Sitting of 15 April 1920

OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
River Lee Watershed (Flood Prevention) Bill [Lords].
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords].
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords].
Maidenhead Gas Bill [Lords].
Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords].
Lancaster Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords].
Great Yarmouth Water Bill [Lords].
Dearne Valley Water Board Bill [Lords].
Mersey Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading there of, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time To-morrow.
Farmers Land Purchase Company Bill,—Read the Third time, and passed.
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),—Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,— Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies (Works) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL WEST KENT REGIMENT (PRIVATE WEBBERLEY).
    Sir H. NIELDasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. F. T. Webberley, M.M., late private No. 14,614, Royal West Kent Regiment, who has been twice wounded and has been refused a pension, gratuity, or training; whether he is aware that, owing to a shoulder wound, Mr. Webberley is quite incapable of performing manual labour; that he enlisted in his youth and served four years and is therefore totally untrained and unable to earn a livelihood; and that he is now dependent upon the earnings of his two sisters, who have already an invalid father to support; and whether he will cause special inquiries to be made into this case with a view to Mr. Webberley being provided with a pension, gratuity, or training so as to enable him to become self-supporting?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Ian Macpherson): There is no medical evidence before the Ministry to suggest that Mr. Webberley is incapable of performing manual labour. He has been examined by two separate Medical Boards, neither of whom could find any existing

    1809
    disablement. He will, however, be re examined by a Medical Appeal Board, to whom the facts now adduced in his favour will be submitted, and their decision will be treated as final. The question of training is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Sir H. NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this third examination shall take place at a time when the man is in work, because it is only when he is in work that his shoulder gets out? When he is at home under medical treatment and not working his shoulder appears to be perfectly normal.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall see that everything possible is arranged.

  IRELAND.

    PRISON SERVICE.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that 11 first-class warders in the Irish prison service have been without any increase in pay since April, 1916; that the General Prisons Board stated in April last that these cases were under consideration; and whether he can now state if any decision has been arrived at in this matter?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): A reply has been received from the Treasury to the representations of these officers, and it is the subject of further correspondence, the result of which it is hoped to make known shortly.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the offence for which Warder J. J. Keane, of Cork male prison, was dismissed the service; and whether the officer was allowed to see the charge and reply to it on paper before he was suspended and dismissed?
    Mr. HENRY: Information was received by' the Government seriously affecting the trustworthiness of this officer, and he was dismissed from the prison service by the Lord Lieutenant.

    ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Chief Secretary whether the arrest and deportation from Limerick of Robert Cashin were ordered because the man had
    1810
    given evidence at the inquest of a girl named Johnson who had been murdered; and, if not, will he state the grounds upon which the arrest and deportation were ordered?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The arrest and deportation took place under Regulation 14b of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary whether the arrest and deportation from Limerick of a young man named M'Niece was ordered because the man had given evidence against a policeman who had knocked down a soldier who had fought in the War; and, if not, will he state upon what grounds the arrest and deportation were ordered?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I have been asked to reply. I understand that James M'Neill, to whom it is presumed the question refers, was arrested by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I have no information as to the suggestion contained in the first part of the question, but I have called for a report.

    PRISONERS' TREATMENT.
    Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether all the political prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, or only those who have been hunger-striking, have been released; whether any conditions have been attached to their release; whether it is proposed to re-arrest these men when their health has been restored; and whether he will now make a full statement on this matter, in order to remove the prevailing doubt and misunderstanding regarding the Government's Irish policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I think the best course would be to read in full the message which I have this morning received from the Viceroy:
    "Following the precedent of O'Brien authority was given to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison to liberate any prisoner awaiting trial or deportation who was certified by doctors to be in imminent danger of death and requiring treatment which could not be given in the prison. Under this Order 66 prisoners have been released on parole for a period which differs in each case according to the particular need. I

    1811
    should expressly tell you that mistakes have been made by the prison authorities. Some of these. 66 are men who had been convicted and who are serving sentences and who are in no case entitled to be released on parole. I think this should be expressly made known so that such action will not form a precedent. The whole action taken in regard to hunger strikers was based upon the decision in regard to amelioration. Release on parole was never intended to apply to cases of men who were convicted after trial."
    Mr CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the statements made in this House during the course of this week, give the House any information as to the reasons for this change?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is any change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] So far as this is concerned, certainly not. We had precisely the same question here, only it was dealt with by the Home Secretary, in regard to Mr. O'Brien. I did say the Government would not release him, but that we were quite ready to send him to a nursing home owing to his condition. So far as I can gather, the same course has been followed in Ireland.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Might I ask whether the House may feel assured that the statement made in the public Press that these men have been released unconditionally is inaccurate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That surely follows from the message which I have just read.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of setting up a Committee to ascertain whether there is any justification for the internment of the other prisoners who have been denied a trial, and not even told what the charges are?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is simply putting the same question that has been put dozens of times. I can add nothing to the answer I have given.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: In view of the great importance of the efficient prison administration in Ireland at the present time, may I ask whether any disciplinary action has been taken with regard to whatever official is responsible for the mistakes referred to by the Viceroy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If I may say so, I would deprecate a question of that kind. I am sure the whole House knows what a
    1812
    very difficult task the Viceroy has, and I would certainly not complicate it in any way.
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of what has happened, may I ask whether, in the event of the release of these men producing a very much improved situation in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would not think this is a fitting occasion for some change in the Government's policy in relation to them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We should only be too glad to change our policy if the conditions changed, but I really can say nothing more than I have said already, that we must take every precaution in our power to protect life.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that on the last occasion that a large number of prisoners were released in Ireland it was the starting point of crimes and atrocities?

    HOME RULE BILL (PROCEDURE).
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask whether the Government have come to a definite decision as to keeping the Irish Bill on the floor of the House for the Committee stage, and, if that is so, has my right hon. Friend any intimation to make to us?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. As I indicated in the Home Rule Debate, we hope that, for the general convenience of the House, we might adopt the same practice which was carried out so successfully with regard to finance before Easter. I propose, therefore, if the Whips of the other parties are agreeable, to set up a Committee now to allocate the time, which the Government suggest should be twenty days, for the whole of the remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill. Of course the practice adopted in regard to finance, where there was no Resolution of the House, depended on complete unanimity. I am afraid we cannot get that, from the indications which have been given, but, even so, I think, and I hope the House will agree, that it would be a great thing if we accepted the precedent of having the time allocated by the opinion of the House instead of by the Government, and I hope the House will approve.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend intend to move a guillotine Resolution, or in what way does he propose to proceed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Failing general agreement, which hon. Members below the Gangway have told me they cannot give, there is no alternative except to move a Resolution; but what the Government propose to do is to move a Resolution precisely in accordance with the decision of the Committee.
    Major O'NEILL: When is it proposed to take the Committee stage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot name the time for that, but we propose, if the House agrees, to set up this Committee at once.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give more than twenty days for the whole of the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading stage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Twenty days is a long time.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend can include in the Committee the representatives of the Unionist Reconstruction Committee, a very large body of its own supporters, who take strong views on this question, and who would like to have something to say as to the allocation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure it is the general desire that it should be a representative body of the whole House, as far as possible.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain Members in this House who think that any discussion in this House under the guillotine is very inferior to a discussion in Committee upstairs, and he must not assume there will be no opposition to this proposal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in the habit of assuming there will be no opposition to anything. My impression from the discussion on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill was that the House as a whole was most strongly in favour of taking the Committee stage in the House, and we are trying to meet the wishes of the House.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I can only say again that we can take no share in the responsibility.

  RUSSIA.

    EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS (MR. KEELING).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Mr. Keeling, who was imprisoned by the Soviet Government for his disclosures of the atrocities committed in Russia, was excluded from the British prisoners whose exchange was recently arranged; if so, on what grounds the exception was made; if he will state whether Mr. Keeling is still kept in Russia against his will; and what action the Government proposes to take to secure his release?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No exceptions were made to the agreement for the exchange of prisoners, but the Soviet Government reserved the right of detaining prisoners who were regarded by that Government as having committed grave offences. Negotiations are at present being carried on for the release of all British subjects in Russia, and His Majesty's Government hope that they will all have left that country before the end of May.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Will the Government make special representations in regard to the case of Mr. Keeling? There is a great deal of feeling about it.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have great sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I can assure him that everything has been done to secure that all prisoners are released.
    Sir F. HALL: Why has an exception been made up to the present with regard to Mr. Keeling?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think any reason has been given except that the Soviet Government has reserved the right to retain certain people whom they charged with grave offences.
    Sir F. HALL: Does our Government recognise their right to retain British prisoners?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The matter is under negotiation. I hope all prisoners will be free before the end of May.

    TROOPS IN RUHR DISTRICT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will have an

    1815
    official British representative sent to the Ruhr district in order to report on the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Baltic troops?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not feel that the despatch of such a Mission as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would serve any useful purpose.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the method by which the Baltic troops carry out their mission in the Ruhr is of no concern to the Allies or to this Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the concern of the Allies, but we adopt in Germany, as far as possible, the policy which the hon. Member approved in Russia, and that is to interfere as little as possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why, in that case, do you always interfere with a Red terror, but never with a White terror?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to that question is a denial of the fact.

    ATROCITIES (RED GUARDS).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he has seen the photographs brought to this country by British officers direct from Kharkoff, Odessa, Kherson, Kieff, Irkutsk, and Bikal districts of Russia, showing the atrocities, murders, and mutilations committed by the Red Guards of Soviet Russia; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of such photographs being shown upon the screens of every cinema in the country to grown-up people to show the horrors committed in the name of the Russian Soviets?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A number of such photographs has been received at the War Office, and are of a peculiarly revolting character. They are of such a nature that they would be quite unsuitable for exhibition in the illustrated press or on cinema screens.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that large numbers of teachers in the elementary schools who are
    1816
    entrusted with the actual work of forming the minds of the incoming generation are still being paid at the rate of unskilled labour; whether he is aware of the fact that amongst these teachers there is a spirit abroad that is restless and prevalent enough to be injurious to the exercise of a beneficial influence upon the younger generation; whether he has read the reports of speeches delivered from time to time at recent meetings of the National Union of Teachers complaining about the rate of pay; and if he can make any announcement as to the steps proposed to be taken to end this unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The agreement arrived at last November by representatives of the Local Education Authorities and the National Union of Teachers, who sat as a Joint Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Burn-ham, has already had the effect of greatly improving the remuneration of the mass of teachers in elementary schools. That Committee is industriously pursuing the orderly and progressive solution of the salary problem, and I am sure that the best thing teachers can do is to give loyal and consistent support to that Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Education, (1) whether he is aware that the teachers in the Monmouthshire schools were supplied with cards, through the school authorities and on behalf of the Board of Education, entitled Salaries of Teachers in Public Elementary Schools of England and Wales, and stating that the cards were for use only in areas where the Burnham minimum scale was adopted or about to be adopted, and that in November last a scale was agreed upon which is substantially higher than the above scale; will he cause instructions to be issued for the withdrawal of these cards;
    (2) whether be is aware that the teachers employed under the Newport (Mon.) education authority were supplied with cards which read for use in areas which were paying salaries above the Burnham scale; if he will state why this card was not supplied to the teachers in the county area; and whether he will state whether any effort has been made by the Board to induce the Monmouthshire education authority to withdraw the

    1817
    scale adopted in November last, and now operative, and to substitute the Burnham scale?
    Mr. FISHER: The cards referred to are required for statistical purposes. They are of two series: Series A, for use in areas in which the provisional minimum scale recommended by the Burnham Committee will be adopted, and Series B, for use in areas in which the provisional minimum scale will not be adopted.
    The Monmouthshire Local Education Authority applied for, and were furnished with, cards of Series A. The Newport Authority applied for, and were furnished with, cards of Series B. When the Monmouthshire cards were returned it was found that the scale adopted by the authority differed materially from the provisional minimum scale. The cards', however, had been filled in so as to give the facts required by the Board, and they are consequently being treated as cards of Series B.
    The reply to the last part of the second question is in the negative. Nothing has been said or suggested by the Board in this matter to induce the Local Education Authority to alter their proposals' for the payment of the teachers in their area. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Board's Circular No. 1146, which gives information regarding the returns referred to in the two questions.

    SUBSTANTIVE GRANTS, NOTTINGHAM.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that by raising to 48d. the limit under Article 6 (2) of the Regulations for substantive grant of elementary schools an extra annual charge of £7,000 will be thrown upon the rates of Nottingham; and whether the ratepayers will be consulted before such increase becomes operative?
    Mr. FISHER: I am aware that the alteration in the "prescribed amount" in Article 6 of the Regulations may make a difference to Nottingham, as to other areas, in respect of the year 1920–21; but I have received no information from the authority to enable me to estimate the amount of the difference.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a figure calculated by the responsible authorities,
    1818
    and that the rates in Nottingham are already exceedingly high, and will he endeavour to reconsider this imposition?
    Mr. FISHER: The Necessitous Areas Grant was originally created to deal with a very few exceptional cases and the poverty limit was fixed at the rate of 27d. Owing to the great increase of expenditure all over the country a great many more authorities are now qualified for this particular grant and consequently the Board felt it necessary to raise the poverty limit. It is possible when all the estimates are received that they may be in a position to lower the limit slightly.
    Major PRESCOTT: Is it not possible to give the local education authorities more adequate notice of these proposed changes?
    Mr. FISHER: They have notice before they give their estimates.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS' (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1918.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of allowing elementary school teachers who retired before 1st April, 1919, to participate in the benefits of the School Teachers. (Superannuation) Act, 1918?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not see my way to initiate legislation in the direction suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. He is doubtless aware that the question of pre war pensions is at present under consideration.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES, BRISTOL.
  Mr. GANGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Bristol amongst ex-special constables at the arbitrary line drawn for distribution of medals, as in Bristol many men did 360 duties in two years but get no recognition, whereas in other districts men are granted a medal who have only done 150 duties in three years; and will he inquire into this grievance?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have no information to the effect suggested, but I may point out that the medal in question is primarily a long service medal and the Royal Warrant instituting it

  1819
  prescribes a minimum period of three years' service during the War or nine years in the Reserve.

  UGANDA (LAND SALES).
  Mr. BENNETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether a sale of Government plots at Kampala, in the Uganda Protectorate, has been advertised with the condition attached that sales shall not be to Indians; whether no similar condition has been imposed on such sales hitherto in the Uganda Protectorate; and whether, seeing that the general policy of the Government in regard to land settlement in East Africa is now under consideration, he will refrain from sanctioning theapplication at the present time of a new principle of land transfer in the Uganda Protectorate?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have no information regarding the conditions of sale of Government plots at Kampala to which the hon. Member refers, but am telegraphing for particulars.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF ACCOMMODATION).
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether further extensions to the buildings in Burton's Court have recently been put in hand by the Office of Works; and whether any effective steps have yet been taken for the accommodation of the clerical staff of the Ministry of Pensions in less congested areas?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The staff of the Ministry of Pensions is so large that it has, of course, to be accommodated in other premises besides Burton's Court and, in fact, provision is now being made to accommodate about 5,800 persons at Acton.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is if no further building is being carried out there, that considerable quantities of building materials have been accumulating there?
  Sir A. MOND: I should like notice of that question.

  PRINCESS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, MANCHESTER.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the Office of Works has purported to take possession of the lecture room of the Princess Christian College, Manchester, upon the release of such room by the military authorities in March; whether he is aware that the college is in urgent need of its lecture room; by what right has this action been taken; and whether he will issue instructions for the immediate release of the room to its owners?
  Sir A. MOND: The "lecture room" is, I understand, a hut in the grounds of the premises 19–21, Wilmslow Road, Fallowfield, which have been requisitioned on the certificate of the Minister of Pensions as being necessary for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Act. No communication has been made to my Department by the authorities of the college, but I am prepared to consider, in consultation with the Minister of Pensions, any representations which they may desire to make.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (INTEREST ON DEPOSITS).
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the rise in the current rate of interest, he will consider the advisability of raising the rate of interest payable to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated, he is not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

  CLOTHING (SURPLUS ARMY STOCKS).
  Mr. SITCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he has received any application on behalf of some thousands of workpeople employed by a firm in the United States of America for quantites of suits, surplus stocks of the British Army supplies; whether, before such application, if received, is allowed, he will explore and exhaust every possible avenue of disposal of such goods to the working classes at home?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question, the surplus stocks of civilian suits have been disposed of by the Government on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

  GERMANY.

    GERMAN GUNS AND AEROPLANES.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister the number and calibre of guns and number of aeroplanes now in Germany and capable of being used for war purposes; and what is the number allowed to Germany under the Peace Treaty.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question.
    The following totals of German guns have been reported to the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, as being available for destruction or for rendering useless, in accordance with Article 169 of the Peace Treaty:—

    Field Guns (including spare gun tubes)

    6,500

    Field Howitzers (including spare gun tubes)

    2,500

    Heavy guns and Howitzers (including spare gun tubes)

    5,000

    In addition, in the permanent fortifications of the Southern and Eastern Frontiers of Germany, which she is allowed to keep intact, there are 4,125 guns and Howitzers. The Commission of Control have informed the German Government that of the guns in the fortifications only those actually in position may be retained; the remainder, totalling about 3,800, must be handed over to the Commission of Control for destruction or rendering useless. When the above are taken over, Germany will have surrendered about 17,800 guns and tubes. The Commission of Control are now engaged in checking and supervising the destruction of the artillery material reported by the German Government; until this has been done it is impossible to give an accurate statement of the number and calibre of guns in Germany which are capable of being used for war purposes.
    1822
    Under the Peace Treaty Germany is allowed the following armament:—288 Field guns and Howitzers. Guns in the fortifications on her Southern and Eastern land frontiers. Guns in the coast defences on the North Sea and in the coast defences on the Baltic Coast East of longtitude 16 degrees East of Greenwich.
    It is estimated by the Air Ministry that there are now in Germany 15,248 aeroplanes, which could in a comparatively short time be made available, and which would be capable of being used for war purposes. Under Article 198 of the Peace Treaty the armed forces of Germany may not include any military or naval air forces.
    All aeroplanes in Germany are now in process of being listed, and will be inspected by the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control, which is the final authority for deciding which aeroplanes come under the heading of military and naval aeroplanes. All military and naval aeroplanes will then be taken over by the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it proposed to leave Germany in possession of any military aeroplanes for commercial purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my answer fully covers that.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Commission gets to work on that subject as rapidly as possible so that Germany may not keep such an enormous number of aeroplanes as 15,000?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The work is being accelerated with the utmost speed; but the surrender of this war material did not become operative until after the ratification of peace, and progress was quite good until the revolution occurred. Since then it has been very difficult to find competent authorities to deal with it. It is gradually improving, and we are pressing forward with the utmost speed.
    Mr. DOYLE: Has any specific date been sot for Germany to perform her obligations under the Treaty in connection with armaments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. Everything is contained in the Peace Treaty itself, and I and my colleagues of the Cabinet have had long personal interviews with our

    1823
    representative there. We did not condone any deliberate delay on the part of the German authorities in the execution of the Peace Treaty. We are not being held up by that at the present time, but by the great difficulty of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. DOYLE: In view of the fact that Germany has not carried out the obligations of the Treaty, has any date been set within which Germany is to carry out those obligations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The German Government have furnished us with a list of the weapons in their possession; a very large number; in fact, the full number of guns. I am quite satisfied that the course which is being pursued by the British and the French Governments in common is producing one of the most important things we have to do, namely, the disarmament of Germany.
    Mr. DOYLE: Has a time limit been fixed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think you must leave that to the Commission.
    Captain COOTE: Is there any provision in reference to the land fortifications of Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; they are specified in the schedule. The Germans seem inclined to interpret it that they should keep the mobile armament, which means thousands of weapons, but we interpret it to be on the basis of the fixed armaments.

    AREAS OCCUPIED BY FRENCH TROOPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked whether Lord Derby, British Ambassador to France, was ordered by the Government not to attend the Conference of Ambassadors; whether this state of affairs still, continues; and can the full text of the Anglo-French Note with reference to the action taken by France on the right bank of the Rhine be published at an early date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Lord Derby is now attending the Ambassadors' Conference.
    Mr. SPOORasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion placed on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland; and whether he
    1824
    will give a day for a discussion of the same? [That, in the opinion of this House, the use of coloured troops by the Allies to control the people of Germany is deplorable and should be immediately discontinued.]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. SPOOR: Are we to understand that the Government approve of the policy of employing coloured troops in Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not our action. I do not think that we should be asked to express an opinion upon the action of our allies.
    Mr. LYONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government is directly or indirectly responsible for the statement issued by Reuter's agency on 10th April, which purported to give the views of the British Cabinet as a whole, and which said that the announcement that France had acted on her own initiative against the advice of the Allies was nothing but a statement of fact?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope for the reasons already stated that my hon. Friend will not press for an answer to questions on this subject.

    EX-GERMAN SHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked whether any ex-German ships have been or are to be allocated or turned over to the charge of any of our Allies; and whether the ex-German ships now being surrendered retain any German officers or ratings on Board; in what ports they are to be berthed; and under whose charge the ex-German ships now being surrendered are to be?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but final details have not yet been definitely settled. There are no German officers or ratings upon ships now being surrendered. Those allocated to Great Britain will be berthed at Rosyth, with the exception of "Baden," which is at Invergordon. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I gave on the 12th April.

    ARMY OF THF RHINE.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked (1) whether America is a party to the Inter-

    1825
    Allied Commission charged with the control and discipline of the Army of the Rhine;
    (2) whether the American troops serving with the Army of the Rhine are under the supreme command of Marshal Foch, or whether their movements are subject to the veto of Washington?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no Inter-Allied Commission charged with the control or discipline of the Army of the Rhine. All the Rhine troops, with the exception of the Americans, are under General Degoutte. The American troops are subject to the orders of the President at Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the American Army.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately the number of American troops on the Rhine?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say without notice.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked what monetary payments have now been made by Germany to the British Empire for reparation and the upkeep of the armies of occupation, respectively?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th March to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Central).
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Has there been no change in the situation since then? Is Germany paying anything now?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is only a few weeks ago.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Do the Government agree with the French Government that the concessions to Germany under the Peace Treaty have gone far enough?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that that arises.

    BRITISH NAVAL AND MILITARY MISSIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the allegations in Germany that the British Naval and Military Missions in Berlin favoured the Kapp
    1826
    enterprise, and allowed the wireless station that they controlled to disseminate the Kapp propaganda; and whether he will inquire into the matter and intimate that British policy is definitely opposed to Prussian militarism and Junker reaction?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No member of any British Naval or Military Mission in Berlin favoured the Kapp enterprise, and no member of any such Mission assisted in any way in the dissemination of Kapp propaganda.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: On a point of Order. I understood that no Member could have more than three questions on the Paper on the same day. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has four questions on the Paper for to-day. Has there been any alteration?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I asked the clerk at the table specifically on that point about half an hour ago, and I was informed that I was entitled to put four questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three!"] Otherwise I should not have put four.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid my memory is very short. I think it was three. I will look the matter up.

    GERMAN ARMED FORCES.
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that Germany does not possess to-day an army of over 1,000,000 men, either under the guise of Lands Reich, Cadetten Corps, Reds, police, or other synonyms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We have no exact figures, but the question of numbers and its relation to the Peace Treaty is being dealt with by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Berlin.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Have the Government not even an approximate idea of the number of men under arms in Germany to-day, no matter under what guise they fight?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We have no absolutely reliable figures, but, of course, if constables and others are included the numbers are very large.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Does the action of France surprise the British Government?
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the various rumours preyalent, both as regards the military forces in Germany and as to whether Germany is starving or not, will the Government appoint a Commission to visit Germany and to give an intelligent report on the actual position?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We already have a Commission, which will give all the information that it is possible to get.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not the case that all the police and other bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are, in fact, trained soldiers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say how many of them are, but it is precisely a point to be decided as to which of them are to be included.

    TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
    Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether Germany has complied with the terms laid down by the Treaty of Versailles; if not, whether he can say how far she has defaulted; if he will inform the House whether Germany has violated the Peace Treaty, and to what extent, in regard to the disbandment of her army and the surrender of war-planes, tanks, field guns, motor lorries, and other paraphernalia of war; if she has fulfilled her obligations to Prance in regard to the delivery of coal; and, if not, what steps the Supreme Council, and the British Government in particular, are taking to enforce the observance of her pledges and to prevent further violations of the Peace Treaty?
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister what terms of the Peace Treaty Germany has, within the specified time, duly carried out; and what terms which should have been carried out remain unfulfilled, either in part or entirely?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is not a matter with which I can deal by the method of question and answer. As my hon. Friends are aware, the execution of the Treaty of Versailles is closely watched by the Ambassadors' Conference and by the Reparation Commission, and will no doubt form the subject of discussion at San Remo.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the Treaty of Versailles has been continually violated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not a matter I can deal with by question and answer.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Members of the House an opportunity of discussing what, surely, is a question of world-wide importance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a question of world-wide importance. It can be dealt with better by Governments than by discussions in this House.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether, if the British Ambassador in France is withdrawn, it is possible for the British Government to watch the execution of the Peace Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that an Ambassador is attending the Ambassadors' Conference, but that is by no means the only method by which the fulfilment of the Peace Treaty can be watched.

  HUNGARY.

    INTERNMENT CAMPS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information from Hungary as to the number of suspected Socialists who are now interned in that country, and as to the conditions in the internment camps there?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the total number of persons interned in Hungary, I can only refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 23rd March. But I cannot say that all these persons are interned for purely political reasons.
    As stated then, H M. High Commissioner, who had visited the principal interment camp, reported favourably on it. I may add that the Swiss representative of the International Red Cross Society, who visited the camp at the end of December last, found conditions as satisfactory as could be expected

  RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.

    BUSINESS PREMISES.
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in Scotland large numbers of business men and women have been warned to leave

    1829
    shop and other premises at the forthcoming May terra; whether in many cases the premises have been purchased over their heads in order to provide places of entertainment and other luxury buildings, thus leading to widespread waste of money in the midst of the serious condition of national and local finance; and if, having regard to the fact that the inquiry of the Select Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts has been extended to cover shop and business property, he is now in a position provisionally to indicate the Government's attitude and so prevent the unnecessary and expensive removal of innumerable Scottish busineses, if not their extinction, because of the failure to secure other accommodation?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am unable to make any statement as to the extension of the Rent Restriction Acts to business premises until the Report of the Committee has been considered.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in view of the proximity of the leaving day it is very important that some statement should be made now in view of the fact that tenants even now are leaving these premises without any other accommodation?
    Mr. MUNRO: I quite appreciate the urgency of the question, and it should not be lost sight of.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the distress among tenants of business offices and shops in Manchester caused by the receipt of notices to quit without being given any option to buy or to pay increased rents; and whether he can bold out any hopes of giving such premises statutory protection before June quarter day or at all;
    (2) whether he is aware that the business of electroplaters carried on by a number of ex-service men, under the style of Brunner Brothers, at 22, Oxford Road, Manchester, is threatened with eviction in June without having any possible alternative accommodation; and whether be will seek to extend to works of this type the protection afforded to dwelling-houses by the Rent Restriction Acts?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Pending consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts, I am unable to make any announcement as to the extension of those Acts to business premises.
    Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the removal of tenants from business premises is becoming quite as acute as housing, and will he assure the House that this question will be dealt with in the forthcoming Bill?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member must be aware that the Report of the Committee was only received two days ago. We are now considering it, and the Bill will be introduced as soon as possible.
    Major NALL: Is it not the fact that the Committee was more concerned with the question of housing and did not take evidence on the question of business premises.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think the Report will be in the hands of the hon. Member today, and from it he will see that they referred to that question.

    RENTS, STIRLING.
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a protest from the Stirling Trades Council against the rents fixed by the Stirling town council and approved by the Scottish Board of Health for new houses at Shiphaugh; whether he is aware that, while the rents of the new houses have been fixed at £24 to £28, the rents of houses of similar accommodation in the district vary from £8 to £17 10s., and that the rates of wages prevailing in Stirling make it impossible for any workmen to pay the rent demanded for the new houses; and whether he will have this question reconsidered?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have seen the protest referred to. I am informed that before approving the rents fixed by the local authority for the new houses at Stirling the Board gave careful attention to the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend. In respect of superiority in conditions and amenity of the new houses, and other considerations, the Board were satisfied, however, that the rents as fixed are in accordance with the regulations governing the matter. I am advised that numerous applications have been made by

    1831
    members of the working classes for the houses referred to. In these circumstances I do not think reconsideration is necessary.

  DEATH SENTENCE (INQUIRY).
  Major LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the only sentence which can be passed for the crime of murder is death and that the crime of murder may differ in degree, and in order to relieve the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the responsibility of advising His Majesty in such a case, he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee to inquire and report whether a modification of the Law may be desirable?
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I will consider the suggestion, but in view of the very careful investigation of the subject on previous occasions, I doubt if any useful purpose would be served by such a Committee.

  SECRETARIAT (PRIME MINISTER).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister, (1) on what Vote the salaries of the Prime Minister's secretariat are borne; when there will be an opportunity of discussing that Vote;
  (2) if Mr. Philip Kerr, of the Prime Minister's secretariat, is paid a salary out of public funds or if any of his travelling expenses are paid out of public funds; and, if so, upon what Vote these expenses are borne and when there will be an opportunity of discussing that Vote.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The salaries and travelling allowances of the Prime Minister's Private Secretaries (including Mr. Kerr) are paid from the Treasury Vote, which can be discussed on the usual opportunities.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total number of secretaries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say without notice.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is not a small amount of public money well spent upon such an able and patriotic gentleman as Mr. Philip Kerr?

  FEMALE EMPLOYES (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether it is possible to give any figures showing the decrease in the number of female employés in Government Departments since the Armistice; and whether, having regard to the feelings existing among ex-service men at the continued employment of married women and girls of comfortable circumstances, he will give a general order to dispense with their employment.
  Mr. BALDWIN: The numbers of women and girls employed in Civil Departments have decreased from approximately 220,000 at Armistice to approximately 124,000 (of whom some 70,000 hold temporary posts) on 1st March last. An extensive substitution of temporary women employés by ex-service men has been carried out and Departments were instructed to secure, in carrying out this substitution or ordinary reductions of staff, that subject to efficiency, discharges should first be made of juveniles and those not dependent on their earnings.

  VICTORY BONDS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the terms of the Victory Bonds recently issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under which there are to be annual drawings for prizes of £15 per bond; and whether, apart from the official encouragement thus given to gambling, the Government has considered the question whether the proposed drawings constitute an offence under the Lottery Acts?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Under the provisions of Section 2 of the War Loan Act, 1919, the Treasury were specifically authorised by Parliament to make arrangements for the redemption of Victory Bonds at par by annual drawings.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether that is a sufficient compliance with the Lottery Acts?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The authority of Parliament is supreme.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the moral aspect of the question been considered fully?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is a greater authority upon that subject than I am.
  Mr. BILLING: Is this further evidence of the desire of the Government to make the world safe for hypocrisy?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAYMENT).
  Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider the question of raising the payment to Members of Parliament to a point that will meet the cost of living; and if he is aware that many Members have no other source of income and that other countries are paying their members from £600 to £1,000 year, with a free railway pass, and that the wealthy trade unions are supplementing the pay of their Members of Parliament by some hundreds of pounds per year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be the general desire of the House to increase the payment made to Members.
  Mr. STANTON: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise this question some evening next week.

  PRE-WAR PENSIONS (CABINET COMMITTEE).
  Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state the result of the consideration by a Cabinet Committee of hard cases among police and other pensioners of the State?
  Mr. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee setup to consider pre-War pensions?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee appointed by the Cabinet to inquire into necessitous cases among pre-War pensioners have reported, and, if so, has that Report been considered by the Cabinet; if he can make a statement to the House on the subject; and if he is aware that many pre-War pensioners are
  1834
  on the verge of starvation and in some cases death has been hastened by the privations they have had to undergo?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Kettering.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I said yesterday, we are hastening the report as much as possible. We realise fully the importance of it.

  COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, at a demonstration against nationalisation of the mines, held at Mountain Ash, South Wales, nearly 10,000 miners passed a resolution protesting against the proposed nationalisation of mines on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the interests of miners, owners, and consumers, and advocating a system of profit-sharing after payment of a fair dividend to capital and a proper wage to workmen; and whether any means can be devised for making public the nature of the issues involved and the attitude of the miners towards such issues.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I think that the Press has given a wide publicity to this matter.

  JERUSALEM (DISTURBANCES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House as to the recent regrettable riots in Jerusalem?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question by my noble Friend the Member for Hitchin.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it the rumours from America, which have appeared in the Press, are entirely un-

  1835
  founded, and that it is not these riots which have caused the British Government to change their mind as to making Palestine a home of the Jewish people?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that there is any change whatever in our policy.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on every occasion under Turkish occupation during the last 50 years there have been disturbances, and that it is only a matter of misfortune that they have occurred now?

