Sitting of 4 May 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition) Bill.
Padiham Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

AYK BURGH (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ayr Burgh (Tramways, etc.)," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12tih May, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Godalming, Salford, Scunthorpe and Frodingham, Tunbridge Wells, and Warrington," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
EXETER CORPORATION BILL,
"to authorise the appropriation and use, of the Higher Market, in the city of Exeter, to and for purposes other than market purposes; to confer further powers upon the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the said city and to make provision with respect to the sums charged on the revenue of their markets; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STANDING ORDERS.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: I beg to move
"That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended."
It is the custom of the House to relax at this period of the Session the Standing Order that five be the quorum of a Standing Committee. The greater part of their work is done. The Motion was made in April last year.
Question put, and agreed to.
So much of Standing Order 91 as fixes five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee."—[Mr. J. W. Wilson.)

NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Wandsworth (Clap-ham Division), in the room of Sir ARTHUR PHILIP DU CROS, baronet (Manor of Northstead).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    NOTTS AND DERBY REGIMENT (EX-PRIVATE TARLTON).
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will further consider the case of ex-Private Tarlton, No. 240600, of Ashbourne, late of the Notts

    1515
    and Derby Regiment, who after four and a half years' War service was discharged from the Army in April, 1919, without a pension, though suffering from neurasthenia at the time; whether he is aware that, after making every effort to continue light employment, he was eventually compelled to apply for a pension; whether this was refused on the ground that his disability was not due to. War service; that overwhelming evidence can be produced showing that the man was perfectly healthy before joining the Army; and that ex-Private Tarlton has now been sent to an asylum, leaving his father and mother, both invalids, in very straitened circumstances; and whether, in view of the grave development in the man's mental condition, he can take such steps as will result in a review of the case with a view to a pension being awarded the man or some relief granted to his aged parents?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am personally inquiring into the facts of this case.

    ADJUSTMENT (COST OF LIVING).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, although it was decided by Parliament that no alteration should be made in War Pensions on account of the increase or decrease in the cost of living before April, 1923, pensioners are now receiving notification that the pension may be re-adjusted according to the increase or decrease in the cost of living in the year 1922; whether any pensions have already been reduced; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent these communications being sent to pensioners?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There will be no alteration in the rates of pension and allowance specified in the second Schedule to the Royal Warrant before the 1st April, 1923, and then only in accordance with the cost of living for the year 1922 as compared with that for the year 1919. I regret to find that in some forms which have been issued the date, 1st April, 1923, was incorrectly printed as 1st April, 1922. All possible steps have been taken to correct this error and I feel satisfied that no misapprehension on the point need now exist.
    Mr. WHITE: Has any pension been reduced in consequence of this circular being sent out to pensioners?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed not. If the hon. Member has any case in which he has the least doubt, he can send it to me.

    ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the bitter resentment and disappointment at the proposal which has been made in the regrouping of the local war pensions administrative areas in the suggestion to terminate the appointment of Mr. McKay, secretary to the Lanchester War Pensions Committee; that Mr. McKay's services have been considered by his committee and the ex-service men's organisations, and all concerned with the administration of war pensions, as highly efficient; that the action of the Ministry of Pensions is causing widespread discontent and protests, especially as it is known how well his work has been done; that he has rendered three or four years' voluntary service to the committee as secretary, and that the suggested change will not add either to economy or efficiency; and will he consider the advisability of retaining the useful services of Mr. McKay as secretary in the area?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I agree that Mr. McKay's services as secretary to this committee have been satisfactory, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to offer him re-employment under the Ministry. In this case, that could only be done at the expense of suitable ex-service candidates of experience to whom I feel sure the House will agree preference should be given.
    Mr. SWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman had three sons who served in the Army and that he gave up a fairly lucrative post to devote his services to this humane Department of Pensions; and is he aware that there are 10,000 cases which in the event of a new man coming in will create chaos and consternation to all the ex-service men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I realise the very great difficulty in a case of this kind, but I have to give a preference to an ex-service man if he is in every way suitable, and in this case I understand there have been several ex-service men on my lists who would be otherwise deprived of a job.
    Mr. SWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the suspension of that until he has met a deputation of ex-service men in that area?

    EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT (EX-PRIVATE J. PENNY).
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of ex-Private J. Penny, No. 5368, East Lancashire Regiment, now living at Ramsbottom, and in receipt of a flat-rate pension of 100 per cent, for himself, seeing that his complaint was aggravated, since he was married, by further service in the Army, he will see that this aspect of the case shall be considered in order that this man may get the additional benefit due for his wife and child according to the Regulations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In the short time available I have not been able to get this man's papers from the Region. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    NOTTS AND DERBY REGIMENT (EX-PRIVATE H. J. WARDLE).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of ex-Private H. J. Wardle, No. 241,504, late Notts and Derby Regiment, of Youlgrave, who is suffering from the effects of three gunshot wounds in the thigh, and has had his pension reduced for himself, wife, and three children to 9s. 6d. a week, though his disability is still assessed at 30 per cent.; whether this pension is recommended for a term of 104 weeks only, when it terminates with a gratuity of £20; and whether, as it is impossible to say what the condition of the man will be at the end of that time, he will take such steps as will bring about a revision of the decision?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The 30 per cent. assessment has effect until the 16th of this month, when a new award of less than 20 per cent. will come into force in accordance with the assessment of a Medical Board held on the 22nd March. The man has the usual right of appeal, through his local committee, against this assessment.
    Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to assess a pension to the last two years, terminating at the end of that time, when the man's health may be broken down again?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He can always appeal. It was for the men's own convenience that I extended the period.

    BLINDNESS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state approximately the number of blind pensioners for which his Department is liable; whether any arrangements are made with St. Dunstans or other similar institutes to deal with these most unfortunate cases; whether his Department makes annual grants to such institutes; and can he make any general statement as to how this class of pensioner is dealt with and helped by his Department?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are approximately 1,550 blinded officers and men receiving pension from my Department, all of whom have been to "St. Dunstans" (or in Scotland to Newington House, Edinburgh), where they are trained in new occupations suitable to their condition before returning to their homes. After their return the institutions mentioned continue to keep in touch with them by means of local representatives. These institutions are maintained out of private funds, and consequently the men have the advantage of receiving allowances at the maximum rate of pension instead of the smaller allowances which would otherwise be payable.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (MR. W. G. DUNCKLEY).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. W. G. Dunckley, late No. 182728, gunner, Royal Garrison Artillery; is he aware that early this year Mr. Dunckley had to travel from Wolverton into Aylesbury and back for medical treatment, in spite of the fact that a Ministry of Pensions' masseuse, Mrs. Holland, of Dale House, Stony Stratford, lived quite close to Wolverton, and had successfully treated Mr. Dunckley during 1918 and 1919; is he aware that, since the 14th March last, Mr. Dunckley has had no medical treatment at all, pending a decision from the Ministry of Pensions as to whether he could receive local treatment; and will he expedite this decision, which is nearly two months overdue, and arrange that Mrs. Holland should carry on her treat-

    1519
    ment, and thus save Mr. Dunckley the pain of having to travel three times a week into Aylesbury?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In the special circumstances of this case arrangements have been made for the man to attend Dale House in the evenings after his work, when, I understand, Mrs. Holland is at home to attend to him.
    Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has had a delay of nearly two months, in which he was suffering acutely and in which no attention was given to him at all, and will he look into the case and take the necessary action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Of course I will.

    MEDICAL TREATMENT, WOLVERTON.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the great pain which is in many cases being caused to disabled ex-service men living in and around Wolverton from being compelled to travel into Northampton and back again when local treatment is available for their cases; and will he in future arrange local treatment whenever possible, and thus save, not only the time of the ex-service man, but also the expense of railway fares, as well as obviating the discomfort of the journey?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Ministry clinics have been established at various towns throughout the country in order to provide the best specialised treatment for men living in the neighbourhood. Having regard to the comparatively small number of men at Wolverton requiring treatment, there is nothing to be gained by entering into a general local arrangement in preference to utilising the special facilities at the Northampton Clinic. I do not accept the suggestion that great pain is inflicted on men by the journey to this clinic, and if the hon. and gallant Member has knowledge of any such case, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.
    Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are three cases that I know of at Wolverton, all of which, I understand, can be dealt with at Stony Stratford, which is one mile away from where they live, and considerable pain is being caused by making them travel this distance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me particulars, I shall be happy, as always, to look into it.

  IRELAND.

    ILLEGAL EVICTIONS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether His Majesty's Government have any in formation as to the number and movements of the refugees from Southern Ireland?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that a number of loyal British subjects in Southern Ireland are being terrorised into surrendering their lands and homes to persons who have no legal claim thereto, and that these illegally evicted men and their families are fleeing to this country for safety; and will he state what steps the Government are taking to prevent such terrorism in Ireland, and to provide for such refugees on their arrival in this country?
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many farmers in Southern Ireland have had their farms expropriated and have been driven from their homes; that some of them and their families have taken refuge in this country and others have remained destitute; and if he proposes to take any measures for the relief of those who are in severe financial difficulties?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I regret to say that a certain number of such evictions have taken place, and my inquiries show that some of the victims have taken refuge in this country. I am in touch with a number of them and I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to make early arrangements for such relief as is possible in cases of real and urgent necessity. I am bringing the matter to the notice of the Provisional Government, with whom the ultimate financial responsibility clearly rests.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's answer that the Government keep closely in touch with the number of refugees coming from Southern Ireland to this country or

    1521
    coming from Southern to Northern Ireland I Do you know exactly what is going on?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is impossible to say exactly what is going on. In reference to refugees who go to Northern Ireland, we cannot keep directly in touch with them. In reference to refugees who come to this country, those who come to the Irish Office or to any Government Department are dealt with in the best way we can, but I cannot say definitely how many are in this country.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will my right hon. Friend answer that part of my question in which I ask him to state what steps the Government are taking to prevent such terrorism?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a very natural supplementary question, but as the power of administering the law has been handed over by Parliament to the Provisional Government, His Majesty's Government cannot directly intervene in the administration of law in Ireland. The steps we take are to bring each case to the notice of the Provisional Government, urging them to give protection to these people and their property.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Does the right hon. Baronet give the same consideration to Catholic refugees from Belfast?
    Viscount CURZON: Could not you endeavour to keep touch with the number of refugees coming, for instance, from Rosslare to Fishguard by seeing the number of people who come on board the boat?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: As a matter of fact, I am to see to-day representatives of some refugees from a certain part of Ireland. We keep in as close touch as we can by telegraphing to the various ports to find out in fact how many refugees are coming from Ireland. The information we receive is that comparatively very few have left Ireland for this country.
    Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Baronet answer my question?
    Captain CRAIG: In view of the fact that representations which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Free State Government have had no
    1522
    effect whatever in stopping these things, may we know what further steps the Government mean to take to deal with the matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Parliament has placed the control of affairs in Northern Ireland under the Government of Northern Ireland, and the affairs of Southern Ireland under the Provisional Government.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Provisional Government that they ought, without delay, to take up the cases of British subjects who are evicted in Ireland?
    Colonel GRETTON: My question, No. 58, has not been dealt with. Will the Government do something to relieve the refugees who arrived in this country yesterday?
    Mr. J. JONES: Are the thousands of men who have been discharged from the shipyards because of their religious convictions going to be compensated?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put the balance of his question down again. It was answered along with another question earlier.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the facts as to the forcible ejectment from their holdings of a number of Protestants in the parish of Tina-hoe, Queen's County, in the course of the last few days; and, if so, will he state these facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am in communication with the Provisional Government in regard to this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat the question on Thursday of next week.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I will put the question on the Paper, again. These outrages have been going on for the last fortnight. I would like to know what practical steps towards the prevention of the outrages the Government are taking. Are they offering any military assistance to the unfortunate Provisional Government?
    Mr. J. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he also tell us

    1523
    what steps the Northern Government are taking to protect the Catholics in the North of Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That just shows the difficulty in both cases. We must have regard to the Acts we have passed.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: When these murders and outrages are committed on one of His Majesty's subjects in Ireland, is it not in order to ask the Government of this country whether the Provisional Government require the assistance of British troops?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; but some hon. Members were going much further than that.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES (DECREES).
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many decrees for compensation for malicious injuries against local authorities in Ireland to which defences were entered by the local authorities concerned still remain unpaid; whether he has made any representations to the Government of Southern Ireland with regard to these defended cases; and how soon it is anticipated that the moneys awarded by these decrees will be paid?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I believe that the number of cases arising between the period 21st January, 1919, and 11th July, 1921, in which defences were entered by the council of the county or county borough concerned, is very small. If the hon. and learned Member will give me details of any such cases within his knowledge, I will inquire into them and communicate with him further. In reference to the remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government is in constant communication with the Provisional Government in this matter. No money can be paid until the Commission decides the amounts.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Where the cases have been defended they do not come before any other tribunal, and the money ought to be paid at once. In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the compensation money is to be paid?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered the hon. and learned Gentleman fully.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Does the right hon Gentleman realise that in the defended cases there is to be no further trial, and that the money ought to be paid at once?
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Was the question of my hon. and learned Friend not directed to those cases which have been defended, and was not my right hon. Friend's answer that such cases were few? When will the money be paid in those few cases?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I answered the question, and will do so again. I understand that no money can be paid until the Commission decides the amount. In defended cases the amounts will be accepted, but the Commission must decide whether they have been properly defended before giving an order to pay the amounts.
    Mr. McNEILL: Did the Colonial Secretary not say on a former occasion that those cases would not go before the Commission at all?

    CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that interchange of civil servants between Great Britain and Ireland has been freely made in the past without loss of standing or right to pension; and whether, in the case of Irish civil servants who may be transferred for service in Great Britain, their service in Ireland will count towards pension in Great Britain?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The position as to eventual superannuation of existing Irish officers who became officers of the Government of Northern Ireland is dealt with by Section 55 (2) of the Act of 1920. The position of persons who became officers of the Free State on the 1st April, and may subsequently be transferred to Great Britain, will constitute a subject for arrangement.

    DEATH, BOSCOMMON (MRS. W. J. TALBOT).
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the facts which led up to the death of Mrs. W. J. Talbot, of Mount Talbot, County Roscommon, on 9th or 10th April; and, if so, will he state these

    1525
    facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Provisional Government are investigating this matter, but have not yet completed their inquiries. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will kindly repeat the question on Thursday of next week?
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I will repeat the question, and would point out that this outrage took place more than a month ago.

    RAILWAYS (ENGLISH INTERESTS).
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to protect the interests of English shareholders in the railways of Southern Ireland, in view of the fact that there is no representative of railway interests on the railway commission appointed by the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In so far as the interests of English and Irish shareholders would appear to be identical, it is for the shareholders themselves, if they deem such a course to be necessary, to make representations to the Provisional Government, and His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in taking any action in the matter, in the absence of any differentiation against English shareholders as such.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the names of the Commissioners of this Railway Commission? Are we to take it from his answers in this House that all forms of property, whatever they may be, belonging to subjects loyal to this country, are to be handed over to the Free State and dealt with as it chooses without any protest or steps being taken to protect it?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No; the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not take his statement as representing the views of the Government. When you hand over the administration of law and order, as has been done under the Free State Agreement Act, it is impossible for the Government further to interfere, just as it would be impossible to interfere on behalf of shareholders in Australian railways.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Does that hold good even if law and order is not maintained?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go back on the decision of Parliament.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Where property is obviously being treated unfairly by the so-called Free State Government——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is just the point. In the month of March we passed an Act of Parliament transferring the responsibility to another body of Ministers, the Provisional Government.
    Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether we have no redress whatever?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member introduces a Bill to repeal the Act we have already passed.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask a question for the guidance of many of us who are deeply interested in this matter, and that is if this were happening in a foreign country would we not be entitled to ask His Majesty's Government to make representations to stop outrages on British subjects and their property?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are going beyond that. I have allowed questions to be put on the Paper which went as far as making representations. That is all that can be done in present circumstances.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: As you have just said, Sir, that my hon. Friend may introduce a Bill for the repeal of this legislation, would it not be in order to put questions to Ministers which would serve as a justification for that Bill?
    Mr. J. JONES: When a question appeared on the Paper regarding the conduct of the South African Government in the case of the recent trade dispute, were we not told we had no right to interfere because South Africa was an independent country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his finger on the spot. It would be quite impossible for the floor of this House to be used, either in the case of South Africa or any other Dominion, for continually arraigning Ministers here for incidents which have happened there.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (KETIREMENT).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, according to Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, all local officers, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, can retire and claim a pension on arriving at a certain age; that, under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1920, the duties of the Local Government Board with reference to this Section were transferred to the Irish Civil Service Committee; and that several old officials of the Belfast Corporation and other places have repeatedly signified their desire to retire but, owing to the Committee having failed to perform the duties of their office, these officers are unable to retire; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to adopt so that the provisions of the Act of 1920 may be carried out and the grievances under which these officers are suffering remedied?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes Sir. I am aware of the existence of cases such as those to which the question refers. Steps have already been taken to deal with them by the Treasury, acting on behalf of the Civil Service Committee, for the purpose of Section 68 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, but this arrangement is not wholly satisfactory and His Majesty's Government propose therefore, with the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland, to request the Civil Service Committee to reassemble at an early date for the purpose of dealing with these and certain other questions arising out of the Act of 1920, and with the Government of Northern Ireland alone are concerned.

    DUBLIN CASTLE (GUARD).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is with the consent of Mr. Michael Collins and the Provisional Government that an armed guard of British troops has been placed in Dublin Castle?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no armed guard of British troops in Dublin Castle. The military barrack adjoining the Castle is at present occupied by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Castle guard is furnished by that force. A military guard was furnished for a few
    1528
    days in the beginning of April, pending arrangements being made for supplying an adequate guard from the Royal Irish Constabulary.

    QUARTER SESSIONS (INTERFERENCE).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that County Court judges in Southern Ireland have in many instances been ordered by Irish Republican authorities not to hold their usual Quarter Sessions, and that the County Court judge for Westmeath was threatened with arrest on Saturday last if he did so, and that ever since the Treaty, Republican Parish, District, and Circuit Courts have been sitting unmolested and exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction; whether it is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty that such a state of things should be permitted; whether he has made representations to the Provisional Government on the subject; and, if so, with what result?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that there have been a number of instances of interference with the holding of Quarter Sessions, and that in some cases the Sessions have had to be abandoned. These acts of interference have taken place in districts where the authority of the Provisional Government is not yet firmly established, and it is easy to exaggerate their importance and the importance of the fact that the so-called Republican Courts are actively functioning in many places. In regard to the latter part of the question, there is no provision in the Treaty prescribing what courts may or may not function within the area under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government, and now that that Government is legally established, this is a matter for their determination.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what part of Southern Ireland is the authority of the Provisional Government effectively established?
    Colonel GRETTON: Have any Quarter Sessions recently been held in a regular manner in Southern Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would like notice of that question. My information is that many such Courts have been held.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Would it not be possible for the Government to offer Military aid to the Provisional Government in the South just as they have done with the Northern Government?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to that question, any Government of the Empire that asked for Military aid from His Majesty's Government would certainly not be refused.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The circumstances ought to suggest it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, when we will get to the business of England?

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Irish Press is now being published under a strict censorship, imposed by armed Republicans, with the result that the real state of affairs in Southern Ireland is not disclosed to the public; whether the Provisional Government is wholly unable to afford any redress or ensure the freedom of the Press; and whether, under these circumstances, His Majesty's Government can do anything to afford to the British public information as to the true state of affairs in Southern Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is quite contrary to the actual facts of the situation to describe the Irish Press as being conducted under a Republican censorship. While there have recently been several regrettable instances of attempted intimidation or coercion of the Press in Ireland, I do not for a moment agree that the Irish Press as a whole conceals or misrepresents the state of affairs in that country. The fearlessness of the Dublin Press during this period of exceptional difficulty must be obvious to all its readers.
    Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the British Government will do to arrange that the facts of the happenings in Southern Ireland are published in this country?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is no part of the functions of the Government to distribute facts which are daily and, I think, adequately represented by the newspaper Press of this country.
    Mr. MURRAY: Why was it then, that before the Irish negotiations took place, the Irish Office constantly published facts in connection with the-various casualties and occurrences in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Because at that time the Irish Office and this House was responsible for the government of Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the suggestion that comes from the Die-hards, that the "Morning Post" should be subsidised by the Government?

    COMPULSORY BILLETINGS, DUBLIN.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a self-appointed committee of Sein Feiners has been and is billeting on the houses of Irish loyalists in Dublin large numbers of their followers; that these billetings are often accompanied by threats of violence should a complaint be made to His Majesty's Government; that in some cases the occupants of the houses concerned have been ejected in order to make room for the newcomers; and that the Provisional Government, though appealed to, has refused to take any steps for the protection of His Majesty's subjects thus, affected; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to extend to His Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland the same protection which has hitherto always been afforded to British subjects whether within or without the Empire?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that a number of Dublin residents have recently been compelled, by threats of violence, to take into their houses and maintain strangers who are sent to them as refugees by a body styling itself the Belfast Boycott Committee, but that no cases have come to notice in which the residents themselves or their families have been expelled from their homes. It is not correct, however, to state that the Provisional Government have refused to take any steps to protect the citizens of Dublin from this invasion of their liberties. I am aware of instances in which protection has been asked for and given, but in the majority of cases the householders prefer to submit to the injury rather than to seek police protection, which might expose them to the danger

    1531
    of some subsequent act of retaliation by the boycott committee or their agents. The activities of this committee are a bye-product of the campaign of anarchy which is being deliberately pursued by the opponents of the Treaty, and the policy of His Majesty's Government is to refrain from any intervention which might embarrass the Provisional Government, who are doing their utmost in difficult circumstances to restore law and order.
    Mr. MURRAY: When is the Provisional Government likely to function?
    Mr. J. JONES: When will the Northern Government function?

    DESTROYED PROPERTY (COMPENSATION).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that numbers of Irish residents whose houses have been burnt, and whose property has been destroyed by rebel forces in Ireland, have not yet received any sum whatever for compensation, and are consequently in great financial straits; whether he can at once make some interim payments to these victims of Irish disorder, and will accelerate the payment of the whole compensation; and whether he can state how soon these payments can be made?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a full statement regarding the arrangements for dealing with this matter on 24th February last, and I regret that I can add nothing thereto. I anticipate that the Commission referred to in that statement will be appointed and will begin its work at an early date. As I stated yesterday, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce the names of the members of the Commission on Monday.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the third part of the question, as to whether some interim payment cannot be made to the victims of these Irish outrages at once, inasmuch as these men or many of them are in great financial straits?
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: When the right hon. Gentleman is announcing the names of the Commission, will he also give the terms of reference?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rathmines (Sir M. Dockrell), I hope it will be possible to announce the terms of reference at the same time that it is possible to announce the names of the Commissioners. With reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for York, as I stated yesterday, the Government is now considering how it can meet very hard cases—and I regret there are many hard cases—of innocent people who have suffered owing to recent difficulties in Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will this Commission deal with claims from all parts of Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is to deal with malicious injury claims from Southern Ireland only.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Why?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reason is because an agreement has been come to between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland for the payment of a lump sum to the Government of Northern Ireland for cancellation of all claims against His Majesty's Government for malicious injuries in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the claims of the Northern Catholics are to be left entirely to the Northern Government, whereas in the South of Ireland an independent Commission is to be set up?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a new question, not arising here.

    LAND PURCHASE INSTALMENTS.
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commissioners are demanding from Mr. W. S. M'Neill payment of instalments of money due from him in respect of his farm in county Leitrim purchased by him under the Land Purchase Act; is he aware that Mr. M'Neill was forcibly driven from this farm by the Sinn Fein forces in 1920 and is now a refugee in England; that the farm was afterwards divided into lots and sold by auction; whether, under these circumstances, the Land Commissioners propose to press their claim; and what measures he proposes to take to enable Mr. M'Neill to

    1533
    assert his legal rights or, in default of this, to relieve him of his liability and compensate him for the money already paid by him to the Land Commission?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat this question, of which I only received notice yesterday, on Thursday of next week.

    TRUST FUNDS.
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any notice was given to beneficiaries of Trust Funds under control of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland of an intention by the Imperial Government to disclaim responsibility for these funds; and was the consent of the beneficiaries to the appointment of new trustees obtained?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The transfer of the administration of law and justice including the responsibility for Supreme Court matters, from the Imperial Government to the Provisional Government was effected under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, of which the general public had ample notice. This transfer did not involve the appointment of any new trustees, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Did not the transfer involve the responsibility being transferred from the Imperial Government to another body, and will it be possible for beneficiaries who are resident in England and who have trust funds in Ireland to have them transferred to the Public Trustee or the Court of Chancery in England?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a most important question, and I shall very seriously consider it.

    MESSRS. ALEXANDER DICKSON AND SONS, LIMITED.
    Mr. GWYNNE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the director of boycott acting under the I.E.A. and occupying official premises in the Four Courts, Dublin, has recently seized the premises of Messrs. Alexander Dickson & Sons, Limited, of 61, Dawson Street, Dublin, and removed all the ledgers, private ledgers, cash books, purchase journals and official receipt books, together with three typewriting machines,
    1534
    and are now demanding payment of accounts due to the firm, to the extent of £25,000, are also arranging to dispose of the stock-in-trade, estimated to be worth over £20,000, and have notified the firm in writing that as their head branch is situated in Belfast their property has been formally confiscated, and will he state what course this company is to pursue to procure compensation and protection, which is due to members of a company as British subjects and Imperial taxpayers to His Majesty's Treasury?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have made inquiries into this matter and am informed that the facts are as stated in the question. I understand that the firm have brought the occurrence to the notice of the Provisional Government and have lodged claims for compensation with the Southern and Northern Governments of Ireland. His Majesty's Government is pressing the consideration of this case upon the Provisional Government.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: Is there any Government in Ireland?
    Mr. GWYNNE: How long are the Government going to remain passive onlookers whilst British citizens are murdered and British property is stolen?
    Mr. J. JONES: In Northern Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that there are Governments in both parts of Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not comparable!"] Two Acts of Parliament have been passed conferring responsibility, one to the Government of Northern Ireland and the other to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, and we cannot have continual Debates, except on a proper Motion, as to what we have already done.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the effect of passing the Free State Act has been to give British citizens residing in Ireland less protection than in foreign countries?
    Mr. GRITTEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether his answers to all these questions mean that the Government have jettisoned the national honour, good faith and humanity as a result of the Act?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member gives his own opinion.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether we are to infer, from your conception of the present position, that the confirmation of the agreement with certain leaders in Ireland establishing a Constitution, is comparable with, and on the same footing as, the Constitution in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have been dealing only with what is a fact. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Act, and the Orders in Council properly issued under the Act, there he will find the answer to the question.
    Sir H. CRAIK: With all respect, did not the Act defer the confirmation of the Constitution to a subsequent Bill to be laid before Parliament, and it is only after that subsequent Bill is passed that any Constitution the least comparable with that established by Act of Parliament in Northern Ireland can be said to exist in Southern Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct on the point of the Constitution. What I was speaking of was the responsibility. If he will look at the Act, and particularly at the Orders in Council under the Act, he will see that the transfer is complete.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: This seems to be a very important Constitutional question. May I put this to you, Sir? Under the Act we passed, powers were given to the Government to issue certain Orders in Council, and, if I recollect rightly, they have power, by subsequent Orders in Council, to vary those Orders in Council. Therefore, does not the Government still have under its administrative jurisdiction control of the state of things in Southern Ireland, and are they not, therefore, responsible to Parliament for the way they execute that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think they had responsibility up to the 31st March. If the right hon. and learned Member will look at the Act, and the Orders in Council which necessarily followed upon the Act, he will see that what I have stated is quite correct.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I did not make my point clear. My point was that the Government have the right, under the Act, to issue fresh Orders in Council to modify the Orders in Council they have
    1536
    issued. Therefore, administratively they are still in control of the situation in Southern Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I doubt that very much. I doubt whether the Government could recall the Orders in Council.
    Mr. INSKIP: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the result of your ruling is that the state of Ireland may be as bad as it is possible to conceive, but it will not be open to hon. Members to ask a question as to whether the Government are going to intervene?
    Mr. J. JONES: Before you answer that question, Sir, I want to ask whether the same conditions apply to the Northern Parliament as are now being suggested to apply to the Southern Parliament?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House will recollect that for several months I was pressed continually by Members on events happening, in Northern Ireland—in Belfast. All I am doing is to apply exactly the same treatment to the one as to the other.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not much more competent for this House to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland than of Southern Ireland, because this Parliament still controls many of the services in Northern Ireland, and Members come here?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. In so far as there is a difference between Northern and Southern Ireland, the transfer is more complete in the case of Southern Ireland than it has been in the case of Northern Ireland.

