on a subsequent day. I doubt whether the House will be willing to take another course. I have made it my business to find out what other noble Lords think, and that is my belief, and what I think my noble friend will find. The Land Acquisition Bill is also a Bill of great importance, and the idea that they can be crammed into two days is, I think, a delusion.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I have endeavoured in the arrangements that I have submitted to the Howe, to follow the general scheme of action which has often been advocated by the noble Marquess. Beyond all others he has pleaded for early sittings, for constant sittings, for frequent sittings, even for after-dinner sittings; yet when I endeavour to arrange the business of the House to accommodate him he is perfectly willing to meet us up to the dinner-hour, but the moment I suggest—on a matter which is,

799
as he has argued, of the first importance—that your Lordships should show your interest in it by returning after dinner, I come up against the noble Marquess and meet with his disapproval. I have been, if I may say so, very considerate in my general treatment of your Lordships' convenience in the arrangement of Government business. It may very well be that we shall not succeed in getting the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday evening. I myself said that it rested with the House to determine that point. But I shall suggest to your Lordships—and I hope you will be willing, in view of the great urgency attaching to it—to sit after dinner on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We will consider it, but I can enter into no pledge.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not ask the noble Marquess to do that. Before I sit down there is a certain matter which for the convenience of your Lordships I may, perhaps, be allowed to mention; it relates to the visit to the Fleet on Monday next. This announcement will appear in the newspapers to-morrow morning, but it may be for the convenience of those who are here that I should make it to night. It is as follows—that, as a result
800
of representations, arrangements have been made whereby an additional ticket, available for a lady, mar be obtained by every member of the House of Lords wishing to be present on the occasion of the Parliamentary visit to the Fleet on Monday. Application should be made personally, or by messenger, to the Lord Chancellor's Secretary to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 16.]
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.