  ELECTORAL LAW REFORM.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime-Minister whether he is aware of the very small small percentage of absent voters who now record their votes at bye-elections; and whether, under the circumstances, the Government will return to the pre-War system of closing the poll definitely for all voters on the actual day of the election?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the question of the hon. Member for the Honiton Division, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point—whether questions that have already been put on the Order Paper should be anticipated by Members putting the same questions by private notice?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It may be that hon. Members have not noticed questions on the Paper, and that that is why they put questions by private notice. It is most undesirable to appropriate the questions of others.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the duty of someone to see that the rule is not infringed?

  BRITISH MISSION TO VATICAN.
  Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Prime Minister why the British Mission is still at the Vatican; what purpose it serves; what it has cost up to date; what it now costs per week; and when it is proposed to bring its work to an end?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The British Mission remains at the Vatican in order to keep in touch with the Holy See. The total cost of the Mission from the date of its appointment down to 30th September last was £19,117 10s. The accounts are not rendered weekly, but the average weekly expenses are about £84. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea on 22nd March.
  Sir S. HOARE: Has the Government received the answer of the Government of Canada, and does that answer show that the Canadian Government is strongly in favour of the retention of this Mission?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not answer that without notice.

  CONSTANTINOPLE (OCCUPATION).
  Mr. LYONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether a protest was received some weeks ago from the French Government against the seizure and occupation by British troops of various Turkish public buildings in other parts of Constantinople upon the ground, inter alia, that such action was taken without prior communication to or consultation with the French Government and without that accord between all the Allies which is deemed essential?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative. The action taken was previously agreed upon by the Allies.

  EX-KAISER IN HOLLAND.
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give any definite information as to the removal of the ex-Kaiser and ex-Crown Prince from the borders of their own frontier?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Under decrees recently issued by the Netherlands Government, the Island of Wieringen has been assigned as a domicile for the ex-Crown Prince, and certain parts of the Province of Utrecht as a place of residence for the ex-Emperor.
  Sir P. GOFF: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large body of public opinion in neutral countries alone which considers that their

  1837
  presence in Holland is the direct cause of all the plots and counter-plots in Germany?
  Mr. BON AR LAW: My hon. Friend will have seen from the despatches sent both by this Government and by our Allies that we very much regret the decision of the Dutch Government.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that under no consideration whatever will the ex-Kaiser or the ex-Crown Prince be permitted to re-entor Germany?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly, that is the intention not only of ourselves, but of the Allied Governments.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it intended to be enforced, if necessary, by force?
  Mr. BONAR LAW
  Sir F. HALL: If the Dutch people are desirous of retaining these War criminals, would it not be safer for Europe as a whole for the Dutch Government to export them to one of their Colonies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. Friend will find that that was suggested by the Allies.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it will be still further pressed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have pressed it to the extent of our power.

  COAL EXPORTS.
  Major BARNESasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the enormous loss to the Country engendered by the enforced idleness of a great volume of tonnage owing to the sudden and continued cessation in the export of coal, he will appoint a special committee to inquire fully into the whole subject, and particularly into the working of the Coal Controller's Department?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. There has been no cessation in the export of coal; but it is true that the pressure of home demands has necessitated a material reduction in the quantities released for export. The only prospect of improvement would appear to lie in production of more coal. I do
  1838
  not think the appointment of a special; committee would be of material assistance in this direction.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask the Leader of the House, to whom this question is addressed, what efforts the Government are making to increase the export of coal, which is of vital importance in the matter of revenue, the price of food, exchange, and other things?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. Friend will see that it is impossible to give a detailed answer. The Government realise to the full the importance of the export of coal, if it is not at the expense of home industries.
  Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject to place the facts before him?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think that is not necessary. I can assure the hon. Member that there is hardly any subject which the Government regard as of more importance.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the question of exports, as well as of domestic requirements, is regulated by the output of coal, and can the Government do anything to increase output, which is already a million tons down?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. Friend will admit that the Government have done everything in their power with this object, and they will continue to do so.

  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the estimated gain to the consumers of the country on tea, sugar, and tobacco grown within the Empire as a result of the reduction of the Customs duties on the commodities?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Preference is only one of many factors that have to be taken in account in investigating fluctuations of prices, and for this reason it would be at all times extremely difficult to trace the exact effect of Preference in retail prices. In any case, there has not been sufficient experience of the working of Preference to enable my right hon. Friend the Chan-

  1839
  cellor of the Exchequer to make such an estimate as the hon. Member desires.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of Preference in a great part of those areas, tobacco has been planted in Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and other parts of Africa, the full effect of which will not be felt for two or three years?

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMP-SONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated penalisation of marriage if the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax are adopted of not treating married people as separate taxable entities?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am not in a position to give figures showing the relief from Income Tax which would accrue to married persons by the adoption of a system of separate assessment as compared with the system recommended by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman still adheres to the statement made last year that the imposition of this tax on marriage is an intolerable anomaly?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise the question on the Finance Bill.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of local assessors of Income Tax at present employed; and what is the total amount of remuneration at present paid to them?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Local assessors are in all but a very few instances also collectors of Income Tax. There are over 4,000 of these officers, and the proportion of remuneration payable to them as assessors for the year 1919–20 is estimated at £41,000, exclusive of war bonus.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Is it the intention of the Government to do away with these local assessors?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The intention of the Government will be made clear later on.
  Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that there is a strong feeling against these officers being done
  1840
  away with, as they are practically the only buffer the people have got, and will the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer take the general opinion into consideration and retain their services?
  Mr. BALDWIN: We quite realise that. I am all in favour of buffers.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what number of claims by English residents and persons residing abroad are dealt with by the Claims Department?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The numbers of claims dealt with in the Claims Branch of the Inland Revenue Department for the year ended 31st March, 1920, are:—

  By English residents

  …

  790,000

  By persons residing abroad

  …

  18,500

  Mr. FOREMANasked whether the Royal Commission on Income Tax specifically considered the extension of the grant of a travelling allowance in the case of weekly wage-earners in manual labour to those engaged in clerical work, particularly as their remuneration is often less?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The question of the allowance for Income Tax purposes of travelling expenses incurred by a taxpayer in going from his place of residence to his business is dealt with in paragraph 236 (c) of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.
  SirC. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the grounds on which the Special Commissioners of Income Tax have decided that officers of the Volunteer Force who were enrolled for purposes of home defence are debarred from the benefits conferred by Section 51 of The Income Tax Act, 1918?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Relief from Super-Tax under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, is given to officers of the Voluntter Force, who, during the year for which the relief is claimed, had served either on full pay or at a rate of pay equivalent to full pay for at least one month continuously in the British Islands (see Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1918). If my hon. Friend will furnish particulars of any case in which relief was due, but has not been given, I will cause inquiry to be made

  TRANSPORT.

    STEEL WORKS, NORTH-EAST COAST.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that most of the steel works in the country are overcrowded with finished materials which the railway companies are unable to transport; that numbers of steel works are working short time on account of this congestion; that for want of materials workmen in shipyards are being suspended; that this lack of transit is due to the shortage of wagons and locomotives; and what steps it is proposed to take to set right this state of affairs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have made inquiries, and, with the exception of the North-East Coast, there is no evidence that stocks of steel are accumulating and causing stoppage of work, though there is a general shortage of special bolster wagons. The position on the North-East Coast is receiving constant consideration, and every effort is being made by the railway companies and the Ministry of Transport to improve the supply of trucks for despatch of traffic from the steel works. I am arranging to hold a meeting of traders and railway representatives next week and will invite hon. Members of all the constituencies particularly interested to be present. The question is a difficult one, but I am not satisfied with its present condition.
    Major BARNES: May I ask if there is any connection between the conditions on the North-East Coast and the amount of tonnage that is being laid up in the docks and harbours of those ports?
    Mr. NEAL: I would prefer to have notice of that question.

    PASSENGER SERVICE, EDINBURGH AND LONDON.
    Mr. JAMESONasked the Minister of Transport, whether he is aware that on the 1st January, 1917, the through passenger train service between Edinburgh, Prince's Street Station, and London, Euston Station, was temporarily withdrawn, as a war measure, and that the withdrawal has resulted in inconvenience to the travelling public to and from Edinburgh who are compelled to travel in crowded trains between Edinburgh, Waverley Station, and
    1842
    London, King's Cross Station; and whether, now that the national emergency, which alone secured acquiescence in the withdrawal, has passed, he is prepared to take steps to restore fully the pre-War passenger train service between Edinburgh, Prince's Street Station, and London, Euston Station, or at least to undertake that within six months' time the service will be partly restored to the extent of one train by night and one train by day in both directions.
    Mr. NEAL: The question of resuming through train services between Edinburgh and London via the West Coast route has been carefully considered, and, in the general interest, it has been decided that the existing arrangements cannot be altered at the present time. The hon. Member will understand that the allocation of passenger traffic between London and Scotland is the natural one, namely, the traffic between Edinburgh and London passes via the East Coast, and that between Glasgow and London passes via the West Coast. This allocation of traffic has proved very beneficial and has resulted in considerable economies. The matter will continue to receive attention, but I cannot give any undertaking as to the period during which it may be necessary to maintain the present restriction.

    CHILDREN'S RAILWAY FARES.
    Mr. SWANasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the high passenger fares on our railways make it impossible for most children of the workers to have any facilities to travel on any distant train journey; and if he will endeavour to get children permitted to travel at half fare so long as their school age lasts, instead of limiting it to 12 years as at present, thus giving more opportunity to poor children to improve their education by travel?
    Mr. NEAL: I regret that, especially in present circumstances, it is not possible to extend the limit of age up to which tickets are issued to children at half rates. The passenger traffic returns do not support the view expressed in the question.
    Mr. SWAN: Is it not the fact that when these rates were fixed they were guided by the time at which children went to school or left school, and if that is so, is it not reasonable that the same privileges should be carried on to the school age?
    Mr. NEAL: I cannot think that was the reason for fixing the rates.

  POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians are devising schemes by which one workhouse is cleared of its adult inmates and set apart as an institution for the boarding and education of Poor Law children over three years of age; and, having regard to the fact that the duties of guardians in the matter are clearly expressed in the Poor Law Institution Order of 1913 and that this new method is contrary to its whole meaning and spirit, whether he will take immediate steps to see that the Order is enforced?
  Dr. ADDISON: There are four cases in which schemes of the nature referred to in the question have been suggested, but only two in which such schemes are actively under consideration. These schemes are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Poor Law Institutions Order, and in the present abnormal conditions they may, in exceptional circumstances, provide the only practicable alternative to leaving the children in workhouses. But I have no intention of receding from the policy of removing children from workhouses and dealing with them by more suitable methods such as boarding-out, and I propose to make a further communication to boards of guardians on this subject.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (CAPITATION CHARGE).
  Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the continued increase in the cost of lunatic patients chargeable to boards of guardians maintained at lunatic asylums, and that the 4s. per head now paid is totally inadequate; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Local Government Act, 1888, so as to provide for boards of guardians to receive a much higher sum than the above?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that during the present Session I have given replies to no less than eight questions in which this point has been raised in almost identical terms; and I can only repeat
  1844
  that in view of the contemplated legislation for the reform of the Poor Law this particular point could not advisedly be dealt with at the present time.

  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Minister of Food whether the allowance of sugar for jam making from home-grown fruit this summer is to be limited to 3 lbs. per head for each household; whether he is aware that such an allowance will be quite inadequate in the case of a small household with a good supply of berry fruit; and whether, in view of the very large amount of sugar allowed for confectionery, cakes, and other unwholesome foods, he will consider the greater value of jam to every household.
  Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Each household will be entitled to 2 lbs. of sugar for each of its members, together with an additional pound for every 8 lbs. of fruit grown. It is regretted that owing to the limited quantity of sugar available a more liberal allowance cannot be made. With regard to the last part of the question, the allotment of sugar to manufacturers of confectionery, cakes, etc., has already been reduced to one-half the quantity issued for this purpose last year, and any further reduction would involve the risk of serious unemployment in the trades concerned.
  Major WHELER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an enormously increased supply of chocolates being made now, and could not that class of sweet be limited for the time being in order to allow more jam to be made, and thus increase the supply of food?
  Mr. PARKER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the latter part of the answer, to the effect that the amount of sugar which is allotted to manufacturers is materially reduced.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not desirable to give additional sugar to people who grow fruit, which would be wasted if not turned into jam, rather than give it to people who have no such use for it?
  Mr. DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of increasing the

  1845
  amount of sugar necessary for the production of milk, which is more important than jam?

  BRITISH SEAMEN IN UNITED STATES.
  Mr. SEXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a manifesto issued in the United States pointing out to seamen of other countries the provisions of the Seamen's Act, 1915, which deprives foreign countries of jurisdiction over their own seamen whilst in American ports and which enables seamen on reaching port in America to demand their half wages and release so that, if they wish, they can join other ships; whether he is aware that the object of this manifesto is clearly to induce seamen, British and other, to desert their ships and their nationality and join the American mercantile marine; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has been called to the document referred to. It is a notice to seamen published by a lawyer in the United States, who, so far as I know, has no official position. Whatever be the object of the publication, I have no means of dealing with it.
  Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an Act of the United States, and is he also aware that the difference in wages paid on this side and on the American side is one of £6, and does he not think that has something to do with the desertion of the men?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question refers to a particular notice which I understand was published by a gentleman of the name of Silas Blake Axtell, and my answer dealt with that and not with the question of the American law. I know there was an American law in 1915, but the question of wages docs not seem to me to arise here.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that the American Jaw has not been recognised by all nations, but has been recognised by this nation?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure of that.

  AGRICULTURE.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if he can now state when he proposes to introduce the Agricultural Bill into the House?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood).
  Captain TERRELL: Is it a fact that the Cabinet is in disagreement to-day with the Cabinet's agricultural policy as announced by the Prime Minister at the Caxton Hall on 21st October, 1919?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no information as to what happened in the Cabinet to-day, but I should be greatly surprised if that were the case.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter urgent and serious attention, as the condition of the farming industry in the country to-day is very serious, as many Members who represent agricultural constituencies know very well?

  COUNTY DISTRIBUTING (FORAGE) COMMITTEES.
  Captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether the county distributing (forage) committees are still carrying out any duties, and, if so, of what nature and when their activities are coming to an end?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to reply. The County Distributing. (Forage) Committees dealt with the distribution of the 1918 crop of hay and straw, and they are at present carrying out duties only in so far as the winding up of the organisation is concerned.

  HOME-GROWN SUGAR, LIMITED.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, wherein the Government has taken on half of the issue of £500,000, is about to place its contract for sugar factory machinery with the French firm of Compagnie Fivesbille,

  1847
  of Paris, instead of with British firms whose capacity for producing beet-sugar machinery is equal to the French firms; and whether he will instruct the Government's financial representative on the Board of Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, to exercise his power of veto upon such contract?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have ascertained that the contract was placed after consideration of competitive tenders, of which the French firm's was the lowest. I may add that the board of the company was desirous of obtaining the special knowledge of the French manufacturers which was not available in this country, the principal competitors in the United Kingdom not having had experience of beet factories. In these circumstances the Ministry is not prepared to interfere with the action taken by the company.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at least two-thirds of the machinery that is used in beet sugar making is identical with cane-sugar machinery and that the major portion of it can therefore be made in this country, and is he not also aware that there are firms in this country who have imported special experts in this particular branch of machinery, that France has 120 factories to repair which were destroyed by the Germans, and that their hands will be full for a long time to come, and what is the use of encouraging one home industry at the expense of another?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say I am aware of any of those facts, if they be facts; but in any case, the best chance for British industry is that this experiment should be successful, and it will only be successful if we give it the best possible machinery.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to represent that he cannot get the best possible machinery in Great Britain, and will he receive a representation from a firm or firms capable of making the machinery?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be quite willing to receive a deputation or a representation if my hon. Friend will bring it to me, but this is a new industry in this country, and we wish to have the benefit of French experts.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is he aware that the firms in question have the best French experts in their employment for this purpose?

  NYASALAND (EXPORT DUTIES).
  Sir J. D. REES(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Nyasaland proposes to levy an export duty upon cotton, following on the like levy on tobacco, and, if so, whether he will instruct the Governor to delay action till the question of the levy of export duties on raw products in British possessions has been discussed and approved by Parliament?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. The new duties in Nyasaland include an export duty on cotton and are, as I have explained in answer to a previous question, necessary to enable the Protectorate to pay its way. I doubt if it would be desirable, either from the point of view of this House or of the Empire at large, for the budgets of all the many British Colonies and Protectorates, which are framed and in the main settled locally according to local considerations, to be discussed in detail by Parliament before they can be approved. I may say that export duties on raw products are enforced in many British territories, where they are found to be a convenient form of raising revenue.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is he aware that the reason for this extra taxation is the making of a railway which is to take a route, of which the whole trade and commerce of the country disapproves, and that this adds to the objection raised additional point and strength, and is it not, in point of fact, a new policy in respect of the raw products of British possessions?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, I am not aware of either of the suggestions contained in the question. Export duties have been enforced for a very considerable time in different parts of the British Empire, and these particular duties have been imposed in local budgets to enable the Protectorate to pay its way, irrespective of the particular question of the railway which was contemplated, which, I gather, my hon. Friend does not particularly care for.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will he, in making the representations he has promised about

  1849
  tobacco, urge that it is still more urgent in respect of cotton, and that the objection is still greater?

  GUATEMALA CITY (BOMBARDMENT)
  Major LOWTHER(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report that the City of Guatemala is being bombarded by the forces of General Cabrara; and what steps are being taken to protect the British Legation?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to reports received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Guatemala, the City was under intermittent shell-fire from 9th April to 12th April, when an armistice was concluded between the contending parties. The Legation has been slightly damaged, but no casualties have been reported among the British colony. It is hoped that, in view of the conclusion of the Armistice, there will be no further danger to British subjects.

  MEMBERS' SEATS.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a question of order? In accordance with the regulations of the House, I cams down to the House at five minutes past eight and left a card in this seat. There was no other card in the seat at the time. Your own officer will bear testimony to the fact, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who was" present. I came down here at Prayer time, and I found the Committee card of another Member had been placed in the slot. I do not desire to raise any question of controversy between myself and the other Member, but I only ask your guidance as to whether, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the House, if a Member takes his seat at eight o'clock, and is here for Prayers, another Member is entitled to remove his card and substitute his own?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the technical rules of this House are not subject to the good feeling of Members, and whether it is not in accord with what, I think, is the almost universal feeling in this House, that the only lady
  1850
  Member should be accorded every possible courtesy and consideration?
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no
  Sir F. HALL: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, if ladies come as Members to this House, they should not be amenable to the same Regulations as other Members? They claim equality on all points, and, under the circumstances, should not they recognise the usual customs prevailing in this House?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I really do not think it is necessary to continue the Debate. The hon. Member who initiated the subject has stated quite correctly what is the rule. It must be left to every hon. Member to decide for himself whether he will yield the place he is entitled to take, on coming here at eight o'clock, to anybody else. If he chooses, he can do so; if he prefers to retain his seat, he is entitled to retain his seat.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say that, if necessary, I shall be quite prepared to make a personal explanation on the subject. I have had some correspondence, which I am quite willing to lay before the House, but I do not think it at all necessary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now make a statement as to the business to be taken next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday will be allocated to the Budget, and, if time is available on any of those days, progress will be made with, the Austrian Treaty and other Orders.
Thursday will be a Supply day, and the Vote will be announced later.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That on this day, notwithstanding any thing in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]
Mr. HOGGE: Can we be told why?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a purely formal Motion. If by and chance we are

1851
able to take any of the Money Resolutions, we shall lose the Supply Day unless this Motion be passed.
Question put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Right hon. THOMAS JAMES MACNAMAEA, for the Borough of Camberwell (North-West Division).
BILLS PRESENTED.
  WAR PENSIONS BILL,
  "to amend the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1919, and The Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916" presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by Major Tryon; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  OPEN SPACES BILL,
  "to extend the powers of local authorities with regard to the acquisition and use of land for recreation purposes," presented by Mr. BELL; supported by Mr. Adamson, Mr. Alfred Davies (Clitheroe), Mr. Thomas Griffiths, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  INDEMNITY BILL,
  "to restrict the taking of legal proceedings in respect of certain acts and matters done during the War, and provide in certain cases remedies in substitution therefor and to validate certain proclamations, orders, licences, ordinances, and other Laws issued, made, and passed, and sentences, judgments, and orders of certain courts given and made during the War," presented by Sir EBNEST POLLOCK; supported by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNIONS BILL,
  "to prevent unreasonable restrictions of membership of Trade Unions," presented by Commander BELLAIES; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th May, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).
Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of
1852
parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 20th April, at Eleven of the Clock. Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fourteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill): Mr. Barrand, Mr. James Bell, Mr. Bromfield, Sir John Butcher, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Moles, Mr. Munro, Mr. Purchase, Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alfred Warren, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Bill, the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, and the Imperial War Museum Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir Francis Blake, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Finney, Mr. France, Mr. Esmond Harms-worth, Major Vivian Henderson, Mr. Haydn Jones, Captain Moreing, Major Watts Morgan, Sir Herbert Nield, Lieut.-Colonel Robert Peel, Sir Robert Thomas, Mr. Wignall, and Colonel Sir Robert Williams.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBEETS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill): Sir Eric Geddes and Mr. Neal.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill and the Poor Scotch Litigants (Expenses) Bill):—Mr. Fildes, Mr. Forrest, Captain Hotchkin, Mr. Gange, Major Molson, Mr. Sexton, Major Steel, Mr. Swan, Colonel Penry Williams, and Colonel Yate.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Sir Robert Home; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Macnamara.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY. [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21 [Progress.]

  UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES—MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."—[NOTE.—£12,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. lames Hope): In presenting the Estimates of the Ministry of Munitions to the House, I must first express my regret that the promotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway) and the pressure of his new duties have prevented him from undertaking this task. My hon. Friend has been connected with the Ministry of Munitions, I believe, for a longer time than any other man, whether inside or outside this House, and he can speak with an authority and with first-hand knowledge which I lack. I must therefore ask the indulgence of the Committee, having at comparatively short notice to take his place. There is a difference between the form in which these Estimates are presented this year from those of last year, and it will have a very misleading effect if some few words are not said about it. Last year we were still working under the War system of Votes of Credit, and, whatever receipts we took, did not go to the Exchequer, but were used in the way of appropriations-in-aid to be set against our expenditure. The result was that last year we came to the House, not from any want of cash, but solely from the constitutional necessity of getting our policy approved and being allowed to spend the money which We had earned. This year the rigidity of the financial system has been restored in its full vigour, and the result is that on the face
  1866
  of the Estimates there is an apparent increase of some £27,000,0000. This, however, is a merely nominal increase, the truth being that last year we spent £185,000,000 and received £254,000,000. Therefore, at the end of the financial year, on March 31st, we gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer £69,000,000. This year we ask leave to spend £27,323,000, and we budget to receive £200,000,000, so that this really is a credit Estimate, and, as the Estimate was drafted, we budgeted to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer on March 31st, 1921, something over £172,000,000.
  Since the Estimates were framed, however, certain things have occurred which makes us think that this Estimate is too low. Certain payments which were expected in last year have been thrown into this year. The prospects of receipts from disposals are better than when the Estimates were framed. We can now count upon certain smaller payments—£3,000j000 in one case—which we could not count upon before, and, unless our expert advisers are very strangely misled, we can say with confidence, even allowing for the unexpected, that at the end of this financial year we shall be able to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sum of £190,000,000, either for the relief of the taxpayer or for the reduction of debt. At the same time, I feel, however much the balance, that the Committee will want a full justification of the £27,000,000 which has to be voted in any case. This sum falls under three heads: First, liquidation of war commitments, which accounts for £17,270,000; secondly, the Disposal Board, £8,350,000; and, thirdly, normal supply, £1,703,000. The first of those two heads, taken by themselves, are really credit estimates. We estimate to pay out on liquidation £17,270,000 and to recover some £39,000,000, leaving a credit estimate of £21,730,000. In the same way, the Disposal Board expenses are set down at £8,350,000 and the receipts at £100,000,000, showing a credit estimate of £91,650,000. That, as I have explained before, will, in all probability, be Very considerably exceeded.
  While I am talking of disposals, it would be well to say a few words about the Disposal Board, because they have been the subject of very severe and continuous criticism, partly in this House

  1867
  and partly outside. Who are the Disposal Board? They consist, or did consist, because there have been one or two recent resignations, of fifteen members. Twelve of them are business men, one is a civil servant, one is a soldier, and one is a gentleman connected with the Road Board who has had a large experience as a road surveyor. I do not dwell upon all their qualifications, because that would weary the Committee. I may mention that two of these gentlemen are Members of this House, and, while being Members of this House, I hope they do not cease to be men of business. One is the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Chad-wick) and the other is the hon. Member for Waterloo (Lieut.-Colonel Buckley). They have had great business experience. Then there are Sir Howard Frank, who is acknowledged to be at the head of his profession; Sir Robert Connell, Shipowner, of Liverpool; Mr. David Currie, late partner of Lake & Currie, Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, London; Major Philip Dawson, partner in the; firm of Eincaid, Waller, Manville and Dawson, Consulting Engineers; Mr. Ellinger, partner of the firm of Ellinger Bros., of Manchester; Sir William Ellis, Managing Director of John Browne and Company, Limited, of Sheffield; Sir Sydney Henn, late of Messrs. Duncan, Fox and Company; Mr. W. J. Larke, member of the Iron and Steel Institute, chief executive engineer, of British Thomson-Houston and Company; Brigadier-General Sir H. P. Maybury, Chairman of the Road Board; and Sir Lindley Byron Peters, partner of G. D. Peters and Company, Railway Contractors. Those are the men of business, and beside them there are Major-General Sir Alban R. Crofton Atkins, a very distinguished soldier; Mr. D. Neylan, a civil servant to whose ability I wish to pay a special tribute; and Major Tuds-bery, who, beside having had a military career, has qualifications as a barrister-at-law. These gentlemen, therefore, are not bureaucrats—that is the point that I wish to make—they are men with outside business experience who have been called in by Lord Inverforth to help him to solve the enormously difficult problem which confronted him when he took office in January, 1919. I omitted to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway), who until lately was
  1868
  Chairman of the Board. The problem, if not unknown in kind, was at least quite unprecendented in degree. A prodigious mass of stores had been accumulated, not in this country or in France only, but practically in every scene of operations, as well as in the United States and Canada. They were of a size for which the most prodigious organisation could hardly be improvised and certainly not an official organisation. France, Belgium, Italy, East Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Macedonia, and elsewhere—in all these places there were stores of an infinite variety, all of which had been prepared and ordered on the supposition that the War would last much longer, and for all of which it was the duty of the Ministry to find the best price for the nation.
  What other course was open to him? If he had appointed any committee purely of officials, I think it is easy to imagine what would have been said of them. If he, on the other hand, had appointed one single liquidator, can anyone doubt that that unfortunate man would have been the shaft of every arrow that ignorance or malice, or it may be disappointed cupidity, could have shot at him! I would ask the critics of the Ministry to say what better course the Minister could have taken than to call to himself a committee composed largely, though not entirely, of business men to help him in this most abnormal and stupendous task? I would not, indeed, suggest that it should have consisted wholely of business men. Some addition on the political and administrative side was necessary. It may be that politicians and civil servants do not always understand business. I have no doubt it is also the case—it occasionally happens—that men of business do not quite appreciate questions of Government and administration, and certainly not Parliamentary amenities.
  The combination, therefore, that Lord Inverforth called to the task was a very happy one. I want to make one point clear. The operations of the Disposal Board depend in the first instance upon the action of other Departments. It is not the business of the Disposal Board to range about Government Departments and say: "I see you have so many stores here, and so many stores there; you must hand them over to us, and we will sell them." The functions of the Disposal Board begin when the other Departments

  1869
  say to them: "We have so many stores which we do not need, and, therefore, we will hand them over to you to get the best price you can for them." When, as very often happens, you hear criticisms from those who have seen large numbers of lorries, it may be, or shells, or other material accumulating, you hear them blame the Disposal Board for not getting rid of this. What probably will be found on inquiry is that, for some good reason or another, the Department concerned thinks they have need of these stores, or have not seen their way to do without them. The policy of the Disposal Board is simple. It is to make money for the State, and to relieve the taxpayer. In doing so, of course, they are subject to the most contradictory criticisms. If they get the fullest price on their sales there is immediately a shout raised: "Accursed are ye, profiteers, ye are exploiting the necessities of the people." If, on the other hand, they get less than the critic thinks they ought to get, the criticism is: "Go to, ye incompetents; ye are throwing away the assets of the nation." So that, whatever happens, the critics get it both ways and the officials neither way. But that is the usual course.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Have they ever got too much?
  Mr. HOPE: However, the point I want to make is that the disposal Board are not philanthropists—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"]—and do not intend to be. Other departments may be philanthropists. The Board of Trade and the Coal Controller may be philanthropists. The Food Controller may be a philanthropist. The Ministry of Health, with its Housing schemes, is, I suppose, undoubtedly a philanthropist. But we—the Department I represent—repudiate the charge. Our business is to ask the full price and to get it, and if there are one or two apparent exceptions they are not really so in fact. For instance, it may be that we have handed over huts to the local authorities, but that is all credited to us by the Ministry of Health. It is they who give the subsidies, and not we. In other instances where we have made concessions—and very properly, I think—with respect to soldiers' huts, the transaction has been one of discounts for large sales on a business basis so far as we have been concerned.
  1870
  The Disposal Board have had certain difficulties which have confronted them from the first. When I said they wished to get the full price I did not mean they were to hold up stocks as speculators or cornerers, but that in all the circumstances they wanted to get the full market price. Take the case of metals and chemicals accumulated at the time of the Armistice. They were in some—not in all—cases stocks large enough for three years' normal consumption. What was their duty in a case like this. Were the Disposal Board to unload the whole of the stock at any price they might obtain, or were they to hold back for the utmost price and by restricting the goods coming into the market subsequently obtain that larger price? They judged they ought to do neither. To have unloaded the whole would have discouraged production, and the result would have been that when a further supply was needed there would have been a shortage. In the meantime opportunity would have been taken by speculators to acquire an immense volume of the material concerned and themselves to do the cornering which the Disposal Board was unwilling to do. Therefore the policy they have adopted was to unload, through trade channels, in moderate quantities, and to follow and steady the market price in each case. This was adopted in the case of metals and chemicals; there has not been given that opportunity for speculators which would have been given by a hasty unloading. The result to the Exchequer is that £50,000,000 have been realised from metals, and £24,000,000 from chemicals, and that by no means completes the sales.
  There was another question which the Disposal Board had to consider; whether they had to attempt to dispose of their very numerous and varied stocks by retail. This occupied them at considerable length before they came to a decision upon the point. They took the evidence of those who were most likely to know, and considered it up and down and came to the conclusion that such a policy was impracticable. It would have meant, in the first place, an immense hiring of new buildings, and we all know the difficulty that the Government have had in getting new buildings, and the discontent that their acquisition has caused. I think the Committee will appreciate that

  1871
  point. Then it would have been extraordinarily difficult to get an efficient staff for retail distribution. In retail and large distributing businesses, the percentage of leakage and loss is very great, and by the time the Disposal Board, if they had embarked upon this enterprise, had got under way, a great deal of their material would have been disposed of. Besides, I think the Committee on the whole will agree, though there may be exceptions, that it is not the business of the Government to go into retail trade. They have not the organisation, and I am quite certain, whatever may be the criticisms levelled at the Disposal Board now, if they had attempted to go into retail trade, those criticisms would have been more than doubled.
  If you do not go into the retail trade you must sell in bulk, and if you sell in bulk you must not begrudge the distributors their legitimate profit. Therefore, when questions are raised about deals like that of Mr. Martin and the linen, I say that the alternative of selling by retail would have involved far greater loss to the State. If Mr. Martin acts as an efficient distributing agent—and his case is one of a number—it is folly to begrudge him such profits as he may or may not have made. Since the Armistice the Disposal Board, apart from trading accounts, which I will come to presently, have realised £200,000,000, and in this year we budget for net receipts of £91,000,000. The present position is this: Of the stores abroad, Belgium is cleared. East Africa is cleared. Italy, I believe, is cleared, or will be in the course of this month. In Egypt and Mesopotamia a great advance has been made, and it is only in Macedonia, and in consequence of the unique state of affairs in the Near East, that stores are not yet fully disposed of. In France, besides the stores which have been brought home and sold, or kept in reserve—I think some £15,000,000—£40,000,000 worth have been sold, and perhaps some £25,000,000 worth still remain. The staff guarding this stores in France is now reduced to 150 at headquarters, and 1,500 soldiers. Having regard to the cost at which these sums have been received by the State, it appears to work out, on the figures I have given, at a trifle over 8 per cent., and if
  1872
  that seems to be high, £8,000,000 on £100,000,000, I would remind the House that in that figure of £8,000,000 there is included expenses which are really expenses of production, which were budgeted for, in the Government establishments at Richborough, Slough, Lancaster and elsewhere. One of these establishments have been disposed of. About that I will say a word in a moment.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Which item is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?
  Mr. HOPE: I am quoting from figures I have extracted. I am endeavouring to show how the £27,000,000 is arrived, at. It does not, I admit, appear on the Vote itself.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are these for a year?
  Mr. HOPE: For the present financial year, yes. It includes all the repairing expenses at Slough, all the expenses which were budgeted for at Slough in the estimates prepared, for Lancaster, a comparatively small amount, and for Richborough. So that the actual expenses of disposal, when you take these away, come to £5,000,000, and the receipts to something which are put down in the estimate at £100,000,000, but which, I think, may be taken at not less than £110,000,000.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: This is an important point, and we must endeavour to follow it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at pages 7 and 8 of the estimates, the Disposal Board figures are dealt with in detail. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is—and I do not use the words offensively—mixing up the cost of the administration of the Disposal Board, and other things in connection with the disposal or upkeep of such undertakings as Slough and Richborough.
  Mr. HOPE: I am really going to give the right hon. Gentleman and other critics the benefit of every possible doubt. The real expenses of disposal are some £5,000,000 to gain £100,000,000, and that includes everything that is necessary to realise the assets concerned. I have taken the trouble to ascertain from a very eminent firm of accountants what they regard as the proper expenses of liquidation of any large concern, and I am informed that where a large concern with mixed assets has to be