  LONDON-PARIS AIR ROUTE (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY).
  Mr. L. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the arrangements for communication by wireless telegraphy with aircraft flying on the London-Paris route are far from satisfactory and that improvements in the wireless telegraphy facilities would considerably increase the efficiency of the route and minimise risks of accidents; and whether the Air Ministry was represented at the recent international wireless telegraphy conference in Paris?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first part of the question is, that I am satisfied that the arrangements made in

  1537
  England for communication by wireless telephony with aircraft flying on the London-Paris air route are complete and efficient, but I am aware that the wireless arrangements are not so satisfactory on the remainder of the route to Paris. The urgent necessity of arranging wireless facilities on the French part of the route has been recommended by us to the French authorities on several occasions, and it is understood that wireless stations have actually been established at St. Inglevert and Le Bourget, but, up to the present, these are not functioning satisfactorily. Within the last few days, in connection with the recent air collision in France, the Air Ministry has again approached the French authorities on this subject, and I hope that the difficulties will now be overcome by them and the wireless stations put into working order. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Air Ministry representative was the head of the British delegation.
  Mr. MALONE: Is it not a fact that the recent collision on the Paris-London air route would have been avoided if proper facilities for wireless telegraphy had existed?
  Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that during the last few days one of the machines on the London-Paris route was saved by the use of wireless telegraphy?
  Captain GUEST: I think the hon. Members will see from the reply that the utmost efforts are being made to improve the French section of the route.

  CIVIL AIRCRAFT (LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air what Regulations exist as to the carrying by passenger aeroplanes of apparatus to save the lives of those on board in case of a descent into the sea?
  Captain GUEST: The question of the introduction of regulations in regard to the provision of life-saving apparatus on civil aircraft has received long and careful consideration, but it is not considered either necessary or desirable at the present time to make any scale of life-saving equipment compulsory, the arrangements
  1538
  made by British firms operating the cross-Channel route being considered satisfactory. Under these arrangements, each passenger is provided with a life-belt, and, on the later types of aircraft, is assured an easy exit from the cabin in case of accident at sea.
  Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on one occasion when I was crossing from Paris to London we found it urgently necessary to examine the life-saving belts, and only found one satisfactory? Is it not essential that instructions should be given that life-belts should be satisfactory?
  Captain GUEST: I am glad that my attention has been called to that matter.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    EXPERIMENTAL AND RECONDITIONING WORK.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air how many men are being employed at the Royal Aircraft establishment on experimental work, and how many on reconditioning machines?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is, approximately, 606; to the second, none at present, but four or five will be shortly employed on reconditioning two of the machines used for experimental purposes.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that this work of reconditioning machines could be carried out much better by civil aviation firms, and that it would be far more economical and would help to keep these firms going?
    Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will study the reply he will see that 606 men are employed on experimental work, and not on reconditioning, and that only four or five mechanics are to be employed on reconditioning two experimental machines. Reconditioning is being done by the trade.

    AERO ENGINE QUOTATIONS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, resulting from a recommendation from the Select Committee on National Expenditure in 1918, the Costing Section of the Aeronautical Supply Department was transferred to the Technical

    1539
    Costs Branch, now attached to the Admiralty; whether he can state what savings were made by the Technical Costs Branch for the Air Ministry on aero engine quotations; and whether the quotations are still referred to it?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second, that savings amounting to £3,000 have been effected as a result of references of aero engine quotations to the Costing Section; to the last, that no recent occasion has arisen for reference of such quotations to the Costing Section, but such reference would certainly be made whenever considered desirable.

  GREECE AND TURKEY.
  Mr. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the formation by the Greek Army in Asia Minor of a separate Government of Ionia, in the hinterland of Smyrna?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton, for Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) on 1st May.
  Mr. MALONE: Is the Government checking the supply of money and arms to the Greeks until peace is restored?
  Earl WINTERTON: That does not arise out of the question. The hon. Member asked if we had any further information. We have not.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the charges of cruelty which are being made against the Turkish Government in respect of the deportation of nationals of Greece and of other allied and associated Powers from Turkish territory; and whether any representations have been made, or are likely to be made, to the Turkish Government in the matter.
  Earl WINTERTON: His Majesty's Government are in possession of a great deal of reliable evidence from neutral sources regarding deportations of Ottoman Greeks (including women and children) from one part of Turkish
  1540
  territory to another. These deportations have been on a vast scale and have been carried out with the utmost barbarity. Numerous protests have been made to the Turkish Government and to the Angora Assembly on the subject, but have proved unavailing, and the deportations were still continuing in February last.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Can the Noble Lord indicate whether or not any steps can be taken by the Government?
  Earl WINTERTON: So far as I know, no steps, under existing conditions, can be taken.
  Lord R. CECIL: Have the Government considered the advisability of sending an officer to see what is going on in this place and to get accurate information?
  Earl WINTERTON: I shall be pleased to convey my Noble Friend's suggestion to the Secretary of State.

  PALESTINE.

    DRAFT MANDATE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the terms of the draft mandate for Palestine, published in White Paper Cmd. 1176 of 1921, have yet been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations; if so, when the Government will make the annual Report upon the country required by Article 34 of the mandate; and whether this Report will be published?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): The terms of the draft mandate for Palestine have not yet been formally accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. One annual report has already been sent to the League of Nations in accordance with Articles 24 of the draft mandate, and was published as Command Paper No. 1499 in August, 1921. A further report is in preparation and will be published when complete.

    BRITISH GENDARMERIE.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the authority under which the British gendarmerie in Palestine will exercise its functions, having regard to the fact that the Treaty of Sevres, which

    1541
    authorised the placing of Palestine under a mandate, has not yet been ratified; and if he will say generally what is the present position of this country with regard to the mandate for Palestine?
    Mr. WOOD: The British gendarmerie exercise their functions under the authority of the Palestine Government. The non-ratification of the Treaty of Sevres does not absolve the Palestine Government from the duty of maintaining order. As regards the mandate, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin on the 10th of April.

  EGYPT.

    GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Egyptian Ministry has circulated to the various Government Departments a secret order instructing them to observe, in making appointments to Government posts, the proportion of one Copt to every 12 Mahommedans appointed in accordance with the latest proposals to Egypt by His Majesty's Government regarding the protection of the minorities in Egypt; and whether this policy i6 directed as a reprisal against the Copts for joining the Mahommedans in the national movement?
    Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. SWAN: Is not this likely to make the Treaty more difficult to work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given was in the negative. Therefore, that does not arise.

    ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that letters to Zaghloul Pasha addressed through Lord Allenby, according to instructions, including letters from Madame Zaghloul, do not reach Zaghloul Pasha; that only three letters from Zaghloul Pasha have reached their destination, although he writes twice weekly to Madame Zaghloul; and that cables sent to Zaghloul Pasha do not reach him, but that a résumé of them is sometimes given to him and sometimes read over to him;
    1542
    and why this restriction is imposed, seeing that communications to and from him are always sent through Lord Allenby as ordered?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no information regarding the first three parts of this question; the fourth part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. SWAN: Will the Noble Lord make inquiries, and if such restrictions are operative in regard to the correspondence with Zaghloul, will he seek to have them removed?
    Earl WINTERTON: With respect to the complaints which the hon. Member stated yesterday had come from Zaghloul, no report has yet been received, but, as promised, I have asked the Secretary of State if the inquiries into these complaints can be expedited, and he has signified his willingness.
    Mr. SWAN: This is a new question, and new matter arises. Can the Noble Lord have it inquired into?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have said that we have no information on the subject, but if the hon. Member will produce information I will consider it.
    Captain W. BENN: As far as the Government of Egypt is concerned, is this free communication with Zaghloul permitted?
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot say what are the conditions.

  BRAZIL (LOAN).
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information as to the reported impending public issue in England of a loan by Brazil; whether the money is for financing the valorisation and export of Brazilian coffee for the benefit of Brazilian owners or for the purchase of British goods; and, if for the latter, will he say whether the British Government has obtained any relaxation of the prohibitory import duties imposed by Brazil against our goods?
  Earl WINTERTON: I understand that negotiations for such a loan have been proceeding, but I have no official in-

  1543
  formation on the subject. The Brazilian Government have not extended to imports from this country the preferential duties accorded to imports from certain other countries.
  Mr. SAMUEL: As I see the President of the Board of Trade on the Treasury Bench, may I ask him why his Department is persuading us manufacturers to go to considerable expense to exhibit our wares at the Centenary Exhibition at Rio de Janeiro, when we are prevented from selling our goods, from those exhibited samples, by the action of the Brazilian Government in imposing prohibitory duties against British goods?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

  RUSSIA.

    ALLIED TEOOPS ACTIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government and the Allied Governments have acknowledged, in principle, at Genoa the obligation to pay compensation to the Russian Government for the damages caused in Russian territory by the actions of Allied troops after the Armistice, and by Generals Koltchalk, Dennikin, Wrangel, Yudenitch, and others subsidised with British and Allied money, and furnished with armaments and transport by the British and Allied Governments; and whether the representatives of His Majesty's Government have so expressed themselves, or in any other sense, on this subject of compensation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have declined to admit any such obligation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand from that that we have expressed our refusal to attempt this altogether?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I have said His Majesty's Government have done.

    PETROLEUM CONCESSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the
    1544
    Shell and Royal Dutch oil companies have concluded an agreement with the Soviet Government of Russia at Genoa, under which important petroleum concessions are made over to these companies; whether His Majesty's Government had knowledge of the negotiations leading up to this agreement; whether this agreement effects a possible treaty on the subject of debts and the property of foreigners in Russia which might be concluded between the Allies and the Russian Government; whether the terms of the agreement between the oil interests and the Russian Government are known; and whether they can be communicated to the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Reports appeared in the Press that such an agreement had been concluded, but these were promptly contradicted both by the companies concerned and by the Russian authorities. The remaining parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

    BRITISH CLAIMS, UKRAINE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a communication from the Association of British Creditors of Russia with reference to a complaint by Messrs. R. and T. Elworthy that they have been robbed by the Government of the Ukraine, and had no hope of redress, as His Majesty's Government has not recognised that Government, and the Soviet Government of Russia, though it practically controls such (Ukraine) Government, repudiates any responsibility for its acts on the score of its pretended independence; and, if the facts be as stated, what redress, if any, is open to British subjects robbed and defrauded by the so-called Government of fragments of the lost Russian Empire?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. S. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; a copy of the communication has been sent to the British Delegation at Genoa, who will no doubt take it into consideration in connection with the negotiations which are now taking place.

  GERMAN REPARATION.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister when a statement of British policy, in face of the new

  1545
  crisis over German reparation payments will be made to the House; whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the situation before the French Army advances further into Germany; whether any decision has been come to as to the use of the British troops on the Rhine during the intended occupation; and, if so, what is it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any decision taken by the French Ministry as to an advance by the French Army into Germany. The rest of the question, accordingly, does not arise.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we rely on having a statement in this House, and will an opportunity be given for Debate before any further sanctions are put into force against Germany?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is rather difficult to go into purely hypothetical questions.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the claim of the French to take separate action, and can we have a chance of debating that in this House before it is put into force?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is really not the question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of French politics.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    COMMITTEES' REPORTS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal if he can explain the reason for the delay in deciding whether or not an Order is to be made imposing a duty on imported fabric gloves?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. As this and the other reports (six in number) now in possession of the Government are the first to be received from the Committees constituted for the purpose of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, it is desired to get a fully representative meeting of the Cabinet to decide the policy to be followed in relation to them, and, owing to the absence of so many Ministers at Genoa, this has not yet been possible.
    Captain BENN: As this recommendation was made four months ago, is not Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act a dead letter?
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that there is a fight without gloves on this question going on in the Cabinet?

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE).
  Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Federation of British Industries asking for the appointment of some Committee to continue the work of the Geddes Committee; and whether he would favourably consider the appointment of a Committee of this House for the purpose?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think a Committee of the House is the best machinery for this particular work; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering what steps are likely to be most effective to accelerate the reduction of expenditure.
  Captain BENN: Does the Government propose to appoint some extra Parliamentary Committee of the Geddes type, with a view to carrying on the work?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to make any proposal at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering the matter.

  WAR STOCK (VOLUNTARY SURRENDER).
  Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of War Stock which has been surrendered to the Government by individuals and firms to relieve the financial strain upon the country, and on what amount of such stock has the Treasury been asked to cancel the interest, and for how long?
  Mr. H. YOUNG: The total nominal amount of the holdings of war issues voluntarily surrendered to the State is £427,332 1s. 8d. Dividends surrendered amount to £49,550. It would not be possible without much labour to give particulars of the varying periods during which interest was foregone by

  1547
  holders. At the present time the only stocks on which dividends are regularly received are £10,850 5 per cent. War Stock and £30,000 4 per cent. National War Bonds.

  CIVIL SERVICE BONUS.
  Captain TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the super cut last July in the salaries of the higher civil servants, he has considered the desirability of making still further cuts in the Civil Service bonus as a whole; whether, since there is no likelihood of the cost of living on which the bonus is based falling much lower, or, at least, very appreciably lower, the country is to go on paying the bonus until the cost of living is precisely the same as it was before the War?
  Mr. YOUNG: As stated in the House on the 26th July last, the Government propose that the Agreement which governs the cost of living bonus payable to civil servants whose salaries do not exceed £500 a year should continue to apply. In view of the continued fall in the cost of living it is probable that a further substantial reduction of bonus will take effect under the sliding scale on the 1st September next. The question of the arrangements to be made at a more remote date, when conditions become more stable, will require careful consideration in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.

  LAND VALUES DUTIES.
  Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Land Values Duties repaid during the financial year ending 31st March, 1922, under Section 57 (3) of the Finance Act, 1920?
  Mr. YOUNG: The total amount of Land Values Duties repaid under the Section referred to was £838,624, of which £15,916 was repaid in the financial year ending 31st March, 1922.
  Mr. PARKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is practically the same answer as that which I got in December last?
  Dr. MURRAY: Was this money paid while the Prime Minister was away in Genoa?

  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
  Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who holds the first and second debentures of the British Cellulose Company, and who obtained the 750,000 preference shares of the same company which were given away on the re-organisation?
  Mr. YOUNG: From the speech of the chairman of the company at the general meeting held on 1st May, it appears that the first debenture is held by the company's bankers and the second debentures by creditors who, it is believed, supplied the company with plant and machinery. The preference shares surrendered by the Government will form one of the assets of the company subscribing to the new debenture issue.

  ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are many British women who have been deserted by alien husbands who have procured divorce in their own countries, and remarried; and whether, and when, steps will be taken to grant these British women freedom to re-marry here?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I know of no figures of the kind desired. I suppose the difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind is that of proving the foreign divorce or establishing its validity in English law. I fear there are no steps which I can take to assist in this matter.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary the number of men in His Majesty's prisons who are there for failing to pay maintenance, under magistrates' orders, to wives; and whether many of these men are continuously in and out of prison for the same reason?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot give the total number now in prison nor the number who have been committed for this cause more than once, but in 1920 the total number so committed was 2,920.

  NATURALISATION FEES.
  Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Home Secretary what is the fee now levied for naturalisation; and how does this fee compare with the fees levied by other countries?
  Mr. SHORTT: The fee payable in respect of the grant of a certificate of naturalisation to a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien is five shillings. In all other cases the fee is £10. I am not in possession of information which would enable me to make the comparison suggested in the second part of the question.
  Sir C YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain that information?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am told by the Foreign Office that it would involve a great amount of labour.

  STREET TRADING.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in legislation during the present Session in order to carry out the recommendations of the Street Trading Committee; and, if so, when a Bill will be introduced on the subject?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am considering the recommendations of the Committee, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the introduction of legislation to carry them out.

  DRUGS (ILLEGAL TRAFFIC).
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the sentence of six months' imprisonment recently passed on a coloured vendor of cocaine, whose methods of concealment showed extreme ingenuity, and whose moral character would appear on investigation to have been most unsavoury in other respects; whether this was the maximum sentence; and whether he has inquired, and, if not, whether he will inquire, from the London stipendiaries if they consider their powers of punishment are sufficient to really check this illegal drug selling?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this case. Six months is the maximum sentence of imprisonment that can be imposed on a first conviction, but it is not the maximum penalty, as a fine up to £200 can be imposed as well. The working of the present regulations which only came into force on the 1st September last, is being carefully watched by my Department, who are in close touch with the police authorities, and if it appears that the present powers are insufficient, I should not hesitate to come to Parliament for further powers. It is clear, however, in view of the international character of the traffic, that it can only be effectively dealt with by international cooperation, and the whole question of the measures necessary to cope with the traffic has been engaging the attention of the Advisory Committee appointed by the League of Nations. Their proposals, when received, will be carefully considered.

  HOTELS (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
  Sir C. YATEasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether all the hotels and other buildings which have been rented for Government services were given up before the demolition of the temporary buildings in the parks was commenced?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The demolition of the temporary buildings in the parks was not begun until arrangements had been made for the surrender of the majority of the premises requisitioned during the War, to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers. All the hotels acquired under the Defence of the Realm Act in London have been surrendered, but five hotels in the provinces, occupied by the Ministry of Pensions, are being retained pending the provision of alternative accommodation. It is, of course, necessary to retain a certain number of hired premises to supplement the accommodation in Crown buildings for the housing of permanent staffs.
  Sir C. YATE: Would it not have been better to have kept the huts up instead of hiring hotels?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
  Major M. WOOD: Have not some of the hotels originally rented now been bought outright by the Government?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I require notice of that question.

  IRAQ.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any agreement has been reached with King Feisal with regard to the future government of Iraq?
  Mr. WOOD: Negotiations upon the final text of the Treaty are still proceeding with King Feisal, and I hope to be able to announce their completion at an early date.

  WEST INDIES (CABLES).
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in connection with making provision for an efficient telegraph service from Great Britain to, and between, the various British West Indian Colonies upon the termination of the present agreement with the West Indian and Panama Telegraph Company?
  Mr. WOOD: Negotiations are still in progress for the construction of a new cable from Bermuda to Barbados and beyond, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Mr. MURRAY: Has the question of wireless telephony and wireless been taken into consideration in connection with this matter?
  Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir. When I was in the West Indies my attention was drawn constantly to these matters and I have ventured to express an opinion on them in my report, which I hope will shortly come before the House.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Does that relate to wireless?
  Mr. WOOD: Yes.
  Mr. HURD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the emphatic declarations made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this subject in June of last year, when the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the immediate urgency of the question?
  Mr. WOOD: Yes, I have that in my mind.

  MR. CHURCHILL.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is there any way of compelling the attendance of Ministers to answer their questions. The whole of this week the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) has been away at Question Time, and yet he makes speeches in London. Is it possible to compel his attendance here?
  Mr. SPEAKER: As the House is aware, the Secretary of State for the Colonies met with a serious accident.
  Captain W. BENN: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary for the Colonies is making public declarations from day to day, or did so yesterday? Therefore, cannot he be here to answer his own questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have not found the Minister backward in meeting his critics.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: May I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies has been very seriously ill, but, in agreement with his officials, he settles nearly all the answers that I have the honour to give the House in his name.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is the absence of the Secretary for the Colonies not due to the fact that he would lose his insurance money if he came to the House?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend's absence is entirely due to a very serious accident, and it is with the greatest reluctance that he is not in the House.

  DYESTUFFS.
  Sir WILLIAM BARTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an application made by W. T. Alexander, of G, Brown Street, Manchester, for a licence to import a small quantity of algole 5G powder; whether he is aware that the applicant was informed by the Licensing Committee that a similar product could be obtained from the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, from whom he obtained a sample; whether the Board is aware that this sample was tested by the actual consumers who reported direct to

  1553
  the Licensing Committee that the proposed substitute was not so pure and rich in tone as algole 5G, and that its properties as regards fastness were not so good; whether he is aware that the price reckoned on the basis of price per lb. and tinctoral value was more than three times that of the colour asked for, and that the consumers in question have no desire to get colour abroad if they can be reasonably supplied at home; and whether, the facts being as stated, he will give instructions to grant a licence?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have made inquiry into this case. The Advisory Licensing Committee have investigated the quality of the British product and are satisfied that in this respect there is no sufficient reason for the grant of a licence. As regards price, the consumers concerned have been asked to furnish the Committee with certain information, on receipt of which the matter will be further considered.
  Sir W. BARTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Licensing Committee is now demanding proof from the dye users that the greater price of the British dye injuriously affects the competitive position of the finished fabric; is he aware that the ordinary dyer is usually without such knowledge, his business being confined to the dyeing; and does he think it reasonable that such proof should be asked for?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged for the information.
  Sir W. BARTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when the Bill was before the House——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman will have to look up the Debates.

  TURKEY.

    BRITISH CLAIMS.
    Mr. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of the claims of British traders against the Turkish Government; and if any scheme of settlement may be looked for in the near future?
    Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the first part of the question, it is not possible
    1554
    without considerable labour to discriminate between claims of British traders and claims of other British nationals, but the claims notified by British nationals against Turkey in respect of property, rights and interests confiscated or damaged and in respect of debts show a total of about £23,000,000. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Gateshead (Brigadier-General Surtees) on the 1st August last.
    Mr. MALONE: Would not the best way of getting a satisfactory settlement be to treat direct with Mustapha Kemal as has been done by both Italy and France?

    TURKISH PROPERTY IN EGYPT.
    Mr. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Public Trustee holds any Turkish property requisitioned in Egypt and elsewhere?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Custodian has no information as to any property in Egypt belonging to Turks; I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should address to the Foreign Office any questions regarding such property.
    As far as property elsewhere is concerned, the Custodian has vested in him under orders of the High Court and Board of Trade a certain amount of property belonging to Turkish nationals, and there is also recorded with him the property of Turkish nationals which was so recorded under the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914.

  RUBBER INDUSTRY.
  Mr. GRITTENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to state at what date the Committee appointed by him to inquire into the circumstances and conditions of the rubber industry will issue its report?
  Mr. WOOD: I am not in a position to add anything to the information contained in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford (Major Boyd Carpenter) on 4th April.
  Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the very

  1555
  serious and unfortunate condition of this important industry, in which over £90,000,000 are invested, he can take any steps to expedite the somewhat leisurely proceedings of this Committee?
  Mr. WOOD: Oh, no. I can assure my hon. Friend that their proceedings are not leisurely.

  SIR PHILIP BASSOON.
  Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Philip Sassoon) is reported to have given particulars of the Budget proposals in a speech made one hour before the official announcement in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent in future the premature divulgence of information which might affect business transactions?
  Mr. KENNEDYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that at 3 p.m. on Monday last, before the Budget statements were made, the hon. Member for Hythe announced to a meeting of women supporters of the Coalition at Folkestone that the duty on tea was to be reduced by 4d., and also indicated other items in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement; and whether the hon. Member was officially supplied with this information and with the authority to make the announcement in anticipation of the Chancellor's statement?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend proposes to ask leave to make a personal statement upon this subject at the close of questions. I feel sure that the House will await his explanation.
  At the end of Questions—
  Sir PHILIP SASSOON: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement. It is with very deep regret that I realised last Monday night that in my remarks at a small meeting that afternoon at Folkestone, I had anticipated by a brief period some part of the information contained in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement. I had, of course, no sort of authority to make any reference to the Budget, and, indeed, I should not have alluded to it had I not thought my remarks would
  1556
  practically synchronise with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House. I am very sorry for this indiscretion, which a moment's thought would have prevented me from committing, and I tender my very sincere apologies to the House for doing so. My great regret that I should have made reference to matters of this character before they were communicated to the House of Commons is increased by the thought that in doing so I may, unwittingly, have shown discourtesy to the House.
  Mr. J. JONES: Not being a financier——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Discussion does not arise on a personal explanation.
  Mr. JONES: I protest, [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] This is the thieves' kitchen. (Interruption.) Why should these people allow——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (IRELAND).
  Mr. HALLS: May I put a question respectfully to you, Sir, with reference to the questions on the Order Paper this afternoon? I desire to draw your attention to the fact that the questions relating to Ireland occupied about 20 minutes of Question time. They resulted almost in a Debate, and that necessitated cutting down the time that is allocated to questions which other Members have on the Order Paper. I very respectfully suggest that, instead of taking up so much time, it would be better if some time were allocated some day, when the whole issue could be raised and dealt with in a much fairer way than it can be by this string of questions and supplementary questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am doing my best to induce Members to restrict their supplementary questions, so that other Members may have a fait chance. If hon. Members would give that fair consideration to one another, 100 questions could easily be answered in the time allotted.

BUSINESS OF THEHOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what will be the business for next week?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On Monday and Tuesday, we propose to take the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.
On Wednesday, the Irish Constabulary Bill and the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill.
On Thursday, the Board of Trade Vote in Committee of Supply.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether, when the names of the Commission to deal with the Irish claims are submitted on Monday, it will be within the power of any Member to discuss the subject?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Great Northern Railway Company to acquire certain lands and to confer other powers upon that company; to authorise the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Committee to acquire certain lands; to authorise the Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee to acquire certain lands, and to confer other powers upon that joint committee; and for other purposes." [Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Cambridge to construct a street improvement; to provide for the extinction of the Lammas rights in respect of certain lands in the borough; to confer further powers upon the corporation with regard to commons and open spaces and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; to amalgamate the parishes and consolidate the rates of the borough; to empower the corporation to establish a fund for granting superannuation allowances to their officers and servants; and for other purposes." [Cambridge Corporation Bill. [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Yorkshire Electric Power Company." [Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the trustees of the Rugby Charity founded by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, of London, and to transfer their property, powers, and duties to the
1558
governing body of Rugby School; and for other purposes." [Rugby School Bill [Lords.]
Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords],
Cambridge Corporation Bill [Lords],
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Rugby School Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £29,822,000, 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, 1923, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[Note: £24,000,000 has been voted on account.]
    4.0 P.M.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in opening my statement this afternoon, I indicate the lines on which I propose to proceed. I shall first deal with the postal budget for last year and the current year, and then with the question of the estimated surplus. I shall next set out the various proposals that I shall have to make, and from that I shall go on to the telephone service, and the reductions I intend to introduce there. I shall then have something to say on the question of wireless broadcasting, and, after that, I shall make a brief reference to the subject of air mails and then deal with one or two more interesting but perhaps less important matters.