  1873
  liquidated, 4½ or 5 per cent. is, in ordinary circumstances, quite an ordinary expense. If that is so in ordinary cases, how much more so must it be when the assets are of a large variety which cannot be found in any private concern and are scattered in every quarter of the globe. I may just add that the same problem has confronted foreign countries, and I have yet to learn that they have solved it with any greater satisfaction to their critics than we have. The French papers are full of allegations in reference to the sale of stores and to their being left by a negligent Minister on the ground, and I notice that the Minister of Finance said the other day in the Chamber that everytning the Americans had in France had been sold lock, stock and barrel for 400,000,000 dollars, and payment was not to be made for a number of years hence. If you consider what that means, and remember that we ourselves have sold £40,000,000 worth in France and brought back to England something like £15,000,000, and we estimate that at least £25,000,000 remains there still, and we are taking credit for that in these assets, I think that, compared with other countries, is not unfavourable.
  The trading accounts is another point which has been raised. The War Office in 1916 found it necessary to buy great quantities of raw material which were distributed for direct and indirect war purposes among Departments and private consumers. The object was not to make money but to supply national needs for the Army, for our Allies and for civilians; and in order to get an adequate supply it was necessary for them to enter into contracts to buy well ahead. One of these contracts has not yet expired. We contracted with Australia to buy for a year after the War, and the supplies from that source are still coming in. The supplies were of various kinds and included wool, kips and hides, tanning materials, leather, flax and flax seed, jute, cotton, manila hemp, chemicals, food containers, and similar articles, and, of course, for a long time we were largely out of pocket on those transactions. For the first' year there was a debit balance of £30,000,000; in the second year the debit balance was £35,000,000; but in the third year there was a credit balance of £4,000,000, and in the fourth year a credit balance of £78,000,000. We are now budgeting for a credit balance to March, 1921, of £61,000,000. Of course, these
  1874
  figures are not profit. You cannot get at the profit until you take your liabilities into account.
  We can say, however, what has been the profit on all the articles other than wool, and it is £15,000,000.; while on Wool there was a profit to the Exchequer it was a little under £3,000,000 for ourselves for the year ending 1918, and a little under £2,000,000 for Australia and a little over £600,000 for New Zealand. The next year I think you may double those figures. For the year ending March, 1920, it cannot yet be ascertained, and still less can it be ascertained for the year ending March, 1921, and it would be a rather rash speculation to say what the figures would be for that year; but when all the possibilities are taken into account there will undoubtedly on the whole of the transactions be a very substantial profit, part of Which goes to the Australian and New Zealand Governments under the terms of their contract.
  The original object of entering into these contracts was not to make money but to supply urgent and imperative things; but, having the stocks and being bound by the contracts to take them, it would be folly not to take advantage of the fair market price. An attempt was made to lower prices, but it was soon found that the benefit would not get to the consumer, and we had to take the utmost care to see that there was no artificial bolstering up of prices or cornering. It is our duty to the Exchequer, and it is the policy of Lord Inverforth, to follow the market and get a fair price in the matter of wool as in everything else. This was a legacy from the War Office. These trading accounts were under Lord Inverforth as Director of Supplies. He has continued, with Sir Arthur Goldfinch and Mr. Cooper, to administer these trading accounts, and I think in so doing he has deserved well both of the War needs which his sagacity supplied in the first instance and of the Exchequer, which will get a handsome contribution from this source.
  Mr. A. SHORT: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what were the actual steps taken which failed to lower prices?
  Mr. HOPE: It was a matter in which I had no personal concern, but I understand that a certain amount was put on the market at less than the prevailing market price, but it was found by experience that the benefit

  1875
  did not go to the consumer, and so the system was discontinued. Now I come to another matter. A little west of Slough, on the Great Western Railway, there is a mechanical transport depôt, and this has been a subject of comment both in this House and outside. It has been said that this undertaking at Slough was a vast monstrous and a panic act of extravagance on the part of the War Office. This matter has been the subject of inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee, and they say it was an excellent scheme for war purposes. It is true they said that when the War came to anendthey thought it ought to be sold, and they expressed a doubt as to whether it could be run at a profit or sold at a profit for the future. It has been run at a profit and it has been sold at a profit. On this point I will ask hon. Members to wait for the auditor's statement on these matters. The matter is now in his hands. I cannot say what the profit will be until he has certified it, but I am instructed to say with confidence that there will be a profit on the working up to date, and it will be a handsome one.
  As to the capital profit on sale that has been ascertained by the Accountant-General, and it has already been given at £850,000. Apart from what has been published, probably the Committee will be anxious to hear a little more about the transactions of the sale at Slough. Besides the sale of the depôt itself there has been a sale to the amount of £3,650,000 for vehicles and parts in sight. I may explain what this sum involves. There are a considerable number, estimated at 15,000, of motor vehicles, and I am advised on technical authority that a great number of these are seriously crippled and could not be repaired without unremunerative expense. I am advised that these crippled 15,000 will, when repaired, make up 10,000 sound vehicles for sale which the purchaser may hope to dispose of, but more may be thrown up. It is on that basis that the sum of £3,650,000 has been arrived at and accepted. That was a minimum sum. There are conditions in the Articles of Agreement, which have not yet been put into the form of a contract, which carry the matter further. The Army may and probably will throw up more of these vehicles and all that are thrown up will be delivered to the purchaser on certain terms. The
  1876
  better they sell the more we profit. There will be a careful check on all vehicles that are thrown up and delivered to the purchaser, and monthly returns are to be made, and when he begins to realise, then the Exchequer will come in and benefit on the sales.
  Mr. HOGGE: On the whole?
  Mr. HOPE: If my hon. Friend will wait a minute I think he will see what I mean. On all the vehicles thrown up, after the purchasers realise £5,000,000, the Exchequer will come in and share. Our technical advisers estimate that it is not until the purchasers have realised £5,000,000 that they will begin to get any substantial profit, and that may be easily understood when one takes into account the interest on the capital sum for the depôt, the price paid for the vehicles and parts thereof and the amount expended as wages. After the realisation of £5,000,000, what I venture to think is a very ingenious plan is to be adopted. It is based not on ascertained profits, but on the gross realisations. So much difficulty may arise and so many arguments may be put forward on the question of profits that the system which has been devised is based on the gross receipts. After £5,000,000 has been realised the State gets a proportion of those gross receipts as follows:—After they realise £5,000,000 we take 25 per cent. of the excess. After they realise £6,000,000 we take 40 per cent. of the excess, and after they realise £7,000,000 we take 50 per cent., and there is provision for monthly statements and proper checking by auditors. There is one other condition which I think I ought to mention, and that is that the purchasers are bound to repair all Government vehicles from whatever Department they may come at 10 per cent. profit on cost price. That is a system which was common during the War.
  Mr. HOGGE: And how long is it to operate? Is it to be until the last vehicle thrown up has been dealt with?
  Mr. HOPE: My recollection is that for two years everything thrown up is to be delivered to the purchaser, and we get these proportions on the realisation when that realisation takes place. Obviously it is not in the interest of the purchasers for the realisation to be unduly prolonged.
  Mr. HOGGE: Surely it is a question of time and of the number of vehicles.
  Mr. HOPE: It is not a question of time or of the number of vehicles. It is a question of what receipts the purchaser gets from all the vehicles delivered to him. It is a question of what is realised.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask this question? I understand that a sum of, roughly speaking, £7,000,000 is involved. There is £3,300,000 for the site and buildings and £3,650,000 for the vehicles. It does not matter to the purchaser, however, how the £7,000,000 is divided. Is it not the case that the site and buildings have not been sold separately, but have been sold with the vehicles? May not a lower price have been paid for the vehicles in order to make up for an excessive price paid for the site and buildings in order to show a profit?
  Mr. HOPE: That is exactly what we are providing against here, because immediately the realisation exceeds £5,000,000 we jump in and take part of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But is it not impossible to say there is a profit on the site and buildings?
  Mr. HOPE: But there is a profit over and above what we have spent on the site; the valuation will show that. I think my right hon. Friend will see, at any rate, that once the purchaser begins to realise the vehicles he does not get all the money received.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I shall have an opportunity later on of going into this matter.
  Mr. HOPE: Certainly. It may be asked why, if the depôt is being worked at a profit, it should be sold. But there are good reasons why we should sell. A permanent profit on an establishment of this sort very largely depends on the permanence of the Ministry of Supply. Last year there was a profit. For this year it is more than probable there will be a profit. After that, there must be a certain amount of uncertainty. I think there will be a feeling in the House that when there is an opportunity for a profitable transaction, it is well, especially in the case of a Government, to take advantage of it rather than wait for something that may
  1878
  possibly develop. I think my right. hon. Friend will agree that in transactions of this kind a Government ought not to take risks. Here a chance has occurred of a profitable transaction, and I think the Government are rightly taking it. There will be some satisfaction at any rate to all individualists, as there will be one Government establishment the less. Every individualist should be pleased. And now I come to the case of Richborough. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell) may not be to some extent responsible for our difficulties here. I cannot help thinking that his Channel Tunnel activities may have done some harm to Richborough. It is for sale, but it has not yet found a purchaser. It started in May, 1916, to save double handling, and from December, 1916, to December, 1918, 13,000 tons were shipped there. Since the Armistice a great number of railway wagons have been brought back—probably 23,000—together with 12,000 motor lorries. Richborough was, of course, never started as a commercial proposition; it was a purely War measure. To carry it on we have taken £1,200,000 for it in the Estimates this year. But we think if we can get a fair price for it, we ought to sell it as soon as possible.
  I must trouble the Committee with a few words about the liquidation of contracts. At the time of the Armistice there were running 34,663 contracts, involving a liability of £355,000,000. Of course, these contracts were entered into when there was reason to believe that the War would go on a much longer time. Of the 34,000 odd contracts, 3,721 were continued for the definite needs of the service. There remained 30,942, involving a liability of £338,000,000, and settlements have now been arrived at in all but 58 cases representing under £6,000,000. We have escaped liabilities to the amount of £171,000,000. It does not, unhappily, follow that on the conclusion of these settlements everything ends. There are claims and counter-claims which may arise in regard to many points, such as the payment of war bonus, issue of materials, advances during War, and so on, and before everything is finished a prodigious amount of work has to be done. Nearly 700,000 bills were settled last year, and I am afraid it must be some months

  1879
  before everything under this head can be finally disposed of. Next I have to say something about the staff. The Headquarters staff at the Armistice numbered 25,144. In June, 1919, it was 16,614. Now it is 5,927, and these include the staff taken over last year from the War Office. Comparing the Armistice staff with the present staff on the same duties (1,767), the relative reduction is 82 per cent. We had to take over extra staffs from the War Office.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Does that include the Disposal Board staff?
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOPE: What I am pointing, out is that the present staff represents but 82 per cent. of the strength of the staff at the time of the Armistice. It must not be supposed we claim all the credit for this reduction. I do not say that the pressure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury may not have speeded our activities, but quite early in his administration, Lord Inverforth set up a special Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir John Fergusson, of Lloyd's Bank, a man of great ability who might be expected above all others to be conversant with matters of this kind, and who was assisted by Sir Charles Davidson and Sir J. Mann. This Committee went into the matter almost meticulously with a view to bringing about a reduction of staff, and I could not help thinking that even in my own Department they went too far, because very often I could not get a settlement of a contractor's account owing to the fact that the services of the man who really knew all about the matter had already been dispensed with. I want to say a word as to the ex-service men. It is difficult to find places for ex-service men on military staffs. But we did our best. Compared with July last the percentage of women was reduced from 57 per cent. to 40 per cent., and of non-service men from 34 per cent. to 28 per cent., whereas ex-service men showed an increase of from 9 per cent. to 32 per cent. The percentage of ex-service men on the staff is now 53. I may say that we have been very greatly assisted by the ex-Service Men's Organisations, who have been very helpful in carrying out this arrangement.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Does it include Woolwich Arsenal?
  Mr. HOPE: No.
  Captain LOSEBY: Has the hon. Gentleman the figures for ex-service men on the permanent staff?
  Mr. HOPE: It is not very easy to say what the permanent staff is. On this point I may just add that a great part of the work done by women is very ordinary clerical work, which most ex-service men would not care to take, and it would be very small kindness to give a post to an ex-service man within a short time of the abolition of the Department.
  With regard to the future of the Ministry, I have already said that there will be no Ministry of Supply. It is not expedient to argue that; the decision has been taken, and it has to be accepted. In the second place, the War Office will take over the Arsenals and all the Government factories under the Ministry that are not for disposal.
  Sir R. COOPER: When will they be taken over?
  Mr. HOPE: At the earliest possible moment. They are those at Woolwich, Enfield, Gretna, Queensferry, Swindon, Watford, Sutton Oak, Perivale, Hereford, Banbury, and Lancaster. They include I Arsenal, I small arms factory, 4 explosives factories, I anti-gas factory, 3 filling factories, and I store for pivotal plant, now doing temporary work. Of course, when these go, our Estimates will be correspondingly lightened, but, from a public point of view, the burden will be taken by the War Office, so I do not particularly wish to dwell upon that. Whatever happens to the Ministry, there will not be two Parliamentary Secretaries in the future, as there have been in the past. For the rest, the matter has not been settled, but the Government are seriously considering in what way the remaining work of the Ministry can be most efficiently and economically dealt with. A very large amount of work still remains to be done. We budget to collect, in this year, in the nature of revenue—temporary revenue, certainly, but still in the nature of revenue—a sum very much greater than the whole revenue of the country used to be, well within my Parliamentary memory. To do that, it will be necessary to have an efficient organisation and a

  1881
  considerable staff. If we did not have that organisation, we could not do our best to give that relief to the taxpayer that we hope to show at the end of the year.
  I must say a word of appreciation of the extraordinary devotion and ability that has been shown, both by the business men and by the civil servants at the Ministry. No contrast could be greater, to anyone going into the Ministry, than that between what is actually done by the officials of the Ministry and what is said of them outside. I think it is necessary for me to pay a tribute to their ability and devotion, if for no other reason, just for this. We politicians are accustomed to get our hides in pretty tough condition, and to accept, not merely absence of appreciation, but criticism and sometimes, perhaps, even slander. Lord Salisbury once said that we could always find our recompense in our conscience or our salary, though the latter solace is considerably curtailed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, we are used to what we meet with. Still, we are accustomed to that. The men of business, and especially the civil servants, who cannot answer, are not; and it is only right that I should say that, whatever mistakes there may have been here and there, these men, under great stress, which continued long after the Armistice, have served the State well—both the business men and the civil servants, the former usually without reward, and the latter with a reward quite incommensurate with what they would obtain in ordinary business avocations. They have served the State with rare devotion and ability, and it would be most unfair, whatever deficiencies you may put on the Ministry of Munitions, to attempt to put them upon those men. Last year my hon. Friend-beside me (Mr. Kellaway) reviewed the work of the Ministry of Munitions, and passed a most glowing and eloquent panegyric upon it. It is not necessary for me to repeat that, although I stand by every word he said. It is enough for me to say that, although, if you like to review its history in detail, and examine it with a careful and malicious eye, you may find plenty that is wrong—bad contracts, faulty specifications, cases of carelessness, delay in doing what is right—still the fact remains, that it does represent a prodigious national effort to meet a prodigious national crisis, and I believe that
  1882
  the historian will review it with amazement. I am only too proud that, even in its declining days, I have been privileged to play some part in that work.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £15,000,000.
  I am sure the Committee will join with me very heartily in congratulating my hon. Friend on the clear statement which he has made to us, at very short notice, and the manner in which he has laid his Estimate before the Committee. As I listened, however, to his opening remarks, and remembering what a jealous and efficient critic he was of the Government in the piping days of peace economy, I thought how he would enjoy being on this side of the House, and attacking his own Estimate which he has laid before us to-day. He fairly took my breath away with his earlier sentences of congratulation to the Department, and his statement of the millions which he would be giving to the Treasury, and the percentages by which that would be done. If he had been dealing with a profit-making Department, and buying and selling in the open market, that would be quite a proper thing; but what is he doing? One is delighted to hear it officially stated that the Ministry of Supply is not to be proceeded with; and the other bit of good news which the whole nation will welcome is that the Ministry of Munitions is to be a vanishing entity, and that, at no distant date, it will be swept into the limbo of things which we shall be glad to forget. The total Estimate of the cost of the Ministry, for the year upon which we have now entered, is £58,190,000. By way of Appropriation in Aid, composed of realisations in the general sense, £30,867,000 is brought in.
  Mr. HOPE: They-are not realisations; they are returns from contractors and payments for services in the ordinary course.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: That does not alter my point at all. That leaves the net amount which they bring before this Committee at £27,323,000; but the question put from the Chair is that a sum of £15,323,000 be granted. The reason for that is that, when the Civil Service Vote on Account was before the House two or three weeks ago, £12,000,000 was allocated to this particular Ministry, and therefore the sum which we have now

  1883
  before us is £15,323,000. I have proposed to reduce that by £15,000,000, and the case I am going to endeavour to make is that, in view of the fact that there is to be no Ministry of Supply, and of the statement that the Ministry of Munitions is to be demobilised as speedily as possible, I say that, for the purposes in question, the £12,000,000 which they have in hand is enough. If it is not enough, let them come back to this House with a Supplementary Estimate, and the House will give them the money they want. I think this Ministry has been grossly extravagant in its management. We have only before us, as my hon. Friend truly said, the accounts of the completed year and an Estimate for the current year. I want the Committee to undersand that these figures are only for the 12 months up to the present time and the succeeding 12 months, that is to say, we have no information at all—or, at any rate, I have no figures, though they may be assessable in some other accounts—as to what it has cost the nation between the date of the Armistice and the commencement of the last financial year, namely, the 1st March, 1919.
  I will let that go out altogether. I am not concerning myself with that. That is a thing to which we must, as practical men, just give the go-by. I am going to deal with the figures as we have them. What was the cost of the headquarters' staff and branch offices and the outside staff for inspecting stores and miscellaneous departments? The headquarters' staff and branch" offices last year cost this country £2,636,000. For this year, with no Ministry of Supply, with a demobilising department, they are asking for a headquarter staff grant of £1,370,000. What about the outside staff of inspection, stores and miscellaneous departments? Last year they spent nearly £5,000,000. This year under the same conditions, the Ministry of Supply gone, and a demobilising department, they ask, and I suppose the House will grant it, £2,056,000. The total for the last year and the coming year for A and B amounts to £10,888,000. There are one or two points I wish to make on details themselves. As there is going to be no Ministry of Supply the raw materials trading account and purchases must also go, and there ought to be a very much smaller amount for factory
  1884
  administration, because that is obviously also going to go, and the subsequent heads of stores and transport inspection departments and engineering department ought all to be reduced. The housing department will probably go right out also.
  Mr. HOPE: On all these points a very good case can be made for large reductions owing to the recent decision of the Government, but as other Departments will have to bear the expense, it will be rather a false point to make, because they would appear as supplementaries in other Votes.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I will deal with that in a moment. The outside staff of inspection, stores and miscellaneous departments, amounting to a total of £2,600,000, would be reduced by at least two-thirds, and then on the purchase of stores for other Government Departments, that has gone by the board, and we know that the Admiralty never consented to it. Attempt after attempt was made to get the Admiralty to allow this precious Ministry to buy for them. One of the best buying Departments which any Government ever had was the Admiralty. I have in other days had some experience at any rate of how they buy coal. The Admiralty always refused to be dominated by the Ministry of Munitions buying for them. The War Office had a prolonged fight, but ultimately had to submit, and all the other Departments objected. The whole of J1 goes clean out—£21,900,000. There is also the estimate for Slough—£300,000. That goes. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Ministry of Munitions Ordnance factories are also going to be disposed of. So that goes.
  It is no use our going on with this Estimate under these conditions at all. It is a wholly fallacious position. You ought to withdraw this Estimate to-day. There is no hurry for it. You have weeks of time and in three or four weeks you will know where you are, you will know what Departments are going to take over what portion of these different heads, and you will see what the cost to them will be, and you will know where you are in a fairly reasonable business way. We are discussing the thing in the air. None of these most important sub-divisions really have any practical bearing upon the present position. The use of Committee of Supply is that you deal with the present position in an

  1885
  Estimate which is going to continue for a year. We here have an Estimate based upon what the Minister himself tells us is not going to continue. That is not business. It is not treating the House of Commons in a business way at all. It is not common sense. I suppose it will be done, and that it is all settled in the usual way, but we have passed this in a way which would disgrace a parish council. I do not know what will happen at eleven o'clock, but I hope the country will take notice of the way this is being done. The Ministry must have known for weeks past what was likely to happen. They have six Director-Generals outside the Ministerial G.H.Q., and a Department of Finance. These Estimates do not show really what the cost was, because in several heads they have taken a number of assistant secretaries and otherwise, lent them from other Departments, whose salaries are partially paid by those other Departments. It does not represent the actual cost to the taxpayer even on these Estimates. Page after page, Department after Department, the same thing comes up. I listened to the hon. Gentleman with absolute amazement that the Government should have the audacity to make such a statement on the facts they themselves stated. That is the main point of the whole business. You cannot go on with this sort of thing. You are beating the air, and not dealing with a practical position.
  I should like to say a word or two about Slough. I hope my right hon. Friend will develop the point which he made. I only mention it. This House is entitled to know what the real bargain is. The country wants to know. Hundreds of thousands of people who pass Slough on the railway will all want to know whether it is really the fact that the profit which they say has been made on the buildings and the land has no relation to the assets which they placed on it, because the point we made, when discussing these things before with regard to the motor vehicles, was that you do not want this great centre for it. Sell them where they are. That is the sound business argument which was made. What does it cost to bring them there? It they are able to go there under their own power they should be sold where they are, and if you have to bring them there to repair them under other power you are making a very un-
  1886
  businesslike proposal. But if it is the fact that any part of this cost of buildings and of land is mixed up with the assets brought there from the length and breadth of the land and from France, it is not a fair statement of the position. We want to know what the real position is. The hon. Gentleman has not given, in my judgment, sufficient particulars for us to form a proper businesslike judgment upon what the facts of the case are. And what a commentary after all on the case made for Slough! It was a splendid Government investment which was going to be carried on for years and be made a fruitful source of national profit. That great undertaking was practically, in its real essence, begun at least six weeks after any sign or suggestion of its case was possible. It was a very good case in July, 1918, when we were being driven back to the coast of France and were in dread of being driven back to our own shores. You must have a base near London to send all these tens of thousands of motor vehicles which might be driven over the Channel. From that point of view it was right. Then they suddenly turned it into what they call a business proposal, and the nation's money was poured out just to back some man's opinion on a business proposal. Now, under the pressure of facts, we reverse the policy and sell it. I am glad they have sold it, and I am glad indeed if they have sold it at a profit. I hope they have. I could go on elaborating a very large amount of criticism on the Estimates. I was prepared to do so if it was not for the statement the hon. Gentleman frankly made. Generally speaking, the whole of these Estimates are inapplicable to the present position. The right thing to do is to withdraw them and bring them back a month hence, and you will find we will do all we can to help you. But for the sake of national economy, give us a chance of discussing what is after all a business question as business men.
  Sir R. COOPER: Circumstances prevented me from moving the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper for a very much smaller reduction than has now been moved, but I put it down before the Easter Recess, at a time when we had no Estimates relating to the Ministry of Munitions available. In other words, the Government put down the Ministry of Munitions Vote for discussion about a fortnight before any Member of the House

  1887
  had the slightest information of what it was going to be or what the details of it were and how the money was going to be spent. I have on a previous occasion expressed very strongly the view, which I think is shared by a great many hon. Members, that the case really is very much worse even than that, because the Vote on Account of £12,000,000 was voted without any Member of the House having any possible knowledge what that money could have been wanted for, and in view of that fact, together with the situation of this Ministry as we understand it to-day, it affords me very great satisfaction to support the Amendment to reduce the Vote by this much larger sum. I will not re-state the very strong case the right hon. Gentleman has made in favour of these Estimates being taken back and the House being given a really businesslike financial statement of the money which the Department, under the changed conditions at the beginning of this financial year, really requires. I shall presently make some reference to the statement by the Financial Secretary when he claimed, quite rightly, that when this Ministry was founded those responsible took the only businesslike point of view they could, and that was to summon to their assistance, and the assistance of the Government, the best commercial brains in the country to help them to carry through their task. On that same ground I would ask my hon. Friend if that aspect of the administration of this Department does not add force to the very strong case put by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). The Financial Secretary continually referred to the demand which is made in this Vote for £27,000,000, giving the impression, as I understand he desired to give, and as it is intended to give, that that sum really covers the administrative expenses of the Ministry of Munitions for the present financial year. I cannot understand how that sum of £27,000,000 can be referred to in this Debate as having the slightest reference to the finance with which we are dealing to-day. The amount of money that is asked for in this Estimate for salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Munitions is £58,190,000. That is the sum they are asking for, and not £27,000,000, and for anyone to speak of £27,000,000 in the sense that it fairly represents the cost
  1888
  to the country of the maintenance of this Department is deliberately to mislead this Committee and the country.
  My hon. Friend claims that the policy of building up Slough was excellent for war purposes, and he was perfectly right, but the point of complaint that I have always made, and that the public has always made, with regard to Slough, was not that it was a mistake during the very black days of the war, but that two months after the Armistice was signed a contract was entered into, running into millions of pounds, for the building of this gigantic concern. The almost unanimous opinion at that time was that the Government were making a great blunder, and that they were taking an unjustifiable course. The reply was that the Ministry of Munitions, in expending money on the development of this place, were going to be engaged in one of the most wonderful and profitable developments that any State Department could ever embark upon, and that it was essential to the State. I am so contented to know that that policy has been reversed that I am not prepared to quibble or attempt to search out in any detail how far the sale, which I understand has gone through, is a profitable one or not. There is one aspect attaching to this transaction, however, which is most serious, and ought not to be allowed to pass unchallenged, and that is that as part and parcel of this bargain the Government vehicles in future are to be sent to the purchasers of Slough for them to repair, on the basis of cost of materials, labour, and over-head cost, plus 10 per cent. profit. I ask the Government whether, before that was introduced as part of the condition of the sale, any steps were taken to ascertain whether Government vehicles could be repaired by any other concern in the country on cheaper lines. That is essential because we all know that motor transport has now become a very large and essential part of Government and war administration, and this work is likely to be very voluminous and very valuable work to perform. It is my belief that the Government could get their vehicles repaired on this basis at a less profit than 10 per cent., provided that any contractor had the whole contract for the repair of Government vehicles. Is it or is it not a fact that his Department and the heads of Departments who were concerned in the production of munitions during the war, were

  1889
  forced to the conclusion, by their knowledge and experience, that the worst possible form of contract for any Government was time and line; but that, owing to the conditions of the war—I was concerned in the Department myself in one limited section in connection with transport—there was no alternative but to get the contracts placed as quickly as possible. Time and line in many cases was the only course we could adopt. We were prepared to go forward, because we had not time to quibble negotiating. The Army and the Navy wanted the goods, and they had to have them. But those, days have gone by. We had an experience at that time that that was a thoroughly vicious system of placing contracts, but from my knowledge and experience I know that it is taken advantage of by a large number of people in this country who regularly and systematically accept such contracts. I regard this part of the Slough bargain as one that has not been properly thought out and considered, as to whether it is right for the future. The hon. Member did not say whether this portion of the contract is limited for a term of years.
  Mr. HOPE: If it does not suit us to send all the Government vehicles to be repaired by the purchaser of Slough, we need not do so. We are under no obligation whatever, but the purchaser is under an obligation to do the repairs on these terms.
  Sir R. COOPER: I understood from the hon. Member's statement that it was part and parcel of this bargain that Government vehicles of all kinds should go there to be repaired on that basis, but I could not gather for how long that system was to prevail. He has now made it clear that the Government are not bound to this part of the contract, but if they choose to send the vehicles there the purchasers of Slough are bound to carry out the repairs on these terms. That being so, the case is very much less unsatisfactory than I thought.
  Mr. HOPE: The conditions are these:
  "The purchaser undertakes to repair, on behalf of the Ministry or any other duly authorised Government Department, any and all motor vehicles being the property of the Ministry or any other said Government Department as may be required, and in respect of such repairs shall be paid by the Ministry or any other said Government Department a sum equal to the ascertained net
  1890
  cost of such repairs (including all overhead expenses and establishment charges), plus 10 per cent."
  There is no obligation on the Government whatever.
  Sir R. COOPER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and, incidentally, I have done a good thing in getting the point made clear, because there would be a strong and influential feeling in the country if it had been allowed to go out generally that the case as I stated it represented the facts. It is very natural that my hon. Friend and his colleague who has just left the Department as Deputy Minister should feel a good deal of resentment at the constant criticisms that are levelled against the administration of the Department. But in speaking of Slough an illustration occurred to me which has occurred during the last few weeks which justifies criticism of the administration. Two miles of fencing, 8ft. high, composed of galvanised iron, has been put round the whole of that place within the last few weeks. This is brand new material, although the Department has in its possession hundreds of tons of galvanised iron that they are intending to sell or actually selling. If you visit the South Coast, as I have done, you will see derelict buildings, surrounded by galvanised iron fencing, belonging to the Government, all of which is rusting and rotting, and yet at a time then industry wants to get going and requires large quantities of galvanised iron, the Government, possessing hundreds of tons of galvanised iron, which is rusting and rotting, and which they want to dispose of, step in and buy brand new galvanised iron for Slough, thereby adding to the difficulties of industry, and, incidentally, adding to the cost of living, and acting, so far as the administration of this Department is concerned, in a thoroughly unbusinesslike and unsatisfactory manner.
  It is my desire not to trouble so much about details of administration as to point out the lesson which we have all got to learn from our experience of this Department, which I trust will disappear shortly. My hon. Friend asked, very rightly, what better steps could any Department take than to get the best brains into that Department to help them to administer in such times of crisis. They did the right thing, but I do hold the view that in all the administration of the State during

  1891
  the War, of the thousands of business men of one kind or another who were got in to assist the Government and the administration, it is hard to find one who has been a real commercial success in that position. Many of us, Members of this House, had personal direct experience at the time of working under one Department or another, and, seeing how these business men carried on, got their plans out, tried to put them into operation, and sooner or later found that their ideas were worthless, and they seemed more or less to lose heart. I do not know one leading business man, including even the late Lord Rhondda, who took an important position in the State during the War who in the public estimation was a complete success.
  No Member of this Committee would suggest that at least the majority of these men did not go into the State service in a time of crisis and do their level best to help. We knew and the public knew that they had the best qualifications for doing the work. Yet they were not a success. My point is that it is the system on which the State is administered and on which the Ministry of Munitions has been administered that is at the bottom of the trouble, and has been the cause of the loss of many millions of pounds to the people of this country. Just before Easter I and one or two others brought before the House the case of Mr. Hankinson. There are numbers of these cases of good men who have gone in to help in the Ministry of Munitions and who afterwards, when they have been free men, have told their friends something of the difficulties with which they had to contend. There was the case, which has happened since this Vote was last before the House, of a Mr. Philip Bright. It was stated in a letter in the "Times" of the 13th of August last year. I have had careful search made as to whether this matter was ever followed up, and I am told it was not.
  Here is a man who was paid by the State to do responsible work. He was the head of a Department. He was told to go to examine a factory or business which happened at that time to be controlled by an unnaturalised German. He was sent to report on it. He made his report to the proper official who had sent him, and he made five recommendations. Nothing was done; no notice was taken,
  1892
  no alteration was made, and the usual Minute for further consideration was put up. A third application was made by him to get this matter dealt with, and nothing was done. Then, in despair, finally he wrote a letter to the Minister of Munitions at that time, who is now Secretary of State for War (Mr. Churchill), and because, after making three attempts to do his duty that he is paid for by the Government, he went to the head of his Department as a last resort, the only thing left to an honest and able administrator, fault was found with him for acting contrary to Regulations, and he was driven, ultimately, to resign from his post. That case is analogous to the case to which I drew attention three weeks ago. There are hundreds of these cases in the Ministry of Munitions, but even where you can get sworn evidence, where you can get eight witnesses in a Department to swear to the truth of an allegation, the Department systematically sits upon everyone concerned and, whenever it can, penalises them. The result is that people in the Ministry of Munitions, and State officials in other Departments, are driven by this system actually to become parties to unbusinesslike methods, and ultimately in some eases to become parties to sheer corruption.
  That is one of the reasons why there is so much loss of money and so much public discontent. I am glad that the late Deputy-Minister (Mr. Kellaway) has come in. After I spoke three weeks ago in this House he showed, in my judgment, no proper spirit. During the time he has represented that Department in this House he has shown a distinctly arrogant spirit in dealing with complaints that have been made. In the case of everything which we put up in dealing with his Department during the last eight or nine months he has always turned round to fight it and not once has he shown any special desire to find out whether anything was wrong or not. I can excuse him as I excuse the business men who went in to assist the State during the War. He is the victim of the system. The business men are the victims of the system. Half the complaints which we make in this House on this or other Votes are due to the system being at fault. I have put this point again and again and I will do it as often as I can in future.

  1893
  If we want more businesslike administration in the Ministry of Munitions and every other Department we have got to see that the system is right. There is no use in complaining or finding fault with the hon. Gentleman or anyone else when we all know that probably if we were in his position circumstances would almost force us to do what he did, although it was absolutely wrong to do it. I want to drive home on this occasion the pressing need of learning from this Vote the lesson that if we want in this House to do the best we can for those whom we represent we have got to start putting our house in order as a necessary part of reconstruction after the War. We have got to tackle the system, the political system oven, but especially the system on which the business of the State is administered.
  Mr. CHADWICK: I am the last person to oppose any organisation or Department, especially a Government Department, merely for its own sake, but I have listened to my hon. Friend's statement with interest and I ask the Committee to vote the sum for which he asks. Unless there are less flimsy arguments put forward by those who are opposing this Vote, his mind may be easy on that subject. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is amazed at the Government coming; to the Committee with an estimate of this kind. I wonder, is he amazed after the speech which has fallen from his supporter (Sir E. Cooper)? If he is not, as I am, I shall be surprised. I will not deal with the figures which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, because my hon. Friend no doubt when he replies will deal with them better than I, although I could answer on one or two points. I will not deal in great detail with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Cooper). It is typical of what takes place in regard to the Ministry of Munitions. He spoke of surrounding buildings with fences, and asked, why put up a corrugated iron fence? What other kind of fence would you put up?
  Sir R. COOPER: I said nothing of the kind. I said that having determined to put up a corrugated iron fence the Ministry of Munitions went on the market and bought brand-new corrugated iron when they had hundreds of tons of their own in other places.
  Mr. CHADWICK: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon if I have misunderstood his statement, but I believe that he was absolutely wrong and that the Ministry of Munitions held this material and made the fence of the most convenient material that they had. That is a specimen of the misinformed, ill-directed criticism which the Ministry of Munitions gets. I will not say anything about the sweeping condemnation of the business men who were working for the Ministry of Munitions during the War, as I happened to be one of them. Sound criticism and rigorous scrutiny of Government administration are desirable, but we seem to be drifting recently into the habit of abusing Government Departments rather than criticising them. That I consider to be very harmful. We see the harm in every direction. I am not saying that the Ministry of Munitions has been all that one could have wished. I have very strong views on that point with regard to labour, but do let us direct our criticism impartially and usefully.
  6.0 P.M.
  We are fully aware of this peculiar frame of mind, which is more apparent to most people in the bitter vendetta of a section of the Press against Government administration and against the person of the Prime Minister. I would not mention it now except that it is assuming such an aspect as to be, to my mind, a grave national menace. No one will object to healthy and vigorous criticism, but this particular section of the Press which sees red in every conceivable department of Government administration, seems to be so affected that there is no depth or length to which it will not go in distortion and misrepresentation. Under the influence of this it is deplorable, and it is surprising that men will get up and make statements, even in this House, without the most elementary effort to do what they would be most careful to do in other circumstances, and that is to obtain reliable information. They will launch out into assertions which under examination are disposed of by a mere statement of fact. I claim some right to speak with authority on this subject of the Ministry of Munitions. A few days ago I resigned my position at the Ministry after four and a half years of continuous service. When I resigned I was senior officer of my rank and class with continu-

  1895
  ous service in the Ministry, if not in the whole Government service.
  The Ministry of Munitions may be divided under three heads—disposals, supply and liquidation. However much you may dislike it, the Ministry has supply responsibility until other arrangements are made. I understand they are now made. My hon. Friend has described how this £27,000,000 is to be divided between the three sections. There are hon. Members who seem even yet to think that it is going to be absorbed by the winding up of the Ministry of Munitions, that is the expense of winding up apart from liquidation, which is mainly the expense of the Disposals Board. Nothing of the kind. Only £8,250,000 or a little more has, I believe, any direct or indirect relationship to the work of disposing of surplus stores. A great deal has been said about the Disposals Board. My hon. Friend has anticipated some of the criticism, no doubt. It was even suggested the other day in this House by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer), a distinguished journalist, that a super-Committee of three Members of this House should be appointed to examine the activities of the Disposals Board For my worst political enemy I could not wish a more thankless mission or one that would be more barren of useful results. It is so characteristic that I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The suggestion was put to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister did not agree to it, and then the hon. Member said:
  "May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has come to his knowledge that there are seven bye-elections pending and that this question is gravely influencing the minds of the constituents?"
  Seven bye-elections pending and the minds of the constituents gravely influenced, not by the short-comings of the Ministry, but by the kind of nonsense that is talked in this House and written in the Press about the Ministry! The Leader of the National Party (Brigadier-General Croft) said:
  "Is it not in the present as well as in the permanent interests of the country that the Ministry of Munitions should be abolished and the work put under the Board of Trade?"
  My hon. Friend is asking for £27,000,000 this afternoon to abolish the Ministry
  1896
  of Munitions. The whole business is to abolish the Ministry. The hon. Gentleman wants to put this business under the Board of Trade. I wonder what the Board of Trade would have to say about it. This is typical of the peculiar twist-ings which come to an otherwise well-ordered mind when dealing with Government administration. Here is an hon. Member prominently associated with the one journal in the country which has been the advocate for many years of a business government, and he suggests, quite solemnly, that we should appoint three politicians to sit on a Board, which consists as to eleven-twelfths of business men, to keep them on the rails. The Committee is aware of the constitution of the Disposals Board. It was founded in 1919, and I think the record of the transactions of that Board dispose at once of the grotesque suggestion to appoint a super-Committee of three politicians, business politicians if you like. There are two main groups of critics of the Disposals Board. There are those who criticise the Board for the unwillingness to sell retail and those who criticise it for not selling wholesale, or not selling at all and holding up material and putting up the cost of living, and so on. With regard to the first class, one need only say that the attempt to sell hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of material retail would be madness. With regard to the second point, the holding up of material, one need only point to the record of the Board since its formation, which as a business enterprise surpasses, for any one concern, anything in history that I have heard of. The Disposals Board receipts up to the present equal the total revenue of this country shortly before the War, and that has been secured to the country by a Board of a dozen men and an improvised staff of some 1,500. The average critic of the Ministry and the Disposals Board continually brings to my mind the resentment of the midge when it was jostled by the elephant going into the Ark:
  "The animals went in Seven by seven;
  Said the midge to the elephant, Who are ye shoving?"
  Mr. HOGGE: I thought it was two by two.
  Mr CHADWICK: No, seven by seven. The critics are completely unable to realise the magnitude of these trans-

  1897
  actions. They talk and write airily in terms of scores and hundreds of millions, who probably, at the most, have never had to administer the same number of thousands, and the most noisy and most persistent of them have had no kind of administrative experience. My hon. Friend has described the reasons for asking for this amount of money, and I need not elaborate his arguments. But I do want to recall the Committee, for one moment, to the conditions which made it necessary for the Ministry to ask for this money. At the time of the Armistice the whole of the munitions output of this country was at its greatest; the armies of the Allies were at their greatest strength; expenditure and wastage had never been so high. Suddenly, in an instant, the outlook is changed. You could not stop this immense flow of material coming from all over the world to feed the great British Army; you could not stop the arsenals from pouring out munitions with anything like the speed at which you stopped the consumption. I think we might have been better prepared, but no human agency could have prevented this great overflow. Do hon. Members suggest that this climax could have been avoided? I have heard it said that the Government should have known that the German collapse was imminent. It was clearly foreseen, more dearly by those of us who were actively concerned in the supply of munitions than by the general public. But we had to maintain pressure; we dare not relax. What Government would have been justified in allowing the Minister of Munitions to lower his pressure by one fraction before complete victory had been secured? The Ministry was hurriedly established at a time of unexampled national peril under the administration of the Prime Minister, but for whose long vision and rertile imagination we could never have hoped to reach the immense equipment and supply of the Allied Armies in 1917. Is it to be wondered at that the flow took time to stanch? Is it surprising that it is taking time and a large staff to liquidate the £145,000,000 of contracts that were in being at the time of the Armistice, having regard to the infinite complexity and the enormity of the task in assessing compensation due for work partially produced? Moreover, in the staffing of that Ministry the Civil Servants formed a
  1898
  mere sprinkling, and were not enough to go round. All honour, I say to them, for the magnificent work they did in a staff which consisted mainly of people drawn from the commercial and professional classes, and which at headquarters numbered 25,000 people.
  Reference has been made to the question of accounts. I admit that the early records were not such as one would wish, but we must have regard to the conditions under which we were working. I speak as one who has been through it, and I tell the Committee we had the choice of helping to win the war without complete records of our transactions, with the alternative of having complete records of how we lost. The Committee will perhaps forgive me for saying so much on the subject, but I have done so because I have been smarting for so long against the unjust attacks made upon the Ministry, and I felt it was my duty to mention every point of importance. There is one strong criticism which I intend to make, and I could probably make twenty for every criticism hon. Members made here. It is not a criticism of the Ministry of Munitions, but of the Government, and it is that there have been five successive Ministers of Munitions. The Prime Minister was the first, and we then had the present Secretary of State for India and the present Minister of Health for seven or eight months, and the present Secretary of State for War for 12 or 14 months, and then the present Minister, Lord Inverforth. When the Ministry was once on its feet and there were other calls for the energising vigour of the Prime Minister, I say that the Ministry should have been put in the charge of a commercial man. I speak with the highest respect of the distinguished statesmen whom I have mentioned, but I do not think they were the men for the position. What happened? This Ministry, to use an Alpine simile, became a kind of rest house for political mountaineers ascending or descending the political mountain. I think that that was really a bad administrative blunder on the part of the Government.
  There were plenty of men of good business acumen who could have taken charge of the supply of munitions undiverted by political considerations and who would have secured greater efficiency with less costly results. That kind of man would have continued in office without the temptation to use the position as a point

  1899
  from which to march to a more permanent political position. It was not till the War was over that this was done, and then a shrewd, experienced business man heroically undertook to clear up. He did so with his eyes open. He knew what he was facing and the thanks he would get, and I say it was very courageous of him to undertake the task. It was almost superhuman, and immensely increased both as to cost and complexity by three relays of politicians. The Ministry of Shipping was entirely in charge of a business man, and I think it has been the great administrative success of the War. There was also the case of the Ministry of Food. The brilliant success of Lord Inverforth's administration, not only in the present Ministry, but in his previous Government activities as Surveyor-General of Supplies, has culminated in the last few weeks in the sale of Slough, which has completely confounded his critics in both Houses of Parliament and in Fleet Street. Who is to say that a better bargain might not have been made in Slough? Here I am speaking entirely on my own. I know nothing about the transaction, but I have a shrewd suspicion that the gentlemen who have bought Slough know that they are going to make a very fine thing out of it. Lord Inverforth has been justified in his manipulation of the Slough problem. He sold it to-day because the Government had to sell it. Who is to say, if he held it, what would have happened? I believe he could have made a far finer bargain if he had held it for a considerable time.
  The business of the Ministry is proceeding in an orderly and business-like manner to completion. The Financial Secretary has told us how it has been done. I take the impotent fury of a section of the Press and others as a testimony to the efficient administration of this Department. I am taking part in this Debate because I think it is my duty to do so. The Minister is certainly not aware of a single word I am saying, and what I have said is entirely on my own responsibility. I do so, not on behalf of the Minister or the Department, but in the interests of efficient administration of the business of the country, and in the interests of our splendid Civil Service. Hon. Members generally speak in eulogistic terms of our Civil Service, but we have just heard the
  1900
  suggestion of maladministration by officials in the Ministry of Munitions. We have the case of Mr. Hankinson and Mr. Bright and others brought up. I know nothing about the details of those cases, but they are cases which arise very largely and inevitably from the stress of demobilisation, where thousands have been turned out of work. Many of them are disgruntled about losing their job, but in nine cases out of ten they can be disposed of if you go to the man who knows all about them. Let us criticise by all means that are fair, but in the name of commonsense and expediency let us avoid malicious criticism and harassing methods, which do no good and only obstruct sound administration, and which shakes the confidence of the people in the Government on which they depend and which contribute to unrest, which is manifested in the kind of documents which we receive asking us to pay particular attention to extravagance of Government Departments, and stating that that is the entire cause of the rise of prices, and assuring us that the people who send the documents will watch our political future in accordance with our stand on this question. That is the kind of nonsense we are getting. It does not matter for us here so much who understand what it all means but it is a serious matter in the Member's constituency when he finds all this talk of Government extravagance as mainly being the cause of high prices. It takes a great deal of time to dispose of it, and it is shaking the confidence of the country. I think it is about time that we got on to another tack and that we should speak to the people about this country standing to-day on a pinnacle of fame and potential prosperity such as it has never been on before. We talk about our debt of 8,000 millions, but what is our potential capacity for liquidating that compared with our capacity for liquidating the debt of 800 millions of the Napoleonic Wars. Do not hold out the bait of Government extravagance or reduction of debt as being a short cut to low prices, because there is no short cut to low prices. If you allow your tradesmen and your workmen to work undeterred you will soon get back your £8,000,000,000.
  Colonel BOWLES: I listened with some disappointment to the remarks of the last speaker, who was so closely connected

  1901
  with this Ministry, because I had hoped he would have given us further enlightenment. What I suffer from is not a desire to make unfounded statements, but rather to glean what is likely to be the future of the Ministry. The Financial Secretary, in a very clear way, gave us a very full statement of the work the Ministry performed during the past year, but what concerns me most is to know what is really the devolution that is going to take place in the Ministry in the near future. We heard of the sale of Slough, not with' any surprise on my part, because after a conversation I had some time ago with Lord Inverforth, I was certain that Slough would turn out to be an official asset to this country. But there are other matters connected with the very wide scope of this Ministry that I must honestly admit I want some enlightenment upon. We are told there are certain works that are going to be handed back to other Deparments. I want to know if those other Departments have been considted as to whether they are the exact and particular institutions that they most desire, and whether there have been any committees or meetings between the War Office and Ministry to decide as to whether they would prefer to carry on at Waltham Abbey or at the other large works at Gretna Green. I, have been shown a very short resume of a Committee that was appointed by the Minister of Munitions to report upon Gretna Green, but I fancy that, although we have had only a few days in which to consider these estimates, we ought to have some fuller understanding as to exactly what is going to take place in the immediate future before we pass this Vote.
  It is not very often that I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), but on this occasion I feel that we are asked to give our vote for a sum of money which we do not clearly, as individuals, understand. I am naturally interested in one part of the work which the Minister of Munitions has under his charge, and that is the factory in my own constituency, and I should like to know if the ordnance factories are going to be handed over to the War Office, who is to take the responsibility for what is going on, and what is being carried on at these factories at the present moment. quite appreciate the difficulties of explaining this Vote, and I cannot blame the hon. Member for Sheffield for not giving us wider information than he has done,
  1902
  but I cannot help feeling that if the hon. Member who was the Secretary for this Ministry before could have given us fuller information we should not have at this moment to seek for information which ought to be in the hands of the Committee before the Vote comes up for consideration. I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield will be able to give us full information before we are asked to give our vote this evening, because otherwise I am afraid I shall have to follow the right hon. Member for Peebles into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I desire to get some information in relation to some of the factories that are still in existence. In all this criticism of the Ministry of Munitions we on this side, if we criticise it at all, criticise it from quite a different point of view. We do not agree that the Ministry has not accomplished a very great work in its time. In fact, I think the Ministry of Munitions has in many ways, not only in the production of those things necessary for war, but even from a business point of view, been a remark able success. I remember asking my hon. Friend across the floor of the House, in relation to the costings department of the Ministry, to tell me the expenses of that department and the amount of money that had been saved by the Ministry to the State in contract prices as a result of the work of that department and I was surprised at the figures that were given. The cost of the costings department was £75,000, and the saving to the State on contract prices was stated to be £300,000,000. That, in my estimation, was in itself a very great success on the part of the Ministry, because if contract prices had not been checked in that way, probably the debt of the country would have been considerably greater. I do not suppose that anyone expected that the Ministry of Munitions was going to be a permanent institution in this country, but some of us did expect that the good work that it had accomplished in establishing national factories in this country would be retained, that they would be utilised for necessary work connected with other Government Departments, and it is with some regret that we now learn that Slough has been disposed of. I have had the pleasure of visiting-Slough, and I felt greatly impressed by the possibilities of that place, and I was hoping that it would

  1903
  continue to be a Government factory. I do not agree that there was anything to be said of a critical character about them putting a corrugated iron fence round Slough.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It was quite unnecessary.
  Mr. YOUNG: It was very necessary indeed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member aware that there was a high wire fence, which had been in existence for some months there, and that all that the corrugated iron fence has done is to be put outside the wire fence to protect people from the barbed wire?
  Mr. YOUNG: Whether there was a fence before or not, the fence put up was put up for a purpose, the purpose of making Slough like what every other factory should be, immune from any individual getting in except by the correct entrances, and I would not object to them using new corrugated iron for that purpose, seeing that they had it in their possession. Why should we build Government institutions with second-hand or rusty materials? If we are going to have Government factories, they ought to be the best in every respect, whether they are being built for retention or for sale, and I have no doubt that having a good fence round Slough has contributed considerably towards the deal that has taken place. I rejoice to know that in this deal it has been done with a profit to the State, but I would prefer that it should have been retained and worked profitably for the State, and therefore we on these Benches do not criticise the Ministry because they have not been in a hurry to dispose of these factories. We believe they can be utilised in many ways. For instance, I want to know what is being done at Enfield Lock, at Waltham Abbey, and at Gretna Green. At Enfield Lock, I believe, before the War there were some 1,800 employees. They rose during the War to 10,000, and they have again dropped to about the pre-War figure. I understand that 600 or thereabouts of those are discharged men, and I also understand that the factory is likely to be handed over to the War Office, but if so, I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea of what is going to be the minimum number of people who are to be employed
  1904
  at Enfield Lock, because I understand there are something like 2,000 machines, maybe more, in that establishment, including, of course, forges and steam-hammers, and I believe they are all out of use now except about 200 of them. Are they being kept in good condition, or are they rusting, or are you going to sell them, and if so, why? Why is it that you cannot, seeing you appeal to us on these benches to do what we can on behalf of discharged men, use these factories in the interests of the discharged men, and not do what you are doing at Enfield Lock to-day, calling the discharged soldiers up for medical examination and giving many of them intimation that they will be discharged? That is a very serious thing indeed.
  At Enfield Lock you have a factory which is well equipped. It is a factory which turns out, I believe, rifles, bayonets, and swords, and all along the line it has been of great use to the nation, and that being so, I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have some information as to what is going to become of Enfield Lock. What is also going to be the minimum number of men to be employed there, and have you taken into consideration the fact that round that district at the present moment there are thousands of men on the unemployment fund who, as I say, could very well be occupied by doing work for other Government Departments, such as the Post Office? There are motor parts which could be attended to, and small engine parts, and there are various other things that could very well be done to keep Enfield Lock going without in any way depreciating its value or lessening its possible use. Then I want to refer to Waltham Abbey and Gretna Green. If we cannot retain some of these factories, and they have to be disposed of, let us at all events put those which are to be retained to the best use possible. Gretna is a very large establishment. It was put up in a hurry. Some parts of it will have to be reconstructed in a few years. To transfer work from Waltham Abbey to Gretna Green seems to me to be anything but the correct method to pursue, because the Waltham Abbey factory is an excellent one for turning out cordite, black and brown powder, gun-cotton and, I believe, also some chemicals. At Gretna they have only turned out one kind of cordite, but there is a rumour—I do not know if it can be substantiated—that much of the

  1905
  work that has been done at Waltham Abbey is going to be transferred to Gretna. There may be very good reasons, but I want to know what they are, if there are any. I want to know why we are taking work away from Waltham, which is a factory well equipped for the work, and transferring it to Gretna Green, and especially that work for which the factory at Gretna is not really the correct kind?
  If the hon. Member can assure me on these points, I shall certainly be very much obliged, because, as he can realise, we on this side of the House get communications from these various places, I suppose because we belong to our trade unions, and we learn from the men what they think. I, therefore, earnestly ask that we may have, before this discussion ends, some clear indication of what is going to happen with Enfield Lock, with Gretna Green, with Waltham Abbey, and, here I may say I do not think I heard my hon. Friend say that Waltham Abbey is going to be handed over to the War Office, and, consequently it seems all the more necessary that we should be told what is going to be done with it. In conclusion, I say again I think that the criticism against the gentlemen who helped the Ministry of Munitions during the War is very much to be regretted. I think we are very much indebted to them in many directions. We were all expected to give what little contribution we could to the country at that time, and I think it is a little bit unkind to make criticisms against men who have undoubtedly rendered great service, and did it with the best intentions in the world. I feel it would be unfortunate if it were thought that we on the Labour Benches joined in aspersions on those gentlemen.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down rather misunderstood the question of the fence at Slough. I travel to Slough certainly once, if not twice, every week, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was necessary to have a fence. But there was a most excellent fence, at least seven feet high with barbed wire, six inches, if as much, apart, and that fence was erected some months ago. Standards were made for creosoted wood to be close together. Being made of barbed wire, with stranded wire only a few inches wide, and having a sort of crook at the top of the fence, anyone
  1906
  trying to get over the fence hit his head against the barbed wire coming down. Lately they have put up, outside that barbed wire fence, about six or seven corrugated iron sheets, about six or seven feet in height, so that now the barbed wire, so far as I can see from the train, is hidden by the corrugated iron. It may be that a corrugated iron fence is better than a barbed wire fence. I should not have thought so, but I may be wrong. At any rate, you do not want, first of all, to put up a barbed wire fence, and afterwards put up corrugated iron, outside. It looks to me as if the corrugated iron is quite new,
  Mr. HOPE: I hope we shall get thin corrugated iron out of the way of the discussion. It was already the property of the Ministry, and they would have had to sell it if it had not been used in this way.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then they had much better have sold it, and got the money for it, instead of putting it up unnecessarily. I, as an economist, do not wish to see people employed doing unnecessary work. May I deal with the question of Slough? I offer the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to do so, my sincere congratulations upon the sale of Slough, and I sincerely trust the Government have made a profit out of it. But I think it is a little premature to arrive at the conclusion that a profit has been made. I hope my hon Friend did not mind my interruption a short time ago, but the sale seems to me to have been of this character. I am a purchaser desirous of buying Slough—the site, the buildings and the motor vehicles upon it—and I go to my hon. Friend and say, "Will you sell it to me?" He says, "What do you want to buy?" And I say, "I want to buy the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, including the corrugated iron." Says my hon. Friend, "What will you give for it?" I say, "I will give £7,000,000 for it." My hon. Friend says, "Yes, but does it matter to you how that £7,000,000 is divided? I shall make it a condition of the sale that you give me £3,600,000 for the site and buildings, and £3,500,000 for the motor vehicles which are there." I say, "I really do not care. I have eventually to give you £7,000,000, and it is a matter of perfect indifference to me how you arrive at it. Therefore I agree." I do not say that has been done, but before

  1907
  we arrive at any certainty as to whether a profit has been made upon the buildings and the site, we must know what is the real value of these motor vehicles which are included in the sale. My hon. Friend tells the Committee—I think I am right in saying—that the motor vehicles were sold for £3,600,000, and that there was to be a further sum—I have not a word to say against this—given to the Government if the motor vehicles realised more than a certain sum. But this sum which was to be given to the Government was not to begin to accrue until the motor vehicles had realised £5,000,000, after which a certain proportion of that £5,000,000—I think my hon. Friend said 40 per cent., but it does not matter what it was—was to be given to the Government. The statements in the papers—I do not know whether they were authorised—and I might almost venture to think the statement of my hon. Friend, led the House to suppose that there would be a further sum accrue from the sale of the motor vehicles. I hope there will be, but, in order that that further sum may accrue, it is necessary that the motor vehicles realise more than £5,000,000. They are to be sold at £3,600,000, and to begin with there is a profit—
  Mr. HOPE: More motor vehicles, probably, will be thrown up in the future, and they will swell the amount coming to the purchaser. When he begins to get his profit we come in, and we take a share of the realisation, whether he has made a profit over the £5,000,000 or not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not really follow that. There must be a profit of £1,400,000
  Mr. HOPE: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish to contradict my hon. Friend. He knows more about it than I do. But that is how the matter appears to me, and I really do not quite understand it. However that may be, is it not a fact that we were told that the spare parts of these motor vehicles which are included in the sale were something like fifteen millions? I will not be absolutely certain, but my recollection is that there was some statement of that sort made. My hon. Friend told us that there were 15,000 motor vehicles in the place, and, so far as I
  1908
  understand, they are to be sold for £3,600,000. A simple calculation will show the Committee that that is £240 a piece for the motor vehicles, which is not a very large sum.
  Mr. HOPE: A great number are hopeless cripples.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Was it worth while to bring hopeless cripples from Rich-borough to put behind this beautiful fence at Slough? However, I do not want to raise any criticism upon this, because I hope I am mistaken. I daresay I shall know something more about it when I do my duty on the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I hope I shall find that there is a large profit upon this particular transaction. I want to ask one or two other questions. This is a very small thing, but I think I had better raise it now, because it does really show the difficulties which people, who are desirous of assisting the State in realising these various properties, have to put up with. I happen to be chairman of the Great Northern Railway, and we erected, at the request of the Government, a platform of sleepers during the War. As the Committee know, the railway companies were very short of sleepers, and when the Armistice took place my general manager came to me and said: "We have got this platform "—it was composed of very good sleepers—" do you not think we might get the Disposal Board to allow us to buy these sleepers and put them in the road? The platform is not being used, and they would be far better in the road than standing doing nothing in the platform." I said," Certainly." We never could get an answer from the Disposal Board until a fortnight ago. We have got the letter; I told my general manager to keep it. They said: "We have had all your letters, and will set up a committee to consider it." I can produce that letter. I am sorry to say this in the presence of the hon. Gentleman who is so very keen to eulogise the business acumen of the Department, but is it conceivable that, in a small matter like this, concerning a respectable company like the Great Northern Railway Company, it should be necessary to set up a committee to consider whether or not these things should be taken out of the platform and put into the road?
  7.0 P.M.
  I see there are five new private secretaries appointed, with salaries ranging

  1909
  from £500 to £950. Why have five new-secretaries in a dying Department? If the work is decreasing, surely these are not wanted? One ranks, I note, as an assistant secretary, and of the others apparently there are two Civil servants on loan. I do not know why these two Civil servants require to be borrowed. In any case I should like to know what is the reason for appointing five more private secretaries. I rather agree with the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean). This Department is going to be done away with. These Estimates were prepared before it was settled that the Department was to be done away with, and we should really know why it is considered necessary to go through all these Estimates, and whether it would not have been much simpler to have had a short Estimate showing what the cost of the Department will be under the altered circumstances. I presume it will be very much less. There is an item of £950,000 for the inspection of armament, small arms, mechanical transport and mechanical warfare, steel building materials, and so on, and the wages alone come to £550,000 (page 9). This seems an enormous expenditure for people in a Department which is going shortly to be demobilised. There is a note here to the effect that the figure is based on a personnel of 4,211 persons, and that the establishment is under review at the present moment. I am glad to know it is, in view of all the circumstances.
  Mr. HOGGE: Probably there will be a reply on the discussion when we shall know more precisely than we have yet been told what is the actual position of the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposal Board. A great deal has been said about this being a dying Department, but nobody has mentioned the exact date of its funeral. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who introduced these Estimates if it is the case that the Disposal Board and the Ministry of Munitions will definitely come to an end on 31st July, or 1st August, or 31st August, or what is the actual date, because, after all, if he will tell us straight away, it means a great difference in the amount of criticism. Can my right hon. Friend say?
  Mr. HOPE: No, I cannot. The work of liquidation and disposal means going
  1910
  on as long as there is anything to dispose of. The other functions of the Ministry, manufacture and purchase, will be got rid of to the appropriate departments at the earliest possible moment. How the rest of the work is to be carried on is a matter the Government are now considering and about which I am not authorised to make any statement.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend has in three sentences given the exact and complete case for the Government taking back this Estimate now and coming again afterwards to the House. It is perfectly obvious that we are going on until there is practically nothing to liquidate, but surely my hon. Friend does not mean by that that he would never keep in being such machinery of organisation to liquidate a few hundred thousand pounds worth of goods. If, on the other hand, as he says, the question of purchase and so on will be stopped at the earliest possible moment which presumably might be to-morrow, if it can be achieved, or next month; if in addition, as he says, the Government of which he is at the present moment a Member is considering what shall be done with the Ministry of Munitions, whether its work shall be altogether devolved on other Departments, say on the War Office and the Admiralty, surely, in these circumstances it is folly to ask the House of Commons now to discuss in detail and to invite criticism which can have no real relevance to the position. After all, it is useless for my hon. Friend and his hon. colleague beside him (Mr. Kellaway) to reply. Surely what I have stated is the case as we find it now.
  Personally I am going to refrain altogether on that account from discussing in detail many of the items that are set out in these pages before me. I am perfectly certain that that is the view which is taken by this Committee. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Chadwick) read us a lecture on criticism and said that we should not attack the Ministry of which he himself was at one time a member. I do not think we want to make that kind of criticism. What he said was, it was all nonsense, for instance, for Members to talk about rising prices, as that kind of language was leading to revolution in the country.
  Mr. CHADWICK: The word was "unrest,"
  Mr. HOGGE: Well, unrest, or revolution would follow. It was the duty of this House during the War, while knowing that the Ministry of Munitions had made, or was bound to make mistakes and to waste money, not perhaps to criticise too harshly. You cannot take that attitude now that the War is over; now that taxation is high and now that everybody has got to contribute to that taxation. It is now the duty of the House of Commons to examine the Estimates in such a way as to achieve a reduction in these charges on the taxpayer. That is a much more salutary exercise to engage in than to make a lot of stir, either in this House, or outside of it, or in the Press. I want to confine myself entirely to one point, for in the position in which the Committee finds itself we are really not discussing the Estimates. The Slough depot aspect of the case has not been tackled this afternoon, if I may say so, from quite the right angle. The Government have adopted what I may describe as a Box and Cox attitude towards the Slough depot. The House will remember that the Government wished to acquire Slough. They acquired it on certain grounds. They proved their case to this House by means of certain arguments, every one of which denoted the policy by which the Government sought, through Slough, to set up an effective organisation which would operate in such a way that the nation would make money from it year by year. I have in front of me a quotation from a speech by the Minister of War who was defending on this occasion the Government attitude in regard to Slough. He said:—
  "The central purpose and policy which has been pursued by the Government are the same, and the great bulk of the needs to meet which that policy is designed are the same, namely, that there should be in peace, as in war, for the future, whether under the War Office or under the Ministry of Munitions and supply a large central Government depot for the storage, repair, and maintenance of Government mechanical vehicles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1919, Col. 678, Vol. 114.]
  The Government ought in this Estimate to defend the policy by which a few months ago, March, 1919, they came to this House and insisted, in spite of the Committee which then reported to both Houses of Parliament, that we should have Slough. Either the case was sound
  1912
  then or it was not sound. If it be true that the Government require this depôt for these purposes, if it be true that as a result of acquiring that depôt and carrying on there this business they were were making a profit for the State, then it is up to the Government to-day to prove to us that the bargain which they are proposing to make, which is not yet completed, is going, at any rate, to result in as good if not a better profit to the State.
  I asked the Leader of the House the other day whether we should be put in possession of the actual contract for this Slough depot before we discussed these Estimates. The House was told that as a matter of fact this would not be available, but that we should receive the heads of the agreement. I very respectfully suggest that we have not up till to-day received the heads of the agreement. I wonder if the House realises what is being done. Is it possible, for example, that we should rise to-morrow morning and read in our newspapers that the War Office had sold the War Office in Whitehall for the purposes of an hotel, or that the Admiralty had sold the buildings in the Horse Guards for a lodging house? This House of Commons and the rest of the world wakes up one morning and reads for the first time, that Slough, which belongs to the nation, upon which the nation has spent any amount of money, the proposal to spend which money was attacked at the time as unnecessary, has been sold. At that time we were browbeaten by the Government for suggesting it was not a good undertaking. We were told that everything in the Slough gardens was perfectly lovely. What right, and on what principle, has the Ministry of Munitions the power to sell Slough, either through Lord Inver forth or any other member of the Disposal Board, without the consent of this Committee? If a Government Department can sell undertakings of that size at their own sweet will without the consent of this Committee, which at the moment is looking after the interests of the taxpayer, then a Government Department can do anything. The Government made Slough a question of policy. Lord Inver-forth, in giving evidence, made it quite plain that there were substantial reasons in his mind why Slough should be retained. Here is an answer given by Lord lnverforth in cross-examination by Earl