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE, 1921–22.
    When I rose last year to move the Post Office Estimates I had a particularly distasteful task to perform. It was my duty to tell the Committee that there had been a loss on the previous year's working of the Post Office of £7,300,000, and I expressed the hope that, if I remained in this office for another year, I might have a more satisfactory statement to present to this Committee. I can summarise the situation by two figures. In 1920–21 the deficit on the Post Office commercial account was £7,300,000. In
    1586
    1922–23 I estimate on the present charges for a surplus on the commercial account of £9,300,000. I hope that those two figures will not be regarded as presenting an unsatisfactory condition of affairs.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Had you not doubled the charges, you would have shown a lot more.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I said, in introducing the Estimates and in asking the Committee to agree to certain increases in postal charges, that the Government had decided as soon as the costs were reduced that the benefit of that reduction should go to the users of the Poet Office. That pledge the Government intends to carry out both in the spirit and in the letter, as I think the proposals which I shall proceed to outline will show. I expressed the hope then that, as the result of the proposal which I was making to the Committee, it would be possible during the past year to establish an equilibrium in our accounts. I regret to say that for causes which I will briefly indicate I have been disappointed in that hope. During the first six months of last year there was a loss on the commercial account of the Post Office of £2,800,000. During the second six months the position rapidly improved, and there was a surplus of £1,000,000, leaving a deficit on the year's working of £1,800,000. I should like for a moment to set out to the Committee the actual results as compared with the Estimate which I put before them last year. I estimated for a revenue on the commercial account of £69,100,000 and for a corresponding expenditure. The actual results were a revenue of £64,900,000 and an expenditure of £66,700,000. Our revenue was down by £4,200,000 as compared with the Estimate, and the expenditure was down by £2,400,000 as compared with the Estimate.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Are those net or gross figures?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: These are the net figures. It was a disagreeable task to ask the Committee last year to agree to the increases in postal charges. Indeed the Postmaster-General would be the last man to welcome any increase in charges, but there were two alternatives before the Committee. It either had to face these increases in charges—postcards and printed paper rate, with suspension of Sunday services—or it had to agree to

    1587
    the continuation of the Post Office as a subsidised Service. Between those two alternatives there could be, in my view, no hesitation as to which line to take. The danger of continuing a subsidised Post Office is far greater than is generally understood. It might readily lead to the wholesale corruption of a great body of public servants, and I am glad that this Committee was prepared to take the unpopular decision it did take rather than allow the Post Office to continue as a subsidised Service. But for three causes, which I will now indicate, the Estimates which I laid would, I am confident, have been realised. The first was that the increased charges did not come into force until nearly three months of the year had elapsed; the second was, that I agreed not to impose the increased rate on printed matter going abroad; and the third was the stoppage in the coal mines and the extent to which it increased the prevailing trade depression. The figures of the Post Office show by a remarkable curve the way in which every class of correspondence, whether correspondence on which the rate was increased or no, fell off as a result of the stoppage in the coal mines. But for the fact that the Committee had agreed to the increases which I proposed, the deficit on last year's working, instead of being £1,800,000, would have been £5,000,000.
    The improved position, and I think it is an improved position to have changed, within two years, a business which was losing £7,300,000 in one year to a business which is able to estimate for a surplus of £9,300,000, is entirely due to the drastic reductions of expenditure which have been effected in the Post Office. The expenditure last year was £67,120,000. Our estimate of expenditure for this year, and I am speaking now of the cash account, is £53,800,000, a reduction of £13,350,000.
    Mr. HURD: Can you give us the figure for 1913?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot carry that figure in my head, but it was very much less. The figures are not exactly comparable, for this reason. Last year we included the expenditure for the Post Office of the South of Ireland, and this year it is not included. Excluding Ireland and comparing like with like, there is a reduction of £10,650,000 in the
    1588
    Post Office expenditure. That reduction is made up under these principal heads: Cost-of-living bonus, £6,750,000; materials, £1,500,000; cost of the conveyance of mails, £850,000; and reductions in staff and in the amount of overtime, £2,500,000. There is an increase in the amount for the interest and repayment of the telephone loan of £700,000, but the net result is a reduction of £10,650,000, excluding Ireland. I have mentioned a reduction of £2,500,000 as a result of reductions in staff and in the amount of overtime. The figures are interesting, and I should like to give them to the Committee. Last year, when I opened my Estimates, the staff, excluding Ireland and the engineering staff, was 191,000. To-day it stands at 185,000. That is a reduction of 6,000 in the year, and a reduction of 6,500 as compared with the numbers in 1914. I emphasise that last fact because, while there has been a slight diminuation in the amount of postal work, there has been added to the Post Office a great number of new services, such as the payment of War pensions, War Loan, National Savings Certificates, insurance stamps, and so on. For these the Post Office provides staff and the necessary buildings, and I think it is not an unsatisfactory fact that, with a staff reduced, as compared with 1914, by 6,500, we are able to discharge all these new additional services which the House of Commons has put upon the Post Office.

    ESTIMATED SURPLUS.
    As a result of the reduction in the expenditure of £10,650,000, I estimate for a surplus on the commercial account of £9,320,000 for this year. How is that surplus to be allocated? In the first place, I do not propose to allocate the whole of that sum, but, out of that estimated surplus of £9,320,000, I am going to make proposals to the Committee for the allocation of £7,400,000 in a full year. I see it is stated outside that the decision of the Government, which was announced to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which I shall complete, to make certain reductions in postal charges is the result of a compromise, and that the pledge that I gave to the Committee last year is not, in fact, being carried out. There is no compromise here. The proposals which my right hon. Friend made, and which I shall com-

    1589
    plete this afternoon, are the precise proposals which I put before the Government two months ago. They have not been varied in any respect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have agreed to the proposals that I have made. They have been distinctly reasonable. They have given me everything for which I asked. Why do I not propose to allocate to the reduction of charges the whole of the commercial surplus? It is for this reason, and I think I shall be able to carry the assent of the Committee with me. It is possible to foretell Post Office expenditure with fairly close accuracy, and I have no doubt that the reduced Estimates which I have made will, in fact, prove to be near the actual figure so far as expenditure is concerned. But when we are dealing with revenue, the position is not so easy. There are a number of baffling factors which make it very difficult to foretell accurately what the Post Office revenue will be. It is peculiarly sensitive to industrial conditions, and industrial conditions in this country—and I might add international conditions—are not so secure that we can say with absolute definiteness that a certain revenue will be received. In the proposals that I am making I am estimating that as a result of the reduction in charges which I shall propose, there will be a substantial increase in the number of communications carried through the Post Office. I think I have made quite as substantial an allowance as I was entitled to make. On letters I have estimated for an increase of 10 per cent, in the numbers carried. That may not strike the Committee as a large estimate, but the 10 per cent, means 335,000,000, for the total number of letters carried by the Post Office last year was in the neighbourhood of 3,350,000,000. I think that 10 per cent. of that great total is as large an estimate as I am entitled to make. On postcards I estimate an increase of 20 per cent., which represents 100,000,000, and that printed papers will increase 20 per cent., or 250,000,000. It is possible that these estimates may not be realised. My own view is that they will be, but if not I still have a sufficient margin to enable me to make both ends meet without calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a subsidy.
    Mr. AMMON: Did the right hon. Gentleman say 20 per cent, on the letters or on the cards, or 10 per cent, all round?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Ten per cent, on the letters and 20 per cent, on the postcards and printed papers. In the one case the total is, as I have said, 3,350,000,000, while in the case of the postcards you are dealing with much smaller totals, and it will be difficult to estimate.

    SURPLUS (ALLOCATION).
    I come now to the proposal which I shall ask the Committee to approve for the allocation of the surplus. The first alteration I propose to make is that the collection of letters on Sundays should be restored, but not the delivery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?" and "No, no!"] I am not leaving that point untouched. The collection of letters will commence on Sunday, 28th May. When I asked the Committee last year to approve of the suspension of the collection of letters I told them that this would undoubtedly cause some inconvenience. It has proved to be, not only inconvenient, but a serious interference with the rapidity of communication in many parts of the country. I am glad that I am now in a position to restore the collection and dispatch of letters at a cost, in a full year, of a quarter of a million, and in this year of £200,000. I do not propose to restore the delivery of letters on Sundays—for these reasons: I have received representations from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the National Chamber of Trades, and all the organisations in this country in a position to speak for industry in all its branches. Everyone of them have asked me that the collection of letters should be restored, but in not one case have they asked for a restoration of the delivery of letters on Sundays. In these circumstances as the delivery would cost £400,000 I do not think I shall be justified in asking the Committee to approve of the proposal. After all, London, a great part of Scotland, and some parts of this country have managed to get along fairly well without any such delivery of letters.
    My next proposal is to reduce the charge for letters not weighing more than 1 oz. from 2d. to 1½d. The remainder of the scale will remain untouched. Letters to all parts of the Empire and to the

    1591
    United States of America will be reduced from 2d. to 1½d. when not over 1 oz. in weight. The charge for each additional ounce will remain as at present. I look for an increase of 10 per cent, in the number of letters carried. This will cost £3,800,000 for this country and £150,000 for the Empire post.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER: What will be the charge of letters in this country over 1 oz.?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The scale will remain the same. From letters I come to postcards. It is proposed to reduce the postcard rate from 1½d. to 1d., allowing for an increase of 20 per cent. This will cost £600,000. A good deal has been said, some of it interesting, not much of it accurate, as to the devastating effect of the increase in the rates on picture postcards. Undoubtedly, as I told the Committee last year, the increase would have the effect of reducing the numbers sent, but the falling off has not been nearly as great as certain authorities ask the public to believe. I am very glad to be able to make the concession, which, I know, will be of great value to the picture postcard trade. This is a trade which we captured very largely from Germany. The production of picture postcards before the War was very largely in German hands. It is now very largely in British hands. For quality and cheapness it will compare with anything the Continent can produce. I am glad this concession which the trade have been asking for for some time will now be made. In the future the picture postcard will be able to go at the printed paper rate of a halfpenny where there are not more than five words of a conventional character written upon it.
    The next reduction is a reduction in the printed paper rates. This comes down from 1d. to a ½d. for one ounce. The remainder of the scale remains untouched. Allowing for an increase of 20 per cent., this will cost £1,640,000. In regard to this post it is peculiarly a business post. It is used by us all very slightly in our private capacity. In it I am going back to the pre-War charge. I do not know any service or commodity, or very few, in this country where the pre-War charge has yet been re-introduced. In this respect I am going back to the pre-War charge in spite of the increase in cost.
    1592
    In doing so I think I am justified in these circumstances in asking the business community to some extent to meet me. I am going to ask them to meet me by posting early. In this matter I am acting on the recommendation of the Geddes Committee. What I am going to lay-down to the Committee for consideration is this, that printed papers posted before the prescribed hour—it will probably be 3.30 in London—shall be entitled to be dealt with that day at the halfpenny rate, but printed papers posted after the prescribed hour may, if necessary, be held over and dealt with the next morning.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does that refer to a single paper?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am glad that observation has been made. A printed paper in this matter is not a newspaper, but refers to invoices, bills, advices, circulars, and so on.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: London, 3.30 p.m. What about outside?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: We have not yet determined the times in the country, but I think the rule will be within two hours of final posting for the last despatch. There will be three alternatives open to those concerned. First, however, I should say there will be a good deal of matter going out as printed paper which is as important and should be treated in the same way as letters, so that it may be delivered even if posted after 3.30! In that case it can be so treated if 1d. stamp is used instead of a halfpenny stamp. The three alternatives open to a business house are: they may have the halfpenny rate for their circulars if they post before 3.30, and such will be treated as the ordinary night mail. If a penny stamp is put on it will be treated in the same way as an ordinary letter, and will be collected in the ordinary way. If the post is after 3.30 p.m.—or whatever the prescribed time may be—with a halfpenny stamp they may be held over and dealt with the next morning. There is more importance in this point than the Committee perhaps at first sight realise. The great difficulty in Post Office work—and it applies to all postal administration—is that you have two peaks, a high peak In the morning and a high peak in the evening, with a comparatively quiet period in between. The object of the

    1593
    administration has always been to try and get the load spread fairly evenly over the whole period. The practice of posting late has grown to an alarming extent since the War. In the London area, out of 40,000,000 articles posted weekly over 25,000,000 are posted for the night mail collection at 5.30 or later. The time available for dealing with that large mass of correspondence is limited to three or four hours if it has to go by the mail train out of London. This means the employment of a postal staff not fully occupied in the earlier hours of the day.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It was the same before the War
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, and the difficulty existed before the War. But in times like this when every means of effecting economies should be resorted to, here is a practical way, without causing serious inconvenience, for the commercial community to have a pre-War rate for its business communications by helping; here is a practical way by which a substantial economy can be effected.
    Before I leave this question of business communications I should like to make reference to a practice which has aroused a great deal of irritation in this country. That is the practice of posting circulars abroad for delivery in Great Britain. The loss of revenue last year due to this practice was £15,000 out of a total revenue from printed papers posted in this country of £5,000,000. I hope that as a result of the return to the halfpenny rate this practice will entirely cease. I am, however, by no means sanguine. So long as it is possible to get these circulars posted in Hungary, Austria, or Germany at one-sixth or one-twelfth of a penny, there are some people who will take advantage of that fact. But we are not the only country which has suffered in this way. We have, indeed, suffered less than any other European country whose currencies are depreciated. Holland, Switzerland, Denmark and this country find a certain proportion of their business men sending their circulars to Austria, Hungary, or Germany to be posted. In my opinion it is exceedingly bad for business—and it is also unpatriotic—and that is the real reason why the vast majority of business houses in this country have refused to adopt the practice.
    1594
    The average Englishman does not like to have circulars from British firms with a foreign stamp upon them. He has a rough-and-ready way of letting these firms know, whoever they may be, that he does not approve of that practice. In leaving what I have to say in regard to postal reductions, I should like to make this observation. I hope it will not be made in a boasting spirit, though I confess I am not entirely without satisfaction in the matter. The British postal service is the only great postal service in the world which is paying its way. Not only that, but it is also reducing its costs. I have here a very interesting document recently issued, the Report of the Postmaster-General of the United States of America. It has very recently been issued. It was issued at the beginning of this year for the last fiscal year, and this is what he says:
    "The audited expenses of the fiscal year were in excess of the revenue by the sum of $157,000,000. The gross expenditure above reported, however, included extraordinary payments authorised by Congress. These extraordinary payments should not be reckoned as part of the deficiency for 1921, and it is possible, from the audited result, that the deficiency for the fiscal year will be reduced to $81,000,000."
    Therefore, when I am asked to look at the United States and be wise, I do not think that comparison with this country is a bad one.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The Americans have exactly the same postal rates as before the War.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should like my hon. Friend to read a copy of this document, which would clear his mind as to some of the errors into which he appears to have fallen. The rates I have mentioned come into operation on the same date as the re-institution of the collection of letters on Sundays, and I think the date is 29th May. There is no reduction in regard to parcels or newspapers.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    I come now to the telephone service. About this service there is this remarkable feature, that every telephone service, according to its own people, is the worst in the world. Very exaggerated language is used about the telephone service, and I would like to give an example of this

    1595
    exaggeration by reading a quotation from a speech made in an address by a judge to a grand jury, in which he said:
    "I am very sorry that you are about to end your work. I intended that you should investigate the deplorable service rendered by the telephone service of this country. However, I will submit it to another grand jury in the future."
    That is a quotation which I think most hon. Members will agree is very much exaggerated. It is a quotation from the "Sun" of New York and refers to the service given by the New York Telephone Company. I quote this as showing that in every country the telephone service lends itself to exaggeration, and there is hardly anyone in any country who is willing to agree that his own telephone service is efficient or cheap. I will commence by giving some figures of the progress made during the year in this country. The number of stations has gone up by 15,691 and on the 31st March there were 995,242. The total number of new instruments installed, including extensions, was 134,000. The total number of new subscribers was 71,500. The number of cessations was 64,000, of which 29,000 were due to the increased cost and the rest represented the normal decrease. The rate of cessations, I am glad to say now, is now normal as compared with pre-War figures.
    During the year 530 rural call offices were opened at provincial post offices, chiefly in rural districts, whilst 3,290 stations have been opened on rural lines. I particularly welcome the last figure, because it shows that the prejudice existing against the rural line system is rapidly being broken down. The proposals which I have to make for telephone reductions are as follows: In the first place, I will say that I do not pro pose to proceed on the principle recommended by the Select Committee of an all-round percentage reduction, for this reason. An all-round percentage reduction of 7½ or 8 per cent,, which is the utmost I could do with the surplus of £1,200,000 at my disposal, would be of very little benefit to the great majority of telephone users. I hope the Committee will feel, when I have completed my statement, that we have adopted a better way. I propose reductions which will cost in a full year £1,100,000 out of a surplus on the telephone account of £1,200,000. By doing this, I think I am
    1596
    cutting it quite as close as I am entitled to do in regard to a revenue of over £15,000,000 a year.
    The reductions this year will cost £880,000. The first of the changes is a reduction in the telephone rent for private users of 30s. a year. This will make the rental in London £7 instead of £8 10s. In Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, £6 10s. instead of £8; and in the rest of the country, £6 instead of £7 10s. Some comment may be made with regard to this concession being restricted to private users, but in making that distinction I am following a recommendation of the Select Committee to the effect that the telephone charges for private users should be less than for business purposes. That is the practice in the United State and in Scandinavia, and I think it will be justified by the extent to which it will increase the number of private users, and to that extent it will increase the value of the telephone service to the business community. The cost of this concession will be £200,000 in a full year and £160,000 this year.
    The next reduction, and this applies to all telephones, whether for business or private users, is a reduction in the rate of local messages from 1½d. to 1¼d. I wish we could have got rid of the 1¼d., but it is a reduction as it is of 16 2/3 per cent. and that will be of real assistance to the business user, and to those who largely use the telephone service. After allowing for a 5 per cent, increase in the revenue as a result of this reduction, this concession is going to cost the telephone service in a full year £440,000. To take off the other ¼d. would mean a cost of another £440,000, and I have not got the money. This change costs £440,000 in a full year and £350,000 this year. I hope that this concession will do a great deal to meet the difficulties created to the large users by the abolition of the flat rate which undoubtedly had the effect of sending up the telephone accounts of business houses to a very great extent. I estimate as a result an increase of 5 per cent, in the number of calls, but I hope that the existing staff will be able to deal with that increased number without any addition to their strength.
    I propose that there shall be a reduction of the extra mileage charge on exchange lines and the mileage charge on private wires and external extensions from

    1597
    £10 to £8 per mile. This means a loss of £142,000 on the full year and £120,000 this year. The Select Committee recommended that the reduction should be from £10 to £5, but to have done that would have cost £360,000, or nearly one-third of my total telephone surplus, which would have gone to a comparatively small body of subscribers.
    I come now to the trunk calls, and the principal proposal I make in this respect is for a substantially cheaper rate for calls put through between the hours of two o'clock in the afternoon and seven o'clock in the evening. The telephone service, and particularly the trunk service, is faced with the same problem as that which is connected with the mails, and that is the problem of a peak. The trunk lines are crowded between ten o'clock and one o'clock, and if we can get that evened up in some way we shall not only be able to give a quicker and a more efficient service, but it will be possible to do a much greater volume of business with the present staff, who are kept busy in the early part of the day, and are not so fully occupied during the remainder of the day. The average reduction will be 25 per cent, between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.
    I will give one or two instances as to how it works. From 25 to 35 miles the charge is 1s., and the local fee is 1½d., which is added to the 1s., but in future the charge in the afternoon will be 10d. without the addition of the local fee. In the case of 1s. 6d. calls, the charge will be reduced to 1s. 1d., but as formerly the local fee was added, the real reduction will be from 1s. 7½d. to 1s. 1d. The 2s. charge will be reduced to 1s. 6d. The 4s. 6d. charge will be reduced to 3s. 6d.,and 9s. 6d. calls will be reduced to 7s. 3d. I hope that these reductions, which average 25 per cent., will have the effect not only of increasing the use of the trunk service, but also of equalising the load, and I hope these anticipations will be realised. We propose to abolish the local fees on all trunk calls over 1s. 6d., and to make certain modifications below that charge, but I will not trouble the Committee now with those modifications.
    I come now to a part of the service which has always occupied my mind a good deal, and that is the provision of improved telephone facilities in the country districts. The present charges are undoubtedly prohibitive, and amount
    1598
    in a great number of cases to a rental of as much as £20 per annum. This is due to the fact that you have heavy capital charges in connection with most of the rural extensions. The Select Committee attach great importance to this point, and I have been influenced a great deal by their recommendation on this subject in the proposal which I am about to make. Where not less than eight subscribers can be obtained the rental will be £8. The instalment rental will be £8 per subscriber, the local and trunk fees being charged according to the ordinary tariff, and in the case of subscribers at a distance of more than one mile extra mileage will be charged at the standard rate. I think that is a very substantial reduction compared with the present rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the amount of the reduction?"] The present charge is £20 and it is proposed to reduce it to £8, and therefore the amount of the reduction is £12. A day service only will be provided for this class of users, but the cost of the night service, if required, can be met by an additional charge on the subscribers themselves.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: What does a day service actually mean?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: From 9 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m. It will be necessary in this case to ask for an agreement for a minimum of three or five years, according to the capital cost involved. I do not propose in the future to require any guarantee for a junction line unless the capital cost exceeds £1,000, including overhead charges. Where the cost of a junction exceeds £1,000 a guarantee will be required to make good the difference between the fees paid by the subscribers for the use of the guaranteed line and half the estimated cost of provision, excluding the overhead charges. Where 15 or more subscribers are obtained the service will be provided at the ordinary tariff rental of £7 10s. for business houses or £6 for residential lines within a mile radius. That last should be a very substantial alleviation of the telephone difficulty in the country side. Where less than eight subscribers are obtained, the rental will be assessed on the basis of cost. I need not trouble to furnish the Committee with more details, as full details will be issued. I have given in broad outline the proposals which I am making.

    1599
    I leave the question of reduction now to make a brief comment on one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Telephones which I do not find myself able to adopt. That was the recommendation that the telegraphs and telephones should be united, and the united service completely separated from the mails. I ask the Committee to consider what that would involve. There are 10,000 sub-offices in this country where the whole of the postal work, telegraphic and postal, is carried on in the same office by the same staff. At about 1,500 offices the telegraph, telephone and postal work is carried on by a common staff. I submit that to separate these services and to have in each village or suburb of a town a separate building for telegraph and telephone work, with a separate staff, would not only make for confusion and inefficiency, but would be extremely expensive. I can imagine nothing more extravagant than to establish in all the villages and suburbs of towns in this country a separate organisation where now you have it working together with the same staff and in the same building. Consider the position in the remaining provincial post offices—some 1,300 in number—which are now run by the post-office staff direct. In the other cases they are run by sub-postmasters who are remunerated on a scale according to the amount of business done, but in the remainder of these provincial offices—1,300—except in 40, the postal and telegraphic staff is one. I need hardly point out the advantage of that arrangement; the disadvantage of separation must be obvious. At present the telegraph work comes in rushes and in peaks. Very often telegraph work is busiest when the ordinary postal work is slack.
    Under the existing arrangement the staff engaged on the postal side are trained so that they can be transferred to telegraph or telephone work, and in these circumstances I should require much stronger arguments than I have yet seen before I can approve of that recommendation. I would like members of the Committee to consider what would happen to the counter staff. At present, in most post offices, except in great offices where it is necessary, owing to the bulk of work, to allocate a particular class of work to a particular man or woman, the work is dealt with at the counter by
    1600
    the same staff, who deal with Post Office Savings Bank work, postal work, telegraph work, or whatever it may be. What would be the feelings of an ordinary member of the general public who, coming into one of these offices, found that one assistant was doing nothing, because he was allocated to telegraph work, while the assistant who was selling stamps was unable to serve him because he had a long queue standing there? I submit that the arrangement is not one which on examination we ought to adopt, and I do not propose to adopt it.
    Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what proposal he has to make in regard to the rent for private lines outside the mile area.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already given those figures. I do not carry them in my head, but I think the reduction is £2.

    WIRELESS MESSAGES (BROADCASTING).
    I leave that, and come to a subject not closely connected with postal administration, but which has recently aroused a great deal of interest in the Press and in the country. That is the question of the broadcasting of wireless messages or radio telephone broadcasting. That system has a great vogue in the United States, and a representative of the Post Office, who was recently in the United States, has brought back a report showing that there are 750,000 of these receiving stations opened in the United States. There has also been a considerable increase in the United States in the number of transmitting stations, and the result of this increase has been chaos, and Mr. Hoover, the Minister of the American Government under whose charge this work is done, has recently appointed a Committee to propose legislation to correct the chaos brought about by the unregulated erection of transmitting stations. They have drawn up, I understand, very drastic recommendations. We fortunately have avoided that difficulty. I hope we shall be able to learn from the experience of the United States, and that the proposals which I am going to make will enable the public interested in this new science, and desiring to avail themselves of it, to have a reasonable service without causing interference either with commercial use or Government use of the wireless or with the facilities open to each other. Proposals came to me from

    1601
    several quarters for permission to open transmitting stations in this country. I referred those proposals to the Wireless Sub-committee of the Imperial Communication Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir Henry Norman). They made recommendations which I adopted. I have decided to allow the establishment of a limited number of radio-telephone broadcasting stations. The country will be divided roughly into areas centring upon London, Cardiff, Plymouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh, but not both, and Aberdeen, and one or more broadcasting stations will be allowed in each of those areas. Permission for these stations will only be granted to British firms who are bonâ fide manufacturers of wireless apparatus. It is impossible, and it would not be in the interests of wireless if I granted all the applications that have been made to me for the right of transmission. What I am doing is to ask all those who apply—the various firms who have applied—to come together at the Post Office and cooperate so that an efficient service may be rendered and that there may be no danger of monopoly and that each service shall not be interfering with the efficient working of the other. The stations will be limited to a power of 1½ kilowatts and furnished with wave lengths which should not interfere with other services. The normal hours for broadcasting will be from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., except on Sundays, when there will be no limit. There will be certain regulations in regard to the character and classes of news which these agencies will be allowed to transmit, but on that head I have not yet come to a final decision.
    Mr. INSKIP: Who will be the censor?
    Colonel NEWMAN: What will be the wave length?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There are various wave lengths. It covers a fairly wide field. I cannot give the various lengths at the moment, but I will see that they are provided before the discussion is ended. I also propose that the facilities for obtain-permits for the reception of these messages shall be greatly simplified, and in the future it will be possible for anyone desiring to instal a receiving set to go to any post office and receive it for 10s., in the way they can obtain any other
    1602
    licence. The possibilities of this service are almost unlimited. In the United States of America it was suggested that some arrangement might be made by which speeches of members of Congress might be radiated, and I can foresee a time when perhaps on this table a receiver will be properly concealed so as not to jar the aesthetic sense of Members, and their eloquence will be transmitted to those of their constituents who are prepared to pay for the cost.