  1913
  Russell, in which, talking about the future of Slough, his Lordship said that he understood that the Minister of Ways and Means (now the Minister of Transport) had in contemplation the buying up of the railheads for motor transport. The Government had a policy which they scrapped in a night, and the only intimation which the Government gets about it is an announcement in the "Observer" newspaper in an interview with Lord Inverforth on a Sunday morning. That is not the way to do national business, and it is not fair to this House. Morn-over, it is not in consonance with the promise given by the Leader of the House that we should be discussing Slough this afternoon without the heads of the agreement.
  Mr. HOPE: I do not think my right hon. Friend said that. I did not mean to read the heads of his agreement, but I will if hon. Members wish it. It will take a long time, and hon. Members will not understand half of them.
  Mr. HOGGE: Now we are told that we should not be able to understand half of the heads of the agreement if they were road out to is. That does not seem much appreciation of the intelligence of most of us who have to criticise the things which the Government attempt to do. I am perfectly certain that at any rate we could not make a worse attempt at trying to untierstand them than the Disposal Board in disposing of many of the things of which they have had control during the last few months. My hon. Friend is in charge of this Vote, which again is not fair to the House of Commons. The Minister of Munitions has been sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, and he is a man who knows this subject from top to bottom, and he could have been at the disposal of the House but for the fact that he had been sent to the Department of Overseas Trade. You have here the hon. Member who represents the Overseas Trade Department, and who has worked out all the details, and yet another Member of the Government is placed in charge, and the smartest thing he can say is that if he reads out the heads of the agreement on the Slough bargain that we shall not be able to understand half of them.
  I do not want to know the heads of the agreement. This House asks for the
  1914
  terms of the contract. We were promised the heads of the agreement, and might I respectfully suggest that there was a perfectly simple way of acquainting the Members of the Committee as to the terms of the agreement by giving us the document that we could not understand by reading it out. The hon. Member could have circulated the agreement as a White Paper, and then we should have been able to appreciate the arguments used by the Government. All the hon. Member has said is that there are 15,000 motor vehicles, of which he thinks 10,000 can be made sound, and those along with any other vehicles that are to be thrown out by the Army, and I presume the Air Force, are to be sent to the purchaser, whoever he may be.
  Mr. HOPE: Sir Percival Perry.
  Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Member did not give that information in his speech. I do not know who Sir Percival Perry is, but I am sure he is not buying it for himself. It is not an individual transaction. I understand in regard to those vehicles, they are to realise a profit up to £5,000,000?
  Mr. HOPE: No. We get our price, £3,650,000, and if the purchaser realises more than £5,000,000, then we take a share.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then £5,000,000 must be reached before a profit can be made. Extra vehicles may be thrown out and the percentage increases as the amount of money realised increases, and after £5,000,000 you are to have 50 per cent. of the extra. That cannot possibly be all he knows about the heads of this agreement. We want to know what has happened at Slough since the Government took it over. Have the figures set out in this Report been realised? What money has been drawn from sales at Slough, and where is it? Where can we see it? The Committee reported that they were unable to fix the probable cost of the works, but they feared that the estimate of £1,750,000 plus 15 per cent. would be exceeded. Has Slough cost more than £1,750,000? What has it cost for administration? On the other side, we want to know what has been received from the sale of these resuscitated and revived motor-cars, the chief product of the factory, and which, if I remember

  1915
  rightly, I think we were told that the number of vehicles there would be no fewer than 36,000 lorries and 2,600 motorcycles. My hon. Friend mentioned 15,000 vehicles, which is obviously a much less figure. We would like to know what has happened in the interval.
  Mr. HOPE: To what is the hon. Member referring?
  Mr. HOGGE: I am referring to page 162 of the evidence of the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. That was the kind of estimate they gave us at that time, and the figure used this afternoon was £15,000.
  Mr. HOPE: Those are vehicles thrown out mostly by the War Office for disposal, which they do not want to keep. The other was an estimate of the gross amount in the Army and other Departments at the time.
  Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree. Before you can say that the profit proposed to be made at Slough is real we want to be put into possession of the facts. That is the kind of argument one could develop if it were really appropriate to do it at this moment. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member opposite took a great interest in these financial discussions, and frequently intervened, and I want to appeal to him as to whether he cannot see his way now to move to report progress. After all, there are 20 Supply Days before we dispose of our financial business. My hon. Friend has got £12,000,000 already at his disposal out of the Vote on Account, and therefore he does not require this money to-day, next week, or next month. He admits that the Government are dealing with the question of what the Munitions Department should do. He has also agreed that other, services may be transferred which may mean a re-arrangement of certain Estimates, and in view of these facts there is no urgency. We want to discuss these matters with the actual figures and circumstances before us, and my hon. Friend will lose nothing, and will not lose any prestige by taking this course, and he will be meeting the wishes of the House and the Members of the Committee.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: In this Debate the actions of the Disposal Board have been submitted to some criticism, and it has not been answered. Under
  1916
  these circumstances I think it would be very unfair to allow it to go out that with regard to disposal of Government property there is no answer to those criticisms.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity of replying to those criticisms on a later occasion, or he may be able to do it to-night. When I say that we should report progress, I do not mean at once, but we might report progress soon. Certainly some reply is required to the criticisms which have been made. That reply can be made, and then we can report progress, but I want us to get down to the position of debating these things on a solid foundation with the facts in front of us. I make that appeal to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. HOPE: I should be very sorry to deprive any hon. Member of an opportunity of replying to the criticisms which have been made, but if I accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend at this moment it would imply the presentation of new Estimates. Without further careful consideration, I am not sure whether that can be done. Exactly what the extent of the transfer would be, and what extra staff will go to the other Departments, I cannot say. But if the discussion can go along for a little while longer I will make inquiry of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who, of course, is responsible to this House for presenting the Estimates, and see if it will be possible to do as has been suggested. But I must not be understood to make any promise. Of course, the auditors' report as to the position of Slough, and the capital and working profits, will be laid if my hon. Friend insists. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members would prefer to wait, however, until the whole matter has been examined into.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I think what my hon. Friend has just said is very reasonable. It would not be fair to expect him to give a definite promise here and now to present new Estimates on any specific date or within a period which may be named. It is quite possible that the decision which the Government has come to will need a large measure of careful accommodation between the numerous Departments concerned. But after a general discussion has taken place it might be as well to report progress on the

  1917
  understanding that the hon. Gentleman is going to consider carefully, with his colleagues, and with the Ministry, whether it may not be practicable at no distant date to present to the Committee new Estimates, so that hon. Members may consider them with the actual position before them. I think my hon. Friend's proposal is a very reasonable one, which the Committee ought to accept.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: After my interruption of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) I rise with a certain amount of diffidence, as I am afraid the Committee may be under the impression I feared I might be deprived of an opportunity of making a speech. I can assure the Committee I am not at all anxious to do that. But I have had to deal with the work of this Department, and there are certain matters to which I wish to refer. There has been a great deal of criticism of the Ministry of Munitions and of the Disposal Board, and much of it has been very unfair; indeed, much of it has been ignorant criticism. No sensible man objects to criticism; in fact, he welcomes it. But the art of criticism is the art of coming to a sound judgment, and if one contemplates what has been said of the Ministry of Munitions and of the Disposal Board, one is forced to the conclusion that criticism is rapidly becoming a lost art. I hope the House will forgive me if I indulge in a short personal reminiscence of which I am always reminded when I hear these charges made against this Department. Some years ago I was a member of a deputation which visited a great engineering undertaking belonging to one of our principal municipalities. It was a water undertaking, by means of which a small stream running through a deep valley had been converted into a vast lake supplying a million of people with excellent water at a distance of over 100 miles. I was vividly impressed by the greatness and vastness of the undertaking. But from contemplation of the immensity of the task accomplished I was brought back to earth by another member of the deputation who had espied an old donkey engine rusting in a field near by, and who cried, "That is the way in which the ratepayers' money is wasted." That is the spirit in which a great many people approach the work of the Ministry of Munitions. They lose sight of the
  1918
  immensity of its task and forget that the Ministry is one of the wonders of the War. When the full history of the War comes to be written, I believe the Ministry will rank as one of the greatest achievements of the time, and I venture to think that not the least successful part of its work has been the manner in which surplus stores have been disposed of.
  We have heard a great deal about Slough. We have heard from the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) of the sale of hundreds of thousands of the essentials of industry. We have heard of the injustices suffered by some of the officials. There may have boon a certain amount of injustice, but remember we have had to deal with a temporary organisation, and while I do not admit that the allegations are correct, I do admit there is a possibility of injustice having happened when dealing with people of that class. But I venture to suggest that far too much has been made of Slough. It is no doubt a very important place. After all, however, it is a mere incident in the work of the Department. We have sold it for £7,000,000. For the week ending Feb. 21st we sold stores to the value of £7,000,000, and we have recently been selling at the rate of from £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 a week, further we have had to deal with an immense national problem. The manner in which we disposed of ferrous and non-ferrous material has not been made the subject of protest here, but the moment we touch upon Slough it catches the eye of a great many people. It is a striking instance, according to them, of Government mismanagement and neglect. I was not at the Ministry myself when Slough was purchased, and I do not propose, therefore, to deal with that portion of the incident.
  If I deal with Slough generally, I hope the House will realise that I only do so because this is the kind of thing which does much harm and hinders our work. Instances of this kind are distorted in the public mind. The public do not want to believe we have managed successfully, and a certain section of the Press have used this as a whip with which to beat the Government. We were blamed for buying Slough; we are now blamed for selling it. We were blamed for not protecting our property, and when we sought to protect it, we were blamed for

  1919
  doing so. We were blamed for establishing a Government workshop. We are blamed now we are handing it over to private hands. Soma of the points put forward are very small, but still they stick in the public mind, and I want to reply to them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) criticised us for placing a corrugated iron fence around the property at Slough. We only did it because we found it necessary. I have had experience in dealnig with barbed wire during the past four or five years, and I say that no barbed wire is adequate protection in a case like this, and that is why we put a corrugated iron fence around the property. The hon. Baronet says that we ought to have sold the corrugated iron. Well, we have sold it. It is included in the sale of Slough, and I maintain that we have done very good business for the country in selling Slough. We have realised a substantial profit, and we have also entered into arrangements with the purchasers which will enable us to get a percentage of profits after the realisation has produced certain figures. I am sure that the realisation will be very satisfactory.
  I have had a letter from one of my constituents in which he complains of the shamefully inefficient manner in which the surplus Government stores have been handled. But I want to try and get into the mind particularly of the business community which I represent that in this matter we have had an immense and difficult task, and I suggest that on the whole we have performed it with extraordinary efficiency. The House has heard this afternoon about the Business Committee which was appointed to deal with this matter. May I explain how that Committee went to work? It proceeded first to organise. It arranged for the disposal of the property by different sections. It established a special section for finance, another section for dealing with export trade, another for advertising, and still another for dealing with the requirements of Colonial Governments and local Government authorities in this country. Each of these sections was represented by a group Member. Each section was divided into sub-sections at the head of which was a controller, an expert, and under the controller were sectional directors who managed the affairs of the De-
  1920
  partments. Most of these sectional directors were civil servants. Some were experts. Many of them gave their services for nothing. There was nothing wrong with our organisation, and if it has ever failed it is because organisation will fail from time to time when it depends on the human element.
  Having decided upon its organisation, the Board set to work to fix upon its policy. That policy was to sell quickly, to sell at home, and to sell at the market rate, and that policy has been consistently carried out. I am going to ask this Committee to exercise a little imagination in considering the task which this Board had to deal with. Although the task of the Ministry of Munitions was a great task it was comparatively simple until it came to the disposal of its surplus. The essentials of war had to be bought, and those essentials were passed immediately to various Government Departments—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and so on. There was an outlet for them. We, on the contrary, had to deal with stores that were manufactured for the purposes of war, and for the purposes of war only, and we had to find an outlet for commodities which, in the great majority of cases, were not marketable. It is an open secret that, if the War had lasted, as it was expected to last, for another year, we were going to have an immense spectacular offensive in France, the greatest the world had ever seen. It would have been an offensive compared with which the fighting as Passchendale and on the Somme in the early part of 1918 were mere skirmishes. The preparations for that offensive naturally left the Ministry of Munitions with enormous stores in every theatre of war—in France, Belgium, Egypt, Salonika, and many other places. There were stores on order in America, Canada, and other countries, as well as at home. There were stores in isolated districts. There were millions of yards of cloth at Bradford, and of cotton goods at Manchester; there were stores in works, on quays, in factories, and even under railway arches. Those were the stores with which the Disposal Board had to deal. I maintain that, in the liquidation of those stocks, which has been constant, steady, and is approaching completion, the Board has carried out its duty with extraordinary efficiency.
  It has been said that we should compare ourselves with business under-

  1921
  takings, but I suggest that there is no business undertaking with which you can compare the Disposal Board. Our task has been completely different. In our case the problem of ordinary industrial enterprise has been reversed. Most of the large industrial undertakings which I know of, and I know of a good many, deal with commodities for which they have established a market. They have established that market with an organisation of long standing, which has taken years to build up, and the directors of nearly all those undertakings would be the first to admit that, after years of work, their organisations are by no means complete. We are an organisation of mushroom growth, and we have to deal with an exceptional class of commodities. We have to deal with those commodities with an improvised staff, and we have dealt with them remarkably cheaply. The total headquarters staff of the Disposal Board is only 1,500, and its salaries amount to barely £400,000 a year, or less than 6d. per cent. of its turnover. Is there any undertaking which can show a record like that? Can any of our allies show it? America practically gave away her surplus stocks. France, Belgium, and even Germany, have failed to grapple with the problem in the same manner as we have. It has been suggested, and rightly suggested, that this was a process of liquidation, and I think the expenses of that liquidation have been estimated by the Financial Secretary at about 5 per cent., which he said was in fair ratio with the expense of winding-up undertakings in ordinary commercial life. That is not my experience. It has been my misfortune to be interested in one or two liquidations, and, if my experience is any criterion, there is very little left for the creditors after the process of liquidation has been completed.
  The Disposal Board has established a vast improvised organisation, and has dealt with an enormous mass of correspondence. One Department alone has dealt, on an average, with 700 letters a day for the past year, and we have many Departments. It has held 2,400 auction sales, and has completed thousands of transactions by private treaty. It has realised nearly £200,000,000 worth of Government property, and is now selling at the rate of from £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 worth a week, I venture to suggest that that is not a bad record for what has been termed
  1922
  an inefficient and useless Government Department. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) referred to the thousands of tons of stocks which we held. Of all the criticism which has been levelled against this Disposal Board, there is nothing which appeals more to the perverted imagination of a certain section of our critics than the mental spectacle of an autocratic, bureaucratic Disposal Board, sitting like a dog in the manger on hundreds of thousands of tons—millions of pounds worth—of the essential commodities and prime necessities of life. When we point to our sales, we are told that that is nothing, that we do not know what stocks we have, that we have never had a stocktaking, and that there are still millions of pounds worth of stuff to be disposed of. We do know what our stocks are, but we do not always think it advisable to tell. It does not usually help people in business when they disclose what their stocks are, but our stocks are not nearly so large as has been imagined. I think I should be quite safe in telling the Committee that, instead of the figure of £700,000,000, which was placed upon them by one of our leading morning journals, they do not exceed one-seventh of that figure. We never quite know what we are going to have thrown up to us by the various Government Departments. Each Department, quite naturally, throws up stores as it considers it advisable to do so. Many of our stores, too, have to be reduced to produce before we can deal with them. We are charged with holding up millions of tons of the prime necessities of life, and I would like to read some of the items which we have sold during the past few months. They include 17,646 lorries; 8,843 cars; nearly 44,000,000 yards of linen; 17,000,000 yards of linen and cotton cloth; and 9,500,000 yards of serge. Those are transactions which are vast, even to people who have been engaged in large business transactions for a great many years.
  The most vital and difficult problem we have had to deal with was, in my judgment, the disposal of the stocks of ferrous and non-ferrous materials, and I think that is what has been referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall. The Committee will agree with me that, if coal is the backbone of our industrial system, ferrous and non-ferrous materials are its life-blood. At the close of the War the Government held practically all

  1923
  the free stocks of ferrous and non-ferrous materials. It held the market in the hollow of its hand, and it held, not only the market, but practically the whole of our industrial system. There was a shortage of shipping, and manufacturers were anxious to resume operations; the whole country wished to get back to its pre-War industrial basis at the earliest possible moment, and we held the sinews wherewith it was to commence. A very great responsibility therefore rested upon the Department. We were urged to slaughter our stocks. It was known that some of the stocks which we held were sufficient to last the country for one, two, or three years under ordinary circumstances, and we were urged to sell them for what we could get. After anxious deliberation, the Board decided to do nothing of the sort. That policy, I venture to suggest, was the right policy, and has been enormously beneficial in the resumption of our ordinary work. If we had slaughtered those stocks, there would inevitably have been a deflation of prices, which is always an extremely dangerous thing. We should have closed down production and placed the markets at the mercy of speculators, with the inevitable result of a world shortage and a most pernicious effect upon the industry of this country. We were supposed to be hoarding up great stocks of food at a time when food was scarce and expensive. I am going to depart from the ordinary policy of the Board and tell the Committee the value of the food we actually held. We held food to the value of £2,250,000. The food bill of the country is £800,000,000 a year, so that our stocks were worth something less than one day's supply. It was stuff which was manufactured for the purposes of the War. It is war food, and people will not eat it, and we have found considerable difficulty in selling it. That disposes of the suggestion that any food supplies were held up that could be realised in order to reduce the cost of living.
  One further charge made against us is that we might have done something to restore the balance of trade with foreign countries. Exchange is against us in about ten countries of the world, and four of these matter, in my opinion. The most important, of course, is the United States of America. The idea is
  1924
  that we should have exported to America and restored the value of the sovereign in New York. America held, at the end of the War, £300,000,000 worth of surplus stores in France, and sold them at a very much reduced price. It is hardly conceivable that America would have sold her own stores in France and purchased the same class of stores from us. As a matter of fact we had, ourselves, very-considerable stocks of new material in New York, and we decided that it would be to the detriment of British manufacturers, and to the advantage of American manufacturers, to sell in New York. We therefore sold them to an Englishman, on the understanding that he was to bring them over to this country. We have established an export office in the City, which is in touch with export merchants all over the world, and, wherever it is possible to export, we do so. We have evidence that some of the sales of textiles that we have made were ultimately for export, but it would be impossible for us to deal direct with the foreign export trade, because a lot of this material has to be redyed before it is fit for use.
  8.0 P.M.
  I now want to say something with regard to those highly-paid, autocratic, bureaucratic "limpets." What are the facts? We have one gentleman on the Board who gets, I think, £2,500 a year. We have one controller who gets £2,000, and we have three who get £1,500. All the rest get less than £1,500, and the average rate paid by the Board to all its clerical staff is less than £300 a year. Nearly all of these gentlemen are experts. Expert knowledge has a market value to-day which it has never had before, and they are doing this work at considerable personal sacrifice, because most of them served in the Ministry during the War, and have now extended their service in order to wind up the job. It is very hard that they should be subjected to the severe and unjust criticism which is so common. They do not have a 44-hour week; they work all day and every day, and most of them work on Sundays, and I feel that it is only right that someone who knows and appreciates what they have done should say something on their behalf. I have spoken of the work of the Disposal Board because I am a member of it. It may seem that I have to some extent been blowing my own trumpet, but as a matter of fact I did not join it until a great part of its

  1925
  work had been accomplished, and I went there purely as an advisory member and to hold a watching brief for the House of Commons. But sitting there week after week I have been immensely struck with the great services which the gentlemen who compose that Board have rendered. An hon. Member has said that no business man of any eminence has served the Government during the War. I disagree with that statement. I have not very complete knowledge of the number of business men who have given their services to the Government during the War, but I can mention one or two. The head of the Ministry himself, Lord Inverforth, is one of the greatest business men in the United Kingdom. One has only to spend a few moments in his company to realise what great service he has done in taking on this work, because it is very uncongenial to him and very thankless. There is Sir Arthur Goldfinch, the head of the raw material section, whose name is of worldwide repute and who has rendered the greatest possible service. There is Sir William Ellis, a well-known Engineer and a member of the Board, and there are any number of these men. It is impossible to speak too highly of what they have done, and it is extremely wrong to depreciate their work in any way. But that is not all. It is the fashion to criticise the Civil Service and depreciate Civil servants. We owe a great deal to these business men who have given us their time. We owe a great deal to the expert controllers who are bringing their unique knowledge to our service, but the spade work has been done by the Civil Service, and it is going to be a very bad thing for the Civil Service if this practice of holding them up to ridicule and opprobrium is to continue. In my short experience of Government work I have been immensely struck with the absolute integrity, efficiency, and extraordinary devotion to duty of the Civil Servants, and I wish to take this first opportunity of publicly placing on record my appreciation of them.
  Mr. HOPE: In a few moments there will be an interruption of business, and I take this opportunity of replying to the invitation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite put to me. I have been able to consult my colleagues, and to get the necessary information on the point, and we hope it will be possible between now
  1926
  and June to prepare and put before the House a revised Estimate. Of course, I do not hold that out as a promise or a certainty, but we trust it may be possible and at any rate we shall endeavour to do it if it is possible. If it should not be possible, if the Vote will not be passed, the Opposition will have the usual Parliamentary opportunity of asking for it again, so that they will lose nothing by that. As to the discussion which has taken place, I have taken very careful note of all the criticisms and will see that they are attended to. In the meantime in view of the undoubted difficulties of the situation of discussing Estimates which are certain not to be carried out in the form in which they are presented, I am willing and hereby ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman has not made any statement as to the future of Woolwich Arsenal, and having regard to the importance of the subject some reply should be made.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is in the power of any hon. Member to object to the withdrawal. At present the question is the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). I will hear what he has to say.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said—and I should like to express our appreciation of his courtesy and frankness in the matter—I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir K. WOOD Sir K. WOOD rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman object to the Main Question being withdrawn?
  Sir K. WOOD: I only desire to object for the purpose of asking the hon. Gentleman to make a reply on the subject.
  Mr. HOPE: I can only say in regard to Woolwich that is a matter for the War Office and all questions as to the future policy in connection with the Arsenal must be put to the War Office.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state the date, and whether there have been any consultations with the War Office on the matter?
  Mr. HOPE: Undoubtedly there have been a good many consultations. I cannot state the date, but it is the earnest desire of the Minister of Munitions that it shall be as early as possible.
  Brigadier-General COLVIN: I should like some information as to the future of Waltham Abbey. It is in my constituency, as is also the Small Arms Factory, and naturally I am very anxious to know what the future of the employés is to be. I have seen the report on the question of retaining Gretna and Waltham Abbey, and I have seen the minority report, which does not agree with the finding of the Committee, and as it is signed by the Chairman it will naturally carry very great weight. I should like to ask what the hon. Gentleman really contemplates doing with Gretna Green. Is it conceivable that we want a factory of that size, which cost about £9,000,000 or £10,000,000, and which can produce about a thousand tons of cordite a week? Is it conceivable that we shall indulge in a war which will necessitate such a large amount of cordite? I understand the Poole factory will supply the Navy with all the cordite it requires, and Waltham Abbey is quite large enough to supply all the cordite, which is ever likely to be required. Years hence, no doubt, cordite will be superseded by some other explosive, and it will be the greatest extravagance and waste of money to keep up a huge factory like Gretna, which costs a tremendous lot in maintenance, when all the necessary cordite could be supplied at present from the old factories. I want to know particularly what is to happen to the employés in the factory at Waltham Abbey. There must be a humane view taken of their future. It is a very serious thing that a factory established in the 16th century, and which became a Government factory about the 18th century, should be closed. The town of Waltham Abbey has grown up and is dependent upon the factory. If the factory is removed many families will be thrown out of employment. Is it intended to transfer some of these men, if Gretna is decided upon, with their families, their baggage, and their furniture to Gretna? If so, what is going to happen to the rest? Are they going to be discharged and thrown out of work, or are they to receive gratuities? It is a very serious question. In addition, if it is decided to close Waltham Abbey and
  1928
  to keep Gretna, will the men who are employed at Waltham Abbey, or some of them, be sent to Gretna to inspect the country and the factory and to see under what new conditions they will have to live before they are called upon to decide?
  With regard to the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, I should like to remind the hon. Member that it is the only rifle factory now in England, and according to the Estimates the staff will have to be reduced very considerably. The staff now consists of its pre-War numbers, all of whom are experts in rifle making. If they are reduced they will be dispersed all over the country and the consequence might be that if a war broke out and many rifles were required, these experts, having been dispersed, would not be so readily available. I hope we shall have an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield as to whether the War Office has been consulted on the decision to close Waltham Abbey and to open Gretna, and whether they are in agreement with the report issued by the expert Committee of which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) is Chairman.
  Major PRESCOTT: I should like to endorse all that has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to the future of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield. Of the two Labour Exchanges adjoining the factory, the one at Ponders End has 1500 discharged men on the books, while in the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are over 3,000 discharged men. At Enfield at the present time they are simply repairing a few rifles and three or four railway trucks. I understand that at Woolwich Arsenal a large number of men are engaged in making medals. The Secretary of State for War said that something like 14,000,000 medals are required in connection with the 1914 Star and the general European medal, and so on. At the present rate at which these medals are being made I understand it will take six or seven years to complete the 14,000,000. At Enfield there are over 3,000 rusty machines, and I am told on very good authority that at a very small cost a considerable number of these machines could be very easily adapted in order to turn out these medals at a much greater rate. I make that suggestion in the hope that it may be accepted.
  Mr. HOPE: What I have said as to Woolwich applies to Enfield. The present and future management is one for the War Office. I very much regret that the report referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Colvin) has not been circulated. By some unfortunate misunderstanding it was not submitted in time to have it circulated, but it shall be circulated as soon as possible, and although it will not satisfy all that my hon. Friend wants he will see that we are doing our best to safeguard the personal interests of the workmen at Waltham Abbey. In view of the promise I made to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) I now beg leave to withdraw the Vote.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. TOWNLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I do not move this Amendment in any spirit of opposition to the very laudable idea of the Minister of Agriculture in improving the drainage of the country, but because I understand that this is the only opportunity there will be to bring this matter to the attention of the House, as the Bill will be sent to the Private Bill Committee after Second Reading, and it will not be open to us to discuss it there. Therefore, I have taken the step of bringing it before the notice of the House now. I do so fully realising that I am open to the charge of taking up the time of the House on a matter which may be looked upon as parochial or, at any rate, a small affair. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. I hope that this is the beginning of very big action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. It
  1930
  is a very big departure in connection with the drainage system of the country and the liability of carrying away the water. I believe I am correct in saying that hitherto it has been the unwritten law of the land that a man living in the lower reaches of a river is responsible for the conveyance to the sea of the water that comes down to him from the upper reaches. The power which is sought to be enforced by this Bill will do away with that, and will bring in an entirely new principle, and for the future those living in the upper reaches of a river will have to contribute to the cleansing of the lower portions as well as doing out in their entirety their own portions, for which they will receive no help from those residing lower down the stream and occupying lands on both sides. I am quite aware of the fact that this Ouse Drainage Board has been asked for by the seven county councils that are affected—Norfolk, the Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, part of Suffolk, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. The county council of Huntingdon is now petitioning against the Bill. I make no remark as to the county council of Bedfordshire beyond saying that I have reason to know that it passed its resolution to support this Measure without realising what had taken place. Therefore, I discount at once the charge that may be levelled against me that I am opposing a Measure which has been asked for by the county council of the county for which I have the honour to sit in this House.
  This is not a river which rushes down to the sea from a high bed, in which people may be fortunate enough to catch salmon. It is one of the slowest flowing rivers in the country, but it is a river which is the means of draining one of the most healthy, fertile and prosperous districts of this land. In ancient days this river passed down through high land, and when it arrived at the place, Earith, which to my mind is somewhat important, at the boundary of the counties Huntingdon and Cambridge, it spread itself over the marsh land, the fens, which lay below, the river itself in various streams passing away to Ely on the right and Wisbech on the left. It did not matter to the men on the other reaches of the river what happened to the water when it got down to Earith The great point to them was to have the lands above drained and have free access to the water, and from that point of view

  1931
  it was for the men below to take charge of the water. They realised that here were great open fields, a plain of land which was useless for the purpose of cultivation and the production of food, though valuable indeed as a resort for those who were fond of shooting wild fowl and, possibly, fishing the coarser sorts of fish. They realised that there was a great potential future in this land, and so they set to work to reclaim it.
  So as time passed on we have seen the reclamation of these fens. We have seen what was a barren marsh converted into fertile fields of the most productive land probably in this country. How was it done? That river in the old days meandered in various directions before it got to the sea. It was like one of the hon. Gentlemen whom we sometimes see in this House leaving the Treasury Bench, finding their way to the Back Benches on this side and then crossing to the other side. These men wished to develop that land. They took the straight course that has been taken by certain Members on the Treasury Bench of going straight to the Bench opposite. It is the quicker way to get there, the quicker way to get the waters from the upper reaches to the sea. So they cut two large streams. They cut one first in the old Bedford river and then they cut the other. Between these streams were left fertile stretches of grass land called "washes." These are valuable lands. They were then converted to what were known as summer lands. People only looked forward to using those lands in summer for the purpose of grazing cattle. When they found the great success attending their work they set to work and turned this into winter land as well. It is now producing fine crops of food, potatoes, various vegetables and corn. These washes are naturally kept under grass, valuable grass, which has been let at up to £6 an acre.
  The men who did this had allotted to them what was known as adventurers' land in payment of what they had done. It was no mean thing and they did well, and I believe that I am right in saying they carried out well the work which they undertook to do. I know that there was a law case and there was a fight as to whether the old Bedford river and the river which adjoined it had been done out properly and the matter was, I believe, left
  1932
  to the judgment of the King, Charles II. All that was long ago. Time has gone on and nothing has been done since, and it looks as if nothing would be done and the fens are undoubtedly now in a very dangerous condition. I have ventured to trespass on the time of the House as I am more interested in this matter, and more associated with it than perhaps any other gentleman on these Benches. I happen to be Chairman of the Company that has charge of the river from Lynn to the sea. I have been accused of being the evil genius of the fens, inasmuch as I have not done my duty to the river at Lynn. At the proper time and place I am prepared to defend the action of the Company, though possibly not to justify the huge expenditure that they made to make Lynn into a port which, without that expenditure, running approximately to £100,000, it never could have been. It also fell to my lot for many years to seek to represent in Parliament a division through which the Ouse passes, a division with which I have associations extending over many generations, and I reside on the higher reaches of the river. I tell this to show that I have personal knowledge, poor though it may be, of what I put before the House.
  When these lands were reclaimed they were liable to certain rates and taxes for the maintenance of the drainage of the country, but unfortunately the drainage authorities were many, and they were diverse. Some were large and were wealthy, and some were small, and those were poor. I am not sure of the exact number of authorities that there were, but I believe that there were something like 28 authorities who had charge of the different portions of the river. So diverse were the authorities that, at least in one place, one body had control of the bed of the river and one of the banks. In the old days we have had exciting stories of men sitting up all night watching the banks to see whether they would break up on their side of the stream or on the other. It is no bogey of the past, but is a very present danger now, that these banks may burst and that these floods may occur. Only a very few years ago a certain section of most valuable land in the Isle of Ely was flooded in the most disastrous manner. You will realise the effect of that flood when I say that I myself saw houses turned round in the

  1933
  course of the flooding. The crops, of course, were entirely destroyed. All this points to the absolute necessity for the formation of a Board somewhat similar to that which is sought to be formed by this Order, which I am opposing now.
  In 1915 there was formed a Lower Ouse Drainage Board. The title of the Bill confirming that Order was the same as the title of the Bill we are dealing with now. That Board was formed for a lower and a smaller area than the present Order proposes to deal with. That Board met, elected its chairman, talked, and ordered an inquiry. That inquiry was held, and they put forward a scheme which no doubt would have been most satisfactory, but which would have required some millions of pounds to carry it out, and in those days prices were much lower than they are now. What has happened to that Board I do not know. The Ministry of Agriculture is now seeking to form a larger Board. I support its action up to a point. I support its action to deal with these lands approximately to Earith, the boundary of the Isle of Ely and Huntingdonshire. It is absolutely necessary that from there to the sea should be under the control of one Board and one authority. But there comes a hard dividing line at that point. If I could do so, I would have two systems, one of drainage by gravitation and the other of drainage by pumping, because it is absolutely essential, in order to drain these fen lands, to do so by pumping. Many of these acres are below sea level, and the sea is kept out by means of sluicing and pumping. I ask that this Order shall be divided into two sections, one of them being from the sea to Earith. The fall from Earith to the sea is about three inches to the mile, a practically impossible level to drain without artificial means. As soon as you get to Earith a totally different aspect comes over the scene. From Earith, through parts of Huntingdon, the fall is 12 inches to the mile. When you come to the upper reaches of the river and into Buckinghamshire, and up to Buckingham itself, you find there is a fall of 48 inches to the mile.
  I ask hon. Members to consider what in the world it can matter to the men living up in Buckinghamshire, 60 or 70 miles away, what happens to the water right away down by Earith. This is the
  1934
  first time it has been sought to put the responsibility to carry that water to the sea on the backs of the men who live in the upper reaches of the river. It may be a right principle, but I say it is wrong. It is a principle which is going to be enforced throughout the other rivers of the country. This is the beginning of a great scheme. The Ouse is not the only river which empties into the Wash. There are two other rivers with equally fertile land. There is the other Ouse running through Yorkshire. I was told recently that the Ridings of Yorkshire would not coalesce to deal with the matter. They are canny men in Yorkshire, and they will not be so anxious to pay for other men's water. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he cannot divide this into two portions. The Order deals with 480,000 areas of land; 400,000 of those acres lie between Earith and the sea, and include great fine rolling fen-lands full of money; 80,000 acres are between Earith and Buckingham, and they are poor land. I do not believe for one moment that the men of the Fens, amongst whom I have very many personal friends, would ask, for one second, that the men up above should pay to meet the liability that they fully realise falls upon themselves.
  I ask whether it is not possible to look upon these main arteries of drainage in the light in which you would look upon the road system of the country? Is it not possible to deal with these main arteries as though they were main roads, and put the responsibility for them upon the county, and make a grant from the Imperial Exchequer to help in clearing them up? Roads carry traffic from one end of the country to the other, and these arterial drains should carry traffic, even if they do not. It is not that so much as that they carry away the water from the Fens, and enable the fertile land to produce food for the nation. I know the Minister of Agriculture thinks it is of the greatest importance to us now to produce every possible ounce of food. You cannot produce food from water-logged land. It is a national question as much as a local one. Therefore I ask that these main arteries should get a grant from the Development Board or elsewhere. This Board has been formed. It consists of 42 members, and there are certain safeguards put into the Order by which the men living in the upper reaches cannot

  1935
  be overridden by the men in the Fens, and no work can be carried out below Denver Sluice except by a two-thirds majority of the Board. Of those members there are 31 that represent the lower reaches from Earith to the sea. The Fen majority would always, if it wished, be able to override those who lived up above. There is, therefore, no safeguard.
  I maintain that it is impossible to expect men living right away up in Buckinghamshire to come down and attend these meetings, which will probably be held at Cambridge. The area is very large. The 400,000 acres of the lower reaches extend practically over the whole area, whereas the 80,000 acres from Earith to Buckingham are confined within a very narrow channel. It is only land which is 8 feet above flood level which is liable to be taxed for the purposes of this Bill. I shall be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on what basis and for what reason he takes this 8-foot level. I am told that the greatest authorities have said it is necessary. So be it, but I do not agree with those authorities. I understand it is urged that there are ceitain agricultural plants, such as lucerne, with roots that go down 8 feet, and that it is therefore necessary to drain their roots. If that is the contention, I can assure the House from practical experience that the roots of lucerne go far lower than that to where they can find water. By taking that arbitrary line of 8 feet above flood level, you are making a very small acreage which has to contribute to this cost. The farmers and the owners who live along the upper reaches of the Ouse have joined in opposition to this Order They look upon it is disastrous to themselves, and many men who recently purchased farms came to me lately and implored me to try and stop this injustice being committed. They tell me, and I know I shall be contradicted, though I believe the statement will be substantiated, that they will be liable, or would under the original order, to 25s. 6d. per acre for 50 years for the carrying out of this scheme. That, I believe, was based on the idea that the expenditure would be something like £2,000,000. Where they would pay 25s. 6d. in the upper reaches, they would only pay half a crown in the fertile lands of part of the Fens, or ten times as much whatsoever the amount may be. The Ministry were evidently fright-
  1936
  ened at the idea of such a tremendous outlay, and since the Order was first printed they have put in a new Clause limiting the expenditure to £200,000 in the first five years. What possible use will that sum be in scoring out these rivers below the Earith, which was estimated before the War to cost £2,000,000. Surely the thing must begin at the bottom, and if it was necessary to spend that money now, it is still necessary to do so. The reduction in the amount to be expended is only trying to throw sand in the face of those who have to meet the cost. This £200,000 will be utilised before you get to the depth of the sluices, and the works below the Earith will not help the dwellers in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire by one penny piece. It is very hard indeed on the smaller men in this district, and I submit it is a very simple matter to alter it. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me it is impossible to do so, but I urge that it should, and I shall continue to do so. Surely he can divide this Order and can glorify and enlarge the old lower Ouse Drainage Board. He can divide the area into two. By all means have one Board to drain the great lands and fens of Earith, but I ask him above that to leave this question of drainage to be dealt with by the counties. Let each county be responsible for it. Let him, if he can get a grant to help the cleansing out of these rivers, but let him leave it to the counties to do their own work. If he will do that then I assure him he will immensely relieve the feelings of the occupiers throughout those lands. It is quite true that this Bill has been before the House and the Order has been before the public for some considerable time. But we all know men in the country know but little of what is going on in London. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that they have had plenty of opportunity to prepare their case, but that is not so. It takes a very great deal of time to glean evidence bearing on these matters. In my remarks, for instance, I have had to travel back to the Stuart time. There is a lot of data to look up, and therefore I would ask him whether he cannot see his way, at any rate, to postpone the Committee stage, if he gets the Second Reading, to such time as will enable these men to have a full opportunity of getting up their case. I most certainly hope that this is the beginning of the systematic undertaking

  1937
  by the Board of Agriculture of the arterial drainage of the country.
  Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The constituency I have the honour to represent is that of Buckingham, and it is through my constituency that the upper reaches of this river Ouse flows for a considerable number of miles. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not looking upon me as an adversary of his scheme or of the Ouse Drainage Board, because I am not that. But I am an adversary of the principle which it seems to me he is working upon in the Bill, and it is because I want to ask some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary as regards this principle and because I think it is a good thing when a new principle is being introduced in a matter like drainage that public attention should be concentrated on it, that I support my hon. and gallant Friend in opposing formally the Second Reading of this Bill. May I start by enunciating the principle which I think is the true one, and I will ask him finally whether or not the principle is correct, and whether the Bill is going to work on that principle. The principle is this, that you shall not be made to pay if you derive no benefit and if you escape no danger. This Bill refers to the Act of 1861, and the Act of 1918. I think this principle did run through the Act of 1918. Section 8 of that Act deals with the power of a drainage authority to execute works outside their area. If the suggestion that was hinted at by my hon. Friend, that from Earith to the sea should be made into one area was adopted a very interesting result would follow. That Section 8 provides—
  "A drainage authority desiring to execute drainage works for the benefit of their drainage area in lands outside that area shall have the like powers in that behalf as are conferred by the Land Drainage Act, 1847, or Part III. of the principal Act on persons interested in land which is capable of being drained or improved, and desiring to execute drainage works for such purpose, and any expense incurred by a drainage authority under this Section shall be defrayed as if the expense had been incurred in the drainage area of the drainage authority."
  So that if the drainage area from Earith to the sea had wanted to put up works or to affect the river above Earith they could have done so, but the expenses of such work, as it was for the benefit of the district from Earith to the sea, would
  1938
  be paid by the Earith to the Sea District Authority. So that the principle is clear; they were to get the benefit, and they are to pay the rate. Section 16 of the same 1918 Act makes it even clearer. The words I refer to are at the end of Subsection (5) of Section 16:
  "The Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works."
  Let us look for a moment at Section 10, which deals with the rating under the present Bill. Sub-section (i) of Section 10 refers to maps and schedules, but Subsection (iii) says:
  "Any expenses incurred by the Ouse Drainage Board in the execution or maintenance of works for the exclusive benefit of any lands within any area or' sub-area shall be declared by the Ouse Drainage Board to have been incurred for the exclusive benefit of such lands and any expenses so declared shall be defrayed wholly out of rates levied in respect of such lands."
  Again my principle is coming true, but what is exclusive benefit when one is dealing with drainage? If any drainage work is done, can it be said that one area alone is affected? If you affect by works the drainage of a river, surely you must affect both those who live above you, to a certain extent, and those who live below you, and so it seems to me that where the benefit is not exclusive, as must be the ease in almost every instance, you come in with Sub-section (i), which says:
  "Save as hereafter in this Article provided, the expenses incurred by the Ouse Drainage Board in the execution and maintenance of works on the sections of the said channels and banks referred to in Column 1 of Part II. of the Second Schedule (other than works to which paragraph (iii) of this Article applies) shall be defrayed out of rates levied with in the areas and in the proportions set out in Columns 2 and 3 of the said Part II. or out of reserve funds to be formed by means of rates so levied."
  You get a reference" in Sub-section (4) to "shall be defrayed out of rates levied equally within the whole district." I would like for a moment to compare the advantages gained by a drainage scheme under this Bill by those reaches by the sea and those reaches on the high levels in the county of which I am a Member. You take the river between Bedford and Northampton, which runs through that part of Buckinghamshire. All the land by the river is meadow grass. Every year, three, four, and even six times, the

  1939
  flood comes. It is annually improved by these floods, and every flood, unless it is a very late flood, means that the fields are manured, the crop is bettered, and the land is made richer. The damage is almost infinitesimal compared with the gain to be derived from the result of the river water going over these grass meadows. There is no arable land, or very little, which might be hurt. If a flood comes very late, the hay harvest may be affected, but that is the exception and by no means the rule. "What benefit, therefore, do the people in Buckinghamshire, in Northamptonshire, and in Bedfordshire for the most part derive, what danger do they escape? Is the landlord or the tenant to pay who happens to have land within the 8-feet level? Again, if the principle is laid down in Sub-section (iii) of Section 10 that the exclusive benefit is to guide the incidence of the rates, surely it means that in any part where work has got to be done the work has got to be done very slowly. If in any area you can only pay for the work done within that area by the rates levied on that area, you have got to make your work go as slowly as the money comes in, and that would be too slowly probably. You have got a tremendous number of works to put up, and a great deal of drainge to be done, so you have got to broaden the basis of incidence of your rating. If you cannot prove that the rating is exclusively enjoyed by one district, then you can fall back on Subsection (i), which says that you can draw on a general fund, to which presumably the occupants, the owners, of all the length and breadth of the river will con tribute every year. You will get your annual levy of rates, and the districts such as those in the constituency which I have the honour to represent will gradually year by year be swelling this reserve fund, and from that fund we shall derive no benefit, and the money will be spent in the works, probably most of it between Earith and the sea.
  9.0 P.M.
  If I am correct in thinking that the purpose of bringing in the upper reaches, which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, are affected only by 80,000 acres as compared with 400,000 acres below Earith, if we have been brought in to widen the basis upon which rates may be levied, then the principles with which I started have gone by the board, because we are
  1940
  going to contribute to this reserve fund for a benefit which we shall not derive, for a danger which we do not escape; and indeed, so far from that, the fact that we may lose the flood altogether would actually do us harm. It is inconceivable to my mind that this principle is not correct. I see that in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bill it is pointed out that the construction of new works below Denver Sluice for the improvement of the outfall of that river shall not be executed by the Ouse Drainage Board, except with the consent of two-thirds of the members thereof. The members of the Board are set out on page 5 of the Bill. I am anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my hon. Friend was correct in saying that of the 42 members which composed the board, no less thanu 31, or roughly two-thirds, represent the area from Earith to the sea, and only 11 the area of the upper reaches, of which I am at the moment speaking, so that my first question to the right hon. Gentleman is: How many members of the first Ouse Drainage Board represent the upper and higher reaches, and how many the lower? Are the figures 31 and 11 correct? My second question is, what is the broad principle of fixing the incidence of rating? My third question is what is the proportion of the total rate which will be levied in one year, and if he can tell me roughly the proportion of the total rate to be paid by the upper reaches as compared with the lower reaches; that is to say, by those above Earith compared with those below Earith? Fourthly, if no benefit is derived in any area, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that no rate will be levied? That is to say, if the owners or occupiers on the river banks can prove to the satisfaction of the Board that they derive no benefits, and that they are saved from no danger, will the right hon. Gentleman say that in that case they shall not have a rate levied on them? I know the right hon. Gentleman, from the courteous answers he gave to certain questions of mine before the Bill came on, is convinced that those who are interested in this question have had plenty of time. Nevertheless, I am assured even up to to-day that those who are interested along this river have not had time to consider fully the matter. Anybody who looks at the Schedule will see references not only to maps but to the colours and

  1941
  letters on maps. These maps, I believe, can only be seen at the County Council offices in each county. Time is important, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to give as much time as possible, because those who are interested are hampered and embarrassed and will be grateful if he could see his way to meet them on this point. After all, it is a really important scheme, and makes a really important change in the principles of the drainage of this country.
  Captain COOTE: The speeches of the hon. Members who preceded me have been rather like the River Ouse, very charming and very beautiful, and also very long. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Townley) in his historical reminiscences, nor do I intend to deal with all the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), but what I want to insist upon, first of all, is the principle underlying this Bill. That is one of the points the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last asked about. We have to remember that navigation, and particularly river navigation, has fallen into a very bad state in this country, and this Bill is the first step to put a navigable river into a fit condition, so that it shall be a means of communication and assistance to those who live along its banks, and to commerce generally. It seems to me the opponents of this Order are making two mistakes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham admitted that the authorities who now oppose this Order had petitioned the Board of Agriculture, as it then was, in favour of somesuchprovision as this Order lays down, and the fact that they did so is the answer to my hon. Friend who asked what benefit they would get out of it, because they would not have petitioned the Board if they thought they would not get some benefit out of it. It is obvious that, in spite of the fact that the high lands may in certain instances benefit from the flood, we must get the water down to the sea somehow, and it is right that the high lands should bear their part. There is the point as to the time allowed for the discussion of this proposal. The matter has been very fully and adequately gone into. There was a very full and complete inquiry at Cambridge, at which all views were fully represented. The whole matter was then discussed, and very generous concessions were made to
  1942
  the representatives of those counties who now object to the Bill. Their objection was founded, I think, on the totally wrong supposition that it was proposed to put in hand the whole work of improvement at once, instead of which it is perfectly obvious that it will have to be spread over a very largo number of years.
  Captain BOWYER: As the hon. and gallant Member says my principle is all wrong and I have nothing to complain of, may I ask him how is it the people for whom I have been speaking, who live in Buckinghamshire, will have to pay 25s. 6d. an acre for no benefit that they can see, whereas the people in the constituency which he represents are to pay, I think, something like 2s. or 3s.
  Captain COOTE: In the first place, I do not think they will pay anything like 25s. 6d. an acre, because that pre-supposes the whole money would be spent at once.
  Captain BOWYER: It is not spent; it is levied.
  Captain COOTE: In the second place, there has been a promise that if this Bill is given a Second Reading there shall be a reconsideration of the rating, and their views will be again taken into consideration. It is from these points of view, and the point of view of putting this river under one single authority, that I would ask the House to give a favourable consideration to the Second Beading, because it seems to me that nobody, except those who are actually in the neighbourhood of the river, can realise the state into which it has got. In the Fenlands the banks have sunk and the channels are rapidly blocking up. It is absolutely imperative that the work should be undertaken on the watershed of the Ouse, and that under the direction of one central authority, for it is no use separating a watershed like that and putting it under different authorities. You must treat this as a whole.
  Captain FALCON: I only rise for a very few moments, because I am a member of a county, a very considerable part of which is affected by this Bill, and I therefore interpose to urge the House not to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend opposite. The passing of this Bill will confer a very great benefit on a great deal of land in a county for which I am a member, and, incidentally, by improving the productivity of the land

  1943
  in that area, it will benefit the community as a whole, and at this time, of course, anything that can be done to increase the productivity of our land, and consequently the amount of food we grow here, is of vital importance. I have listened attentively to the obections to this Bill raised by my hon. Friends opposite, but I am glad to understand that to a certain extent they agree with the principle of it. Their objections in the main amount to Committee stage points.
  Mr. TOWNLEY: I take exception to the principle upon which it is based. For the first time, the upper reaches are asked to pay for the lower reaches. Hitherto the lower reaches have been required to take the water down to the sea at their own cost.
  Captain FALCON: Apart from that objection, most of the objections that have been raised can be dealt with in the Committee stage. What is the history, shortly, of this movement which has brought about this Provisional Order? The Land Drainage Act, of which this Order is the result, was brought in in 1918, because the necessity at that particular time of food production was very insistent. The predecessor of my right hon. Friend who sits on the Front Bench brought to the notice of the House at that time the enormous amount of land which was being spoiled and which was not producing as much as it might because of the want of action of the authorities who were then and who are now in charge of these areas in the matter of drainage. This Provisional Order Bill is the first of its kind, and it seeks to put the whole of the watershed under one single authority. In the past they have failed, because in one instance the Commissioners of Sewers did not know what were their particular boundaries. There are bodies under Local Acts who are restricted to a very small area, and others with such limited powers of expenditure that owing to the present rates for labour and material they are incapable of carrying out the work that they wish and ought to carry out. This Order was therefore brought in to put the whole of the watershed or the main channels of the whole of the watershed under one single authority. Past history has shown that the separation of the drainage of the watershed into different areas has failed.
  1944
  The House, therefore, ought to pass this Order, which establishes the principle of putting the whole of the watershed of an area under one authority, because, after all, they know when and where to start work so as to benefit the whole of the area better than separate authorities. There are other similar schemes and Bills now afoot. There is one in particular which deals with the watershed of the Bure and Waveney and other rivers in Norfolk which more vitally concerns me. The fate of that Bill will be very materially affected by the fate of this Bill to-night, and therefore, if for no other reason, I urge the House not to accept the Amendment but to give this Bill a Second Beading.
  Mr. ROYCE: I want to support the principle of the Bill. I am not particularly concerned in this area, but I have had very considerable experience in drainage matters. I have nothing whatever to say with regard to the rating of the respective portions, but I do hold most strongly that the river concerned, or any other river that flows through a level country at its outlet, should be under the control of one authority from the source to the sea. The question whether lands at the higher level should be subjected to rates seem to me to be a very fair one, for, after all, the provisions made for the drainage in the fen districts have relation to the passage of the water from the uplands. They have made certain provisions, and, if the water comes with any degree of regularity, in all probability the provision made is sufficient for the water to pass to the sea, but, if the water does not come with some degree of regularity—if there are impedents in the stream, even at its source—it may affect the suitability of the works that have been constructed on the lower reaches. Consequently, it is of the very utmost importance that the whole of the stream should be under the direction of one authority. It is absolutely necessary that those works should start at the outlet of the river and that there should be sufficient provision to take any water from the outlet. I know that it has been argued for very many years that these lands which it is now proposed to rate were immune at the time when the low-lying lands were under water. I agree, but that is no reason why their water should not come to the lower levels in a proper manner, and it can only come in a proper manner if the channel be kept

  1945
  open. Neglect of the upper reaches of a river is a source of great danger to the lower reaches, and it is because it is necessary to take the upper reaches into consideration that the stream must be under one authority.
  I wonder that there can be any opposition at the present time to a measure of drainage, and I have often wondered why this was a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I know now the reason of its amphibious nature. It is because half of the land with which it has to deal is under water at certain periods of the year. Anyone passing along the Great Northern Railway during the past week must have noticed the amount of land under water. It is a scandal, and it is time that this question of drainage was taken in hand and a Board constituted to have full control of the drainage arteries from the source to the sea. This particular scheme does not interest me, only in a general way, but knowing the principle of drainage, knowing the necessities of the country, and knowing that what is true of the Ouse is true of the Welland—with which I am intimately connected—I do hope that this Bill will be permitted to pass. You will never please everybody, and you will never please any of the people upon whom it is intended to impose the rate, though I do assert that they will receive vast benefit. Lands now used for pasturage purposes can be brought under arable cultivation, and the value of it vastly increased. Of course, the farmer does not want to pay. It is about as difficult to get rates out of a farmer as it is to get butter out of a dog's throat. He will oppose everything. I do earnestly beseech the House to pass this measure so that a start, at any rate, can be made in removing that which in this country is a scandal—namely, the periodic flooding of these lands.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I hardly think it is necessary for me to say much after the excellent speech to which we have just listened. There can be no doubt that if ever there was a case for allowing a Provisional Order Bill to go to Committee, in order that the details may be considered, this is a case in point. I cannot quite understand the meaning of the opposition to the Second Reading. My hon. Friend
  1946
  the Member for Bedford (Mr. Townley) finished his speech by saying that he hoped that this Bill was a systematic beginning of arterial drainage in this country. That is precisely what it is. It is not very encouraging to the Ministry of Agriculture when we make this systematic beginning that the very thing hon. Members do is immediately to move that the Order be rejected on Second Reading.
  Mr. TOWNLEY: I am sorry to interrupt, but surely it cannot be a Committee point, but a grave question as to whether limits are to be placed over the water from the highlands. It is a complete reversion of the old principle that waters that come from the highlands were taken by the men from the lowlands down to the sea at their own expense. This is a reversion of that principle, and I cannot see that it is a Committee matter.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is no doubt that the land in the neighbourhood of the river will benefit, and the financial proposals in the Bill will be made strictly proportionate to the benefit which is given to each particular part of the river. The point is this: Here you have a very important river, a river which drains a very large piece of the most valuable agricultural land in the country. It has been, as my hon. Friend says, much neglected. The present position is absolutely chaotic. There are on the lower river no less than 100 authorities—he spoke of 28—dealing with drainage. There is no one body which can co-ordinate what they are doing. On the upper river there are no authorities at all. The flow of the water from the upper river profoundly affects the drainage of the lower river. Under these circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture passed an Act in 1918 in order to institute this arterial drainage. My Noble Friend now desires, as has just been said—and quite rightly—by my hon. Friend opposite, to bring in this Order to constitute one authority to deal with this most important river. Although we have had opposition from hon. Members to-night representing two counties', the fact is that right through these proceedings we have had practically no opposition, but petitions from the whole of the district drained by the river in favour of this system. Let me just inform the House how the matter stands. In the first case the Royal Commission on Canals and

  1947
  Waterways studied the matter as a whole. Dealing with the question of the Ouse they said:
  "It is essential to have one authority for the whole of this river."
  No sooner is our Act of 1918 passed than practically every single county, including the counties of the upper river, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Huntingdonshire, petition for systematic drainage of the River Ouse. That is not all. This thing has not been rushed, as some hon. Members seem to think. The hon. Gentleman for Bedford asked for more time. I really do not know how much more time we ought to give. I have only to tell the House that a public inquiry was made as long ago as last October, and that the present Order was deposited before Christmas. Every kind of opportunity has been given for hearing objections. Really if we are not going to get on quicker than that we shall be accused of flowing even more slowly than the Ouse, and our system of arterial drainage for the whole of the country will take several centuries to complete. If hon. Members in the country have been unaware of what has been going on, and have not taken advantage of the opportunities they have had for lodging objections, that is not the fault of the Board of Agriculture nor of this House. Every opportunity has been given. I must really decline to consider any appeal for more time.
  Let us see how far the hon. Members who have spoken against this Bill really represent in this matter the counties-for which they are Members. Take Bedfordshire. There was a public inquiry. The county of Bedfordshire objected to a certain technical point. They asked for amendment. We agreed to make that amendment, and then found that the clerk of the county council spoke very strongly at the inquiry in favour of the Order. There was an objection by one landowner, and that objection was met. We have, it is true, received memorials from 16 persons in Bedfordshire owning 5,000 acres of land. We have had a memorial from the borough. We propose to meet the objections of the landowners by an additional clause limiting both the capital and revenue expenditure on works in the upper part of the land. As regards the objection of the borough, we have also proposed another amendment which, I believe, gives satisfaction. As regards
  1948
  the clause limiting the expenditure, I really think my hon. Friend does not quite understand what is proposed. He averred that £2,000,000 was said to be necessary, and that we are only proposing to spend £200,000. That is not the case at all. All we say is that the money should be expended gradually, and that not more than a certain sum should be spent in the first five years. But the works cannot be carried out as rapidly as my hon. Friend seems to think. We provide sufficient expenditure to carry them out in a way they can be carried out in practice. Therefore the figures of my hon. Friend were entirely wrong. No undue burden will be put suddenly on Bedfordshire or any other part of the river. Take Buckinghamshire. I have shown that Bedfordshire practically agrees with the scheme. Buckinghamshire petitioned for the scheme in 1918. There was an inquiry, and at that there were certain objections. These were all met. No further objections were raised. The Buckinghamshire County Council wrote on 14th January to the Ministry of Agriculture to this effect:
  "The Rivers Committee of the County Council are generally satisfied with the Amendments which have been made in the Draft Order, and express their thanks to the Board of Agriculture for the manner in which they have met the objections of the County Council."
  I really ask what further objection can there be? Not one single memorial has been received from anybody or authority in—
  Captain BOWYER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman like me to tell him why?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly.
  Captain BOWYER: The whole point is this; neither I nor the county council, nor anybody in the county, are against the Bill. What we are up against is the principle of levying the rates. The reason why people are only just waking up to it on the river banks is, that they have only heard of it, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary says. I have lived there from my boyhood upwards, and I know they did not know.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is not our fault that these people have just awakened to the fact. I have done all I could to wake them up earlier. We cannot be responsible for the fact that about six months after

  1949
  public inquiries have been held the people of Buckinghamshire only wake up to the fact! That is the case with regard to Buckinghamshire. Certain points of detail have been put to me, all of which can properly be discussed in Committee, and they really do not arise on the Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire wants the scheme divided, one board for the upper river and one for the lower. I believe that administratively and from the point of view of physical arrangement that is impossible. In any case, it would merely be a very undesirable and complicated way of accomplishing what you can achieve by a simple method. We are told that a division should take place at Earith, where there is a sluice regulating the water from the upper to the lower river. We are asked, who is to take charge of that?
  Mr. TOWNLEY: One of the largest authorities recommended the removal of that sluice.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is a point which one authority could decide and two could not. Then I have been asked a question in regard to the incidence of rating. The principle is that it must be in proportion to benefits received, and the river has to be divided into sections and areas, and they are rated in proportion to benefits received by the different sections. My hon. Friend put the question, "Supposing somebody received no benefit, would he be rated?" The Order makes no change in the law, and only those benefited can be rated, and if any person proves that he is not benefited, he will not be rated under the Order. Another point was raised about the composition of the Board, and it was suggested that it was a great hardship that the lower river should have two-thirds of the representatives and the upper river only one-third. The membership of the Board has been fixed entirely in accordance with the acreage. I know we might have taken population or rateable value, in which case Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire would have got a smaller representation, and it would also make it more difficult and harder for the counties which my hon. Friend represents.
  I do not propose to go further into this matter, because these are really Committee points. This measure is a great
  1950
  step forward. It is the first time under this new Act that we are making a really large systematic attempt to drain a big area, and I suggest to the House that it would be unwise to throw out such a proposal on the Second Reading. I will give this promise, however, that every reasonable grievance or objection to this proposal made in Committee will have careful consideration.
  Mr. TOWNLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the Private Bill Committee is likely to sit?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am afraid that is in the realm of prophecy. It will sit as soon as possible, but I cannot say when.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second Time and Committed.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider whether by amendment of the Bill or of the Order to be thereby confirmed provision should be made with a view to improving the drainage of the district under their jurisdiction for authorising the Ouse Drainage Board and any navigation authority to enter into arrangement for—

  (a) the transfer to the Ouse Drainage Board of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of such navigation authority, and also of all property vested in such authority or authorities for the purposes of navigation;

  (b) the alteration or management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or

  (c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates;

  and to amend the Bill or Order accordingly."
  I hope this Motion will not be opposed. Some of the existing drainage authorities on the lower Ouse also have navigation powers. If the Bill is carried, and no steps are taken to transfer their navigation powers to the new body, they will continue in existence merely to exercise the navigation powers which they now exercise. It is thought by the Ministry of Transport that it would be ridiculous to maintain these bodies with their naviga-

  1951
  tion powers alone, and the new board ought to possess the navigation powers now possessed by some of those boards. For that reason I ask the House to adopt this instruction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider whether by amendment of the Bill or of the Order to be thereby confirmed provision should be made with a view to improving the drainage of the district under their jurisdiction for authorising the Ouse Drainage Board and any navigation authority to enter into arrangement for—

  (a) the transfer to the Ouse Drainage Board of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of such navigation authority, and also of all property vested in such authority or authorities for the purposes of navigation;

  (b) the alteration or-management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or

  (c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates;

  and to amend the Bill or Order accordingly."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. J. E. DAVISON: I have listened with some degree of interest to the discussion which has taken place with regard to the Estimates of the Ministry of Munitions during this afternoon and evening, and I desire in the first place to congratulate the Ministry of Munitions
  1952
  on the magnificent services that they have rendered to the country during the hour of its greatest need. I also wish as emphatically to condemn the attitude that they have adopted with regard to the disposal of the depot to which many references have been made in the Debate. It is rather astonishing that in every case in which reference was made to the Slough Depôt that the conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee appointed to investigate that particular depot were not referred to. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to what was said by the investigation committee with regard to Slough. They pointed out:
  "That the anticipation of other uses adombrated in the speech of Lord Inverforth in the House of Lords have as yet taken no definite shape, and they believe that the provision of this large central depôt well equipped for dealing with all forms of motor transport may prove to be a national necessity and a national asset. The future transport requirements of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force cannot fail to be considerable. The Post Office will probably develop its road transport, and may well hire from the Ministry of Supply rather than from a private contractor. The future activity of the proposed Minister of Ways and Communications are as yet in embryo, but may also involve further transport requirements."
  I want to know whether the sale of the Slough depôt has been forced upon the Government by the vested interests in this House? If the depôt was a profitable concern, as we have been told by the hon. Member responsible for the introduction of the Estimate, why, in the name of goodness should the Government sell it to other people who will make profits for private interests? We on the Labour benches during the last few months have been lectured time after time by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, upon the necessity for increased production in the national interest, and the disciples who have preached that doctrine have been the disciples of private enterprise. We have been told again and again that it is in the national interest that there should be increased production. Everyone on the Labour benches will agree with that doctrine, and it is because we do agree with it, that we say that the national factories which have been erected at the expense of the taxpayers of this country should be retained in the national interest.
  Labour Members have been twitted very often by hon. Members with the fact that their rules restrict production. We desire to draw the attention of the Committee

  1953
  to the further fact that the policy of the Government in selling these national factories is also calculated to restrict production. According to the "Board of Trade Gazette" for March, there were at the end of February no fewer than 289,000 ex-service men walking the streets of this country. What is to prevent the employment of these ex-service men in the national factories in the possession of the Government in order that they may assist increased production in the national interest? I venture to say that any and every individual who has risen to condemn the policy of the Labour party in this country would be the first to go into the Division Lobby and to record his vote against the employment of ex-service, men in the national factories. It is not alone for these reasons that the Labour party oppose the Estimates that have been introduced so far as the Ministry of Munitions are concerned. We believe that the national factories can be utilised for the progressive development of our national life, and for reconstruction, and it is because we believe in these things that we desire to urge upon the Government the retention of these factories. I know it will be argued that if we retain these national factories, and manufacture for sale some of the necessities that are so essential for the life of this nation, we shall be competing with private enterprise. Good old private enterprise! It does not matter in the least how the nation is to be developed so long as we retain private enterprise in all its essentials, as it was known before the War. I desire to enter my emphatic protest, on behalf of the Labour party, against the sale of the Slough depot or any other national factory now in the possession of the Government.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: The very interesting speech to which we have just listened from the Labour benches must have convinced everyone in this House that the hon. Gentleman is speaking very enthusiastically for the employment of ex-service men, quite regardless of the fact that, in the long run, it is very immaterial for the country if these factories are used, whether they are under Government or under private enterprise, for the absorption of labour. I do not, however, want to go into that question now, because there are more important questions with regard to the Ministry of
  1954
  Munitions and the Disposal Board to which I wish to refer. We have had speeches this afternoon which suggest that the Ministry and the Disposal Board have managed to find one or two champions from the ranks of controllers and others who have been assisting in the operations of this great Department, although there is not the same enthusiasm from those not connected with these two administrative bodies. We also have had a lecture from the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Chadwick) on the business man's opinion with regard to the conduct of the Ministry and the Board. In my opinion, if one wanted to find a pattern of administrative inefficiency, he should search for it in the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposal Board. As one who has had some eighteen years' connection with business,. I can only say that for sheer incompetence the Ministry and the Board, in the way in which it has carried on its business affairs, is certainly unequalled in the history of business. I would like to suggest to the hon. Member who has just sat down that if any argument could! convince one who is still in doubt as to the unwisdom of State trading, it is the method of business administration to which I hope shortly to refer. Before quoting some instances which are not in the nature of back-biting, as suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow, but which I hope it will be agreed are real criticisms on mal-administration, I will say one word with regard to the broad question.
  It is 18 months now since the Armistice, and I think any ordinary humble man may well ask why does the Ministry of Munitions still exist? We are told that £27,000,000 is necessary under this Estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) told the House earier in the evening that a much larger figure than that is required. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry now, and I am sure he will represent it far more successfully than his predecessor, why it is necessary to ask for a sum of £27,000,000, when we have been told that the Ministry is an expiring force likely to become a corpse in the near future? Reference has been made to the Press, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Chadwick) made an onslaught against the Press of this country, conveying the idea that