    AIR MAILS.
    5.0 P.M.
    Another branch of the service which is of great interest and indeed of fascinating interest is that of the carriage of mails by air. The progress made not only in this country but in most other countries has not realised anything like the sanguine expectations some of us held a few years ago, but I think last year has shown greater progress than any other period since man conquered the art of flight. There will be between England and the Continent three services to Paris by three British companies, and the mails will be sent by which of these services is most convenient. Two air mails a day will be leaving Croydon Aerodrome, one at 10 a.m. and one at 12.15 p.m. A service to Brussels will start on 15th May, and to Holland after 15th May, and there will be two outward services, at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. The greatest benefit of these long-distance air services has been secured in the parcels post. The parcels post to Paris carried by air effects a saving of from five to six days. That is due, not so much to the increased rapidity with which the parcels are carried, as to the fact that the Customs facilities are much greater in dealing with air parcels than with parcels sent in the ordinary way. The saving of time is very considerable, and I am surprised that greater use has not been made of the air parcels service. As a result of tenders which we have accepted, the cost of carrying these parcels will be greatly reduced this year, and the charge will be, up to 2 lbs. 1s. 9d.; up to 5 lbs., 3s.; up to 8 lbs., 3s. 9d., and up to 11 1bs., 4s. 3d. I think the Committee will agree that these charges compare very favourably with the charges for parcels sent to Paris in the ordinary way.
    The most successful of all the air mail services with which this country is

    1603
    associated is that from Cairo to Bagdad. A letter sent from London to Bagdad in the ordinary way takes from 28 to 30 days; sent by air service, it takes only, 12 days. The fee charged is only 6d. per ounce, plus the ordinary postage of 3d. Ten per cent, of the whole Bagdad letter mail is now being sent by air, and the efficiency and reliability which the Air Ministry has reached in this service will, I think, assure in the future that there shall be a great expansion in the use of the air mail in that district. I visualise the time when throughout the Empire we shall be able to provide air services which will make just as great a saving in time as that which the Air Ministry has succeeded in making between Cairo and Bagdad. No man can put any limitation to the possibilities of this service, and the fact that accidents have happened, that the service cannot always be relied on in bad weather, is no proof that the Air Ministry and those companies which have with great audacity invested their capital in these services will not succeed in doing for the whole of the Empire what the Air Ministry has succeeded in doing between Cairo and Bagdad. A Civil Aviation Advisory Board has been formed by the Air Ministry, with a representative of the Post Office upon it, and this is its first business:
    "To consider the cost and the practicability of setting up an Imperial Air Mail Service."
    They are first directing their attention to the Cairo-Bagdad and the Bagdad-Bombay sections of a possible future Imperial air route to India and to Australia.
    Before referring to one or two general points which are not without interest, I want to give this warning to the Committee. I have made proposals which were the most far-reaching that it was possible for me to make if I were to have regard to the position of the man who stands at this Box in my place next year. My proposals have not been made for nine months ahead; they have been made for more than 12 months ahead; and the proposals I have made will in no way mortgage the future. But I hope and believe it will be possible, not only to secure solvency on the Service this year and still make these concessions, but that next year, if the costs in the Post Office
    1604
    continue to decrease, as I hope they will, at the present rate, to make still further concessions. If, however, my Estimates of the increased revenue as a result of the reduced charges are not realised, then the position will not be so satisfactory. If they are exceeded, and the volume of business is greater than I have foretold, I shall have to come before the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate; but I hope that no one in the House would take exception to that, because, if I come to the House with that Supplementary Estimate, I shall have more than the revenue to meet it. I thought it right, however, to give that warning to the Committee.
    I am sure it has been noticed by Members of the Committee that there has been, since the War, some increase in the number of attempted robberies at post offices. I am glad to say that in the great majority of cases those attempts have been unsuccessful, and they have been unsuccessful, in a large number of instances, as the result of the courage shown by members of the post office staff. There is a great deal of cheap criticism about the girl behind the counter, but the girl behind the counter and the girl in the telephone exchange have one of the most nerve-racking jobs that anyone can have. It has not, however, shaken their nerve. I have here a number of cases, of which I will quote three, and I should like to give the names of these humble servants of ours, so that the House of Commons can have before it examples of the way in which poorly paid people, doing work which does not attract public attention, manifest a sense of public duty.
    On the 11th October, 1921, at 7.40, a young man entered the Central Hill office at Norwood, and presented a revolver at the sub-postmistress, Miss Rose Sweeney, threatening to shoot her if she refused to hand over a bundle of notes. Instead of complying, the sub-postmistress shouted for help, in the hope of attracting the attention of passers-by. Her sister then entered the office, and threatened to join in raising the alarm, despite repeated threats with the revolver of the raider. The raider ultimately took flight and decamped without accomplishing his purpose.
    In another case, a young man entered the Caversham Bridge Office at Reading,

    1605
    and asked for stamps. While the assistant was engaged, a second man entered and presented a revolver at her, telling her not to shout. The assistant, Miss Holden, retreated through a side door and called for assistance, and the raiders made off without effecting their purpose.
    The last instance—I am only giving these as typical cases—is that of two men who entered the Windmill Road Office, Brentford. When the assistant was about to sell them a stamp for which they had asked, one of them drew a revolver and pointing it at the assistant, demanded that she should hand over everything she had got. The assistant, Miss Booth, did not comply, but gradually moved back to a door behind her and gave the alarm to her father. Her father was also threatened with the revolver of this man. Both refused to be bullied. They stood their ground, and, as a result of the alarm which they raised, these men were arrested and punished.
    I do not know—I suppose it is difficult for any of us to know—precisely how we should act if we were suddenly confronted with the business end of a revolver in the course of our ordinary work, but neither of these women had any doubt as to how she should act, and I am glad to have the opportunity of giving their names to the House of Commons. This country is not the only one which suffers from depredations of various kinds, and, in the interesting document to which I referred just now, the Report of the American Postmaster-General, I read this statement:
    "The first order as to the arming of the postal employés and the issue of 50,000 guns and 2,000,000 rounds of ammunition, together with the offer of a maximum reward of 5,000 dollars to anyone bringing in a mail robber, was made on 9th April. Instructions have been re-issued that the armed postal employés shall shoot to kill, and we are sending out another quantity of arms and ammunition."
    I regret the instances which have taken place in this country, but the respect for the mail shown in this country is as great as is manifested in any other country in the world.
    The last point I have to make is in regard to an innovation which I made in the Post Office when I was appointed, namely, the institution of a body of business men to advise me on business questions. I have had some experience of business men in connection with Govern-
    1606
    ment Departments, both in the Ministry of Munitions and when I was at the Department of Overseas Trade, but I have not seen any body of business men more willing to render their services and experience freely to the Government, or more qualified to give valuable assistance to the Government.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You chose them.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The general public has good cause to be grateful to these men for the service they have rendered in advising the Post Office on business questions. They have represented to me the point of view of the ordinary man and of the business man, and there has been no recommendation that they have made to me which I have not accepted unless I was able to satisfy them that on some particular aspect of it it was not in the public interest. The great majority of their recommendations I have adopted, and I desire here to express my thanks to them for the services that they have rendered during my period of office.
    I hope that the record I have given to the Committee, though it may not realise all that I should like, will not be regarded as unsatisfactory, but we ought not to rest content. After all, this country led the way in the direction of cheap postage. This was the country that established the penny post, and it must always be irritating to our people to have lost the great privilege of the penny post. If I could have restored it, consistently with the solvency of the undertaking, I would have done so. I have gone as far in that direction as I could without mortgaging the future. I hope, however, that every Member of the Committee realises that the burden of high postal rates is not only severe upon the business community, but is felt especially by the poorest of the poor, and I am certain that there is no part of my right hon. Friend's Budget that has given so much relief to so large a number of people as the reductions that we have been able to effect in the postal rates of this country. If my aim be realised, and the reduction of expenditure goes on at the present rate, I hope that whoever is Postmaster-General next year will have a still more satisfactory statement to make.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Sunday collection, even in rural districts, was going to be at 12 midnight. Would it not be possible, in rural districts, to make it an afternoon collection without much extra expense?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think there has been some misapprehension on that point. What I said was, that the Sunday collection would be restored on 28th May. It is not intended that the collection should be at midnight.
    Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General enjoys the unique advantage that already the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prepared the way to make him, perhaps, the most popular Minister this year in His Majesty's Government. He has brought before the Committee this afternoon a statement which fully establishes the fact that he has carried out his stewardship of the Post Office in a manner of which he may well be proud; and it is somewhat ironical that, the first time a Member of the staff of the Post Office should speak here on this subject, his words should be words of praise and commendation of His Majesty's Postmaster-General. That, however, is given quite ungrudingly, because, under the right hon. Gentleman's régime, there has been a closer rapproachement between the staff and the administrative side, which will have the effect, even to-day, of reducing to a very great extent the number of those minor complaints which usually form a large feature of the Post Office debate. I want first to pay tribute to the fact that the Postmaster-General has fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of his promise, which I believe also was emphasised by the Leader of the House, that the surplus from the Post Office would not be raided in any way to meet any deficiencies in the Exchequer. He has laid down what all of us must feel a quite good business principle, that the Post Office should be in the first instance self-supporting, and then any surplus arising therefrom should be expended in giving increased and improved facilities to the public and better conditions to the staff. The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, made reference to the increase which has accrued as
    1608
    against the deficiency on his previous statement. But it would be fair to remember that prior to the War the Post Office was always a revenue-earning Department, and that within a comparatively short time at least £30,000,000 surplus had been handed over to the Exchequer as the result of the working of the Post Office itself. That should be borne in mind when some criticism is made without knowledge very often both of the staff and the administration. This is an instance of how the State can run a Department and make it both efficient and profit-making in the ordinary acceptance of the word, and can give a very much better and more efficient service than probably could be given under private enterprise. That the right hon. Gentleman in his statement to-day has demonstrated fully and completely. It is well also to bear in mind that the whole of the profit is not shown in the financial surplus, because the Post Office gives a good deal of service to other Departments for which it is not paid, although it has to bear the cost.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a very important point, and I thought I had succeeded in removing that misapprehension. The hon. Member was not a Member of the House when the question was repeatedly put to me. In the surplus for which I have estimated this year, full allowance is made for all the services rendered by the Post Office to other Government Departments.
    Mr. AMMON: I am glad to have that cleared up. It is all-important, having regard to the different Departments in the Post Office, how the expense is allocated, particularly with regard to costings. It has been very difficult to appreciate exactly the amount which should fall on the several Departments, and again and again criticism has been raised in the House and elsewhere that the telegraphs, for instance, are an entirely non-remunerative undertaking from the cash return point of view. I am under the impression that the costings are based on two-thirds—for instance, two-thirds of the expense of a branch post office is charged to telegraphs without any regard to the number of persons employed. The costings should be based on the relationship of actual expenditure on the service rather than in this rough and ready

    1609
    manner, which results perhaps in putting one service at a considerable disadvantage as compared with the other. It is fair to note that when the right hon. Gentleman pointed out how the savings had been effected and he was able to present a surplus this year, the greater proportion that has resulted are savings on the wages, or bonuses, of the Post Office staff. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman, while it is in my mind, for the tribute he paid to members of the staff for the gallantry they have displayed in protecting the public interest and public property in the Post Office, and, as one of their representatives, I thank him publicly for that very generous tribute. Here we have had a reduction of at least £6,000,000 at the expense of the workers. That is to say, they have had a gradual sliding scale reduction, commensurate with the fall in the cost of living, in their war bonus, and when criticism is levelled, as it often is, without knowledge, it is well to remember that, side by side with the fall in the cost of living, we have had this fall in the wages of people, many of them very poorly paid, and they have been steadily going down and the Exchequer has saved to a very considerable extent at the expense of these people. Then emphasis should be placed on the number of new services which are coming in in the Post Office. The average counter clerk deals with the work of a bank clerk and an insurance agent, besides the ordinary work of selling postage stamps and other things over the counter. All that sort of work comes into the normal day's work, a condition of affairs unknown in any other commercial undertaking in the country, and it calls for an amount of skill, integrity and devotion to duty which is demanded by hardly any section of workers, and very inadequate remuneration is paid, judged by the standard of work demanded.
    I want to make a reference to the abolition of the Sunday services. These were abolished on 12th June, 1921, and the complaint I have to put forward chiefly is under two heads. In the first instance, it was done without any consultation with the staff. That is entirely at variance with the practice that this Government is trying to encourage to grow up in outside industry and which they have again and again from those benches emphasised should be done from this side, and have
    1610
    often suggested it should be done from the other side. On the other hand, it is at variance with the practice which has grown up within the Post Office, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this practice of having frequent consultations between the representatives of the staff and the administration has resulted in benefit to both sides, and the public themselves are materially advantaged by it. I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's acknowledgment of that. Then in a case like this, which affects remuneration and the conditions of service and the pensions of the persons concerned, the least the right hon. Gentleman might have done would be to call in consultation the representatives of the people concerned before he put it into operation. He declined on the ground that the decision was a Cabinet one. That is not quite good enough. There have been plenty of other decisions given by the Cabinet where the persons concerned have been called into consultation. I think this would be one of the suggestions thrown out by the committee of business gentlemen to whom he referred. This has had the effect of saving nearly £1,000,000. His own statement was £900,000 when he last spoke. The serious point is, we, as representing the people concerned, admit that on principle we are against Sunday labour, but when persons are earning weekly wages amounting sometimes to quite a few shillings, and the abolition of Sunday work means a very substantial cut on that very meagre wage, you cannot stand so hard and fast on these principles having regard to the fact that it is going to be a serious deprivation to the people concerned. Also one has to bear in mind that there is something like a serious breach of contract in this, because these people have held these posts for a number of years and it counts towards their pensions.
    The cutting off of this without any consultation will not only seriously affect the very low wages which they are now enjoying, but it is also going to affect the pension rights when they retire, and those pension rights very often amount to a paltry few shillings a week for men and women who have given on an average 40 of the best years of their service to the State and have served it faithfully and well in all weathers and all seasons. It not only does that, but it worsens the

    1611
    duty. The Saturday night duties are worsened because it is necessary to deal with the work and get it out of the office owing to there being no work on the Sunday. It imposes extra night duty at the week-end, and the five nights of duty now become six. The staff also have to come on Mondays in some instances at 5 a.m. o'clock instead of 6, and as the travelling facilities in many places are very irksome, it makes it extremely difficult for them to do so. Then, if I gather rightly, the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he is going to re-institute the collections. That will mean that people will come on for an hour or two, perhaps, on the Sunday, cutting into the whole day and spoiling it, and they will merely get remuneration for an hour or two, though the whole day will be lost, because travelling facilities are much more difficult in many instances, and it is going to be a very serious deprivation. The Union of Post Office Workers asked to be consulted before the restitution of this collection. The Postmaster-General said they would be consulted when restoration was decided upon. That is not at all playing fair. When a matter is a fait accompli it is no consultation to say, "Now you can come in and talk about it." Surely if there is any sincerity in any suggestion like that, the right hon Gentleman would consult them before he decides on any re-institution, in order that we might get together and see if there cannot be some agreement and endeavour to work it out for the common good. But, after all, the feeling of the Post Office worker is that he very often gives very much more concern to the public interest than he does to his own interest, and he does not get the recognition that he should do from the representative of the public, the Postmaster-General, who has not played up to it in the way he should. The Postmaster-General claimed credit for this on the ground that he had conceded a great principle in the abolition of Sunday labour. That is all very fine, but if a certain portion of his work was abolished without consultation with him and the greater part of his salary cut off, he would think he had a grievance, and surely these people have an equal claim to be considered.
    I want to ask, with reference to the concession the right hon. Gentleman
    1612
    announced he was going to make in connection with the postage of printed matter, whether that has reference only to such printed matter as is posted in bulk during certain hours of the day, such as large postages of prospectuses, etc., or whether it would affect a single paper posted under such circumstances. This has been represented to his Department again and again by the Union of Post Office Workers as one means both of giving increased facilities to the public and an opportunity to afford better attendances for the staff. It is not quite correct to say that the staff have been idle during the day because the bulk of the work is done in the morning and the evening, because the staffs have been so organised and regulated that you have had a very much thinner staff during the other hours of the day and the bulk of the staff have been employed in the early morning and late at night. That of course has formed one of the grievances of which the staff have complained—the constant early morning attendance, getting up at two, three or four o'clock in the morning, and year in and year out for as long as 20 years these people have never had an evening off and others are working till 10, 11 and 12 o'clock at night. Suggestions have been put forward from time to time by the Union of Post Office Workers that if this postage was brought within restricted hours it would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give better hours of attendance to the staff and it would undoubtedly confer a boon on the commercial community. I thank the right hon. Gentleman that he has met us in that respect.
    Another point arises in connection with what are known as small town sub-offices and the assistants employed therein. The Committee may not be aware that in this country there are many thousands of post offices where the persons in charge are more or less in the position of agents. That is, they carry on some business and conduct the post office as a side line. The result of that is that you have one of the most outrageous systems of sweating that could be shown in any industry. It is very largely assuming the position of going back to the old days of farming out the post offices. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance that he will make inquiries, with a view to remedying the disgraceful conditions, of which I

    1613
    will give instances, which obtain in many of these offices. As recently as 1913 a Select Committee on the Post Office recommended that all London sub-offices where the remuneration amounted to over £500 a year should become Crown offices, and in the provinces where the remuneration amounted to over £250.
    I would suggest another means whereby the right hon. Gentleman could effect more economies at the present time, and remove what is undoubtedly a very great stigma upon the Post Office. In the neighbourhood of Blackfriars Road there are five post offices within a radius of 600 yards. These post offices have a turn-over of anything from £170 a year to over £500 a year. I suggest that two Crown sub-offices would serve that area quite adequately, that we could save money on the arrangement, and that there would be assured very much better conditions for the persons concerned. The Postmaster-General has said on a former occasion that these sub-office assistants are getting very much the same remuneration as shop assistants. That is not a fact. In May, 1921, in spite of the excessive rise in the cost of living, 35 per cent, of these assistants were in receipt of 20s. a week or less, and 91·5 per cent, were in receipt of 40s. or less, and these amounts included War bonus. It does not require very much imagination to understand that these people must have had a real struggle to live, and that the conditions are simply disgraceful. These are the type of people whom the Postmaster-General was commending in this House this afternoon for their bravery and devotion in defending the interests of the public.
    Mr. PERRING: Are they full-time people?
    Mr. AMMON: They are more than full-time. The Union of Post Office Workers conducted an inquiry into this matter. They inquired into over 500 sub-offices throughout the country, and found that in the majority of cases the living-out wages, that is, the wages of those who live at home and come to work in the offices varied from 7s. 6d. to £l per week.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: What were the ages of these assistants?
    Mr. AMMON: The ages ranged from 16 to adult age. In most cases they were well over 16 years of age. They were
    1614
    mostly adults. The hours worked ranged from 44 to 60 hours per week, and in some cases no holidays were given. Out of these low wages the assistants have to make up the whole or part of the counter losses.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: Are any of these people over 18?
    Mr. AMMON: Yes. Most of them are adults. These facts indicate a condition of things which is absolutely scandalous. I could give many cases. I have a whole pile here, if the Committee want them, of cases of sub-postmasters who carry on business as dressmakers or other businesses. These people put on the screw to the full by using the assistants for these other sides of their business, when not fully employed on the post office side. The assistants are therefore kept-hard at it all the time. The Post Office cannot escape its share of responsibility in this matter. In the first instance, they hand these sub-offices over to contractors. A former Postmaster-General was responsible in this House for what was known as the Fair-Wage Clause, whereby the State imposed on private employers the duty of paying at least what was a commensurate and fair standard of wage to their workers. I suggest that the Postmaster-General might look into this matter, and he will see that the facts are precisely as I have stated them. The Post Office is supposed to supervise the wages of the assistants in these sub-offices by means of an annual return made by each sub-postmaster to his head postmaster; but that return is not actually made. In practice, it is a farce, infrequently it is not supplied, and again and again it is definitely refused. I will only give two cases, because I think I have sufficiently established a case as to the outrageous conditions that are imposed upon these assistants.
    In the North of England a sub-post-master combines the work of the post office with a dressmaking business. The Post Office allow 19s. and 11s. 6d. per week for two female deliverers. This money has to be divided between these people. You cannot expect people to live under these conditions, and the fact that they have remained honest and have safeguarded the interests of the community is the highest testimony that can be brought forward in connection with this appeal. They have certainly deserved better treat-

    1615
    ment. The two women who acted as female deliverers also worked in the dressmaking business, one as an alteration hand. The sub-postmaster did not inform these employés what they were entitled to receive from the Post Office, and he signed their names on the pay sheets. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is fraud!"] Yes, but it is connived at by the Post Office. The first woman was employed as an auxiliary postwoman from 6.30 a.m. to 9.15 a.m., and from 5.15 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. Between 11 a.m. and 5.15 p.m. she worked in the business of the sub-postmaster as a dressmaker. By concealing the amount of 'her Post Office pay and by signing her name on the wage sheet, the sub-postmaster secured her services from 11 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. for 8s. a week. There are no possible grounds of economy, expediency, or anything else that can justify the Government, particularly a Government Department, permitting conditions like these to go on.
    Sir C. OMAN: It is a fraud.
    Mr. AMMON: The hon. Member says it is a fraud. I hope the Committee will keep this fact in mind, that whatever hard names you may call it, whatever it may be, it is done with the connivance of His Majesty's Postmaster-General.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Am I to understand the hon. Member to say that the Post Office allows a sum of 19s. a week which ought to be paid to the employé, and that then the sub-postmaster forges the employé's name on the pay sheet?
    Mr. AMMON: The statement I have given is accurate. This sum of money is given. The sub-postmaster signs for the money. The money is paid out in a bulk sum to the sub-postmaster as a contractor. He signs for the money, and then he distributes it in this way among the employés. I have stated the amounts allowed by the Post Office, and they are so outrageous that even if the whole were given to the assistants they would still be on the verge of starvation.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I understood the hon. Member to say the sub-postmaster signed the name of the employé.
    Mr. AMMON: No, I said that he signed the slip in his own name as the contractor. I prefaced my remarks by say-
    1616
    ing that these persons stood as contractors. In the City of London, E.G., there are 14 of these offices, with scales of remuneration ranging from over £200 to over £1,000 per annum, and I maintain that an adequate case has been made out for these offices to be controlled by the Post Office direct. When they reach these large figures they could well be controlled directly by the Post Office, and it would not only be more remunerative for the Exchequer, but it would be much better for the employés, and would give a very much better service to the community.
    I want to deal with the reference to the Telephones Committee and to express appreciation that the Postmaster-General has decided that there shall be no separation of the telephones from the Post Office. That would be wholly at variance with the idea of concentrating the whole service and bringing about co-ordination in order to prevent duplication of Departments and officials By the means adopted you are able to co-ordinate the different services, to keep the staffs engaged and in contact, and, at the same time, to prevent undue waste of energy, time, and staffs. I hope that this Committee will give more thought than is given outside this House when people are criticising the telephone service. That service came to the State after a private company's management had become a crying scandal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I repeat, after a private company's methods were a crying scandal, and such an uproar had been raised that the State had to come in and take it over. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] The telephone service was taken over by the State, and only two years of the new conditions had elapsed when the War broke out, and we have hardly recovered from those conditions. Therefore, the system has not had a fair chance. The Committee must remember the vital services of the telephone and engineering Department during the War. You would not have secured the advantage of that service if the system had been under private ownership, particularly having regard to the conditions that then obtained. The organisation of this rapidly-developing service has taken place within a comparatively short time, and, on the whole, it has given a service that cannot be equalled anywhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

    1617
    I am not speaking without my book. In the year 1915 I was privileged to spend some months in the United States, and I was asked to, and did, supply for what it was worth a non-official report to the then Postmaster-General, now Sir Herbert Samuel, as to the conditions of the telephone service out there. With the exception that the telephone is more largely used, that there is a greater number of users, I can say without hesitation that the English system had got them beaten all along the line. It gave an immeasurably superior service, as was admitted even by themselves. It is not always the people on this side of the House who are anxious to decry their own country. Members on the other side, where special interests are concerned, are not behindhand in running down their own country. They take advantage of cheaper postage in other countries, and send their postage out of this country, in order to get a little more dividend, and at the same time send printing out of the country, as well as posting in former enemy countries. In connection with some of the proposals that have been made it would be very much better if the service were placed in a condition of not having different rates in different districts, but that it should be centralised as is the postal side of the Service. That is to say, that we should give an equal service over the whole country at an equal rate, the better paying districts bearing the burden of the more sparsely populated places. This would be a more equitable and a better system.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It would very soon be bankrupt.
    Mr. AMMON: On that point I respectfully differ with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the result would be that you would have such a large number of users, because the rates would be reduced, that you would get bigger receipts. The Union of the Post Office Workers stands with the Department, and I imagine the majority of the community, in saying that we do not want the telephone or any other Department to become a subsidised service, but we believe that the whole surplus should be devoted towards improving the service for the benefit of the community and the staff. The Post Office service is very largely a barometer for the commercial and
    1618
    industrial businesses of the country. That accounts probably for the position in which we find the Post Office at the present time. If the country is divided into areas, and local consultation committees are set up, which I believe is suggested, it might be an advantage if a member of the Post Office staff were on each of these committees. Our interests are bound up with the development of the service. There may be points to be submitted that would escape the administration and would be worth attention. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter into consideration when he is setting up these committees. The rural co-operative extension of the telephone system on the whole is but a slavish imitation of the American system, and is not, I suggest, at all likely, in spite of the increase that has taken place, to become popular, nor can it be worked economically in this country. Instead of adopting this system it would be better to reduce the initial cost of telephones to subscribers. That will result in a wide extension of telephone facilities, and while it is possible that there might be initial loss it would prove financially sound in the long run. I would emphasise an extension to the telephone service of the postal system of charging the whole cost to a centralised account, so that the loss of one district might be met by the gain in another. This has been hinted at in the report of the Select Committee on the telephone service. It quotes the evidence of Mr. Bethell of the American Bell Telephone Company which says:
    "Again, some 'subscribers' stations, because of the difficulty of maintaining the connecting lines, or for other reasons, may not pay directly, but it would not be advisable to charge residences more than business places."
    Then the Committee say:
    "The reductio ad absurdum of a purely cost basis is argued in the following extract from the findings of the Michigan Public Utilities Commission last August: 'If each exchange is to stand upon its own basis [of cost], why should not each class of service in each exchange stand upon its own basis, and, inasmuch as there is a difference between the cost of rendering service to different individuals in the same class in each group, why should not there be as many rates as there are telephones themselves?'"
    That is pursuing the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to a logical absurdity. What I suggest is, improve your telephone system and give the benefits to

    1619
    the community itself, by reducing your present rates, and by taking all from a centralised account, the better paying areas meeting the loss in the less paying areas just as you have to do in the postal service. On the whole it works out well there. This is a service which, as you increase the demand on it, is bound to grow more and more remunerative. I desire now to call attention to a small section of men in the London telephone service who are known as staff superintendents of traffic. In September, 1920, through the Post Office Circular, applications were invited for these posts, and the scales of pay, it was said, were under revision. A year later the statement that the scales of pay were under revision was repeated. An examination for the positions was held by the Civil Service Commissioners, but no revision of pay has yet taken place. When the qualifications for this particular post were advertised, and the scale of remuneration was given as £100 a year, the "Daily Mail," which has a good deal of influence with many Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—came out with a large headline, "Wanted, a chance for a genius, at £100 a year." They then set out the very high qualifications that were demanded for that comparatively meagre payment.
    After all, many people enter the Post Office Service mainly because of the security of tenure, and large numbers because, in spite of what may be said on the other side, there is still a great desire for public service, and people going in there are prepared in the public interest to work for less remuneration than they would expect outside. But these people were promised in 1920 that revision would be given, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is long overdue, and I ask him to give consideration to the matter. Representations have been made again and again, and no answer has been given to them. Surely, he is going to carry out the promise made so long ago and deal fairly with these people. I trust also that he will give consideration to the remuneration of the men who have been deprived of part of their earnings and pensions by the loss of Sunday duties, because this is, in effect, a breach of contract, and it is not right that people should be suddenly deprived of their remuneration.
    1620
    No commercial undertaking would allow I that sort of thing to go on. Again and again we have had in this House claims from different commercial undertakings, claims more or less substantial, for losses which they are said to have suffered from the War, and they have been paid cheerfully. Surely, these humble people have a right to be treated in precisely the same manner. It will amount to a mere bagatelle if some actuarial calculation were made and they were given some remuneration for the loss of earnings and of pension which has accrued to them. Having submitted those points to the right hon. Gentleman, I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to me.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has drawn the attention of the Postmaster-General to many things in the conditions of service in the Post Office which do not reflect credit on a model employer as we all agree a Government Department ought to be. But when he used a phrase which suggested that the Postmaster-General was conniving at a system of sweating, that was not a fair way to describe the action of the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General. Whatever grievances may exist can be removed, it seems to me, by a proper system of inspection. I am certain that it is the desire of the Committee that the servants of the Post Office should be adequately remunerated, that they should serve reasonable hours and that the general conditions of service should compare favourably with, and be on as sound a basis as, those of any other Department of the State. I congratulate the Postmaster-General upon the statement which he has made to the Committee, and also upon the lucid and very able manner in which he laid his statement before us. The first point which struck me about it was that he was able to make these reductions not upon increased revenue but upon economies. He said: "I am able to make these reductions on a saving of £10,650,000." Would that the head of every Government Department could stand in the place of the right hon. Gentleman and say that he proposed to render much more efficient service to the public at a much less cost than in the preceding year.