  1955
  nearly all the Press were engaged in wanton criticism of this Ministry hat is rather like the mother of the private soldier, who, when she saw a battalion marching by, in which her son was proudly taking his part, remarked that all the battalion was out of step, "except our Tommy." When we remember that, even from quarters friendly to the Government, there has been criticism of the Ministry of Munitions, I venture to think it is not sufficient to sweep on one side the whole Press of the country, and say that its criticisms are illegitimate. Quite recently I took the opportunity in public of inviting the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kellaway) who was recently the Deputy Minister of Munitions, to state whether it was not a fact that there were still some £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 worth of goods to be disposed of by the Disposal Board. The answer to that was a speech at Bedford, when he poured ridicule upon the suggestion, and said that, as a matter of fact, you could divide that figure by 7. Then, a little later, he said that they expected to get from £120,000,000 to £150,000,000 from the stores that were still not disposed of. I am not going to ask the hon. Gentleman how that calculation is explained, but I want to put before him this fact, that, at the end of last year, the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport informed this country that the surplus stores were estimated at nearly £1,000,000,000 sterling. We were told by the hon. Member for Bedford, a week or two ago, in his speech at Bedford, that they have sold £320,000,000 worth.
  Mr. HOPE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the Secretary of State for War said there was £1,000,000,000 worth?
  Brigadier-General CROFT: It was in a speech towards the end of last year. I will get the reference for the hon. Gentleman. I take it he will not deny that the Quartermaster-General's Department declared that the property and stores in that Department, at the time of the Armistice, amounted to over £1,000,000,000 sterling, of which about half was of a high marketable value. Those were the exact words; and to this, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we have to add the surplus stores held by the Admiralty, the Air Force, and
  1956
  the Ministry of Munitions itself. The hon. Member for Bedford told us that there was only £120,000,000 to £150,000,000 worth of stores to dispose of. I ask my hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. Hope) where has the balance of this vast sum gone to, and how is it accounted for, and what is the approximate value of the surplus stores still held by the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Royal Air Force, and the Disposal Board? Those figures would be very interesting to the country as a whole.
  I challenged the hon. Member for Bed ford, when he was still Deputy-Minister of Munitions, to deny that there was a large quantity of timber in this country still unsold, and he replied in his speech at Bedford that there was only £750,000 worth—a very large proportion of which was ply-wood, for which there was very little demand. I say that there is a demand for ply-wood, and that that demand, as is the ease frequently with the Disposal Board, is not known to them. It has been alleged that quite recently a very considerable contract for ply-wood was made, and large quantities were sold, without putting it up to tender, and I suggest that the largest firms in this country who deal in plywood were never even approached, while one firm, which had asked to be informed when a sale was taking place, was not informed. I am also told that this plywood, which was said to be worth from £150,000 to £160,000, has been resold at a profit of £30,000 by the gentleman who was fortunate enough to get this contract, whilst the trade as a whole did not know that tenders were going to be asked for. Yet the late Deputy-Minister of Munitions wrote an article in the Press, I think of last Sunday, under the title "Fighting the Profiteers." I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman and those associated with him are not appointed, nor are their salaries granted by this House, to fight the profiteers, much less to encourage them. They were appointed in order to dispose of the surplus stores of this country, so that the country's credit might be restored.
  Another quite recent statement made by the hon. Gentleman in reply to his critics, was in answer to a charge made of dila-toriness with regard to disposing of these stores. He said, "Recently we have been selling £5,000,000 to £8,000,000 of stores

  1957
  a week." That is 16 months after the Armistice, and he takes great pride in the fact that he is selling stores of that value per week. I venture to think that that will not commend itself to this House at this late date. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been, figuratively, up to their necks in this business all through, and quite properly so, and that they are anxious to see that their Department is defended; but I venture to say that the House as a whole will not be content that the late Deputy-Minister should take credit to himself for that at the present time, when, after all, munitions are hardly the order of the day.
  10.0 P.M.
  I want to refer to some other cases, and, if the hon. Gentleman can definitely prove that I am wrong, no one will be better pleased than I shall. I think it will be agreed by the hon. Member for Barrow that my criticisms are not carping criticisms, but that, if there is any foundation for what I have to say, they are cases which have to be met. In the case of the factory at Coventry, the working of which the Government entrusted to a certain firm, and upon which a large amount of money was spent, the firm which had been working the factory applied to the Disposals Board or to the Ministry of Munitions—I am not sure which—and asked to be permitted to purchase it at 75 per cent. of its original cost price. Their offer was not accepted, but they kept the machinery warm, and every member of this House knows how imperative that is, if machinery is not to deteriorate. An official of the Ministry of Munitions went down to Coventry and said: "It is costing money to keep this machinery warm, and it must stop." The firm protested, but were not permitted to continue, and to this clay, or at any rate up to a week or two ago, that factory has remained unsold, and the machinery has deteriorated enormously. The result is that this factory, which might have employed many hundreds of men in making marine engines and engines for motorcars, has been lying idle. I submit that that is not a businesslike method of procedure. I want to ask what steps have been taken to encourage private enterprise to take over Holton Heath, because there are thousands of men starving in the neighbourhood of Bournemouth and East Dorset who, if private enterprise could
  1958
  be encouraged to take it over, would find immediate employment.
  Now I want to come to the Noble Lords of this Board. Of course, there are many Departments in the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposals Board, and Members of the House who have given their services so splendidly from almost the commencement of the War need not necessarily be responsible for any one of these particular Departments, but those who are at the head of affairs are responsible; and if there is inefficiency one cannot excuse them or free them from blame. Is it realised that recently there were vast stores under the Disposals Board of which the central authorities in London were apparently unaware, and that when offers were made and contracts proposed no knowledge apparently existed at Headquarter of these great stores? I heard four or five months ago of a gentleman who desired to buy a large quantity of barbed wire. He went to Richborough and saw a considerable quantity and fixed the whole business up with the local controller. He came to London and went to Headquarters to have the contract sealed and signed and was told the wire did not exist. They sent for the index book and nothing was found of it there. This was a contract running into hundreds of thousands of pounds and that gentleman was never able to complete the contract.
  I pass from that to the question of motor cars and heavy transport wagons at Cologne. A responsible firm offered a largo sum of money to the authority controlling the disposal of these motor lorries and no answer was given to the letters of that firm.
  Mr. ROSE: Name!
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I am prepared to give it to the Minister or to an individual man, but it is undesirable to bring out names. I have actually seen copies of the correspondence, and firms have made offers to the Ministry of Munitions for the purchase of the motor lorries. My complaint is that they did not receive by return of post an answer as to whether this great contract could or could not be made. For some considerable period nothing was done until the firm itself went to the head of the Department for the disposal of the lorries, and he had never heard of this great offer. Then various

  1959
  staff officers were sent to find out how it occurred, and the letter was then produced. That is hardly conducive to good business.
  I come to a far more serious question, and that is the question of the motor lorries at St. Omer dump. I am not exaggerating when I say that the firm which I have in my mind is one of the greatest in this country, a name famous throughout the length and breadth of the land. Therefore, any offer coming from this firm would naturally, one would have thought, have been sympathetically received by the Disposal Board. This firm went to the Disposal Board and stated that they were ready to purchase 1,158 Leyland motor vehicles which were at that time in the St. Omer dump. Although this motor transport dump had been for disposal for a very considerable time, when this firm approached the proper authorities they were apparently unaware of what existed on the ground, again showing a complete lack of business evidence. The extraordinary part of it is that that authority on the Disposal Board apparently had to accept the figures stated by the intending purchaser as to how many motor lorries there were on the St. Omer dump. A meeting was held a little later on, and at this meeting it was stated to the intending purchasers that the total value of this dump, including the stores, was estimated by the Ministry of Munitions to be of not less value than £500,000. The purchasers pointed out that they were basing their figures on a list which showed 1,158 Leyland vehicles present at the time of their visit to St. Omer on 29th November of last year, but that since that date the number Had been reduced to 961, a fact of which the Disposal Board was apparently not aware. The balance has been taken away by the authorities for shipment to England, and presumably they were vehicles either fit to run on their own power or vehicles that were towable, and consequently, generally speaking, they were the more valuable portion of the dump. The authorities then stated that as there were 200 less motor vehicles, the value of the dump would be £450,000. I am sorry to weary the Committee with these figures, but they are of supreme importance. In the end this particular firm offered £375,000, which the authorities refused, and the meeting then adjourned. On
  1960
  13th December, 1919, the managing director of this great firm wrote to the Disposal Board as follows:
  "Dear Sirs, With reference to my interview with you on Tuesday, the 9th instant, regarding the purchase of vehicles, stores, etc., in charge of the Royal Air Force at St. Omer, I have consulted with my firm and I am prepared to make a firm offer to purchase these vehicles from His Majesty's Government at the price of £450,000 on the terms suggested by you to one of our firm, the sum to be embodied in the contract, and if the offer is accepted the contract to be signed and the material to be handed over at the earliest possible moment."
  In reply to that letter the following telegram was received from the Disposal Board:
  "Reference to your offer of £450,000 for mechanical transport, St. Omer, regret unable to accept same. Providing unsold, will accept £400,000 cash."
  To that wire the firm replied:
  "Your wire received declining my offer of £450;000 deferred payment for mechanical transport, St. Omer, but offering to accept £400,000 cash. We will give the latter amount in cash, namely, £400,000. Please wire acceptance."
  They were all written out in words. The principal of the firm then proceeded to London to complete, as he thought, the contract. On arrival he was met by a member of his firm who handed him a copy of a telegram which had been sent to this firm in his absence, which evidently, owing to some blunder on the part of the Disposal Board, had been incorrectly despatched, and as a consequence the principal of this firm wrote as follows:
  "On arriving in London this morning one of my firm handed me a copy of a letter addressed on such and such a day dated the 18th instant, in which I learn that your offer is not for £400,000 cash, as stated in the telegram I received from you, but for £500,000 cash. It is unfortunate when dealing with sums of this magnitude that amounts should be telegraphed in figures and not in words which is the usual practice adopted by business men. The result is that I have been put to grave inconvenience and loss of time in coming to London. From a business man's point of view it is difficult to conduct any satisfactory dealings with His Majesty's Ministry of Munitions. After the late negotiations, I was informed by you that the amount which had been recommended for the consideration of the Ministry should be the sum of £450,000, and at the same time I was informed that the Ministry were prepared to accept payment in the form of bills maturing through the year. After due consideration, my Board decided to offer the above sum. On visiting the Ministry under the impression that the deal would be closed on these terms, I learned, much to my sur-

  1961
  prise, that the sum arranged had been raised by anothr £50,000, and when I interviewed the Minister, Lord Inverforth, I was informed by him that we must leave the whole matter in his hands."
  This firm was then informed, on a further call at the Disposals Board, that they had had a further valuation and that it had been decided that the smallest sum which could be accepted was £500,000.
  It now appears that, during the whole period of these negotiations, the chief official who was selling these motor lorries in this extraordinary manner happened to be the brother of two directors in another firm. This particular firm were very anxious to obtain those motor lorries, and the extraordinary part of it is that that particular firm purchased those motor lorries at the higher figure, £500,000, when the price had been suddenly raised after the contract had been, as was believed, in fact, accepted. These are things which require explanation. I have purposely endeavoured to keep out the names of the firms, but I have given two specific instances where men have made every effort to purchase these motor lorries. In one case the offers were not even acknowledged until, apparently, a sale had take place. In the other the offer was practically finally accepted, when suddenly the old price was raised by a very large amount. Looking at this case, one naturally hopes that there is nothing in it which denotes corruption. But if not, I think that it denotes inefficiency of the most extraordinary character that has ever been known in British administration.
  To show how this kind of thing goes on in various Departments of the Ministry of Munitions, I may mention the case of blankets at Tilbury, which have been occupying a very useful shed for a considerable time. Everybody knows how warehouse room is required at Tilbury, and yet 16 months after the Armistice these blankets are still there deteriorating, and have not been put on the market. A purchaser went to the Ministry of Munitions and offered to purchase the whole of these blankets. The purchaser was informed that the blankets could only be sold—he offered to buy the whole of these blankets and clear them out of the warehouse—in small lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. per blanket. The purchaser thereupon called upon the Controller of Textiles, and asked for a sample of these blankets. There
  1962
  was no sample there at the moment, and he asked that a sample should be sent. He was told that they could not do that, as it might cause confusion. He then went and got a sample for himself. He then went back to the Disposal Board, and was told that the blankets were all gone, and that he had better go and make a bid for some blankets at Woolwich. Later on he discovered that, far from being all gone, they were still there. But they were not now for sale, because they were a mixed lot. The purchaser next called on the official responsible for the second-hand blankets, but he was told that these were not for sale because they were wanted for the Army Department. He made further inquiries and discovered that the blankets were not wanted for the Army Department, but that they had in fact been ordered to be sent by barge from Tilbury to Dagenham. It was thought, I suppose, that it would be good for the blankets to have a sea Voyage. He again made an offer and was told he must pay 10s. a blanket for the whole lot he was prepared to take, although they had confessed that they had sold them in small lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. per blanket. The purchaser said that before he gave 10s. per blanket for the lot he must consult his principals. It seemed to him a very extraordinary rise in price. They said, "No, we cannot wait until tomorrow, because we are actually going to sell them at that price to-day." He went away; he was told he was too late, as the Prime Minister always told the ex-Prime Minister. On going down next day he discovered that they had not been sold and that he was not too late. Once more he endeavoured to make a purchase. I am informed that as a matter of fact the whole of those blankets, if they had been put into the hands of a real business man, would have been cleared off within a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "At what price?"] At a price, however, higher than that at which the small lots were sold.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I think if the hon. and gallant Member made further inquiries he would find that he has been entirely misinformed.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I should be very glad if my hon. and gallant Friend, who from below the gangway speaks for the Government, could tell me at this moment that I can purchase to-morrow

  1963
  the whole of these blankets at 8s. 6d. each.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: No
  Brigadier-General CROFT: How is it, then, that they sold them in lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. each, when he knows that the cost of transport and everything else must have been very much higher? He must settle that with his business con science. I asked a question the other day, quite innocently. It was whether the Deputy-Minister of Munitions would state that it was a fact that a large number of canned rabbits were in this country. A large number of tinned rabbits have, I believe, been imported into this country. Excellent rabbits they are! The then Deputy-Minister of Munitions apparently thought it was a most monstrous suggestion that tinned rabbits were coming into this country. He said, "No, we have none of these tinned rabbits; we are not holding tinned rabbits at present." Then I asked him, why were they advertised for sale in "Surplus"? I asked him why the Government advertised things they did not possess. We want to know. It is not carping criticism. I could go on for two or three hours, but I must not detain the Committee. The Ministry of Munitions was built up in a very patchwork manner and obviously there was no permanent staff, and men were placed in positions and I have no doubt conscientiously tried to do their best, but they were untrained in departmental work and did not understand the is political chiefs and got into habits which were unusual. The effect of this is that amongst big business firms of this country which had dealings with the Ministry and the Disposals Board there is very grave unrest. On one single day four men came to me. Two of them had recently left the Ministry and the other two were thinking of leaving. There is a general feeling throughout the Department that somehow or other the most business-like arrangements were not carried out. We could understand that during the War, but now it is absolutely disastrous. We were encouraged to learn that the Ministry was probably to be brought to an end, but we are now shocked to find that that was merely encouragement to Members of the House. When we realise that there is this extra-
  1964
  ordinary discontent throughout the whole of the country at the way things are carried on month after month, and soon it will be year after year, surely we are entitled to demand that the Ministry should be brought to an end in the immediate future and not some months hence. Are we entitled under those circumstances to vote £58,000,000 for the carrying out of a business which we see is inefficient. It is only the great advance in world prices which has saved the Ministry, as otherwise it would have been driven to close by the force of public opinion and the work handed over to permanent Civil servants who understand their job. When the hon. Member who was recently Deputy-Minister is ready in this House to condone a case where an official was prepared to come forward to ask that certain irregularities should cease, and when that hon. Member does everything in his power not to help to solve that question and treats that man as if he were a criminal and allows him to be summarily dismissed, and when we see what is going on throughout the length and breadth of the country, can we not demand that the Ministry should be brought to a close.
  Mr. INSKIP: I am sure that the Committee has enjoyed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has-just spoken almost as much as he enjoyed it himself. I am not sure that the Committee shares his views as to the Ministry of Munitions being wholly incompetent from top to bottom. The Ministry has been getting high prices for the goods, but that,. according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is due to the rise in world prices. Apparently they are to be blamed for everything that has gone amiss and to get no credit for things that have gone well. I think the Committee realise that the Ministry had an exceedingly difficult task, and, on the whole, coped with it satisfactorily, with no doubt glaring mistakes in some cases and possibly incompetence in some quarters. I want to call attention to what I think has been a less satisfactory part of the operations of the Ministry of Munitions than some others, in the hope that some statement may be made showing that the proper steps are being taken to realise those stores which are not yet realised in France. In France, I believe, the position, according to the confession of

  1965
  the Ministry, if the truth were to be told, has been the least satisfactory part of their operations, and I should like the Financial Secretary, it; he is able to say so, to assure the Committee that I am mistaken in making that statement. If I thought all the stores had been disposed of, I should not trouble the Committee, but I believe there are stores still undisposed of, and that transactions might be reopened with advantage to the country. When we know the vast values of these stores, it is seen to be important that they should be disposed of to the best advantage. I am informed that amongst the stores in France, the surplus assets, there have been a large quantity of barges, and amongst them those barges which are in frequent demand in France, Holland, and Belgium, river and canal barges, which are unsuitable for a sea voyage. For some reason the large demands by the inhabitants of those countries for these barges, in many cases by persons who owned the barges originally, were not acceded to, and they were instead sold in the autumn or winter of last year,' payment being conditional on their delivery at Ostend. These barges were gathered in the Tancarville Canal, near Havre, and a sea voyage was necessary for them to be delivered at Ostend according to contract. I am informed that an attempt was made to deliver some of these barges, that some of them sank on the sea voyage, and that the rest of the barges have not been delivered, but are lying rotting in the Tancarville Canal and in other canals in the north of France. When one asks who was the gentleman responsible for this transaction, I do not suggest that the Disposals Board has shown incompetence or carelessness; obviously they cannot transact these sales in France, but the question is whether the Disposals Board has been well served or not in France, and whether the necessary steps have been taken to appoint gentlemen who are competent to deal with these transactions. I am told that the gentleman appointed in this case has been dismissed or has ceased to occupy his position. Has one more competent taken his place, or is it possible to re-open the transaction? As anyone who goes to the north of France may see, these barges are lying in the canals, idle and rotting. It may be, as I say, that they have already been sold, and there is the contract. Cannot that contract be re-opened, and
  1966
  cannot these barges be sold on reasonable terms?
  That is not the only case where unsuitable persons have been given very large powers. I might give another illustration out of several. There was an enormous quantity of metal scrap in the north of France collected in dumps. One of the largest was several square miles in extent. It was arranged that the sale of this metal scrap should be entrusted to a gentleman who has also ceased to occupy his position. I have no desire to pillory persons, or to raise a scandal. I do not know whether "scandal" is the right word to use, but, rightly or wrongly, this gentleman was entrusted with the sale of these enormous dumps, and he conducted merchants in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing what they could purchase. The largest of all was not shown to these merchants. It was sold to a firm of dealers, Thos. Ward & Co., of Sheffield, or, if not sold, it was put into their hands for disposal, and the gentleman who did not show this dump to the merchants and reserved it for Messrs. Thos. Ward & Co. to deal with, was afterwards found to be connected in some way with that firm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It is useless for hon. Members to call for the name. Even if I gave it, it would convey nothing. I have given the name of the firm, and I have mentioned the facts in order that more attention may be given at the Disposal Board to the choice of proper persons to carry through the sale of such assets as still remain for disposal. I believe it is not the fault so much of the Disposal Board, as it may be their misfortune that, for the enormous surplus stores to be disposed of, it has not been easy to obtain the right persons What I think the Committee ought to be assured of, with the diminishing quantity of stores still to be sold, is that additional care should be taken to see that the undesirable adventurer, the man interested commercially in the future of these stores, should not have any part or lot in dealing with them, but that the sales should be entrusted to gentlemen of tried integrity in the public service, and of business experience and ability, so that the best may be made of what remains.
  I want again to ask a question relating to part of our assets in France which I hope will be useful. I am not referring to matters which are dead and buried, and

  1967
  cannot be amended, but I am informed that in France there were very large wagon repairing depots, three in number, which were the subject matter of favourable offers from the French Government, and from a large French railway; that the offers of purchase were made on terms which would have ensured the maintenance of the depots at the expense of the French purchaser; that British wagons and rolling-stock would have been repaired at the expense of the purchaser by French workmen; and that in each case purchase has been delayed, or offers have been refused. It may have been due, and I am informed it was due, to the decision that the whole of the transportation assets should be sold in one block, but, in any case, the offers were not accepted. One man came almost on bended knee with a guarantee of a French bank, so that he might be allowed to purchase. The depots are now either in part derelict, or are being maintained by British workmen, numbers of whom had to be taken from this country to France to man the depots, at British expense. Why are not depots of this sort handed over to people on the spot, especially when they are prepared to pay favourable prices for them. I hope the Minister may be in a position to say that the whole of these wagon repairing depots are to be dealt with in the favourable way I have suggested, instead of remaining derelict or semi-derelict, as they are at the present time.
  I desire to refer to one other matter, namely, the sale of the transportation assets as a whole. I do not know whether I am correctly informed, but I am told that these transportation assets have been sold to the great prejudice of the British taxpayer at a sum vastly below their true value, due to the decision to attempt to sell them in one block, and that a delay took place from June down to a very late date in 1919. I am asking about this, because there was a British Transport Liquidation Commission appointed in June, 1919, and a man eminent in his own profession (Sir Ernest Myers) went out to France to attempt to sell all these transportation assets, sidings, port developments, railway lines—hundreds of millions of assets, I am told—which were urgently desired by French purchasers. The British Transport Commission failed for
  1968
  four months to effect the sale of the whole or any part of the assets. They resigned, and Sir Ernest Myers returned to England. Another body was appointed, and they in turn resigned. A further new body, I am told, has been lately formed to deal with such transportation assets as remain. Why has this third new body been formed and who are the gentlemen in charge? Are the lessons of the past to be taken to heart, and is France to be made as satisfactory a part of the Ministry of Munitions as is to be found at home, I believe, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Page Croft) has said. I should not have risen to make these remarks if I had not felt that something useful can be done if the lessons of the past are taken to heart in regard to France. If the hon. Member tells us that France is perfectly satisfactory, that, on the whole, very good results have been obtained there, and that I have been misinformed as to these matters, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I believe the Committee is satisfied that Lord Inverforth, on the whole, has performed a difficult task with devotion and ability, and that the officials of the Ministry in nearly all cases have served with equal devotion and ability. It would be unfortunate if it went out that this Committee was of the opinion which the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth indicated as his opinion, and I hope that it will not be thought, when I mention these matters with regard to France, that I share his opinion that there has been either incompetence or default in the performance of the duties falling to their lot.
  Mr. HOPE: I entirely appreciate the spirit in which my hon. and learned Friend who has spoken last has dealt with this subject. I confess frankly that I am in some difficulty in dealing with these cases, because they refer to matters which up to the present have been entirely outside my purview, and I can only assure hon. Members, if they will send me the details of any primâ facie cases for inquiry, that I will see that inquiry is carried out to the bottom. I can give some information as to some of the cases that have been referred to. My hon. and learned Friend referred to railway transportation assets. I am informed that the whole of the transportation assets in France have been sold to the French Government. That, I think, really answers his last inquiry. As to

  1969
  Audrincq, it was used for repairs of motor vehicles that were to be brought into use or were being used for the time being in France and disposed of. However, that use has now ceased; but the only offer made for the depôt is only 35 per cent. of the value. As to the barges, they have been sold to the Belgian Government. The two that were lost were covered by insurance, and, of course, the Belgian Government will get the benefit. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend who spoke previously assumed rather an unusual course. He flung case after case at us without any notice, in some cases without giving names, and in all cases relying on ex parte statements. I think I have some reason for complaint of his action in that respect—
  Brigadier-Colonel CROFT: I told the hon. Member that I should be very glad to give him names.
  Mr. HOPE: But for all that, what I have said to the right hon. Member applies equally to him. If he will send me something like prima, facie cases, I will see that they are probed to the bottom. It is obvious that we cannot range over the whole region, and that I cannot be expected to disprove charges that the hon. and gallant Member has not attempted to prove. There are one or two other matters to which I should reply. Reference has been made to certain offers made to local controllers which Headquarters kept turning down. These negotiations between men of business and local controllers at the local depot, to say the least, are open to objection. It is not the policy of the. Disposal Board to encourage sales of this description. Their policy is to test the market, find the best price, and then take any good offer approximating to the market price. We favour sales by public auction or by public tender, also with a view to getting the best price. I really cannot admit any liability on the part of the Ministry of Munitions because certain persons approach certain local controllers and do not succeed in getting their temporary bargains ratified
  Brigadier-General CROFT: But how can a possible purchaser succeed in bringing an offer to Heaquarters if the latter know nothing about the existence of these stores?
  Mr. HOPE: In the case given, of Richborough, I would suggest that it is probable they had just arrived from France. If the authorities at Headquarters do not know of the stores and the matter is brought to their notice it-is their duty to make inquiries. The St. Omer dump was referred to. With regard to the £400,000 in cash, or £450,000 by deferred payments, referred to by the hon. Member, in the end the Exchequer actually got £500,000, and therefore there is nothing wrong about that. In this case I also offer to have a full inquiry made. In the course of the afternoon, a great number of other criticisms have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the bad treatment of the Great Northern Railway, but as he is not in his place I will let that pass. With regard to the question of private secretaries, I must apologise for a clerical error, although the amount is not very large. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) dealt with the question of repairs. I have already dealt with the galvanised iron fence. In regard to what he has said about time and line contracts, they are adequately checked under the agreement by the cost system inaugurated at the Ministry of Munitions during the War, which is certainly not likely to be forgotten now. I have already answered the questions with regard to Enfield and Waltham Abbey, but as to the policy adopted, that is a matter for the War Office. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Davison) criticised the sale of Slough being influenced by vested interests. I repudiate that suggestion entirely, and the Ministry are quite strong enough to stand up against any vested interests in this matter. The hon. Member said that where the Government had a national factory created by the War they ought to maintain it, and find work to do in every case, no matter whether it is entirely unadapted for this purpose and must result in a heavy loss. This question was argued on principle last year, and I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that it would be disastrous in the national interest and unfair to the traders of the country to adopt that policy. I have been asked what are we still doing? When we have disposed of

  1971
  the Government factories there will still be an immense volume of work to be done. We expect during this year to raise a revenue greater than the whole revenue of the country used to be only a few years before the War. We are budgeting to raise £200,000,000 during this year. Somebody will have to raise this money; a staff has to be found, control must be provided for the staff, and as to the suggestion that the Board of Trade should take over the work, I do not think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to that Board would exactly relish having to act as chief liquidator by having this business of the Disposal Board transferred to him. I cannot but think that 5 per cent. on the amount realised is not an excessive charge for the work as compared with the cost of private liquidation. I can only say in conclusion that I will see if a revised Estimate cannot be produced before June. If it cannot be, the rights of hon. Members will not be affected, as I am quite content that the Vote should not be passed to-night and they will be therefore in a position to call for it again if necessary. I beg formally to ask leave to withdraw the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progres; and ask leave to sit again." [Mr. Hope.]
  Mr. C. PALMER: I wish—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The Vote has been withdrawn. No objection was audible.
  Mr. PALMER: I certainly wished to speak on it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question now is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. PALMER: Then I will address my self to that Question. I have to congratulate the Opposition on being at last an Opposition, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on the speech he made to-night and the effect it had in inducing the Government to withdraw the Vote.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Shall I be in Order in informing the Ministry of Munitions that, having regard to the fact
  1972
  that several Members wished to address the Committee on this most urgent public matter, we propose to call attention to the question on the Motion for the Adjournment?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TREATIES OF PEACE (AUSTRIA AND BULGARIA) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY 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 Treaties of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers."—[Mr. C. Harmsworth.]
Mr. HOGGE: I do not think that, at five minutes to eleven, we ought to begin the Committee Stage of the Expenses Resolution in connection with a Treaty of this nature. If I recollect rightly, the Resolution in connection with the Treaty between this country and France was also brought forward at a late hour of the night.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): We hoped very much to get the Committer, stage of this Resolution to-night, but if it is the opinion of the Committee that that is unreasonable we shall not press it. It is, however, important that we should proceed as quickly as possible with the further stages of the Austrian and Bulgarian Treaty, and, while we have no right to press the point, I should take it as a great favour to myself if the Committee would allow us to take the Committee Stage to-night. We have circulated in the Vote Office—I am sorry to say only in typewritten form—a brief statement with regard to this Resolution, and it is no doubt in the hands of all hon. Members who have taken a special interest in this matter. If my hon. Friend, and the House generally, would concede this, I should, if I may so put it, be personally very grateful, while, which is much more important, the Bill would be very much advanced.
Mr. HOGGE: I never have had any objection to these things being proceeded

1973
with quickly, but here is a Treaty which could have been brought before the House weeks or months ago, and now, when we are asked to take the Expenses Resolution, there are only typewritten copies of the statement. I make this offer to my hon. Friend. If he will withdraw the Resolution, and allow Members to see the statement, and will put it down on Monday, we will give it to him on Monday without opposition. It is unreasonable to ask the Committee to deal with an international matter of this kind in so haphazard a way.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: There will be a Report stage of the Resolution on which it can be more extensively discussed. I do not exactly know what the procedure on Monday will be, but I am not at all sure that an opportunity will occur.
Mr. HOGGE: If my hon. Friend will give the Opposition generally notice that the Report stage is going to be taken, and that time will be given to look at the documents, we shall be satisfied.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be glad to do that, and I have no doubt my Noble Friend will agree. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.
Colonel GRETTON: I went to the Vote Office at 7.30 and inquired for this Paper which has been mentioned, but I could not get it, and nothing was known of it. I think it is unreasonable to ask the House of Commons—
It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
11.0 P.M.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "recommitted in respect of Clauses 17 and 22."
This Bill was rather hurriedly put through the Committee stage, and we had
1974
not an opportunity of going fully into the Clause. The party with which I am associated feel that the proposal to raise the sum a soldier has to pay who desires his discharge from the Army from £ 10 to £20 is one which ought to be justified by the War Office. We also think, in connection with Clause 22, that the time has now come when the claims of the father of a child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, ought to be placed on the same footing, and the same allowance ought to be made. If the Government cannot agree to recommit the Bill, perhaps they would agree to take some steps to meet the two suggestions I have made.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Archibald Williamson): The hon. Member had the Bill in his possession for rather beyond three weeks before the Committee stage
Mr. BILLING: Is it in Order, having regard to the fact that an hon. Member has given notice to raise another matter on the Adjournment, that the Army (Annual) Bill should be permitted to be taken after Eleven o'clock?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Army (Annual) Bill is excepted business under the Standing Orders.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. Member and those who sympathise with him had desired to put down an Amendment to ensure a discussion on these matters, or if they had, when the Clauses themselves were put from the Chair, risen to ask questions, there would have been, and there was, every possible opportunity to elucidate any point which appeared obscure to them. Therefore I cannot accept the suggestion that there was not sufficient opportunity to consider the points of the Bill.
Mr. WILSON: We could not put down Amendments until after the Second Beading of the Bill was taken.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware of that, but having considered the points of the Bill it is a very short process to draft Amendments which can be handed in in advance of the Second Reading. With regard to the material objection raised to these two Clauses I would point out that the cost of maintaining a soldier has been very greatly raised, and that is particularly applicable to the cost of the