    1621
    It shows after all what is possible in the operations of a Government Department. I am grateful for these beginnings in economy. I welcome them most heartily.
    6.0 P.M.
    I was struck in the next place by the remarkable figures which the Postmaster-General laid before us, in connection with his proposed reductions of charges, showing that if you take ½d. off the letter charge of 2d. and ½d. off the postcard charge, the increases run into hundreds of millions. That is a clear demonstration of how deeply the operations and ramifications of the Post Office are embedded in the success of our national, commercial, and social life. All the figures which the Postmaster-General puts before the Committee are eloquent testimony to the way in which communications between business interests and in social life are affected for good or evil by the charges of the Post Office. To one other interesting fact the Postmaster-General referred. He said that in spite of the additional services which have been undertaken by the Post Office during and since the War, the work has been done with a reduced staff. Those services have been rendered with remarkable efficiency in dealing with War Saving Certificates and matters of that kind. Starting with Old Age Pensions and then passing to the financial operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Post Office hap displayed a remarkable capacity to adapt itself to every load which the country has placed upon it. This work has been done with a remarkable reduction of staff I think the number was 6,000.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: 6,500 compared with 1914.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: That is a very remarkable statement, and it reflects great credit, not only on the heads of the Post Office, but to a greater degree on those servants of the State in the rank and file who have discharged the hard work involved in these additional services. I am glad that the Postmaster-General has not included in his programme the delivery of letters on Sundays. In so far as the State can show a good example in that respect I am certain that the community welcomes every restriction which is placed upon Sunday labour. I am not dealing with the question now from the
    1622
    religious point of view, but am stating the matter as one of social economics. I am sure that the nation as a whole does not desire that Sunday delivery should be re-established. I agree that the collection of correspondence on Sundays will greatly facilitate the work of the commercial community. The Postmaster-General commented on the posting abroad of circulars for this country. That system was brought about entirely by the high charges of the Post Office. The difficulty is that once you set up such a system, it will not be nearly so easy to sweep it over to the home service again as it was to drive it abroad. There is not only the question of postage, but the immense amount of printing which went out at the same time. This experience has provided a clear instance of the damage you can do not only to the particular interest involved, but to ancillary trades, by ill-conceived measures.
    I must say a few words about the telephone service. Here, again, I welcome the mitigation, such as it is, of the charges upon the community. A most significant figure was given by the Postmaster-General. He said that the Post Office had got 71,000 new subscribers; but there were 64,000 subscribers who ceased to subscribe, and the net gain therefore was 7,000 subscribers to this vast national service. That is a very serious state of affairs. Unless the telephone service develops rapidly, the situation which the Postmaster-General will have to face in succeeding years will not be a very cheerful one. Why is it that the telephone service is not taken up by the public? First of all, because of the very high charges, and secondly, because of the generally unsatisfactory service which has been rendered. In connection with trunk calls, the new facilities provided have rendered, and will render, great service to the commercial community. But there is still an amount of irritation caused by inefficiency in the telephone service, and it ought to be mitigated. I have never been in the United States, but we hear that the telephone service there is very much better. [HON. MEMBERS: "And cheaper."] I hope that the reduction in the charges will be coincident with increased efficiency.
    I know that the telephone work at the exchanges makes a heavier draft on the

    1623
    nervous system of the operators than almost any other branch of the postal service. At the same time there is general agreement that very great service will be rendered to the country by greater efficiency in the telephone service all round. I hope, from what the right hon. Gentleman says about the improvement in country district telephones, that there will be a large number of new subscribers, but I fear that the qualifications he has introduced are of a nature which will not give him very much increase. I can see that it would require a very great addition to expenditure to produce the desired result, but at the same time there is a great deal of legitimate pressure being brought to bear from the country districts. We all admit that the services which the country districts render by maintaining the great industry of agriculture, entitle them to claim from us a consideration which we cannot legitimately be asked to extend to other sections of the community. We must have regard to the great importance of maintaining the agricultural community in as high a state of efficiency as possible. It is not merely a question of social convenience. Farming is a very commercial matter if it is to be carried on in competition with other countries. I hope the concession will very soon be added to by others of such a nature as to meet the reasonable wishes of those who serve the State through their various businesses in the country districts.
    Every effort should be made to cheapen and increase the postal service. It is the lifeblood of many of our industries, the means by which we communicate not only with customers at home but by which we maintain our trade and communications overseas. That, I hope and believe, is fully borne in mind by the Postmaster-General, and I trust that by next year we shall see re-established what was once the chief glory of the postal service, the penny post.
    Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: The Committee appreciates warmly the admirable and able manner in which the Postmaster-General has put his statement before it. After that expression of warm approval, my right hon. Friend will not mind if I confine myself to two minor points of criticism. First, I would like to say a word about that which, after his announcement of reductions, will prove to have been the most interesting part of
    1624
    his speech, i.e., the question of the broadcasting of wireless telephony. That will be an extraordinary development within a very short space of time. It will mean embarking on an uncharted and very extensive sea. Unforeseen difficulties will arise, and many unanticipated opportunities will present themselves. At first broadcasting will only bring into tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of homes in the land music and entertainment, and perhaps some instruction. Later development will enlarge its scope and give to this telephony a national character for which the State will have to be responsible. It may well be the case that the Postmaster-General is deferring any announcement of that until the time when he is able to say that the new Post Office wireless station at Northolt will be able to undertake this service. This announcement will give a most welcome impetus to the manufacture of receiving apparatus—an opportunity to which the manufacturing companies are keenly alive. Hon. Members were inclined to be sceptical and even a little amused when the Postmaster-General spoke of wireless telephony being used for political purposes. I think one may say, not merely as a matter of opinion but with the confidence with which one announces a certain fact, that before much time has elapsed, at times of political crisis the Prime Minister on the one hand, and the Leader of the Opposition on the other will be addressing hundreds of thousands of people in the country simultaneously, by means of wireless telephony. In fact I may go a step further and say that when the General Election comes—towards the end of next year as it ought to do and as it probably will—I have little doubt that everyone of us will address a large number of his constituents by wireless telephony.
    There is one matter to which the Postmaster-General did not allude in his speech, no doubt because he had so much else to say. There is a large and enthusiastic and important body of scientific men, chiefly young men, in this country, who are deeply interested in amateur wireless telegraphy. I suppose they amount to at least 10,000 at the present time, and they will be 100,000 before long. Restrictions on their operations have recently been removed by the decision of the Committee to which the Postmaster-General has alluded. Subject to his own approval, the re-

    1625
    strictions have been removed, and wider opportunities have been given. A new wave length of 440 metres has been sanctioned, instead of the very impracticable one to which they were previously confined. They are going to be freed entirely from inspection of receiving stations and are going to be allowed to put up a receiving aerial of any length they like, and they will be able to purchase their licence for 10s. at the post office just like a dog licence. Amateurs deserve all the encouragement they can get. They were a body of experts from whom invaluable service was forthcoming in the War, and a body which can be drawn upon at any time of future crisis. I should like in a word to dispel one misapprehension which I think exists among amateur wireless telegraphists throughout the country. They believe that the public services are unsympathetic and are ill-disposed towards them. I should like to assure them from intimate knowledge that such is not at all the case, and that in the quarters controlling their activities the greatest sympathy exists towards them and every desire to give them as much freedom as is compatible with the public interest.
    With regard to the Post Office telephone service, I have never joined the chorus of criticism upon our telephone service. Considering the difficulties of the War, and another difficulty which I shall mention in a moment, I consider the service to have been very good. I have not recently been in America, and I cannot compare it with the American system, but I know the French telephone service well, and the French service is not only not in the same street, but is not in the same world with ours. Now that the War difficulties are over, and the Postmaster-General has money to spend, now that the new trunk lines are being laid down, the Postmaster-General must go ahead fast. I cannot believe, for a moment, that my right hon. Friend will be satisfied with 71,000 new subscribers. That is a miserable, a paltry total. The Post Office must do what any business man would do. They must reduce charges. They must take risks. They must gamble a little, and, above all, they must advertise. The Postmaster-General takes credit, and quite properly, so far as it goes, for the additional opportunities ho is giving for telephonic service in the rural districts. These I say are excellent as far as they go. I congratulate him
    1626
    and thank him, but is he quite willing to envisage such a state of things as this? Eight separate potential subscribers in the country come together and discuss the matter with one another, and by and by, after long discussion, they are able to form a little committee. They approach the Post Office, and the Post Office say, "There are seven of you, and there should be eight," or, "There are 14 of you, and there should be 15," as the case may be. Why does not the Post Office send somebody down into the rural districts, and find out the people, and go to them and say, "Why do not eight of you people, or why do not 15 of you farmers, join together and have a service?" That is what any business man would do, and it is only when this service is worked upon these principles that it will succeed. I would go so far as to say it will only succeed when the Postmaster-General thrusts the telephone and telegraph system down the throats of the people.
    I have only two remarks to make in the way of criticism of the Post Office. The first is that the future holds extraordinary possibilities of scientific development for purposes of communication. A word as regards the Post Office technical staff, with which for a good many years past I have had the privilege of being more or less intimately acquainted. I do not hesitate to say that nowhere in the world is there a body of public servants more loyal, more devoted, and more enthusiastic, or with greater scientific ability in their own line. Much of the scientific progress of the world in telegraphy and telephony has originated in our own Post Office, and to-day in most respects our own Post Office is abreast of the best practice, and in many respects ahead of the best practice of anyone else in the world. But in view of the future possibilities its scientific staff is very inadequate in numbers, it has been hopelessly handicapped for want of research facilities, and it needs much more direct personal encouragement from the top than it has hitherto received. I am speaking of the time before my right hon. Friend took office, and I hope he has given this encouragement since. It is no use half doing these things, and I should have liked to hear him say that, in spite of these hard times, he was setting aside a substantial sum of money yearly, some-

    1627
    thing like £100,000 at least, to instal a well-paid scientific staff in well-equipped scientific laboratories for Post Office research. Not only is the Post Office the greatest business in the country, but it is also a very highly technical and scientific public service. Every £100,000 so spent, I am convinced, would, in the long run, produce an economy of £1,000,000.
    I come to my second and last criticism. My right hon. Friend, perhaps by inadvertence and perhaps by discretion, omitted to mention the one black spot in the Post Office record. I am sure he knows very well what it is. For the double purpose of serving the public and helping the telephone service, the telegraphic service in this country must be, not improved, not modified, but absolutely revolutionised. When the telegraph service, which has had this deplorable record for so long, recently failed even more than usual to pay its way, what did the Postmaster-General do? He doubled the charges. Fancy the position of any business man who, when he was unable to make both ends meet, doubled the price of the article he was selling! He ought to have halved the rates. That could have been done by a great extension of high speed automatic telegraphy. Such telegraphy should be in every smallish town in the kingdom. It should be everywhere where there are now two, three or four operators employed. I am quite aware of the existence of the evidence and the Report of the pre-War High Speed Committee. I do not take that as a very useful Committee, and I think the Report is open to destructive criticism from several points of view. I know beforehand the reply from the Post Office which will be made. I have heard that often, but I have had occasion to consider this matter carefully and I am convinced the, proposal is practical. The need for reform in the telegraphic service may be inferred to a small extent from the multiplicity of apparatus maintained in use. The Committee will be surprised to know that for telegraphic purposes in the United Kingdom there are employed the following systems:—The single-needle, the A.B.C., the Morse key and sounder, the Wheatstone, the Murray, the Hughes, the Siemens, the Baudot, the Western Electric and the Creed. Not all of those can be good.
    1628
    One may be good for one purpose, and another for another, but that all these should be going on side by side shows, in my opinion, that there is not that keen organisation of the telegraph service that there should be. Slow and inefficient telegraph service forces the use of trunk telephone lines at great cost. A rapid and efficient telegraph service would do more than any one other measure to relieve the telephone service and make it cheaper and more efficient, and it would be an inestimable benefit to the public, who often prefer to telegraph rather than telephone if they do so cheaply.
    It is unreasonable to expect the Postmaster-General to discuss every topic in his speech, but while I am on the technical side I should like to know if the Post Office is really considering the application of the latest development of wireless telegraphy, namely, what is known as "wired wireless," and in America as "line radio," which has been developed to a remarkable extent by Major-General Squier, the head of the signals service in the United States army. Recently an American telephone company was leasing private lines to firms of stockbrokers between New York and Chicago. They leased four lines, and each one of their customers believed they had the use of a complete line from New York to Chicago over which they worked regularly backward and forward during certain hours. But it transpired that this company had but one metallic circuit, and the other three lines were simply worked by wireless put on at different frequencies. Therefore, when the lessor in New York spoke into his telephone, and said "Hallo!" to the man in Chicago, he believed he was speaking along an ordinary telephone line, but as a matter of fact he was only speaking to the office of the telephone company in New York, and thence through space, through the ether, but not by ordinary wireless radiating in every direction but guided through the ether by the metallic conductor. Given a conductor like that, it is possible, no matter what else the conductor may be used for, whether for telegraphy or electric lighting—or may be even carrying a 150,000 volt power circuit—you can superpose upon it without making any difference to it or it making any difference to you, this wireless circuit, and use it as a means of communication.

    1629
    During the War I was trying, in 1915, to devise a means of communication without an aerial, wirelessly, which could be used from the fighting line to brigade headquarters, or even to battalion headquarters, over the thousand yards in which the men were being constantly and so dreadfully killed, and I gave the first exposition of it to the general officer commanding a division then on the Wiltshire Downs. It was the first practical application of so-called earth antennae, and consisted simply of throwing out two insulated wires upon the ground and signalling through them. I only wanted to communicate for a thousand yards, but if I could have communicated over a mile I should have been pleased; so I went a mile from the divisional headquarters, threw out my ground antennæ, listened and spoke, and got admirable signals. I therefore went a mile further on with good results, and so I drove on and on until I was five or six miles away, and was still speaking and hearing perfectly. I thought I had made one of the great wireless discoveries of the War, and I was exceedingly satisfied, but the next day it suddenly flashed across my mind that there was an old iron fence running the length of those Wiltshire Downs, and that this iron fence was guiding those wireless waves. That is what can be done with wired wireless. If you have one circuit of two copper wires from here to Edinburgh, you can increase its efficiency 600 per cent, in carrying power in telephony, and 1,000 per cent, in telegraphy, by the use of wired wireless. I very much hope that, with better facilities for research in the Post Office, this will be done. These are the only criticisms, I hope friendly criticisms, which I will venture to make, and I hope, and indeed believe, that they will not fall upon deaf ears, because I think the Postmaster-General's speech has shown that in other directions the Post Office is alive to the needs of the public and ready to do everything in its power to meet their legitimate desires.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: If hon. Members will allow their memories to travel back to their first contribution to a Debate in this House, I think they will agree that in spite of the kindness, sympathy, and goodwill which is a traditional feature of this House, the occasion proved somewhat of an ordeal. Many changes
    1630
    have taken place of late, but so far as that matter is concerned, I venture to think it will still not be disputed that the human element remains constant and unchanged in that respect. Accordingly, it is with great reserve and diffidence that I rise and venture to address the Committee, and in doing so to express the hope that they will extend to me a full and generous measure of sympathy and indulgence for any rules of procedure or custom which I may inadvertently fail to respect as a result of my inexperience in this direction. We have listened with great interest to the concise and clear statement which has been put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General. Last year it was his painful duty to introduce, after just having fought a by-election—a very strenuous one, if my memory serves me right—a very unpopular series of changes in respect to postal administration. This year he finds himself in the pleasing position of being able to effect very popular changes and to lighten the heavy burdens which have been imposed by his Department. May I express my satisfaction—and I think others will join with me—at the fact that the Postmaster-General has been able to retain those surpluses which he has obtained as a result of the extra charges which he imposed—to retain them in his own hen-roost, so to speak—and that he has been able to give the advantage to the users of the Post Office, and that those sums have not been taken from him for lightening the burdens in other directions.
    I would like to refer to one or two points which were dealt with by the Postmaster-General, and the first is the question of staff. I have had some difficulty in endeavouring to follow the figures in respect to this matter which he put before us. In 1920–21 the staff of the Post Office, from the figures which were quoted last year, appears to have been 233,000, which included 25,000 engineers. At that time a travelling committee was set up, which was negotiating and cutting down the staff at the rate of 400 per month, and the Postmaster-General stated that he hoped that that rate of reduction would continue. To-day he told us that the actual staff reduction had been 6,500, presumably, as a result of the activities of this travelling committee. I would like to ask him whether that committee is still operating, or

    1631
    whether he is satisfied with the results which have been obtained and whether we are to regard those results as final. I would also like to inquire if the staff, which appears to have been 233,000 according to the last official figures, and which we were told to-day was 185,000, now includes the engineers. Presumably not, but I do not know what proportion of the total staff are engineers, and I will be glad to know if the engineering department has also suffered some reduction, and what the position is in regard to that section of the employés of the Post Office, It is very difficult to find out, from a perusal of the Estimates and the information which is at hand, exactly what the staff is. I find the expenditure carefully summarised, I find the Estimates carefully summarised, but I do not find the staffs in the various departments summarised, and I find it very difficult to arrive at an accurate computation of what the actual staff employed within the ambit of the Post Office at the present time is. The view that I would venture to urge upon the Postmaster-General is that he should thoroughly overhaul the various services which are being rendered in the Post Office and in regard to the staff which are carrying out those services. The need of our time, above and beyond all else, is economy, coupled with efficiency, and I venture to suggest that possibly a smaller, at any rate a well-paid, staff is one of the first essentials if we are to obtain that efficiency.
    In suggesting that there is need for an overhauling of the staff and the duties appertaining to the different branches, I would like to point out one or two directions in which I think that might proceed. There is the case of the rural postman. To my own knowledge, there are rural postmen whose route is not designed on up-to-date lines. I know in my own district there is a postman who has grown old and grey in the service of the Post Office, who has carried out his dusty and rather weary journey along country roads now for some decades, and who recently, at his own expense and on his own initiative, invested his somewhat slender savings in the purchase of a motor-cycle. At once came down the heavy hand of the Post Office, and he was not allowed to carry out his duties by means of the
    1632
    motor-cycle. Not only would it have lightened that officer's personal effort, but it would have added considerably, in my view, to the efficiency of the service which that officer could have rendered if he had been allowed to use that motor cycle, and I venture to suggest for the consideration of the Postmaster-General whether a rural postman should not be encouraged to use a motor cycle, and at any rate that any discouragement should at an early date be swept away. The same question of routes applies, I think, to some extent also in connection with the collection of mails. Before the war collections were largely made by means of postal vans which are now made in other ways, and in my own district the postal van was taken off and has not been replaced, with the result that, although only 12 miles from the county town, letters frequently take from 24 up to 36 hours to deliver. I feel that by a wise distribution of the routes of motor postal vans collections could be made at later hours, greater efficiency could be obtained, and greater services rendered to the public in that direction.
    May I turn for a moment to the question of telephones? I feel that the statement we have heard to-day in connection with the provision of telephones was a Very legitimate and proper subject of congratulation at the great advance that has been made in efficiency, and what is even more pleasant is that a very great advance has been made in courtesy and civility to those who use the telephones. At the same time, I suggest that the charges, having regard to the services rendered, are still too high. We are told that one of the burdens is the cost of the provision of trunk lines. The Postmaster-General indicated that he was prepared to reduce the charges for the use of trunks at certain hours, and I hope he will continue in that policy as far as to the extent of keeping the trunk lines always fully occupied with business. After all, the same overhead charge, the same operating charge, obtains whether the trunk call is fully used or not, and the first consideration should be, and must be, if we are to get cheap service, business, and more business and better business, and a general encouragement of traffic in that direction. I would venture also to inquire if something cannot be done with regard to the question

    1633
    of the installation of telephones. The time which is taken, the number of persons who appear to be required to instal a telephone, the estimates which have to be entered into, the approvals and supervision, are a very serious detriment to the provision of cheap telephones. I think rather more latitude could be given to the individual employés of the Post Office who are, for the most part, very capable men, and if they could be allowed to get on with their work, without the amount of supervision and cross-checking which appears to go on, if their own initiative were given greater play, and if the knowledge were spread throughout the service that good and bad work would obtain suitable recognition in their respective spheres, I do think a great gain would be achieved.
    Another point I would like to make is as to the question of measure points from telephone exchanges There are many towns in which subscribers happen to be more than a mile from the exchange, and, although those subscribers are more or less in the centre of the town, just because they happen to be more than a mile from the position which the Post Office have selected as a site for the exchange, they have to pay excess mileage rate. I can give an instance to the Postmaster-General, and no doubt he has several cases, which he knows himself, where there is a group of subscribers who happen to be more than a mile from the exchange, and I do feel in a case like that another exchange should be opened, or a different measure point should be provided. It is not fair, nor is it wise for that matter, to penalise these subscribers and expect them to pay an additional rate. There is also the question of wayleaves. I think greater powers should be taken by the Post Office to obtain wayleaves. The present policy is very much in the direction of laying underground cables. These underground cables are, in great measure, so far as one can observe, following the old routes of traffic, and I do feel that where underground cables are being laid, we should not tic ourselves to the old routes, but that we should try to take the shortest routes, and, if there are not sufficient powers to enable that to be done, then I think it would be well if the Department could obtain powers. These underground cables are very expensive, and if the routes can be shortened, the charges
    1634
    to those who use these cables can be cheapened. I would also like to ask how-many rural post offices in which telegraphs have been installed have been converted to public telephones, because I hold the view that every rural post office in which a telegraph office is installed should have it changed to a telephone, which is infinitely more convenient to the great majority of the public using that, office.
    May I be allowed to conclude with a few words on the question of wireless? I am much interested in this subject, and I would like to thank the Postmaster-General for the concessions which he has been good enough to make in regard to this matter. I have felt sometimes that the restrictions were somewhat unnecessarily onerous and burdensome, and I am very glad indeed that he has been able to see his way substantially to modify and alter them. There is, however, one matter which I should like him to consider still further, and that is this question of the licensing fee he mentioned of 10s. The hon. Member who preceded me stated that it was not a licensing fee but a registration fee, If it be a registration, and there is to be no inspection and no cost of inspection, but merely a matter of going into a post office and handing over a sum of money across the counter for registration, then I see no necessity for so large a sum as 10s. being charged, because the service rendered would be virtually nothing. I know that probably the answer will be that there is a source of revenue here. In America, as was stated by the Postmaster-General, 750,000 wireless sets are already in operation. Ten shillings a head is a good way towards half a million in money. Is it fair, is it wise, to hamper—because it will hamper—this new and very interesting scientific development by saddling round its neck, directly it makes it appearance, a burden which reed not be imposed, and which, I venture to suggest, it would be far wiser not to impose, at any rate at the present time?
    With regard to the question of broadcasting, and stations which are to be set up, I take it the stations will be so arranged that broadcasting will be carried out throughout the whole country. I am sure that will be the effect, but I should be glad if we could have an assurance upon that point. I would also like to urge

    1635
    that the matter which is to be broadcasted from these stations should be very carefully considered. The question of weather reports is an important one, and it is one of the useful services which could be carried out by these broadcasting stations, if a plain statement could be made of what those who are studying weather conditions think are likely to be the conditions which will obtain during the next few hours. For years we have had in operation a system of sending out telegrams. But telegrams are not delivered after a certain hour, and they are almost out-of-date before one receives them. Under this broadcasting arrangement, you would be able to get the information direct, and immediately it was issued, and it should prove, under certain circumstances, of great advantage to agriculturists and others, to whom such information would be of value. I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to make these observations.
    Mr. PERRING: I desire to raise a matter of some importance to the business community, but I may be allowed, perhaps, to preface my remarks by joining with others in expressing the satisfaction which all business men, and, indeed, all members of the community, must feel in the reduction of the charges both in the postal and telephone service. The business mind and acumen of the Postmaster-General have been evidenced by the statement that he has put before us to-day, and the fact that he has shown, what successful business men demonstrate in their lives, a willingness to pick up information wherever he can from the best sources, and the desire to use other business men for securing information to assist him in the administration of his Department, encourages me to address him this afternoon upon a question of some importance to the business community. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the vast difference in the postal charges between the weekly trade journals and the monthly trade journals, and I venture to suggest to the Postmaster-General that there is no real excuse for such a vast difference in those charges. The Postmaster-General and other speakers have said how important it is that we should use every means, through the medium of the Post Office or otherwise, to promote the business of the
    1636
    country. Trade journals are primarily concerned, and exercise their influence and power in promoting trade and commerce, and bringing business to this country, and the great differences in the charges as between the weekly and monthly trade journals must, in some measure, have an influence in sending these monthly trade journals abroad for postage, and printing if necessary, by reason of the saving to be effected. The Postmaster-General criticised the want of patriotism, perhaps, on the part of trade journals which were sent abroad for postage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think that "hear, hear" comes with very bad grace from the benches opposite, where Members are always advocating free trade in everything. There is no greater lack of patriotism in a trade journal endeavouring to make a profit than there is in the mass of the people desiring to buy the cheapest goods in the cheapest market, without any regard to the origin of the article. Therefore, I do not think the "hear, hear" comes with very great force from Members on the opposite benches, who are such out-and-out Free Traders at all times.
    May I remind the Committee that the cost of postage of a monthly trade journal is 1½d. for four ounces, while the cost of postage of a weekly trade journal is 1½d. for 12 ounces. I do not think there is any case for differentiation between the two journals, which are equally and jointly rendering service to the community, especially when you remember that if these particular journals are posted abroad for the purpose of being circulated amongst their clientele, the distribution of these journals in this country does not bring a single penny piece to the Post Office, because, under the regulations of the Postal Union, I understand and am informed, the country which does not collect does not receive anything for the distribution, but the country where the journals are posted receive the whole of the amount. By fostering and continuing this distinct difference between two types of journals, these particular monthly journals are posted abroad, with the result that in the distribution of them in this country the Postmaster-General receives no reurn for the labour. Therefore, on that score alone, the Postmaster-General should give the matter

    1637
    his very careful consideration. Trade journals, whether they be weekly or monthly, employ a considerable number of printers, and it is employment that we desire to increase and encourage. Therefore, anything that might directly or indirectly tend to encourage the printing and posting of a journal abroad, with the desire to make ends meet, and to increase circulation, should be carefully considered by the Postmaster-General, and a remedy found, if it be possible. I know the chief argument that has been advanced for a long period—I do not know that it has been advanced by the present Postmaster-General; perhaps with his greater business acumen he may see it in a different light—there is a loss in the collection and distribution of these particular monthly journals. I venture to suggest, however, to the Postmaster-General that you cannot single out one small portion of the postal service and say there is an exact loss on that particular branch or section of the work, because it is in the aggregate that the loss or profit is made. It is the Postmaster General's special duty to adjust and regulate the postal work, so that the employés in the postal service shall have their work so spread over as to be all full employed so far as the right hon. Gentleman can sec to it.
    7.0 P.M.
    In encouraging the increased circulation of trade journals, the right hon. Gentleman must necessarily not only bring revenue to the Post Office, but he will not in any degree increase the charges of the distribution of those journals, because it is in making up the average day's work for the mass of his postal servants that he must seek for a greater postal activity, whether in regard to letters, postcards, or journals. Inasmuch as these journals are distributed with the other postal matter, it is desirable that he should do everything in his power to prevent such journals being posted abroad. The right hon. Gentleman can under no circumstances justify a difference as between one class of journal and another. If there is a loss on the monthly journal there must relatively be a loss on the weekly journal. The Postmaster-General, with the evidence he has given of his desire to help the trade of the country, must realise that through the medium of the Post Office he ought to give any encouragement to
    1638
    trade journals to advertise and promote business in preference to encouraging foreign journals, American or otherwise, to come here and compete at a cheaper rate of postage. I therefore appeal to him to remit to the Business Advisory Committee which he has formed to consider these questions to which I have alluded. I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity of their advice and opinion for what it is worth in connection with the matter I am now bringing forward. If he does bring a question of this kind before a body of business men anxious to promote trade and commerce through the medium of advertising and suchlike, they will very soon see that there is no justification for the distinct difference in the charges to which I have referred as between one class of journal and another. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his serious consideration.
    As a Member of the Committee that had to consider the telephone question, I am in some difficulty in understanding whether the Postmaster-General at some later date is going to deal with its Report and to inform the House what recommendations he proposes to adopt, or whether he is going to leave the matter for other people to go into it. Personally, I am a little disappointed that in his statement this afternoon, excellent though it may have been, he did not enlarge on the Report of the Telephone Committee and inform the House, and through the House the country, whether he intends to deal with it at an early date, or if the recommendations of the Committee will form the subject of a later Report. While we are all agreed that the telephone service has materially improved within the last few months—it is in an improvement of the service equally with a reduction of the charge that we look for improvement—we are entitled to hope that at a very early date the Postmaster-General will state whether it is his intention to adopt all or any of the recommendations made. Then we shall know to what extent the country may look in the near future for that re-organisation which is so essential to the proper development of the telephone system. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to reduce the staff of the postal service by 6,500 is evidence—and many of us are aware of it—that the hand of the

    1639
    organiser has been at work, and that he has been probing into the dark corners of the postal service to ascertain where there are screws loose. We have confidence that he is tightening up those loose screws. It is only by so doing, as is exactly the case with all our Government Departments, that we can secure that economy which will enable us to obtain a cheaper service and more efficient service for the community at large. I hope the right hon. Gentleman at an early date will give us an opportunity of hearing his opinion on the question, so that we may have some idea of what he intends to do.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I fear I must take the Committee back to a much more important subject than that of Trade Journals; a subject which has not, so far as I can make out, been brought up by any Member of the Committee to-night. It is the subject of economy. I have put down an Amendment to reduce the Vote for salaries by £1,000 in order to bring out the question of Economy. For the last month or two I have been collecting facts through the kind assistance furnished me by the Postmaster-General's replies to questions put to him in the House, in order to bring them up against him in this Debate. He has given me honest answers, and now I am going to give him my honest comment on them. I think the Post Office, of all the Government Departments, is possibly the most extravagant. I am going to give him the reason and to quote his own figures. He said, in answer to a query I made on the 12th April last, that the total amount of salary paid to the employés of the Post Office in the year before the War, 1913–14, was £15,700,000. I asked him what had been paid in the twelvemonth ending 5th April of this year, the current year 1921–22. His answer was £45,100,000, almost exactly three times the annual sum paid to the employés of the Post Office before the War. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to furnish me with still further facts. He adds that there are certain other items which really come in the wages bill over and above those sums of £15,000,000, in the one case, and £45,000,000, in the other. There was-such an amount of £1,500,000 for the year 1913–14, and one of £5,000,000 for the year 1921–22. The total sum, therefore, spent on salaries and wages for
    1640
    Post Office servants in the year before the War was £17,300,000, and the amount spent in the year just elapsed was exactly £50,000,000. That is to say, it is a good three times——
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, not quite.
    Sir C. OMAN: It is correct within a million; and at any rate it is very nearly three times as much. It might not seem astonishing that the total sum expended on the salaries of the Post Office had been trebled if there had been a large increase in the personnel of the Post Office, but there has not. The right hon. Gentleman kindly informed us that he has succeeded after great efforts in reducing his staff by 6,500 people during the year. He has reduced the number of those employed by the Post Office to 6,500 less than in 1913–14. Therefore the triple salary is being divided among a very much smaller number of people. Not only is the number of employés smaller, but the service that is being done is extraordinarily less. One could have understood that more wages might have been paid if more was being done to earn them. But the people now receiving £50,000,000 are not doing the Sunday work, which was being done before the War, and they are not handling nearly as much in material bulk of letters as was the case then. The Postmaster-General's figures—he did not give them to-night, but he gave them before—I think, showed that 794,000,000 less letters were handled and stamped by his people this year on account of the enormous rise in rates. Therefore, his people who have been receiving this trebled salary have been doing very much less.
    I think I shall add to that that they have been doing that very much less work very much worse, because if my experience is to be trusted there are more letters lost at present than over before. I lost a most important legal letter last week; it was posted to me and never got to me. Moreover, and this is rather important, the date stamp which is placed upon all letters is infinitely worse now than it was before the War. I have not infrequently seen letters where it was absolutely impossible to make out anything of the date, and that is of great importance in some legal cases. The date when a letter was posted or received is often a decisive point. The envelope,

    1641
    where the crucial date of dispatch is to be found, has nowadays often only a blur instead of the date and hour of posting. Therefore I have to ask what justification is there for the postal staff receiving these trebled wages for much less work much worse done? The mischief, no doubt, did not start with the present Postmaster-General. His predecessor received one of the highest honours the Crown could bestow after having raised the letter rate to 1½d., the postcard rate to 1d. and doubling the salary of the officials. What must his successor receive after having raised the postal rate to 2d. and the postcard rate to 1½d.—?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not desire to do me an injustice, but I must point out that I did not raise the letters to 2d. That was done the year before I came into office.
    Sir C. OMAN: I beg your pardon most sincerely.
    Mr. MILLS: May I ask if you trebled the salaries?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: No.
    Sir C. OMAN: The salaries remain trebled. You cannot get away from the £45,000,000 paid out last year. The Postmaster-General said, and very honestly, that the whole difficulty arose from those salaries, and that the only way of making his accounts balance was by incommoding the public through the imposition of the present very extortionate rates. In ordinary business, as was wisely remarked by another speaker, when salaries are running up so as to exceed the whole income of a firm, the wisest way to reconstruct the financial position is not to double the price of all products to the consumer. Anyone would suppose that the better way would be to endeavour to get more custom and to make it cheaper. As I remarked last year, on the same topic, I do not consider that that increase of these rates was "good business." On the whole, I think this last raising to 2d. from 1d. has produced the greatest inconvenience probably ever caused by any one act of a Minister to any large number of people. The Postmaster-General was good enough to give me detailed answers in the matter of salaries to some questions I put, as to a certain number of different posts. I am bound to confess here that the case is not quite so strong
    1642
    this April as when I first made the inquiries last year. Salaries have come down, but I have extracted these facts. The postmaster at Cambridge at present receives £834 a year. He got very nearly £1,000 a year some months ago. At present it is just under what is paid to a senior professor at Cambridge and more than many professors get.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does that figure include bonus?
    Sir C. OMAN: Bonus for the postmaster. No professor ever got bonus. The next post is that of a sorter of 14 years' standing: he at present gets £312 a year—compared with a university sub-librarian or a demonstrator at the Museum, with £300. But the case which strikes me as worst is this. A newly-joined sorter, a boy of 18, receives at the present time 49s. 3d. per week, or, say, £130 a year. I want to point out that a scholar at Oxford or Cambridge comes up on an endowment of £80 a year. I wish the Minister of Education were here, so that he might think on the impecuniosity of the scholar as compared with the payment of the sorter of the same age. It is absolutely immoral that the State should offer such a wage to a boy of 18; you may tempt a clever boy away from what may be the beginning of a very great career. We should not grumble so much if these heavy salaries that are paid entailed better services, but they are very much worse. No one has enlarged upon the general inconvenience caused by the non-delivery of letters on Sundays. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman of an incident which lately happened which, indeed, was in the nature of a tragedy. An old lady was knocked down in the road by a trolly on Friday afternoon. This occurred in a small hamlet on the Cotswolds, where there were no telegraph facilities, but only a box by the wayside in which to post the letters. A letter was sent to summon the old lady's daughter from Oxford. It was put into the letterbox on Friday and received by the daughter on Monday morning. The letter-box had been cleared on the Friday before the letter was posted, but though it was cleared again on the Saturday, the letter remained over Saturday and Sunday hung up, and was delivered at Oxford, 25 miles away, only on the Monday morning, for want of a Sunday delivery.

    1643
    We have been given by the Postmaster-General a forecast of the improvements to take place in the coming year. I must confess myself that whatever we are going to get next year cannot, by way of counterbalance, take away the recollection of the extreme inconveniences we have suffered during the past year. Let me tell the Postmaster-General a little story which may be of some value to him. There was in the ancient days a pirate king—not that I would compare the Postmaster-General to a pirate king—who mulcted persons of considerable sums and then ordered his men to give a good deal of it back, because he said people would feel much greater satisfaction at getting back a part of their losses unexpectedly, than resentment at having been robbed originally of their lawful property. The psychology of Polycrates was wrong. When he was caught he came to a dreadful end. The Postmaster-General may rely upon it, but I am convinced that people do not forget their resentment at being pillaged because part of the plunder is afterwards given back. I think what I have said is sufficient to justify me in not having entire confidence in the present administration of the Post Office.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: It was my intention in taking part in this discussion to congratulate the Postmaster-General on one or two things, but I had no knowledge that I would require to congratulate him on the facts as given by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Sir C. Oman). If wages had been trebled all over the country where the cost of living has gone up, that was a good thing for the workers, so that from that point of view the Postmaster-General and his predecessor have gone much further than even I thought they had done. But salaries are now on the down grade. They are largely made up of War bonus and they will disappear proportionately as the cost of living falls. Surely, however, the last thing we expect from the representative of the University of Oxford is to find fault with the payment of a decent wage because certain scholars who go to Oxford go up with £80 a year.
    Sir C. OMAN: At Oxford they receive no bonus of any kind.
    Mr. YOUNG: A scholarship of £80 a year is to enable a young man to prepare for a well-paid career in the days that lie
    1644
    ahead, whereas these people in the Post Office are never able during the whole of their life to receive any considerable emoluments. These things ought to be taken into consideration. After all, if the University of Oxford cannot be more generous and successful in paying its professors, and in securing endowments for its scholars, that is no reason why any attack should be made on the salaries of those who are rendering useful services to the community.
    I wish to congratulate the Postmaster-General—and perhaps in this I do not quite find myself in agreement with some of my colleagues—on the fact that he is not going to restore the Sunday delivery of letters. I regard Sunday work in that direction as very unnecessary. As he himself has pointed out, Scotland has done without Sunday delivery—for all time I think—and I do not know that they have been thereby inconvenienced. We in London have gone through the same experience. I, for one, would regret very much that there should be a restoration of Sunday deliveries in this country. I should like to say that if the civil servants in the Post Office and the Post Office workers have been reduced in salary as a result of getting off Sunday work, leaving them with a salary insufficient for the purposes of life, that that is quite a different question, and should be tackled from that standpoint, and their wages raised for a six instead of a seven days' week.
    Reference was made by the Postmaster-General to the fact that there was now a smaller staff than in 1914. Praise has been given to him for that fact. I believe, however, that the work done by that smaller staff is not as great as the work done by the staff in 1914. Sunday deliveries have been taken off, but I am certain that throughout the length and breadth of the country there are fewer deliveries of letters during the six days of the week. But the deliveries are sufficient, so far as my experience goes. I hope there will not be a large increase in the delivery of letters in any part of the country. At Oxford, of which I have had some experience, before the War nearly every other hour there was a delivery of letters, while in other places one delivery had to do.
    I would also congratulate the Postmaster-General on the fact that he has adopted that very sound policy, and one

    1645
    advocated by the party to which I belong long before there was a recognised political Labour party in the country; that is that the proceeds of any national or municipal industry to which profits accrue from work done should be returned to those who use the services, in any particular direction. That is a characteristic feature of the municipal government of Glasgow in relation to the trams. I rejoice it should be put into operation in relation to the Post Office. This is the true way to deal with the surplus of the Post Office—to give contentment to the employés and a reduction of rates to those served, while keeping the machine efficient. I am not, however, altogether sure, that there is not some little subsidy in some branches of the Post Office. We are having an Imperial Air Service carried through. I know the Civil Aerial Service has to be subsidised. I presume the Post Office is contributing towards that subsidy. I may be wrong. Even if it is, I for one am not going to find fault, because I realise that the main thing is to work it with success, and ultimately it will doubtless pay for itself very satisfactorily.
    The Postmaster-General said that he would secure these benefits as a result of saving in expenditure. I am particularly anxious to help him secure even greater saving in expenditure. Has he ever heard of the Technical Costings Department, which was of very great use in the War and since the War in various Government Departments? I am under the impression that the Post Office has never utilised the services of these people. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was during the War that the service was set up, in 1915. As a result of its work, the Treasury recommended an extension. I asked the question in 1919 as to what had been saved, and I found that the result of the work of that Department was this—it was an astounding reply—that the cost of contracts had been reduced by no less a sum than £300,000,000, at a cost of £75,000 to the State. That was an enormous saving to the State, and realising that, I should have thought that the Post Office would have taken advantage of the work of this Department. Evidently they have not done so, and I would like to recommend its services to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want this done on the ground of effecting a substantial saving to the nation during the War. The representative of the
    1646
    Admiralty said yesterday that since this Department was transferred to the Admiralty from the Ministry of Munitions there has been a saving in contracts of £350,000. I have taken the trouble to find out by question and answer how much has been saved by the Departments using the Technical Costings Department, and I find that from 20th June, 1921, to March, 1922, there has been a saving of £233,000, and that on a very small proportion of the contracts of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the India Office. Therefore, if these savings can be made in the Departments I have mentioned, and owing to the large contracts into which the Post Office enters, I am sure great savings could also be made in the same way by that Department. I trust that something will be done to cheek the contracts which are entered into by the Post Office.
    The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) made some remarks in relation to sub-postmistresses, and I want to emphasise one or two points. The hon. Member stated that in Blackfriars there were five sub-post offices and in his opinion two Crown post offices would discharge the work quite as efficiently as the five sub-post offices. May I state that within five minutes of where I reside there are four sub-post offices doing post office work in grocers or newspaper shops, and I am sure that district would be much better served by one Crown post office. I do not understand why all these sub-post offices should be continued. I have put questions to the Postmaster-General in relation to the assistants engaged in these post offices. We have been told that the Post Office does not take cognisance of the fact that there are any assistants employed until we send on complaints. These assistants are allowed to be paid anything at all, and the Post Office does not concern itself. People do post office work and also attend to a grocers shop. The sub-postmasters have their own organisation, and I presume it looks after their interests, but surely the Post Office should have some consideration for the ordinary girl, youth, man or woman behind the counter in these sub-offices who are also doing the work of the post office. Only to-day I received an answer from my right hon. Friend on this subject. I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
    "If he will explain how employés engaged in sub-post offices are paid whose duties during a portion of the day are on post

    1647
    office work and during the other portion are on the regular commercial work or the sub-postmaster; whether a definite remuneration for post office work is laid down in these cases; and whether the employé signs for the post office wage apart from payment for other work."
    The answer I received was:
    "These matters are arranged by the sub-postmasters who employ the assistants, and no definite remuneration for post office work is laid down."
    As a result of this, in many places throughout the length and breadth of the country, those doing this work are being sweated, underpaid, working long hours, and they do not sign any receipt for any payment as coming from the Post Office.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Only a very small portion of their work, in many cases, is Post Office work.
    Mr. YOUNG: Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, I suppose I must accept it. That may be so in the outlying districts, but judging from the work in the post offices around me, I should say that a very great part of their day's work is mainly Post Office work; in fact, they are the only persons capable of looking after that work. The sub-postmaster pays very little attention to the work, and the employés have to do the work and be responsible, and I think the Post Office should have some consideration for them, and make up its mind to lay down some definite percentage to be paid to the assistants employed in Post Office work. I hope the Postmaster-General, whilst receiving the congratulations of Members of this House for what he has accomplished and what he intends to do during the coming year, will not forget these people throughout the country in sub-post offices, because they require more consideration, and they deserve to have their case fully investigated.
    I think it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman could investigate these offices from a national standpoint, and arrive at some conclusion which would, once and for all, do away with the many grievances which reach the various unions and individual Members of this House, and which lead to unpleasant consequences when investigations are made. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is no matter of
    1648
    merely trivial fault-finding, and I do suggest to him that the two matters which I have brought before his notice are worthy of his attention, that is, the utilisation of the staff of the technical costings department in regard to Post Office contrasts, because I am sure by this means great savings will be accomplished, and the experience of other Departments goes to bear out this statement. My other point was in relation to the assistants in the sub-post offices, and I hope that will receive the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I rejoice that the Postmaster-General has made up his mind that in future, if he is administering the affairs of the Post Office, he will stick to the principle of utilising the profits of the Post Office for the purpose of making the Post Office efficient and capable.
    Mr. STURROCK: I wish to emphasise the last few words which fell from the hon. Member who preceded me in laying down as an axiom, not only now but in future years and on every occasion, that the Post Office should never be allowed to be converted into a profit-earning concern on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I rise for the purpose of tendering my most respectful and sincere congratulations to the Postmaster-General for having secured what apparently lay in the balance for some days—that is the right to use the surplus the Post Office has earned for a reduction of postal charges. I do not know what went on in that respect, but I feel that my right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated, and that from the Government point of view no more futile policy could have been followed than that the surplus should have been taken from the Post Office and devoted to other purposes.
    The Post Office, after all, is part of the machinery of business, and any undue increase in postal or telephonic charges is a tax on business at a time when business is trying to create a profit. I say to the Government, put on all the taxation which is necessary to meet the purposes of Government, after a profit has been earned, but, for Heaven's sake, leave business free to make that profit. There is no doubt that the excessive postal charges from which we have suffered for some time past were directly preventing business being developed in the way in which it ought to have been developed. It was a particularly fatuous

    1649
    and foolish policy to impose the high charges which were imposed, and I sincerely trust that what my hon. Friend said with regard to the application of future surpluses in the Post Office will, be applied, and that we shall never again be near the possible danger of having the Post Office made a sort of department from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can draw some part of his revenue.
    There was one point I wished particularly to bring under the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that is the question of the development of telephones in rural areas. Here the Post Office has not really moved along on progressive lines. I know cases where, judging upon all the available facts, it does appear that the Post Office has not only stood in its own light, but directly in the light of many rural areas in my own native country of Scotland. There is one case, which I will gladly supply to my right hon. Friend, of a very popular health resort in Scotland, where demands have been made again and again to get a local telephone installed. A promise of a certain number of subscribers was secured, but the number fell short only by two of the minimum which the Post Office demanded, and the telephone to this day is not installed in that particular place. I am perfectly certain that if the Post Office were a privately controlled concern it would have speculated in such a region as that, and would have replied: "It may be that we do not have our required minimum just now, but we will create new business and put in a telephone, and we hope to see new subscribers come along." Instead of that, the whole transaction is dealt with by the Post Office officials responsible as if these people are asking a favour. The Post Office would not look at the idea, and the result is the telephone is not there yet.
    Mr. PEASE: At what date was that?
    Mr. STURROCK: A good many years ago. I am not making this charge against the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am complaining of the traditional policy of the Post Office in insisting that a given number of subscribers shall be secured before the telephone is installed. The result is that these health resorts and rural places suffer immensely. Business
    1650
    men from big towns in Scotland—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, or Dundee—must have a telephone near at hand by means of which they can communicate with their places of business, and if that accommodation be not provided then they will not go to these health resorts and rural places. I am certain the Post Office would find it very good business indeed to indulge in a little moderate speculation as regards telephones. As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) said, they should cram the telephones down the throats of the people all over the country. But there is far too much tendency on the part of those who are in the service of the Post Office to develop a sort of bureaucratic idea that they are not at the service of the public, but that the public is a sort of nasty and unpleasant necessity with which they have to put up. If the officials of the Post Office could be induced by their Parliamentary chiefs, who are in close touch with the democracy and who could do a great deal towards impressing upon them the desirability of going out of their way not only with regard to telephones but in relation to other details of the postal service to try and meet the requirements of the public, and to take a little risk in so doing, it would be a very good thing. There is a great possible revenue for the Post Office in this direction, and the initial cost should not be excessive. I am sure if the enterprise were in the hands of a commercial company they would soon get rid of the idea which prevails in the Post Office that the telephone service is a luxury for the few, and would endeavour to secure, whether the public liked it or not, that the telephone should be installed in every happy home in the land.
    I resent the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) towards the postal staff. That staff requires no compliments from me, but I should say that if one searched the land from one end to the other it would be impossible to find any more faithful body of public servants. I do not care whether they work in the great Metropolitan areas or whether they are to be found in rural districts in my own country. The rural postman in fact travels many miles daily in all sorts of weather and is the friend of most of the humble people in his area. I think it is exceedingly pitiable that the hon. Member for Oxford,

    1651
    occupying the position he does, should come here and try and draw a most ludicrous and absurd comparison between the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge and what they have to live on and the remuneration paid to this devoted body of public servants. The Committee ought to make it very plain that whatever fault they find with the postal service the blame does not lie with the employé but is with the policy which is pursued. We ought not to allow those who are more modestly placed in the service to be accused of neglecting the interests of the public. If criticism is to be directed against anyone it should be against the leading officials who lay down the policy that is carried out. Those leading officials ought to remember that in what they are doing they have to meet the demands of the public in every possible direction. They are there to serve the public rather than to regard the public as something to which they can give any sort of service they like. It is neither fair nor reasonable to attack the rank and file in this matter. I only rose to bring up once more this question of the development of the telephones in rural areas, and I trust that my right hon. Friend, who as Postmaster-General has shown since he assumed office a desire to effect reform, will do all ho can to secure some development in that direction.
    Mr. HURD: I am very glad that so much has been said in this Debate on the subject of the development of the rural telephone service. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I have on several occasions brought this matter before the Post Office. In my own constituency a good deal of feeling exists that the farmer could be greatly helped in many directions if the rural telephones could be brought more within his reach. The party system to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not meet his taste. The farmer is a man peculiarly individual in his habits; he finds it very irksome in his particular business to use telephones that are open to others who may be his rivals and are not always his friends. I would ask whether in this question of telephones in rural areas it might not be desirable to put on the Advisory Business Committee at the Post Office a representative of the National Farmers' Union. I know that the Department has consulted the National Farmers' Union on one or
    1652
    two specific occasions, but it seems to me that if they had as a permanent member of that body a farmer who could state the point of view of his class, the Post Office would get guidance which they do not now receive. It is a body, I believe,, of business men representing business interests, but I take it there is no farmer upon it.
    Mr. PEASE: There is on it no representative of the farmers ad hoc, but the landowners are represented.
    Mr. HURD: I want a working farmer to be put on it who can handle the problem from the point of view of those who work on the land. It would be quite easy for the National Farmers' Union, or the National Agricultural Workers' Union, or each, to have a representative on that body, who would be in touch always with their own members and would be fitted to deal with problems from the point of view of agriculture. When in Canada from Atlantic to Pacific one visits any agricultural area nothing strikes one more than the omnipotence of the telephone amongst the farmers of Canada. The telephone and the motor-car have revolutionised agricultural life in Canada, and I would beg the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to see whether they cannot make far greater strides in our own rural areas in that respect. I want also to speak on another matter affecting rural areas. It is pretty certain that there is an immediate prospect of a large migration of people from this country. We have in the present year a Bill before Parliament by which a grant of money is being made in aid of that movement—a million and a half this year, three millions next year, and so on. I am in favour of that grant, but at the same time I cannot help thinking, when I go down to my own constituency and see the struggle which smallholders are having, not only to get land, but to remain on the land in a profitably paying position, that we in this country and in this House are not paying enough attention to the position of our own people who are seeking to settle on our own land. I see that the Chairman is addressing a warning eye to me, but the relevance of my remarks is this. Before the War a large number of the smallholders were able to develop a direct business in agricultural and dairy product with the towns. Many

    1653
    ex-soldier smallholders in my constituency are now on the verge of bankruptcy owing to the difficulties of prices, rates and high rents fixed by the county council.
    Mr. AMMON: Which cannot be avoided.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HURD: At any rate, my own county council are making a rebate in this respect this year. Owing to the heavy drop in prices these ex-soldiers are now in an extremely difficult position. Why cannot the Post Office direct its energy towards the recovery of the trade which those smallholders had with the towns in dairy produce, in bacon, eggs, butter and such things. Their trade has been killed by the excessive postal rates. I wrote to one of the associations concerned, and they sent me a number of cases in which smallholders had worked up this business on their own account and by their own initiative, and had, indeed, secured a most profitable business which, however, has been killed by these high rates. Take the case of eggs. Where the charge formerly was 4d. for a parcel it is now 1s. The charge for carrying butter has risen from 3d. to 9d. per parcel; for carrying chicken from 7d. to 1s. per parcel. It is quite impossible for a direct trade to live with postal rates of that kind. I approached the Postmaster-General on this subject. He is always courteous, but he never does anything beyond promising. He cannot see the farmer's point of view. I wrote to him and said, "You are a Member of a Government which is definitely and explicitly pledged to help the agricultural community. Here is a matter in which you can help not only the agricultural community to which you are pledged, but the ex-soldiers, to help whom we are all pledged. Why do not you do something for him? Why not try and establish an agricultural parcels post instead of retaining these high prohibitive rates?" His reply was: "If I did that for agricultural smallholders I should have to do it for everyone." What I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is this. Agriculture wants development. That is an explicit point in Government policy upon which they won the last election, and it is a point which will appeal especially to the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is now on the Government Bench. I beg him to review this ques-
    1654
    tion, and see whether something more effective cannot be done for these small men, who are anxious to obviate the excessive profits that often occur in passing from hand to hand through the range of middlemen. It would be doing a great service to the townsfolk as well as the smallholders if this direct trade could be developed, as it would cut out any unnecessary intermediate profits, increase production, and benefit the population of the towns as well as of the rural areas.
    The Postmaster-General waxed eloquent on the subject of Bagdad, and a new air parcels post to and from that and other distant centres. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman himself comes from my own west country, and, while I do not mind his waxing eloquent on Bagdad, I do beg him to wax a little more eloquent on the subject of his own city of Bristol and the Somerset area. There is a great deal that the Post Office can do to assist our own home production and the prosperity of our own country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the glories of the air parcel service, but that is only helping our rivals to send their parcels here to compete with our farmers and producers. Cannot we also think of our home trade, and see if we cannot cultivate expansion at home as well as abroad? The right hon. Gentleman is very pleased with himself at reducing the postage on picture postcards, but it seems to me that our home production and home trade in this country are even more important than picture postcards, and I would rather have seen surplus money used in the direction of reducing the rates on, for instance, agricultural parcels.
    Another important branch of policy on which the Government is pledged and in which the Post Office is concerned is that of Imperial communications. I happened to be a member of a deputation that went to Mr. Illingworth when he was Postmaster-General two years ago, and later on, in June, 1921, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Both of them laid it down emphatically as a basis of Government policy that a scattered Empire like ours must cultivate the closest possible postal and cable relations between the Homeland and these outlying parts of the Empire. We must cheapen and increase the facilities. I have raised this question at Question time with

    1655
    the Postmaster-General on not a few occasions, and he has seemed to be quite satisfied with the present position. I can assure him that those who are concerned especially with the relations between various parts of the Empire and this country are not at all satisfied. We have the means by which we can greatly add to the cheapness and efficiency of our communications in this respect. I am glad that the Postmaster-General has brought the Empire and the United States within the ambit of the new 1½d. letter rate. That is a step towards the restoration of Imperial penny postage, and it is a happy circumstance that the lowering of the rate should be extended to the United States, in view of the marked desirability of increasing our friendly relations with that country. But we must think also of the cable and wireless means of communication. We may, I hope, look forward in the near future to a lessening of the cost of cable communications overseas. We possess at this moment an Imperial cable—one of the remnants that came to us as a result of the War. Why cannot we reduce the rates on that cable? It affects Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and with lower rates on the Pacific cable we might get the rates down with all the cable companies. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the peak problem as applied to printed matter and trunk telephone services, and there is also a peak problem in connection with the cables. On the Imperial cable you get a great convergence of messages at certain hours of the day, and the officials will show you how the peak runs up almost like a peak in the Andes.
    Mr. PEASE: I think my hon. Friend will find that that is the only cable which has restored the 4½d. rate to Canada at the present time.
    Mr. HURD: That was what the Postmaster-General told me, but I explained to him that it was not the fact. I use the cable every day, so that I know. I use that deferred rate, and there is the same deferred rate on the Imperial cable as on the ordinary commercial cables. The Post Office does nothing for us in that respect, although something was promised in the days of Mr. Illingworth and the Secretary of State for the Colonies as far back as June, 1921. With
    1656
    regard to this problem of the peak, I do not propose that the cost shall be increased, but that the cable shall be enabled to carry messages at a lower cost within certain hours. That is the problem as it is faced with respect to printed matter and trunk telephone services, and it may be faced in exactly the same way as regards the Imperial cable. I should like to see the Post Office aim at a 1d. cable rate to Canada, and a corresponding rate to other parts of the Empire. I believe it would be a good business proposition. Indeed, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago of spending an enlightening evening with one of the chief engineering officials of the Post Office, and in the course of our conversation he himself developed the possibilities on this point; and I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to see whether there is not along that line some substantial means of advance.
    With regard to the part played by the Post Office in relation to the Empire wireless chain, it has absolutely broken down. The movement began at the Imperial Conference in 1911. Every one of the Dominions, and also the Ministers here, united in saying that we must do something to improve and cheapen and make more efficient the communications between the various parts of this Empire, but nothing whatever effective, so far as I can see, has been done. The Postmaster-General agreed as to the urgency of the matter then. It is doubly urgent now. The speeches made by Mr. Hughes, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Meighen, the Canadian Prime Minister, the South African Minister, and the Press representatives from the various Dominions at Imperial Conferences and otherwise, have all urged the importance of this question. I raised it the week before last in a question, and asked what had been done, after all these ten years, to enlist the practical sympathy of the Dominions in this Empire wireless chain development. The Postmaster-General had to tell me that the only Dominion which has entered upon any wireless project of its own is Australia. Australia is having nothing to do with this Empire wireless chain, and is entering upon a project of its own. But the Indian Government have stated that they cannot find the money, while with regard to South Africa the statement is that "communications are proceed-

    1657
    ing." That is after all these years since 1911. As to the Canadian Government, they were sending representatives to this country to discuss the matter. When I mentioned this same point to Mr. Illingworth two years ago at the Post Office, he said to me then that Canada was sending representatives to this country. Have they taken two years to cross the Atlantic?
    Major HILLS: They are coming by parcel post.
    Mr. HURD: I wish they would send them by the air parcel post. The truth is that this Empire wireless chain, in the hands of the Post Office, has been a miserable record of vaccilation, indecision and ineffectual isolation. If the Post Office had visualised the possibilities of this scheme, and had said to Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, "We are partners in the Pacific cable; let us also be partners in this new and wider development; let us have a joint board like the Pacific Board," there would not have been these difficulties. They have arisen from the fact that Mr. Hughes, Mr. Massey and Mr. Meighen went away from this country convinced that the Post Office-was not an efficient business concern on this side for running this scheme satisfactorily. That is the whole key to the difficulty that has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we have had a War, but the War did not prevent the United States, France, Germany and Italy from developing their wireless communications to a degree far outpacing our own developments here at home. I am afraid the day may be too far gone to attempt anything like a joint board of management. Australia, as I have, said, is running on her own account; India says she cannot find the money; Canada is still sending representatives. Indeed the whole thing has broken down. I do not know whether the Post Office intend to go on with an Empire wireless scheme that has next to nothing of Empire in it, or at all events leaves out of account the main Dominions of which the Empire is composed. I do not know whether it is possible to institute, as has been suggested, a trading department apart from the Post Office, under a business man with a reasonable measure of independence, so as to allow the partnership to be developed in a businesslike way. There has also been some idea of a co-partner-
    1658
    ship. My impression is that the disruptive tendencies in this wireless scheme have gone too far to be restored, and in that event I suggest that the best thing to do is to leave Empire wireless development to private enterprise under proper control. The idea of this chain being created by State enterprise has broken down. For some reason or other it docs not appeal to the Dominions, and, that-being so, surely the better plan is to recognise that fact, as the Geddes Committee does, and not to go on wasting money upon it, but to hand it over to whatever business enterprise is willing to take it up and make a success of it.
    After saying what I have said, I should not like to close without heartily congratulating both the Postmaster-General and his colleague, who is on the Bench at this moment, upon the opportunity that has come to them to do what I know both of them wish to do, namely, to give the public a substantial advantage by means of lower rates in many directions. I am sure that, as was said by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), the Postmaster-General is at this moment one of the most popular Ministers in the country. There is nothing which so readily reaches the home as a reduction in postal rates, and I beg the Post Office to go on upon the line which it has been able to take to-day.
    Major HILLS: In reference to the last speaker impressing on the Committee the importance of the telephone in the rural districts, I well remember a visit I paid some years ago to the Western States of America. I was amazed to find the extent to which the telephone was used, really in every part. It did not only play a part in business. It played also a large part in the social life of the district, for the wife of the farmer would communicate with her friends and get the last news from town. It was, of course, a very common circuit, but when you got used to it it was not inconvenient, and it was extraordinarily cheap. I believe the root cause why our telephone is so dear, a cause which must be removed before it can be extended, is the excessive cost of wayleaves. I have always said that the excessive regard we have had for the landowners' interest, often where the interest was not the least bit damaged, has hopelessly handicapped our telephone system. It has charged it with a large. I amount, of capital which will never be