1975
feeding and training of a soldier who forms part of the Air Force and other technical services of that kind. Therefore, it is only right and proper, if a man has selected to go into the Army and he afterwards desires to change his mind, after the Government has spent a very considerable sum of money upon him, that he should pay some more reasonable sum than £10 for throwing up his contract. It must be remembered that a soldier who joins for three months could not live anywhere else for £10. He joins the Army, receives in pay about £12, is clothed, fed and housed, has everything done for him, and thus lives for three months at the nation's expense for £10. He cannot live in any other walk of life for less than £1 a week, therefore, the sum of £10 is quite inadequate. I must oppose the Motion to recommit the Bill on the ground, not only of the merits of the question—which I am quite prepared to defend at length if necessary—but on the ground that every opportunity for discussion was given to the House.
Mr. HOGGE: The last remark of my hon. Friend is an exaggeration. It is unfair to say that the House during this week has had the opportunity which it was entitled to have of discussing this Bill.
Commander BELLAIRS: Yes it had.
Mr. HOGGE: My hon. and gallant Friend was present in the interests of the Navy; he is always present when the question of discipline, such as courts-martial, is involved. It is not fair to say that we had proper opportunity, in view of the business that was announced before Easter. We were told that the business we should take after Easter would be; on Monday, small Bills; on Tuesday, munitions; on Wednesday, the Austrian and Bulgarian treaties; and on Thursday, transport. The hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson) and myself represent the two sections of the Opposition. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh as long as they like, but they will not stop our opposition.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Where is Maclean?
Captain HAMBRO: Where is Asquith?
Mr. HOGGE: When the hon. Members interrupt in Parliamentary form I will
1976
reply in a Parliamentary way. Neither my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson), myself, nor the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) were consulted by the Government in regard to this Bill. My Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) is always meticulously polite in the arrangements made between the Government and the Opposition.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I was certainly under the impression notice had been given that we should take the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill directly we got back, but if the hon. Member says that is not so I accept his statement.
Mr. HOGGE: My noble Friend takes a wider view than some hon. Members below the Gangway. He is wrong in assuming that we had fair notice. On the merits, in Clause 17, you have the amount for the purchase of discharge raised from £10 to £20. Most of these cases—as happened during the War—will be cases of boys who, without the consent of their parents, joined the Army, and who, during the War, because of the extremity of the nation, were kept in the Army. In nearly all these cases the amount required for discharge must be paid by the parents, and it is monstrous that the amount payable should' be doubled on these people, who have spent a great deal on their sons who may be undergoing apprenticeship or attending technical schools, and may be induced by the many means, which all of us know, to join the Army. It is points of this kind that have missed adequate discussion because of the way that this Bill was forced on the House. My hon. Friend will agree that we want business done in this House by co-operation, and I would suggest that in an hour or two on another day he would get far more, if sufficient notice is given, than if we are asked at eleven o'clock at night to take the Third Reading of this Bill.
Mr. BILLING: I rise to object principally to the increasing habit of the Government of introducing most important business a few minutes before eleven o'clock. I happened this afternoon to be in company with an hon. Member who takes a deep interest in this Bill. One of the Junior Whips was present. The hon. Member asked, "Is

1977
there any danger of the Third Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill being taken to-night?" and the Junior Whip assured him that he could go home with an easy conscience, as the matter would not be raised. I say "Shame!" Of course I know that were I adopting the same principles as those which inspire the ardent supporters of the Government, who no doubt by their acclamation will in due course qualify for positions, even if minor ones, in the Administration, I should proceed at once to read the Clauses to the House. I do not propose to do that; I do not propose to qualify either as an obstructionist or as a junior member of the Government. Neither of those positions has any attractions for me. What I do feel in all seriousness is that the Government are not taking the Opposition—without reasonable opposition they cannot hope to keep the narrow path of virtuous administration—seriously, in rushing measures through in this manner, I know it is utterly impossible for me to prevent them from doing it to-night. Were it possible for me to do so by speaking until 11.30 I should certainly tax what ability I have in performing what I regard as a public duty, but if I spoke until 3 o'clock in the morning, directly I sat down, if no other Member rose, they would get their Third Reading. I do not wish to enter into the by-play and side-talk of those who have spent more of their time in other parts of the House, but I protest against this method of legislating. Only twenty minutes ago, when criticism of the administration of the. Ministry was getting a little too engaging they withdrew a Vote at 10.55 and prevented other Members from speaking.
Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Gentleman made one single remark upon the question of the recommittal of the Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: It would be going too far to say that the hon. Member has not addressed one remark.
Mr. BILLING: As an independent Member who rejoices in an almost unique position, I protest strongly against the lack of respect which the present Government shows to the Parliamentary procedure of this honourable House.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment
1978
will go to a division, in which I shall support him. I think it is right that a strong protest should be made against this additional turn to the screw of the machinery of the rack, by which the Government are keeping in the Army young lads who ought never to have been taken. In time of war almost anything had to be winked at, but in time of peace the Government is still taking lads of 17 under the pretence that they are 18. I know of a case of a lad who twice tried to enlist and was refused because he was under age. He then found out that in order to get in he must tell a lie and say he was 18. He did so, and the Government say they will keep him, and to get him released it is necessary to pay £20 instead of £ 10. I say it is highly discreditable to the country and the Government. I hope this protest will be made on every possible occasion, and I intend to do so.
Mr. PALMER: I should like to join in the protest against the precipitate action of the Government, but as I must address myself to the Amendment I shall reserve my remarks on that point to a later stage. With regard to the recommittal proposal, I had to-day put before me the case of an old woman whose nine sons fought in the war. Her last son and sole remaining support went into the Army under age, and that old woman is doing what she can to get him out. She is in extreme poverty, and it is absolute irony that she should be charged £10 or £20. It is a poor return to the people of this country, who have given of their best, when they find that the circumstances of domestic life necessitate the return of a young lad who has enlisted under age, and now realises the mistake and the amount of harm he has done his family, that there should be this difficulty in getting him out. It is a scandalous thing that we should make this return to those who have done so much for us. I hope the hon. Gentleman who moved will go to a Division, and thus enable us to record our emphatic protest. I heard some one say just now, "Write to 'John Bull.'" That enables me to say it is because of hundreds of cases of hardship that I join with my friends of the Labour party and the Front Opposition Bench to vote against this iniquity.
Mr. HAYDAY: I wish to add my protest to those of other hon. Members. In regard to Clause 22, which relates to a

1979
soldier s liability to maintain wife and children, I find it says
"where the soldier is a Warrant Officer (Class II.) not holding an honorary commission, or a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant—in respect of a wife or children, two shillings and sixpence, and in respect of a bastard child, one shilling and sixpence."
To suggest a figure of Is. 6d. for the maintenance of the unfortunate illegitimate child is, I think, nothing short of scandalous. I would appeal to the right hon. Member in charge to see if something cannot be done to revise these Clauses and at all events give some greater measure of justice in instances of this sort. I feel that at this hour of the night it is unfair to treat hon. Members as if they were simply a lot of children instead of men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Children go to bed early."] The hon. Member perhaps has had the advantage of what is termed a good education. In the elementary schools we were always taught that at all events courtesy pays, and it ill behoves an hon. Member to interject such senseless remarks that would perhaps be better understood if they emanated from a person for whom warders may be seeking.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I think it should be known that these figures represent a considerable
increase on the existing rates. He desires that larger payment should be made in respect of deserted wives and illegitimate children, and no doubt the House would have every sympathy with such people, but there are two or three considerations involved. First of all, we must consider what the man's income is and that he must be left enough for his own necessities, and that a man still remains liable after he ceases to be a soldier for any amount the court may find his wife is entitled to. The hon. Member has spoken as if we were fixing for the first time a figure, but the present figure is only Is. Id., and we are proposing in the Bill to raise that to Is. 6d., which I think is a justifiable increase from the point of view that we have increased the soldier's pay, and therefore it is legitimate and proper that the soldier should be made to realise his responsibility if he has deserted his wife and children, to a greater extent than at present. Therefore the action of the War Office is entirely in accordance with the views of the hon. Gentleman, and it is entirely to carry out his views that this increase has been made.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided; Ayes, 100; Noes, 30.

Division No. 86.]

AYES.

[11.37 p.m.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Atkey, A. R.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Purchase, H. G.

Baird, John Lawrence

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

Baldwin, Stanley

Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Barnett, Major R. W.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Barrie, Charles Coupar

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

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

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

Berwick, Major G. O.

Jameson, J. Gordon

Seager, Sir William

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Johnson, L. S.

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Briggs, Harold

Jones, J. T, (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bruton, Sir James

Kellaway, Frederick George

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Kidd, James

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

Stevens, Marshall

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Chadwick, R. Burton

Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

Sutherland, Sir William

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lort-Willlams, J.

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Tryon, Major George Clement

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Wallace, J.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Mallalieu, F. W.

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Waring, Major Walter

Doyle, N. Grattan

Morison, Thomas Brash

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Morrison, Hugh

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

Falcon, Captain Michael

Morrison, T. B. (Inverness).

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Foreman, Henry

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Nail, Major Joseph

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

Neal, Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Glyn, Major Ralph

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

Parker, James

Ward.

NOES.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Lawson, John J.

Royce, William Stapleton

Billing, Noel Pemberton-

Lunn, William

Sexton, James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Cape, Thomas

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Swan, J. E.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Finney, Samuel

Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Hayday, Arthur

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayward, Major Evan

Rose, Frank H.

Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Hogge.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Main Question again proposed.
Mr. PALMER: I am sorry to keep the House at this somewhat late hour, but, having been largely responsible for the agitation in the Press which resulted in the appointment by the Government of the Committee of Inquiry into courts-martial, I feel it upon my conscience to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, and to say what I have to say to-night. I know that any appeal to one's conscience raises derision among certain hon. Gentlemen, and I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me from the frivolous interruptions of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith).
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of frivolous interruptions in a ease like this, when no word has passed my lips except the words "Hear, hear," which I uttered immediately the hon. Member rose to speak?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was only anticipating what might happen.
Mr. SMITH: Is it in order for an hon. Member to allude to frivolous interruptions which have not yet taken place?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not disorderly to do so, but it does not seem to be very relevant.
Mr. PALMER: I am much obliged, Sir. The point of Order has served my purpose, and now, possibly, I may be allowed to proceed to put before the House the matters which I feel it to be my duty to put before it. The demand which led up to the setting up of that Committee, which laboriously examined the whole matter, was a demand for the power to appeal from the death sentence in the Army. In my opinion it will have to be conceded within no very long time; for, if we do not give the right of appeal
1982
from the death sentence in the Army, there will, in my opinion, be such an agitation in this country as will result in the repeal of the power of inflicting capital punishment in the Army. We have had sufficient experience of what happened in Russia to know that Army discipline, in the last resort, cannot be maintained without the right to inflict the death penalty. It is because I know, from information that reaches me from various parts of the country, of the growing agitation on this question, that I am anxious to tell the House what I believe to be the fact, namely, that, unless the adamantine attitude of the War Office, and the old-fashioned ideas which came out very strongly before that Departmental Committee, are put aside, the day will come when the power of the Army to inflict the death penalty will be withdrawn by this House of Commons. I can well imagine, if our Labour friends sit on the Treasury Bench, that they, understanding better than anyone else the real feelings of the lower classes of this country, will be no party to maintaining an Army with the death penalty among its powers. I feel so strongly convinced of what will happen, unless the Army authorities and this House of Commons will grant the lesser boon, and give to any soldier the power which you give to the commonest—
Major O'NEILL: May I ask your ruling, Sir, upon a point of Order? On the Second Reading of this Bill, the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker was that no matter might be referred to except the question whether or not there should be a standing Army. Is it, therefore, in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to these questions of court-martial, which were fully discussed in Committee, on the Third Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading of a Bill it is open to the House, always, to discuss what is in the Bill, but not what is outside it. On the Second Reading, the

1983
principle of the Bill is the subject that is to be discussed, and, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker was perfectly right in ruling as he did. Upon the Army (Annual) Bill the rulings are very strict. On the Third Heading, it is open to the House to discuss anything that is contained in the Clauses of the Bill. To round oft what I have said, I may point out that in this Bill there are several alterations with regard to the system of trials by court-martial.
Mr. PALMER: It was because I realised how vital have been the changes in the Bill, and how much they will affect the King's Regulations, and even the Manual of Military Law, that I was. hoping—and I am glad to find that I am right—that I should be permitted to deal with the broad questions raised within the compass of these Clauses. I would like to say a word with regard to another part of the Bill, and that is the Clause which deals with summary evidence. This is another point which has excited a good deal of public attention. The demand that was made before the Committee was that from the very moment a soldier is charged he should have the right of legal protection just as we claimed that the man under sentence of death should have the same right as a civilian—the right of appeal—which appeal in the case of the civilian is to the Court of Criminal Appeal. We claim therefore that immediately a soldier is charged he should have the legal protection afforded by at once taking a summary of the evidence. Here again the recommendations of the majority of the Committee have not been carried out. What has happened is this. In Clause 16 it is laid down that the real investigation of the charge may provide for a written summary of the evidence being taken on oath. But the Bill as it stands utterly fails to meet our demand That demand was not that the evidence might be taken on oath, but that it should be taken on oath just as when a man is taken to a police court and charged a summary of the evidence is taken. No one would dream when a man is in the dock of putting a witness into the box without first swearing him, and we claim that it is essential in the interests of justice that in the Army when a man is charged with an offence he should at once
1984
have legal protection if he chooses to find it. But Clause 16 simply makes it permissive.
There are many other points to which I would like to allude. I am not speaking in any obstructive sense because I honestly believe that many members of the House, who have not studied this question very thoroughly, do not understand quite the strong feeling there is that an earnest attempt should be made not to weaken the discipline of the Army or to do anything which those who understand the nature of the serving soldier know is necessary to keep up within him a proper moral and a right feeling of manhood. We believe that the more we treat the serving soldier as a civilian and a human being, and the less we demand that any one who comes into the army shall surrender his fundamental citizen rights, which we all love and which are part of the constitution of the country, the more we shall make the army popular and the more we shall ensure that if once again we have to face a foe we shall face it with an army even better disciplined, and with a higher moral than the glorious army which from the year 1914 down to 1918 fought for us. This Bill is now going through of course, and I only make my remarks by way of protest against the action of the Government in this matter. The Committee sat and laboriously took evidence; great care was given to the whole mater. Yet the Bill was put down and the Government knowing that, as Mr. Speaker tells us, although this is a measure for the discipline of the army, yet on the Second Beading it is not allowable to utter one word upon that discipline. I suggest it was under these circumstances incumbent on the Government, owing to the technicality which precluded us from raising particular questions of principle on the Second Reading—preparatory to submitting amendments in Committee, to have been a little less precipitate in rushing this Bill through within a period of three days. They took the Second Beading one night, the Committee stage on the next, hardly allowing any time to put down amendments, although they had full knowledge that hon. Members particularly interested in this question who desired to raise several questions were absent by reason of circumstances over which they had no control, and now they are forcing on the Third Reading.

1985
All this rush is quite unnecessary, and yet we are now having a perfunctory discussion after eleven o'clock at night although some of us were assured the Bill would not be taken to-night. I want if I may respectfully to enter my protest against the way in which this Bill has been conducted and I want the House to realise that when next year a similar' Bill comes before us those of us who regard this matter with the utmost seriousness and have some respect for our consciences will feel it our duty to raise these matters at great length and press whatever Government may then be in power to do justice to the serving soldier, to give him that new charter which by his magnificent services in the late war he so richly and deservedly won.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I want to make a protest against the speech we have just heard. In the first place the hon. Member made assumptions which were not justified by the facts. The first was that it was due to his efforts that the Committee to which he alluded was appointed. I deny that. I say the Select Committee was appointed as a result of a very convincing speech by the hon. and gallant Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Major Hirst). We who were in the House at the time—
Mr. PALMER: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I said it was so in large measure—in the main—to the agitation which I initiated in the Press. It was that that led to the granting of the Select Committee.
Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member now says "in large measure." I accept that as his statement, but I do not accept it as a fact. Although the hon. Member may have initiated a Press campaign, I do not think all his efforts would have had any effect on this House or in the direction he suggests, as I doubt if more than one or two hon. Members ever read the organ of the Press in which that campaign was conducted. I make this protest as one who has served in the ranks on two occasions, and who hopes if war should come about again to further serve in the ranks. My protest is against the utter misconception of the hon. Member himself of opinion in Army ranks on this question of the death sentence. Although the hon. Member did not tell us so, he implied by his words that there was no
1986
appeal against the death sentence, yet there is, as a matter of fact, an automatic series of appeals. We went into this question fully on the Committee stage of this Bill, and therefore it is unnecessary for me to explain the safeguards which the soldier has in a case of that sort.
I would like to emphasise one point which does appeal to all ranks of the Army in this matter, and that is that the ultimate decision whether the death sentence shall be carried into effect does not rest with a court of judges or lawyers sitting to consider both the justice and the law of the case, but it rests ultimately with one human being, who has it entirely in his power to say whether the man shall or shall not suffer the death penalty. That I ask the House to believe is, in the opinion of all ranks in the Army, the greatest safe guard that any man whose life is at stake could have. The procedure through which the process of revision goes from one stage to another has already been explained many times in this House, and if at the intermediary stages the conclusion is arrived at that the sentence should not be commuted, then all the papers and the evidence on which the conviction is based have to be forwarded to General Headquarters. When it arrives there the procedure is that the Judge-Advocate-General, who is in every case a thoroughly-trained lawyer, examines all that evidence from the legal point of view, and if he sees no flaw he passes it on to the Adjutant-General, who then examines it from the point of view of the discipline of the Army. If these officers are both of the opinion that the death sentence should be carried out they make that recommendation to the Commander-in-Chief. I ask the House to picture the frame of mind in which any English General considers a question of that sort! It is to me inconceivable—and I think I speak for every real soldier—in the Army that a Commander-in-Chief will ever have a single death sentence carried out, however bad the case, if it is at all possible to save the man's life We have evidence of that.
The Committee were informed by the Commander-in-Chief in France that in rather more than 89 per cent. of the cases which came to him, eliminating all those that had been commuted on the way by

1987
other authorities, he himself had commuted the death sentence. The Commander-in-Chief in Italy was a member of our Committee, and he informed us—if my memory serves—that he had commuted just over 90 per cent. That is exactly what any soldier would have expected. I should like to protest against the assumption of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Palmer) that he knows anything whatever about the feelings of the ranks in the Army. On a previous occasion I suggested that he had never been in the Army, never had been a Volunteer, or a Territorial, and that when he says he knows the feelings of the Army he bases that statement entirely on letters received by him from soldiers convicted of crime and writing to him as editor of "John Bull." It is unnecessary to say more! I protest, and I shall always protest, against the hon. Member or his associates claiming to speak for the rank and file of the British Army.
12.0 P.M.
Mr. BILLING: It was not my intention to intervene but really, though I do not wish to join issue with the hon. Member (Mr. Palmer) on the claim he rightly or wrongly made, on behalf of the aggrieved persons who communicate with the journal with which he is identified, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who objected to that claim, and says that he speaks for the real soldier, I think it is time for someone to address the House who speaks for himself and offers reasons that may commend themselves to the House. Ninety per cent. of commutations of the death sentence seems to suggest something radically wrong in the convictions! If that is the fact, does not that in itself show that the death sentence is given more lightly and with less consideration in the case of the military court-martial than in the ordinary court of law.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I said all these death sentences which have been commuted by the Commander-in-Chief had already passed the scrutiny of the Judge Advocate General as a lawyer and the Adjutant General is responsible for discipline in the Army. Further if these death sentences instead of going to the Commander-in-Chief had gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal I believe there would not have been 90 per cent. of commutations but probably not more than 1 per cent.
Sir W. BULL: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member opposite correct in reading a newspaper?
Mr. BILLING: The last observation of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) makes the position all the more confusing. I on two occasions have been a soldier—not an officer. If that is what we are to expect of the decisions of courts-martial, that they are such that were an appeal made to a civil Court only 1 per cent. would be repealed, surely there is something amiss with the whole proceedings. Having been court-martialled on two or three occasions, and having been on one occasion convicted of striking a superior officer, it has always appeared to me that in matters of military discipline there was not the same freedom of decision in the Court that there is in civil trials, with which I have also been identified. In time of war possibly drastic measures have to be taken, and sometimes the innocent have to suffer in the interests of the country when an example is necessary; but now we are at peace is it not possible that some weight can be given to the general question of courts-martial? The senior officer is not always right, but the principle of War Office administration is that if he is not always right, it is never possible to prove that he is wrong, because once it is admitted that he is wrong it does more harm to the conduct of the Army than even to punish an innocent person. It is impossible to admit that the senior officer is wrong. In the same way it is impossible to admit that a policeman lies. Of course he could not lie. If he says you are doing fifty miles an hour, you are doing fifty miles an hour. No senior officer could tell a lie at a court-martial I ask the representatives of the War Office in future to try to introduce a more humane administration of courts-martial.
Touching the question of increased payment for discharges which the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson) asked, is it right that we should keep men for three or six months and teach them to be soldiers and then release them on payment of £10. Where else could you get back six months for £10? He could go to gaol for less than that, and he could have a much merrier time in some gaols than in some regiments. But in the event of men being wanted for the Army in future,

1989
he is a much more valuable man with his six months' experience than if he had never been there at all. I am not quite sure that with his six months' service it would not pay the State to give him £10 instead of asking him to pay £20, and if that is not so what is the use of starting on a big Territorial scheme which proposes only fourteen days' training per annum with payment for doing it? If we expect to make men more useful as a military machine with fourteen days' training than three years, how much more useful are men who have done six months' continuous training? These things do not receive the consideration they deserve There are many more matters which hon. Members would like to raise, but they feel that the patience of the House becomes exhausted. That makes none the less the responsibility of such Members as are not absolutely led by the nose by the Government, and there are such Members, strange as it may-appear, and it makes their responsibility none the less if they feel there are certain points they want to put forward, and even risk the chance of incurring unpopularity in getting up even at this late hour to try to do their duty.
The discrimination which is made between legitimate and illegitimate children is a subject which deserves the closest attention. The legitimate child of a warrant officer is entitled to Is. 6d., and an illegitimate child to 11d., the illegitimate child of a private soldier 6d., and a legitimate child, 8d. You might almost imagine a grocer's shop with these poor little things ticketed up. It shows no imagination. It shows no wealth of knowledge of the nation we are trying to build up. Is it the little child's fault that it happens to be illegitimate, and why should the stigma always be put upon the child and not upon the parents? But that of course is a broader issue. At least the War Office, might undertake to discriminate between the 6d. and 9d. for the warrant officer's and private soldier's illegitimate child. That is the sort of thing which makes one feel the utter hopelessness of ever expecting the Government to be humane. One always feels the official administration does not realise the human feeling under all these things. It is possibly useless to make these appeals, but I ask the Government in administering the affairs of the military machine whether they think their power
1990
is purely a temporary one, whether they appreciate that the League of Nations is going gradually to absorb their authority. That may be the reason for their not giving this matter the thought that one hoped they would. But this War has brought into being a totally different type of soldier. There is hardly a man capable of bearing arms in this country who has not borne arms in the war. In those circumstances there is a much keener appreciation of the Army and of military machinery than there was before. We are not now a country producing highly trained expeditionary and punitive forces, but a country which has produced the greatest and most efficient military machine that has ever been produced either in peace time or war time. That means that we have drilled and trained some five millions of the pick of the manhood of this country who have gone over the whole gamut and know the Army as well as Kipling knows it. It is those men we are thinking of to-day, and we want the War Office to think of those men whose eyes have been opened during the last five years and whose knowledge of the Army has become too intimate for really inefficient administration.
Mr. LAWSON: I protest against a Bill of this seriousness passing through the House at this hour of the morning. It may be that I have as little sympathy with the hon. Member who raised this matter of the death sentence being involved in this Bill as the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side, but there is considerable public feeling against the death sentence being left simply in the hands of one man to decide. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the general on whom it depends finally as to whether a man should die must be a man of the finest type. It does credit to him that something like 89 per cent. of these men have been reprieved, but I think that it is a responsibility which we should place upon no one man.
Mr. HOPKINSON: There are four generals who consider the matter, so that it does not devolve on a single man.
Mr. LAWSON: Though I cannot speak as one of extensive service, I can speak as a private soldier when I say that there is considerable feeling among men in the ranks upon this particular question, and the fact that a Bill such as this, which

1991
may involve the lives of men in years to come, can go through this House at such a time is a very serious matter indeed. As a Member of this House, I protest against this Bill being taken at such a late hour, and I say also as an ex-private soldier and as a representative of the public of this country, that the time has arrived—and that is the feeling in the country and in the ranks—when we ought to abolish the death sentence in the British Army. I think it would do credit to the Government if they could at least give this as a kind of charter and a memorial to the men who have served, so that in days to come, whatever they may have to suffer for their sins, they will not have the fear of death hanging over them for any momentary failure to do their duty.
Mr. T. WILSON: I fully agree with what the last speaker and the hon. Member for Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) have said. The War Office never learns anything and never forgets anything. The provisions of this Bill will not make service in the Army popular. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) is in the clouds as far as the feelings of the private soldier are concerned. If he doubts my word, will he investigate the reason why the men who have, left the Army are not joining the Territorial Army? I will tell him the reason. Men who have been in the Army speak publicly and advise not only their sons, but the men in the towns and villages not to join even the Territorials. That is a matter which the War Office ought to recognise. The points I raised in regard to Clause 17 and Clause 22 also adversely affect the minds of the people whom the War Office would like to see join the Army. A large number of the men who desire to purchase their discharge from the Army are the sons of widows and of old men—of widows who have sacrificed sons in the Army, and who, when they ask for the release of a younger son who has joined the Army, are told that £20 must be paid. What is the feeling that exercises their minds? The War Office will not recognise that men and women have any feeling at all. That is the failing of the War Office. The War Office ought to recognise that it is not the young fellow in the Army who has to find the £20, but that it is the widowed mother or the
1992
old father and mother together. I do not know whether it is possible for the War Office to make some amendment of this Bill with the House of Lords, but I hope that some effort will be made. In the case of Clause 22, why should a man, a single man in many instances, be let off with a contribution of a shilling for the maintenance of a child of which he is the father? Why should the War Office contribute three shillings in the case of a sergeant and only one shilling in the case of a private? The bastard child of the one requires the same amount of nourishment as that of the other. I hope the War Office will do something to put them on the same level. There is another thing the War Office ought to recognise. The very fact that field punishment No. 1 is still retained will prejudice recruiting for the Army. We want to see a contented as well as an efficient Army, and to satisfy the people who believe in the humane treatment of men who go into the Army.
Sir. A. WILLIAMSON: If it were not for the remarks of the last speaker I would not intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be under a false impression as to the attitude of the War Office towards the soldier. The whole of the amendments in this Bill are in the direction of giving benefit to the soldier with the exception of one case. There has been a necessary rise in the case of discharge in the case of those who join and who wish to get out within three months. All the changes in connection with the law of court-martial are in the direction of giving the soldier more advantage than he had before. A very influential Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, and was very well able to judge it. They examined a number of witnesses who had experience in the Army and at the Front, and from other armies. They went into the matter exhaustively, and made very valuable recommendations. The War Office as far as possible wish to seize this, the earliest opportunity, to put into the Army Act those improvements in the lot of the soldier.
Mr. T. WILSON: Were the rank and file consulted?
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Generals, Colonels, Majors, Captains, Sergeants, and Privates—all have been consulted, and the Government have put in all the

1993
measures which they could deal with promptly. Others of a more difficult character have been remitted to' a Committee in order that the King's Regulations shall be revised and simplified, and to enable the whole of the question of punishments to be gone over, with a view to adopting the various recommendations of the Committee. That is an attitude of sympathy towards the soldier, and not an attitude, as represented by the hon. Member, of stirring up things against him by the War Office, which he said never learned anything.
Mr. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Wilson) from his remarks has very little conception of the effects of this Bill. He protested against a proposal whereby there is more in the case of a sergeant than in the case of a private soldier in respect of an illegitimate child. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this existed in our Civil Courts for many years. The way in which damages are measured in those courts, is the position of the father to pay. It would be perfectly ridiculous if a man with a hundred thousand pounds had to pay only the same as a man who had, say, £2 per week.
Mr. T. WILSON: That is acutally the case now.
Mr. H. SMITH: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's remark. I am pointing out how unhappy were his criticisms of the Bill. In this Bill you find that system rellected. The man pays according to his ability to pay, and the War Office says: "If you are a sergeant you are able to pay more than if you are a private." The hon. Member protested against the price at which a man can be bought out of the Army, but has he forgotten that it costs twice as much to keep a soldier in the Army as in the old days, and has he forgotten that the £ of yesterday is only worth 10s. to-day? If you are increasing the pay and the cost of maintenance of a soldier, it is only reasonable that you should also increase the price at which a soldier can buy himself out of the Army. It is no good putting forward these sentimental appeals on behalf of a probably imaginary widowed mother, having regard to the increased cost of living and the decreased value of the sovereign. I am sorry the hon. Member for Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) is not in his place. There seems to be a total misunderstanding of the very
1994
valuable contribution which the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made to the debate on the subject of the death sentence. If the remarks of the hon. Member for Wrekin and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son) meant anything, they were meant to convey to the House a protest against circumstances which render it possible for any soldier to receive the death sentence without grounds of appeal, and the suggestion behind the argument was that the soldier was thus deprived of justice.
Mr. LAWSON: I argued that the death sentence should be abolished altogether.
Mr. H. SMITH: I did not wish to waste the time of the House in replying to that point, but if I understood the hon. Member right, he, in common with the hon. Member for Wrekin, objected to the fact that a soldier subjected to the death sentence had no right of appeal.
Mr. LAWSON: My point was that we ought not to have the death sentence in the Army Act at all.
Mr. H. SMITH: I thought the hon. Member allied himself with the arraignment of the hon. Member for Wrekin, and if that appeal meant anything it was a protest against depriving a soldier of a certain amount of justice. If I may say so respectfully, that is all nonsense, and it has been completely exposed as nonsense by the hon. Member for Mossley. By placing these great powers in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, you are really in the great majority of cases, rightly or wrongly, giving the man, not justice, but opportunities for continuing his life which he would not have if he were brought before anything which corresponds with our Court of Criminal Appeal. If you once gave to that man the legal right to go before a purely legal tribunal and appeal on the facts and on the law, he would get the facts and the law, but he would get no sympathy. He will get no sympathy, but he will get justice. Let me remind the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division what sort of justice it will be—not the sort of justice I think he means, in which the guilty man will be convicted and the innocent man acquitted. That is not the case to-day. Under the present system, without the Court of Appeal, in the Army the man is not judged by cold law and cold facts. He comes under a code of sympathy

1995
which weighs the balance in his favour at the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. That, strictly speaking, is not justice, because in many cases the guilty man is spared. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division that if he is going to call in the cold justice of the Court of Criminal Appeal, or anything like that, many soldiers will be convicted who under the present system would not be convicted; they will have no chance and no opportunity of escape. I think this is an unreal debate. The speeches we have listened to or the arguments that have been put forward have been such as to justify this debate.
Major O'NEILL: I want to put one or two considerations before the hon. Baronet who has spoken for the War Office. He said there was a Committee sitting to consider and recommend to his Department, first, the re-drafting of the whole code of military law, and, secondly, what should be done with the scale of punishments. I want to suggest that it would be most desirable that the Committee should have an opportunity of con-
1996
sulting the Overseas Dominions, because, as I suppose everybody knows, the various contingents from the Dominions come under the Army Acts in war time, so that any question of punishment and the whole code of military law affects our Dominions as much as it does the Home Army. We hope in future years, if called upon, the Dominions will be as effective as they were in the recent war. I have no doubt, therefore, that this consideration will have due weight with the Committee which has been referred to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty - eight minutes before One o'clock.

IRELAND.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (MERITORIOUS DUTY).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (MERITORIOUS DUTY).
RUSSIA.
  TRADE DELEGATION.
  TRADE DELEGATION.
  BOLSHEVIST RULE (REFUGEES' STATEMENTS).
  BOLSHEVIST RULE (REFUGEES' STATEMENTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (DISABILITY GRATUITY).
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (DISABILITY GRATUITY).
  IRELAND (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION).
  IRELAND (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY, HANTS (APPEAL).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY, HANTS (APPEAL).
  MILITARY MASSAGE SERVICE (GRATUITY).
  MILITARY MASSAGE SERVICE (GRATUITY).
GERMANY.
  WIRELESS STATIONS (CONTROL).
  WIRELESS STATIONS (CONTROL).
  OCCUPIED AREAS (BLACK TROOPS).
  OCCUPIED AREAS (BLACK TROOPS).
  INTERNAL AFFAIRS (INTERVENTION).
  INTERNAL AFFAIRS (INTERVENTION).
  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  EGYPT (MILNER REPORT).
  EGYPT (MILNER REPORT).
BRITISH ARMY.
  RE-ENLISTED MEN (PROFICIENCY PAY).
  RE-ENLISTED MEN (PROFICIENCY PAY).
  OFFICERS, ANTWERP (SPECIAL ALLOWANCES).
  OFFICERS, ANTWERP (SPECIAL ALLOWANCES).
  MEMORIAL SCROLL AND PLAQUE (DISTRIBUTION).
  MEMORIAL SCROLL AND PLAQUE (DISTRIBUTION).
  CADET CORPS.
  CADET CORPS.
  WAR OFFICE REQUISITIONED PREMISES.
  WAR OFFICE REQUISITIONED PREMISES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITING AND DISCHARGES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITING AND DISCHARGES).
AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.
  PRIVATE GARDENERS.
  PRIVATE GARDENERS.
  LABOURERS (ESSEX).
  LABOURERS (ESSEX).
INDIA.
  CALIPHATE DELEGATION (SYED HASSAN).
  CALIPHATE DELEGATION (SYED HASSAN).
  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA BILL.
  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA BILL.
  TEMPORARY ARMY NURSES (GRATUITY).
  TEMPORARY ARMY NURSES (GRATUITY).
HOUSING.
  OFFICE OF WORKS (BUILDER'S WORKMEN)
  OFFICE OF WORKS (BUILDER'S WORKMEN)
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS (CONFERENCE).
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS (CONFERENCE).
  CONSTRUCTION.
  CONSTRUCTION.
  GLASGOW POST OFFICE (OVERSEERS).
  GLASGOW POST OFFICE (OVERSEERS).
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY (TEMPORARY CHEMICAL ASSISTANTS).
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY (TEMPORARY CHEMICAL ASSISTANTS).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  OPTICAL APPLIANCES.
  OPTICAL APPLIANCES.