    1659
    remunerative, and until we make a difference I do not believe you will get a cheap telephone in the rural districts.
    I want to refer to the very unsatisfactory congestion which at present exists in the Savings Bank Department. In 1915 the Post Office started to sell War Loan, and for this a staff was required. The War Loans Sales Branch was staffed out of the expert staff of the Savings Bank Department, who up to that time had done the balancing of the Postmaster's accounts. The balancing of accounts is very expert work which must be done by highly trained clerks, for on it depends the financial stability and business efficiency of the whole of our Savings Bank. The clerks who did this balancing, who were chiefly women, were depleted and transferred to the War Loan branch. Then in 1918, when demobilisation came, a large number of soldiers and sailors took their gratuities in War Loan and this work was cast on the same branch, and altogether the Savings Bank was understaffed and the balancing of the Postmaster's accounts fell very seriously into arrears, and for some time past the staff has been working overtime to overtake these arrears. It throws an especially heavy burden on the women clerks owing to this fact. They do not get paid for overtime until they have worked 42 hours in a week. I do not complain of that. I believe it is the decision of the Whitley Council. But it has this result, that they do not make up their 42 hours unless they sacrifice the Saturday half-holiday, so they have to work the whole of Saturday before they start earning overtime, and the time they work on Saturday afternoon is not paid for at all. Further, I do not say overtime is compulsory, but still it is practically so. I quite realise the difficulty the Department has been in. They have to get this work brought up to date and the result has been that a state of things has arisen through pressure from above whereby overtime has been practically compulsory, and these women clerks have also lost their Saturday half-holiday.
    But the real gist of my complaint is this. In spite of the excessive overtime, which is very bad for the staff, damaging their health and causing an undue amount of sickness, you have not overtaken the arrears from the end of 1917 to the end of
    1660
    1919, which were the last completed years for which the Postmaster's account was balanced. The arrear has been exactly the same, and the accounts of the year ending 31st December have not been balanced until September of the year following. For example, the balancing of the last quarter of 1917 was not finished until September, 1919, and the last quarter in 1919 was not finished until September, 1921, and so you are still a year and nine months in arrear. I quite see the difficulty. The arrears arose through no fault of the Post Office. Their male staff was depleted by the War, and they had to use the women staff to do this work, and thereby threw their own work into arrear. But I think it is time this excessive overtime, which is not good for the staff and is very expensive to the country, should be put an end to, and two suggestions have been made. The first is that the male staff should be employed for this overtime work, and that second division men should also be employed upon it; and the second is that a two-shift system of women should be engaged. For all reasons it is important that the work should be brought up to date, but I think you are doing it at too heavy a cost to the health of the women employed and also at too heavy a cost in pay. I think you can get it done more efficiently by some different system. Anyhow, I do not want to press my own view. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman is as anxious to put an end to this state of things as I am, and I am sure he will do a very great service and will reassure the minds of a good many of us if he can suggest some solution of this question. I join with the Committee generally in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman. In reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), I am not sure that a cheaply paid staff is always the most efficient staff, as he seemed to think, and I am not sure that the Postmaster-General could not make out a pretty good case by saying that with a good organisation—and good organisation is quite essential—you can do more work with a well-paid staff than with a lowly paid staff.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Like the majority of hon. Members, I have listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the Postmaster-General. I agree with what was said by the last speaker but one,

    1661
    that a great deal could be done to develop rural areas by cheapening parcel post. I am not at all satisfied that the answer my hon. Friend got from the Postmaster-General is quite conclusive. We have had special rates for different kinds of produce on the railways, and I see no reason why a similar state of things should not obtain in the postal service, and I am sure if you do something to diminish the cost of sending dairy and market garden produce by post, you would do a great deal to help smallholders and to help the development of rural areas generally. The chief point I wish to impress upon the right hon. Genteman is the question of rural telephones. I have had occasion in previous years to urge this upon the Post Office, and I am glad to acknowledge that at last they are doing something in my own area. I am glad to notice that in the last few weeks a number of new call offices have been opened in rural districts, to the great advantage of villages in the country. I hope that the Postmaster-General will go even further in the way of opening offices and bringing the telephone within the reach of those who live in far distant rural parts. This is not merely a question of commercial need. I was in the Highlands of Scotland recently, in a village, and I was told that the nearest doctor lived 14 miles away, and that the nearest telephone was seven miles away. That is a state of things which we ought to do our best to remedy. I hope the Post Office will keep cases of that kind in mind.
    It is particularly the case of the farmer in which I am interested at the moment. Each farmer ought to have a telephone within his reach. If the system was properly developed the Post Office could make it an absolute necessity for a farmer to have a telephone, and if he did not he would be cutting himself off from his markets, and doing himself a great deal of harm. When I have urged this before, I have usually been told: "If the farmers will club together and make representation to the Post Office, we will do what we can"; but I suggest that this is a case where the Post Office ought to take the initiative. I am sure that that is what would be done if the telephones were being run by a private company. I think that was what was done by the National Telephone Company. The initiative ought to be taken by the Post Office, and they ought to do what
    1662
    they can to bring the telephone service to the notice of farmers. Of course, we are always told, when we press for telephones in rural districts, that it would cost so much, and that the Post Office must be run on strictly commercial lines. In answer to that I would say that it is a great mistake to try to count the cost of telephones in rural districts without considering the benefit that those rural telephones give to the telephone service in the towns. The telephone service in the towns is enhanced by the setting up of a telephone system round about. Even if the rural parts, taken alone, would not show a profit, I believe that in many cases they really would be successful. In any event, you ought to take into account the additional amount brought in for the service in the towns, as a result of the extension to the rural districts.
    I hope that the Post Office will not be content with what they have done, and that they will lose no opportunity of increasing the telephones in the rural districts, and will not be satisfied until we have as good a service in the country as exists in Canada. Testimony has been given to-night as to the situation in Canada. We hear continually the same thing from travellers in that country. Practically no farmstead in Canada is without a telephone. If the Post Office were to show to the farmers of this country how much they would gain by having a telephone, and would do some thing to meet them by reducing the rates, they would soon have the satisfaction of seeing the telephone in every farmhouse of any size in the country.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Post Office has simply pole-axed the people of this country, and I cannot congratulate the Postmaster-General on his surplus. It is very easy for monopolists to get a surplus, but in this case it has meant practically that trade has been ruined. The right hon. Gentleman has not only ruined the picture postcard trade, but he has been incredibly hard, by his rates, upon rural districts. It is one of the joys of motoring nowadays, when you go to a country district, to take back country produce. You are able to give the cottager and smallholder a much better price than he would get if he sold to a dealer, who would sell to a second dealer, who would sell to a third dealer, and so on, before the produce reaches the shop. You can give him

    1663
    a much better price, and at the same time you get the produce for a little less than it is sold in the shop, and you are certain that the produce is fresh. In the interests of the public, if there was no profit in it at all to the Post Office, that trade should be restored, and one way in which it can be restored, thereby linking up the town and country, would be for the Postmaster-General to display sufficient enterprise, such as is done in the Colonies, and establish a cash-delivery business, so that people in stores and warehouses could sell by catalogue, and the country person could sell his produce, which could come in the Post Office motor wagon, thereby making the parcel post business infinitely better than it has ever been in the past. If you had a flow of goods coming from the country to the town you would also have a flow of goods going out to the country by means of the cash-delivery collection system. I do not understand why it has not been done in this country.
    When the Post Office finds itself with a deficit, instead of cutting down its own expenses, it bludgeons the population, and puts up its rates, thereby hindering trade, and doing what no private trader would ever dream of doing. The first thing a private trader would do under such circumstances would be to say, "My customers are not coming in; I must cut the rates." If, instead of raising the rates, the Postmaster had cut them last year, he would have had a better surplus than he has to-day, and he would not done the immense damage—temporary, I believe—that he has done by putting such large additional burdens upon the Post Office service. We have been so accustomed to having a postal monopoly that we forget it could be perfectly well done by a private concern. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. Just as gasworks are run. You would not allow them to make undue profits, because, as in the case of gas companies, when the profits go up the prices would have to be cut. The postal work of the Post Office, the mere collection and delivery of letters, is the most elementary of human occupations, but I do not want to say anything against the staff. The postal staff are a very fine body of men. We have heard to-night of the three brave girls to whom the Postmaster-General referred, and of the splendid way in which they
    1664
    acted. It is what we expected of them. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what any of us would do if we had to look down the mouth of a pistol. In the same circumstances, I am quite sure that members of the Treasury Bench would immediately grant the assailants a republic in order to escape. It is, indeed, very fine to hear about these girls having the nerve to stand up as they did.
    The postal business is a very simple business, but when you get the telephone and telegraph side, it was the greatest calamity that ever happened to this country from the point of view of the distribution of information or of communication when the Post Office took over the telegraphs and the telephones. This is far too skilled a business for the Government. It is too highly scientific engineering for the Government. I do not know what the early legislation was in regard to telegraphs, but a very absurd legal decision was given that the Telegraph Acts applied to the telephone. The Post Office tried to stifle telephones to begin with. All Government officials try to stifle everything. We get them in the Army—the bow and arrow school. We get them in the Navy, where they would not have steam ships nor armoured ships. Whenever the Government gets its dead hand on enterprise it stifles it. Why did the Government introduce the measured rate? Nobody but the Government ever would have done anything so annoying. If a member of a club, instead of paying an annual subscription, were charged 2d. or 6d. every time he went through the club door, he would not go in there very often. It is a preposterous and most annoying system to charge. It is like the old tolls on the roads. Nobody would think of establishing them again. In practice it does not work out. The charges in the result become very, very great.
    I know of cases in which formerly two telephones cost £20 or £30. Now under the measured rate, they average £40 a quarter, and come to about £150 a year. Of course the people concerned had to try to unload these charges very largely on the customers. One result is to make the telephone extremely expensive. The Post Office gather in far too large a sum of money. We cannot get the telephone cheap, or in the country districts. The old National Telephone Company had a

    1665
    very good system. They had travellers going round looking for customers. They would never have instituted the measured rate system because they would have known that they would not get the business. The average person who is trading commercially on his own account, if you go into him at the end of a day, would say, "I have had about 80 people in to see me to-day," and he would be very happy. But if you go to a Government official, who was not commercially interested, at the end of the day he would say, "I have had a splendid day. There has been hardly anyone in to see me." I do not blame him. It has exactly the same effect as the quarter's payment has on the panel doctor. When you get people in a secure position, their commercial mentality disappears. That is why the Post Office has damaged the telephone system.
    There is also this effect with regard to the accounts. Nobody is ever satisfied that the record of his calls sent in by the Post Office coincides with the actual number of calls. An eminent gentleman who has just retired from the engineering department of the Post Office—telephones and telegraphs—said the other day that he had himself quarrelled about his private telephone account, and he found that the discrepancy was due to the fact that his maidservants had been using the telephone very frequently at times. Just imagine the system which makes this possible, and for which no apology is given. You must leave your telephone open so that anybody can use it and you have to pay for the use which other people make of it. What would you think of any shopkeeper who said to you: "You have got to pay your bill. Your household has run up an account, though you have given no authority for it"?—You cannot check it. Such a system is unsound, and must result in complete dislocation. There was one case of a man whose house was shut while he was away on his honeymoon, and who maintained that he could not possibly have had the calls. When the Post Office was asked about it, they said that his wife must have been using the telephone in his absence. Another man in Edinburgh had his house shut for three months and could not possibly have been using his telephone, and he was told that he was charged on an average. Then, when the
    1666
    matter was pressed, there was a climb down.
    The whole telephone system is worked with the most extraordinary inefficiency. The explanation is simple. I got it from the stable. I am not going to say who the member of the staff was. He would have a bad time of it. Like the silversmiths of Ephesus, who saw that their craft was in danger, they would all be after him. It is the fact that the engineering department of the Post Office is independent of the commercial department. It is a big bureaucracy in itself. It sends in a bill for what it thinks is right to the commercial people, who pay. This is exactly like as if an engineering company had its special department and the commercial people had no control over the actual cost of the work. I was told by the same person that it would make an immense difference if the Post Office adopted the principle on which all commercial companies act, and if the constructive part of the telephone were put under the commercial part. This would make a very big cut in the cost of carrying out telephone enterprise, because, of course, naturally the other people have got no commercial interest in the work which they are doing. They take on their friends. A foreman takes on a son-in-law or a brother-in-law. The whole thing becomes a huge happy party. I have seen it in the municipal service, and it is bound to be the case in the engineering department of the Post Office which is independent of the commercial side and is not controlled. I raised this point before, and probably the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether any improvement has been made.
    I was interested in the speech of the lion. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion), who spoke very much from the point of view that I have often heard expressed. He spoke as if the Post Office was an institution run for the benefit of the people who work in it. That was his attitude right through. It is as if the railway men were to take the point of view that the railways were run for their benefit, or as if the legal profession took the point of view that the Law Courts and the administration of the law were for the benefit of the lawyers. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do!"] It is an unsound point of view. Any member of the legal profession who does not realise that he is the servant of his client and

    1667
    that it is his business to attend to his client's interest first will never prosper. The only people who are successful in life are those who put their work or business first and themselves second. Until Labour recognises that it exists, not as an end in itself, but to do its best for the general good, it will never succeed. An attack has been made on the National Telephone Company. That company built up its business and paid a royalty of 10 per cent, on its gross takings to the Post Office. Owing to a bad legal decision which should have been taken to the House of Lords it was held that telephones were telegraphs, and when the time came the State took this 10 per cent. Yet the telephone company gave a very good service. At one time I got a good service in Glasgow for 25s. a year. Nothing like that could be touched by the Post Office. The company managed to pay 15 per cent. to its shareholders.
    Then came the Post Office to seize the fruits of the great pioneer work done by the company. The Post Office sacked all the men receiving more than £700 a year, but took over the rank and file of the company. It did not take over any of the brains. It did not want them. Brains are a troublesome thing in a Government Department, for they might start thinking and make suggestions. The result was disastrous. I admit there has recently been an improvement in the telephone, largely due to popular outcries. We have been told that 64,000 people have given up the telephone. Think of the labour of taking all that apparatus away. I almost wonder that the Postmaster-General did not hang his head in shame when he told us of it. It is a colossal task. There may be 71,000 people who are newly subscribing to the telephone, but the fact that 64,000 have given up the telephone is significant. The telephone should be in everyone's house. It is just as necessary as gas and water. Instead of that the telephone for the private house is a luxury and people grudge paying for the calls. Calls at public offices which used to cost 1d. now cost 4d. We members of this House do not feel that much, because we do our telephoning from here.
    I do not accept the statement that the American system is not as good as ours. The hon. Member who made that statement looked at the matter with the eyes
    1668
    of a postman. The American system is infinitely better than ours. Suppose you want to make a call from Edinburgh to London. It will certainly take a considerable time. A call in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh which used to cost 5d. now costs 1s. 5d. That is a colossal increase. Suppose you wish to telephone to London to some person in an office. Ten to one it is the office boy or the charwoman who answers the call and says that the person to whom you want to speak is out. The only way to make sure that you will get the man you want is to telegraph ahead and to say that you will telephone at such and such a time. Suppose, however, that you telephone from New York to Chicago. You tell the telephone operator that you want to speak to so and so at Chicago. In a little while you get an answer that the man you want is out. You are charged nothing for an abortive call. That is what a commercial company does. But not the Post Office. I wish the Postmaster-General not to think that I am finding fault with him in any sense that he has not made the best possible job that a Postmaster-General could make. In fact it is very nice that he can make his speeches very much more interesting than the speeches to which we have been accustomed in the past, and that they have not quite the same omniferous effect as speeches of the past. I am not blaming the Postmaster-General. I realise that he has inherited a system. I am blaming this House. We ought to rise up in indignation against the continuance of this highly technical enterprise in the hands of a Government Department; we should insist on its being put into individualistic hands, and so bring down the cost of a commodity that ought to be in use in every office and home in the country.
    Sir THOMAS BENNETT: I feel sure that the Postmaster-General will welcome any suggestion that may be helpful to him in reducing the charges of his Department. Has he explored the field of possible economy which is to be found in the curtailment of deliveries in rural districts? I happen to live on a hill top a mile from a village. I have gone there in the expectation of living a quiet and peaceful life, and an ideal life, because the ideal life is a life detached from letters, from newspapers and from all

    1669
    other nuisances. Now, instead of that I get three deliveries each day. I remember, shortly after the Armistice, the Post Office Vote showed a considerable increase, and the official explanation was that the delivery service had been restored to pre-War conditions. During the War we managed to live and be happy with two deliveries a day, and when we went back to the three there was a general feeling that the two had been quite sufficient. I brought this matter to the notice of the Postmaster-General and I know that inquiries were made, but I still press on him that if he will only inquire in some rural districts of England he will find the people are quite happy with two deliveries a day instead of three, and that one of the present deliveries is superfluous. We are not to return to the Sunday delivery apparently. I know there is a difference of opinion on that point, but speaking for a considerable number of my neighbours and friends we are not anxious for a return to the Sunday delivery. I do not look at it from the Scotsman's point of view. I am not a Scotsman and have not inherited Sabbatarian tradition and views, but I do feel that the quiet of our English Sunday is one of our most valued national assets, and the absence of letters contributes to that peace and quiet, and we value it accordingly.
    9.0 P.M.
    There is one further matter on which I would say a few words. Valuable contribution has been made to this discussion on the subject of telephones in rural districts. May I press upon the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very widely prevalent feeling in some of our rural districts that the Post Office does not mean business in the matter of telephone extension. I know they do, but the feeling remains that they do not, and I have representations made to me that the people cannot make a fair bargain with the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Sir Henry Norman) suggested that the telephone business should be pushed more than it is, that it should be run on business lines, and I endorse the suggestion that there should be sent out to the rural districts of England, particularly in the Home Counties, people whom you may call glorified canvassers if you like, but men who would be capable of bringing homo to farmers and others the advantages of a telephone service. I
    1670
    brought some cases of this kind to the notice of the Department, and I had a most courteous hearing. At the same time, the feeling does prevail among farmers and others in the rural districts that they do not get the facilities or the help in connection with telephone extensions in the rural districts that they ought to get. I endorse what has been said so uncommonly well by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd) as to the necessity of doing something for the smallholder and cultivator in rural districts. The explanation and the excuse for the high rates for parcel post on agricultural produce is that it does not pay. Has any attempt been made to make it pay by lowering rates? There is a very strong feeling on that subject, and now is the time when immense satisfaction would be given in the rural districts by a concession in this respect. The farmers have been to some extent placated, and properly placated, by the concessions announced in the Budget. This also is a fair concession, one which can be fairly looked for, and representatives of agricultural constituencies hope that the Postmaster-General will apply himself to the question.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Postmaster-General, and I assure him that the friendly societies who have not been mentioned as yet and kindred organisations will be delighted with the decreases indicated in his statement in regard to postal rates. I feel sure every member of the Committee was glad to hear the statement, but I wish he had told us something regarding a possible reduction in the charges for telegrams. Apparently nothing is being done in that direction, and it would seem to me that the omission is a very serious one indeed, particularly in view of the fact that the business community and the wealthy people are getting more accustomed to using the telephone. I can very well imagine, the time arriving when the telegram will be the poor man's means of communicating extraordinary events to his relations and his friends. I would appeal, if my appeal is worth anything, for a remission of the charges on telegrams. The Committee listened with considerable interest to the philosophy expressed by the hon. and learned Member for the Springburn Division of

    1671
    Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten). It sounded to me a little Mid-Victorian, and, in some respects, almost antediluvian. I feel sure the Postmaster-General will not be influenced by what the hon. and learned Member said to the effect that some part of the postal service should be handed over to private enterprise.
    The Postmaster-General has, very rightly, expressed the hope that he may be able to do something to extend the telephone service in rural districts. It is a very good proposal indeed, and I hope he will succeed in it, but when he made the proposal I noticed that he used the words "party telephone system." I fail to understand why the Postmaster-General desires to create a system within the Post Office régime, differentiating between the charges on the telephone service in rural areas and those in other areas, when a citizen living in a rural area can buy a penny stamp just in the same way as I can buy it in Manchester or London. The mere fact that a man lives in a remote part should not penalise him, because he is a citizen of the State in any case. I favour very much the idea that there should be a telephone in every house, but that will not come about until we have a greater reduction still in the charges for private telephones. I am voicing the opinions of a large number of people when I say that a little more was expected on that account. There has been some rejoicing that the number of employés in the Post Office has been reduced, if I remember rightly, by 6,500 as between to-day and 1914, and part of that saving, apparently, is included in the £10,000,000 less expenditure estimated for the coming year. That sounds very well, but I can imagine that some of the 6,500 people who have been dispensed with are now drawing money from the Unemployment Exchanges. I cannot see much economy on the part of the State when they reduce expenditure by £10,000,000, part of it on the wages of the 6,500 people, but send them to another Department of the State to receive probably part of the same money in another way. I do not think that sounds like good economy, at any rate.
    I also want to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the question of the people employed in sub-post offices.
    1672
    There is a very strong feeling on this score, as has already been expressed. I am not willing to see people who own, in some cases, not only one shop but several shops running these sub-post offices and paying a very low rate of wages. I have a schedule showing the rates of wages paid in respect of 500 people employed in these small institutions, and they compare very badly indeed with the rates of wages that have already been secured by trade unions for the same class of employment. I suggest that when the Post Office farms out its work in this way it ought to be one of the conditions of payment by the Post Office to the people carrying on these small institutions that they ought to pay the rate of wages applicable to the job in that district. I think that is a fair proposal; and a violation of a principle of that kind ought to mean that they cannot get the business after a given period. I dislike the idea of these people who are employed in the sub-post offices living in. Some of us took a leading part some time ago in trying to destroy the living-in system entirely, and I would that the Postmaster-General would use his influence to get that removed entirely from any of these small businesses that are under his control. In regard to rural districts; it is assumed that if the telephone service, for instance, were still in the hands of a private company, the private company would long ago have taken the telephone service to the rural districts. I can imagine what would happen, and what did in fact happen when the National Telephone Company had the telephone under its control. The hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow boasted that he could have a telephone service in his house for 25s. per annum in the old days. I wonder whether he made inquiries as to the wages paid to the girls who were employed by that company at that time? I suggest to him—and I wish he were here to listen—that he got a cheap telephone service because young girls and young boys were sweated by that company.
    I want to urge, in conclusion, that when the Post Office proceeds to provide these telephones in rural areas they will bear in mind the point that I made a few moments ago, that the Post Office in all its departments is at the service of the whole of the community. It ought to be

    1673
    viewed as a single entity, and the charges ought to be the same in all parts of the country. I wish to congratulate the Postmaster-General on his statement, and urge him to believe, with some of us on these Benches, that the Post Office has emerged from the period of the War in a more businesslike fashion than most of the industries carried on by private enterprise, proving conclusively that in spite of the fact that we are working in a capitalist State, we have a nationalised institution doing its work admirably after all.
    Mr. INSKIP: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) introduced a note which was present in the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who spoke after the Postmaster-General. It was a note of congratulation upon the efficiency of the Post Office, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not think that I wish to detract at all from the laurels which they would place upon his brow if I say that that note was inspired less by the efficiency of the Post Office than by the desire to point out how admirably a nationalist system is working, in order that they may on future occasions advertise the advantages of nationalisation. The hon. Member for North Camberwell, having struck that note at the beginning of his speech, proceeded to charge the Postmaster - General, or somebody in the Post Office in a very high position, with having connived at a fraud which was committed by a postmaster in the Newcastle district. If that is one of the advantages of nationalisation, I am not at all sure that we need advance upon that path. The Post Office, of course, from many points of view is an admirable service, and I should like to pay a tribute to the admirable courtesy and efficiency of the postmen with whom we come daily in contact. From that point of view, I do not think there is any more admirable service in the country than that of the Post Office, but I am afraid I cannot altogether share in the chorus of congratulations, sometimes with a motive, as I have said, which come from some quarters of the House with regard to the postal service. I think it is improving, and I have no doubt the War made difficulties, but we are conscious of defects in the service which we did not
    1674
    experience before the War. A little while ago I found that it actually takes two days, at any rate, a third day, before a letter from Edinburgh reaches one of the lowland counties of Scotland unless it is posted comparatively early in the forenoon. Another part of the service which I think might be improved is in connection with the parcels service, and until we have a restoration of pre-War conditions in that respect, I think some of us will not be satisfied. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to say that I do regret he has not found it possible to make some reduction in the case of the smaller parcel service. It is really a very great burden, not only upon trade, but upon people of small means that they are unable to send a parcel, however small, for less than 9d. My right hon. Friend, I know, has difficulties with regard to revenue, but if he occupies the position, as I hope he may, next year, I trust he will think that the parcels service merits first attention in regard to the reduction of charges.
    Perhaps I may say another word with reference to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down in connection with the sub-post offices. I think the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who also spoke about this, a little exaggerated the matter, but, undoubtedly, it is a matter, I think, which will bear looking into. Sub-post offices are, generally speaking, for the convenience of the public, but, on the other hand, I know a portion of the city which I represent, although it is not in my constituency, where these sub-post offices are certainly more numerous than the public convenience demands, and I think that in some of those poet offices it is quite possible—indeed, I believe it to be the fact—that adequate salaries are not paid to some of the girls who are employed. This is the ease as I understand the matter—my right hon. Friend will be able to correct me—in what are called the scale payment sub-post offices, although what the Postmaster-General says about the matter, if I am correctly informed, is that it is no concern of the Poet Office what wages are paid by the persons who carry on these scale payment sub-post offices——
    Mr. PEASE: It is the concern of the Postmaster-General, and returns are made by the sub-postmasters.
    Mr. INSKIP: I was not prepared with the fact that the right hon. Gentleman knew the wages that were paid, but, if so, I do not know how it is possible to check the wages that are paid by somebody who may be carrying on a very small grocery business, or a little general-store business, and at the same time mixing up a little post-office business. It may be very difficult to say what is the proper proportion the Post Office should pay, but there have been cases brought to my attention where some of these persons are paid a wage which is inadequate. I do not think I could respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westhoughton that they should be paid the same rate as trade unions have agreed in the district, because trade unions very often fix wages which are higher than the conditions of the industry justify. But I do think they ought to be paid in these sub-post offices at least such wages as, for instance, the Grocery Trade Board fix, and the Board in 1921, for the worst class of shop in the grocery trade, fixed wages higher than the wages paid in sub-post offices which have come within my own knowledge.
    The other matter about which I wish to speak is the really important matter of postal rates. I am a little apprehensive as to the future of the postal service, if some of the facts—the alleged facts—which we have heard this afternoon are really the truth. The Postmaster-General shows a surplus to his credit to-day, but it represents an incalculable injury to the trade of the country. The Post Office has nourished clearly at the public expense. You cannot divide the public services into one compartment and the Labour Ministry into another compartment. The Post Office creates a tremendous amount of unemployment by very high postal rates. The Ministry of Labour, on the other hand, is paying out unemployment insurance to remunerate the very persons who would be employed if only the postal rates were at a more reasonable level. My right hon. Friend has said that some of these representations have been very much exaggerated. I was sorry to hear that note. I made representations to the right hon. Gentleman myself about the picture postcard industry. He met me with courtesy, as he would, but he assured me, on information given to him by his officials, that the whole thing was grossly exaggerated,
    1676
    and that really the diminution in the sale of picture postcards was almost entirely due to trade conditions, and other conditions, which had really nothing to do with Post Office administration. I think that that was an unfortunate statement. I wrote a letter calling his attention to the facts with regard to that industry in my own constituency. I did not expect an answer, because, perhaps, there was no answer to be given, but I did not get an answer. I do not complain of it in the least. At any rate, I called my right hon. Friend's attention to the facts, and I should like to give them here again, in case the picture postcard industry may on another occasion be the target of the right hon. Gentleman's attack.
    There is one firm about which I have satisfied myself as to the facts. It lost all but a quarter of its trade on its picture postcards on the first increase, and one-third of that quarter upon the second increase. I know another firm which closed down their picture postcard industry altogether, although they had been recommended to try to recapture it from the Germans, and had put down plant and incurred capital outlay. They dismissed their workpeople, and wrote down the whole of their stock, which was practically unsaleable, by 80 per cent. In Scarborough, where the sale of picture postcards is very great, there was a decrease to the extent of 70 per cent, in the sale of postcards, and I am afraid to give the number of postcards, because hon. Members would not credit it, and I do not wish to give figures which perhaps will not be altogether believed, although I believe them to be accurate. At any rate, the decrease was something like 70 per cent., and really these facts about the picture postcard industry show that the high rates upon picture postcards are undoubtedly the cause of a great deal of unemployment, with the result that the people thrown out of work have had to be paid the unemployment insurance.
    I hope a more reasonable attitude will be taken towards such questions as these. Then I think it is a not very useful restriction to say that the words on postcards must be of a conventional or courtesy character. What makes words of a conventional character? Supposing someone says "I shall be late to-night," and says that once, he is charged a penny. Supposing it is the ordinary routine, and it has

    1677
    become a convention that the writer should come home late at night, he is only charged a halfpenny. No one can decide what is of a courtesy character and what is of a conventional character. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is really able to suggest that any additional burden is placed upon the Post Office because I send affectionate greetings to a member of my family for which I should be charged Id., whereas—I hardly know what I might say within the limit of five words—I suppose "Good luck to the Postmaster-General" would be held to be of a courtesy character and I should be only charged ½d. That is a tiresome restriction and is really hardly worthy of the Postmaster-General.
    I want to refer to the foreign circulars. My right hon. Friend gave me an answer, which was a repetition of the answer he gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), with reference to the posting abroad of printed circulars. We were told that there was a loss of about £1,000 per month on the revenue. The Postmaster-General has corrected that to-day by saying that there was a loss on the year of £15,000 due to the posting abroad of these circulars. Supposing we take the figure of £1,000 a month. That means only 240,000 circulars at 1d. were posted abroad in each month. I have two interesting illustrations of what has happened in this connection. Both of these documents which I hold in my hand were formerly printed in my own constituency. When my right hon. Friend's predecessor increased the charges the contracts were stopped, the circulars were printed abroad, and the revenue from the postage of these circulars was entirely lost to the Post Office. One of them alone totalled 150,000. All these would have been posted in this country; instead they were printed in Germany, posted in Germany and carried at the expense of this country, without one penny coming into the coffers of the Post Office. Not only that, but the wages were lost; the money spent upon printing and upon papers was lost.
    I can give a still more striking example. In this case there was a circular, with which hon. Member's are familiar, from a firm of wine merchants who supply, among other bodies, this honourable House with wine. This beautiful document included a circular and a letter-card
    1678
    for reply. It was formerly printed in this country. From £400 to £500 a month was spent upon the monthly order for the production of this circular. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor increased the postal charges, the contract was stopped. The document was printed in Vienna, it was posted from Vienna, and it was sent in a wrapper which required the Post Office, if undelivered, to re-direct and return it to this firm at 18, Hans Sachsgasse, Vienna. My right hon. Friend therefore had to carry this circular to the prospective customers of that firm and, if some of them were dead or gone away or not to be found, he had to carry it back to Vienna. He lost the whole of the revenue, which ran into thousands of pounds in a year. It means a loss to my constituency of from £400 to £500 a month in wages upon printing and paper for that circular.
    I suggest that if my right hon. Friend or his advisers had appreciated facts like that, it would have been impossible to continue this tremendous burden upon the circulation of printed matter. I am sorry to say that the representations made have met with less attention than they deserved. The Federation of Master Printers, representing £26,000,000 a year lost in wages, made representations; the Joint Industrial Council of the Printing Trade, employing 250,000 people, made representations. My right hon. Friend was deaf to every one of them. Ho declined to announce any prospect of a reduction in rates in order that they might make contracts for the future and, if possible, save themselves losses and recover their fast disappearing trade from the continental printer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that he did not know in January, February and March that there was going to be a surplus. Why did he not make then the statement that he was invited to make as to the prospects 'I Instead of that, he allowed workpeople to be thrown out of employment and trade to be lost to this country, probably permanently. He maintained the postal rates in order that he might produce a £9,000,000 surplus, of which he would be very proud when he came to this Committee. I wonder how much has been spent by this country in paying unemployment insurance benefit to the persons thrown out of work. I do not think that that £9,000,000 will 'be such a desirable surplus as has been represented. It is

    1679
    the most disastrous surplus that has ever fallen to the lot of anybody to present to this House.
    My right hon. Friend was lately in the same city of which I have spoken more than once. He was given the honour of having a new street called after him. Sometimes when I go down that new street it represents very much the same thing to me as the picture of Lord North does in the Carlton Club. I do not know whether Lord North was a credit to the Carlton Club or the Tory party, but when I see my right hon. Friend's name written at the top of that avenue, I think it will be a memorial of the most disastrous Post Office policy that this generation has known. I hope there will be no repetition of it, and that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the postal service exists for the community, that it is there not only for the convenience of the public, but to encourage as far as possible industry, and that it has to be the handmaiden of the public. Until that is realised I am afraid that we shall in future years, if events turn out unfortunately, have further burdens put upon industry. I make these observations in no spirit of antagonism to my right hon. Friend, but I am bound to say that in my humble opinion they are necessary to be said lost we have a repetition of these errors.
    Mr. FOOT: In following the speech made by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, I would suggest that, in thinking of the claims of the community, it is of the highest importance that we should include in the community, not only the large industries of the country, but the almost forgotten people in our rural districts. It was a very great comfort to many of us to hear this afternoon from the Postmaster-General a suggestion that the claims of those who live in the distant rural areas had been pressing upon his mind. I wish to advocate the claims of these forgotten people in scattered hamlets and in very lonely areas, and to suggest that, while the telephone may be a convenience in the town, as it is, it is almost an absolute necessity in the country. If there are difficulties arising from time to time as to the user of the telephone service in the large towns, there can be an expression of organised opinion, and by means of several unions
    1680
    and organisations of one kind and another, pressure can be brought to bear upon the Post Office. I am not speaking, of course, of trade unions, but generally of the organisations of the people, affected, by which pressure can be brought to bear on the Post Office to secure a better service. People living in the distant areas, however, have no such organisations, and very often have no means of voicing their complaints.
    The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no reality at all in the talk of national reconstruction unless we devote our attention to the revival of rural life. That cannot be revived unless there be established a very ready means of communication. An hon. Member who spoke just now referred to his own experience, and actually suggested that the postal service was too heavy in the parish to which he belonged. I for some years lived in a parish where we were entirely dependent on the one telephone that was at the local post office. It always struck me that it was a very great hardship inflicted upon a large parish where a great many people lived that they should be dependent upon one telephone in the post office, which was not available for use at all on the half-day when the post office was closed. I know that considerable hardship was caused, and that it fell mainly on the poorer people. In a time of emergency when the doctor is needed for any purpose whatever in the home, the rich man can go or send his motor car for him, the farmer is able to use his own car or his cart, but the poorest people, who are hit so often, may be hit again just because they are poor. While I welcome the suggestion of the Postmaster-General in laying his coming policy before the Committee, I ask that he should not be contented with merely making the announcement, but that active steps should be taken to popularise the telephone service throughout the whole of the rural areas.
    There is one further matter that affects the rural areas very immediately, that is the rate of postage for the newspapers. In towns we get our newspapers pretty regularly, and the man who cannot afford to buy a newspaper can drop into the local reading room: but in the country the farmer or the smallholder is dependent for his newspaper absolutely upon the post, and the raising of the newspaper

    1681
    rate is a hardship to him. It has hit the man in the country far more heavily than the man in the town. It has scarcely touched the man in the town, but it puts a substantial weekly tax upon the man who most needs the newspaper for his ordinary means of information and is dependent upon the newspaper simply because none of his neighbours can give him the information, as is so possible in the town. The Postmaster-General having made a concession in respect to the telephones—and a very valuable concession—and one for which I am quite sure he will be thanked throughout the rural areas—I hope it may be possible for him to move one step further. Perhaps he will inform the House presently what cost would be involved in an alteration of the newspaper rate.
    There is a third point that affects the countryside largely, and that is the parcels post. The question was raised in this House only a day or two ago by the Member for Oxford as to the difficulty of sending even a pound of cream from the West Country to London. This used to be quite a substantial industry. The fact that a West-countryman up in town had a pound of cream sent to him every week reminded him of the county from which he came—the most glorious part of this country. Further, it meant a substantial remuneration to those whose case was advocated just now, and it had the effect of taking the charges of the middle man away when the commodity was sent direct to London. I believe the concession in respect to the telephone is a step in the right direction. All the Postmaster-General needs to do now is to adopt these further concessions and his name will go down to posterity in the rural districts of this country, and be held now and hereafter in general gratitude.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The Postmaster-General has; promised considerable improvements on what was our unhappy fate last year and it is both bad politics and bad manners to look a gift horse in the face, but I feel bound to point out that he is only giving back some of what has been taken away since the halcyon days of 1913, when we had penny postage and halfpenny postcards. In 1913 we had a Post Office Budget of 24½ millions and provided for a surplus of £5,800,000. The Postmaster-General speaks of realising an economy of 10½
    1682
    million pounds, but he did not say anything about the effect of the reduction in war bonuses in that economy. Last year we heard a great deal about war bonuses. We were told that in the Post Office Estimates, 1921–22, there was no less than 28 millions of war bonus or more than the whole of the Post Office Estimates of 1913. I do not quite know how that great bonus figure came about, but I do know this, that business men take as their basis 1914 and they take the percentage increase cost of living and apply it to that year, whereas the Post Office make a comparison with 1920.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is not the case.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The Telephone Committee state in their Report that the Post Office took 1920 as the basis.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, that is so. But I publicly contradicted this Report.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Then I withdraw. But, anyhow, there was an increase in salaries of something like £11,000,000 per year during the War, and the War bonus came upon the top of that. I do not know how that comes about, unless it is that the House of Commons does not exert the proper pressure that! we ought to keep over Government Departments. It would be a very good thing if Members of Parliament standing in constituencies were compelled to give all their pledges in public. Candidates see Post Office people in private, where there are no reporters present, and make pledges to them which they have no business to make behind the backs of the electorate. In 1905 we had about 500 Members of Parliament pledged to the effect that there should be a fresh inquiry into the conditions of labour in the Post Office, although there had just been an inquiry, with the constitution of which those concerned were perfectly satisfied until the verdict was announced. The Government naturally refused to set up another inquiry, but they found themselves faced with something like 500 Members of Parliament who had pledged themselves to support another inquiry, and they had to give in. I think that explains a good deal of the reason why undue increases of salary come about.
    The Postmaster-General said we were the only country whose Post Office was paying its way. In speaking of the United States, I think he mentioned a

    1683
    deficit of £19,000,000. I do not make the figure £19,000,000, but nearer £13½ millions. He is not comparing like with like. The comparison is from June, 1920, to June, 1921, in the United States, which was a year when we had a deficit, but they had their trade depression much earlier than we had. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to state that the United States is the only country in the world which has absolutely reverted to pre-War charges, whereas we were charging 100 per cent, additional for letters and 200 per cent, additional for post cards. That is a way in which a great monopoly like the Post Office can always make its Budget balance. Then it has always been the policy of the United States to indulge in subsidies and to stimulate the channels of trade. We cannot tell how much benefit has accrued to industry in the United States which has not undertaken any unemployed insurance subsidies, from the fact that low charges have been made for carrying mails.
    There is one question, and only one, I should like the Postmaster-General to deal with in his reply. That is in respect of the Post Office underground tube, which extends, I understand, from Paddington to Whitechapel, and with which various post offices connect at Liverpool Street Station. That tube is quite ready, but not equipped with machinery. As far as I can ascertain, it will cost much less than £1,000,000 to equip it, but once it is equipped it will relieve congestion in the streets by taking a good deal of Post Office traffic off the streets. It must also help to relieve unemployment to some extent, and, now that prices have fallen, would it not he remunerative from the general point of view of the Government of the country, apart from the Post Office, to consider putting that tube into working order and spending this sum of money, which would be far better expended in this way than upon the enterprises in which we are engaged in Palestine and elsewhere.
    The Postmaster-General has given us the net increase of telephones at 7,000 for last year, but I wish he would give us the statistics for such countries as Canada, where the great majority are privately run, and also for the United States of America, where they are all privately
    1684
    owned. I think those figures would astonish the House, and enable us to see how the telephone system is progressing there as compared with the socialistic system of running our telephones in connection with the Post Office. Some attempt has been made to show that our telephone system is better than that in the United States.
    Mr. AMMON: Hear, hear!
    Commander BELLAIRS: Surely the hon. Member will allow that the public are the best judges. There are about 14,500,000 telephones in America for a population of 108,000,000. That is, one person in every eight has a telephone. In Canada one person in every ten has a telephone, while in this country the proportion is one in every 45. I think that is conclusive evidence that the system of telephones in those countries under private enterprise is much better than it is here. In this country I am assured that our telephone system is the cause of insanity, whereas in America it is a cure for insanity. There are states where one person in every four has a telephone, and they "listen in" and are no longer lonely, and so do not go mad.
    Major MOLSON: I congratulate the Postmaster-General upon having relieved us of some of the charges which were put on last year and which were most onerous. I join with those hon. Members who have stated that the Post Office ought to be run for the benefit of the community and not for profit. There are two points which I should like the Postmaster-General to answer. Some of the speakers have laid a good deal of stress on not wanting a Sunday delivery. I do not think it would increase the cost of the Post Office at all if private individuals were allowed to collect their Sunday letters at the post office. I am informed that this would not add a particle to the cost because the Post Offices are open on Sunday morning. The telegraph offices are also open, and it would merely be the same official who would hand the letters to those private individuals who cared to fetch them. Certainly in country districts this would be of enormous importance and a great gain, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point. I do not press for an answer to-night, but it is a matter of very great importance in many ways.

    1685
    I would like to refer to a letter which I have received this morning from one of my own constituents. I would not bring this matter forward unless it had been pressed upon the attention of the Postmaster-General for a considerable time. I asked the Assistant Postmaster-General about it last year, and no satisfaction has been given to this community—I am referring to the postal service at a place called Epworth in Lincolnshire. It is the capital town of the district and its latest collection before the War used to be 7.15. During the War the collection was altered to 5.20. There was no grumbling about that as a War measure, but since the War they have been paying 400 per cent, move for their postal service. They have written many times about it and all they say they get is a mere acknowledgment from the Postmaster-General.
    The last communication was on 20th March, and the point is that they wish and ask for a service, that is, a 7.15 collection, and they are prepared to guarantee the Post Office against any financial loss in regard to the collection of the letters. At the present time the letters are collected at Epworth at 5.20 and taken down to a village near the station, where they are left for two hours. This is a town near the market. We have been hearing a good deal about the rural population and a great deal of lip service has been paid to the country districts. The farmers come back from the market too late for the evening post and they have to act on the market quotations a day late. I press this matter upon the attention of the Postmaster-General. The people in this district undertake that there shall be no additional expense, and they only ask that this matter should receive consideration. I would like to emphasise what has been said about rural telephones, and I can corroborate this by my own personal experience in regard to the telephone system in Canada. The Bell Telephone Company is the one which supplies the telephone service in Canada. It is a private company, and I am fortunate enough to have shares in it, and they pay me a very nice dividend. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd) has borne witness to the fact that in all parts of Canada the farmers are served with telephones. He also mentioned that they had motor-cars. I would like to ask the Postmaster-
    1686
    General, supposing he cannot serve our farmers with individual lines, cannot he offer them a party service which is the usual thing in Canada? That could be run at a very great deal less expense, and if the farmer refused to accept it, then it would be his own fault. Round the big cities in Canada, round Montreal and other places, every house has its telephone service. They have a party service. They send their invitations and chat over the telephone, and it is a regular institution of the country. I should like to urge that that be developed more in this country. My hon. Friend also reminded us about the rural parcels post. I certainly agree that a great deal more could be done to help farmers and smallholders in this respect. The cost of sending rural produce into towns is now very heavy, and much could be done to assist our people by means of a reduced parcels post.
    I quite realise that the telephone system is a State monopoly. T would have urged very strongly it should never have been taken over by the State. I consider private enterprise gives a far better service than the State, but since it has been taken over, it is quite impossible to return it to private hands. It is useless to grumble about the telephone service, but I think as representatives of the nation we are entitled to urge the Postmaster-General to try and run his system on the lines of a private enterprise, and to try and please the people instead of intimating to them that it is a favour to allow them to have either a telephone or the telegraphs. The Postmaster-General should consider himself in competition with others in order to please the public. I appreciate very much the concessions we have got. I agree with the Postmaster-General that it is not right the Post Office should be run under a subsidy, and that it should pay its own way, and be run at the same time for the benefit of the people.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. MILLS: Many remarks have been devoted in this Debate to very justifiable compliments to the Postmaster-General. Many things have been said about the business community, and many comments have been utttered by those who believe in private enterprise, and who think that the cost of this particular section of our private life, which has such a lot to do with that life, should be kept as low as

    1687
    possible, because forsooth it is something which no person believing in private enterprise would care to consider from that point of view. I want to approach the matter from the point of view of the average Member of Parliament. We, after all, are the victims. I have a salary of £400 a year, and £1 of that goes on an average every week on postage. A considerable amount also goes on telegrams. I think the Members of this House ought to receive a little more consideration from the Postmaster-General than they do at present. Before the War there used to be a chart for reference by the postmaster, so that Members wishing to write to a constituent could be sure whether or not a letter posted at a given hour would reach the constituent that evening or whether, should the matter be urgent, a telegram was necessary. I submit that matters such as that, which add to the efficiency of this House and to the general efficiency of the Service, might well be considered. I am well used to complaints made by Members of this House that abnormal sums are paid in bonuses to those who work in the postal services. If some of the critics of the war bonus would only go into the cause and origin of the bonus, if they would consider for a moment the many weary months, running into years, during which the postal service existed on a pre-War rate of wages, T think there would be a little more tolerance and more hesitation before wholesale condemnation was made of the agreements between the Postmaster-General and his staff, which, after all, imposed war wages that will pass away as the war conditions pass. One thing that can be said about the administration of the Post Office at the moment is that it is approaching that stage of relationship between the head and the staff which will result in a minimum of friction, and that, I submit, is something which all sections of the House should be grateful for.
    There are one or two points here which I suggest hardly square with the assertions that are made that wonderful salaries are paid for work that should be done, but in many cases is not, according to the critics, done. I have here a letter reflecting the desire of the Telephone Traffic Officers' Association, in which it is
    1688
    asserted that over a period of years it has been stated that their inadequate scales of pay were under revision, and yet even now those revisions have not been made. A certain organ, in commenting on this and in commenting on the kind of examination that has to be passed in order to qualify for these posts said:
    "What does the General Post Office expect for £100 a year?"
    I submit that this grievance is one which ought to be met at the earliest possible moment in order to get that satisfaction which will result in every case where the staff feel that they are being treated with that degree of consideration and that amount of equity which the public service demands. I can only say in closing that to me the idea that men engaged in industry and commerce, in order to show their dislike and hatred of charges imposed by the Postmaster-General because of a Cabinet decision that he should make his Department pay, should deliberately indulge in calculated action which results in taking printing work out of this country, and in compelling the postal service to carry the whole of their correspondence without any remuneration whatever so far as the finances of the Post Office are concerned, is something which deserves the severest condemnation by the Postmaster-General when he comes to reply. If one agrees that the charges are harsh, the best thing that can be done is after all to follow the trade union method: first, to try consultation, then to give an ultimatum, and then to give public notice so that all may know the reason why such an anti-social act is about to be perpetrated. But to take the course which has been taken at a time when unemployment is so rife, and people who call on the State to function on their behalf in the matter of transport and Press facilities to commit this antisocial act, is action which deserves the severest condemnation at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I rise to support the Amendment which I understand has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), and to support the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no such Amendment.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Then I will propose one. I have sat in this Committee during the whole afternoon, and, with the exception of the speeches of the hon. Member for Oxford University and the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone, I do not think I have heard a single speech which was not in the direction of increasing expenditure. I ventured the other day, when we were in Committee on another Vote, to draw attention to the fact that practically all that evening every speech had been in favour of increasing expenditure, and we have had the same thing to-day. I have always blamed the Government because they have been extravagant, but I must say that when they have endeavoured—I do not say successfully, as I shall show—to make a reduction, the least the Committee can do is to congratulate them upon that reduction and encourage, them to go further, whereas practically every hon. Member has brought forward some grievance. Either some of his constituents want further facilities—which cost money; or it is necessary to increase wages—as if they had not been increased enormously already; or it is necessary to do away with contract sub-post offices in order that they may be run entirely by the State, which, of course, means extra expense.
    Mr. HURD: The hon. Baronet is quite misrepresenting many of the speeches from this side of the House—certainly mine, for I made no suggestion which would increase expenditure. My suggestion was that the rates should be lowered in order to increase business.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad the hon. Member is in favour of decreased expenditure, but, although I have heard the story over and over again that a lower charge will increase business, I am not at all certain that it will have that effect. When the right hon. Gentleman raised the rates, he was told that he would get nothing in return—that business would decrease; but, as a matter of fact, he has had a very considerable increase. I think the wish is father to the thought, but as regards the idea that if you decrease charges you are going to get the loss made up by increased business, although there is something in it, it is, to a very large extent, fallacious.
    Mr. HURD: It is the elementary principle of business.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is a matter of opinion. As far as I know, I have not found that people from whom I wished to buy things have followed the advice of the hon. Gentleman until they have been absolutely compelled to do so by the fact that they could sell nothing. As a matter of fact, the Postmaster-General is still succeeding in selling his goods. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) stated that the telephones were taken over because there was a public outcry against the private telephone company. I was in the House at that time, and I remember perfectly well what took place. It was not because there was an outcry against the telephone company, but because some foolish people thought that, since the telephone company were making profits, if they were taken over by the State the State would make profits. That was the sole reason. I remember saying to the present Lord Derby, who was responsible to a certain extent for taking over the telephones, that I myself was quite certain that the only result would be that, instead of making a profit, the State would very probably make a loss, and that we should have a considerably worse service; and that is exactly what has occurred. I understand that the hon. Member for North Camberwell is interested, or his friends are interested, in the State taking over these things, because then they will be able to put pressure on the State. I have had pressure put upon me when I was Member for Peckham. It has been said to me, "If you do not vote for an increase in my wages, I shall not vote for you at the next election.
    Mr. AMMON: May I suggest that the telephones were not State property when the right hon. Baronet was Member for Peckham?
    Sir F. BANBURY: They were not, but the Post Office was, and it was a Post Office servant who came to me at that lime. He was a very nice man indeed. He had always voted for me at my previous three elections, but on the last occasion, when we had quite a friendly discussion, he was very frank about it, and I did not blame him at all. He said, "A shilling a week to me is more than anything else, and, though I agree with you on all political questions, as you will not promise to get my wages increased by a shilling a week, I shall vote for the

    1691
    Radical," and I believe he did. That is the sort of thing that is really at the bottom of the demand of hon. Members opposite for increased State control. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that in 1913 the Post Office cost £24,882,000. It now costs £57,000,000, if you do not take off the Grants-in-Aid, as to which I shall have something to say later. I presume that the £24,882,000 was inclusive of the Grants-in-Aid, and therefore I must take for comparison the figure of £53,000,000. I want to know what we gain. I am speaking from the point of view of the public, because it must be remembered that the Post Office is not run in order to provide employment for Post Office servants, but is run for the benefit of the public. What has the public got from an increase of expenditure from £24,882,000 to £53,000,000? They have got a worse service, and the only people who have benefited are the employés.
    Mr. AMMON: We have got a worse railway service.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Two wrongs do not make a right, but I contend that, if you have got a worse railway service, it arises from the same thing, namely, that, owing to the pressure of certain people, the hours of labour and rates of pay were altered. I happened to notice to-day that our expenses per train mile are now three times what they were in 1913.
    Mr. AMMON: That is a private concern.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I beg pardon. All that arose when we were under Government control. If we had been a private concern, it would never have happened. I must not, however, be led away by these interruptions, but I want to point, out to the Committee, and to the public, that we are now paying £53,000,000 a year for what cost us less than £25,000,000 in 1913–14. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General one or two questions with regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, which, I understand, amount to about £4,000,000, of which I think £2,300,000 come from Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend expect to get anything from Ireland? "Estimated cost of Post Office services in Irish Free State, £2,686,000," If I
    1692
    had to buy that as an asset I should be very sorry to give very much for it. I believe the Postmaster-General agrees with me. I think I can see in his face that he is contemplating coming down in about four months and presenting a Supplementary Estimate for £2,000,000 and pointing out that all he has been able to recover from the Free State may be £6,000, and that is rather doubtful because it has been supplied in disused rifles and injured motor cars which had been originally handed over by the Chief Secretary and had been returned by the Free State.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should not like the right hon. Baronet to go away with that idea. We shall have to pay the cost of the service, and, therefore, the Appropriation-in-Aid is taken. So far from our being worse off as a result of operating this service, I estimate that we shall save £750,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad to hear that. Then I want to know how it is that that sum, if it is merely a cross-entry, is put down as a deduction from the expenditure of the Post Office, which is £57,000,000. The amount of the Appropriation-in-Aid is deducted from the £57,000,000, and it is stated that the expenditure of the Post Office is £53,000,000. As a matter of fact, it is £55,000,000, and, therefore, the difference between the figure I gave for 1913 and the expenditure at present has increased and we are now spending £55,000,000 for what we had for £24,500,000 before the War, and we do not get as much, which is, I think, rather a bad bargain. I should like to ask what do we want a resident architect in Egypt for, and why do we give him £720 a year?
    Dr. MURRAY: For studying the pyramids.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I know. I do not doubt it is a very excellent lesson for any hon. Member opposite who can ingratiate himself with the Post Office and get £720 a year, but we cannot afford to do these excellent things. We really must exercise a little economy, and I really cannot see why on earth we want a resident architect in Egypt. It seems to me to be a very absurd item to put into this Vote. You cannot be economical unless you look at all these

    1693
    small matters. It is very difficult to go through a big book of this sort and follow everything that is in it, but in the few moments I had to look through it I found this architect in Egypt. On page 79 I find £35,000 for trip allowances. What are trip allowances? I dare say if they are railway trips they are a good thing for the railways, and, as far as that is concerned, I have not any objection, but you have to get this £35,000 out of the wretched taxpayer, who cannot afford to take trips on the railway, and I must ask why on earth £35,000 is spent upon trip allowances. The trip allowances for Ireland amount to £9,100 I should not have thought that anybody wanted to take any trips in Ireland. It is very dangerous, because if the people were not shot at and killed or injured by the Irish Republican army, they would probably be shot at and injured by the rivals of the Irish Republican army, or they might find that the rails had been taken up, and they could not continue their journey, even if they happened not to fall into a river.
    There is an item for Subsistence Allowances, Locomotion and Removal Expenses, £161,000, in England and Wales, £16,000 in Ireland—I do not think that is very much for Ireland, because probably the people want to come to England—and £27,000 for Scotland. There is also further expenditure in Dublin. Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to spend money in Dublin at the present time? I understand that our stamps are defaced there by some Irish patriot's image being substituted for that of the King. Whether that is so or not, why on earth does the right hon. Gentleman want to spend money in Dublin at the present time?
    I do not think it is much use impressing these points on the Committee, but I do wish to impress the fact upon the country that, if they want to have economy and to get their taxation reduced, it is no use sending Members here to ask for small conveniences, a little extra expense here and there, because it happens to suit one or two of their constituents. The people of the country must say: "Put your hands upon every expense, and, have it cut down." Until we get a House that does that, no good will be done. I have sympathy with the Government, although I usually differ from them,
    1694
    because they do not get a fair chance towards reducing expenditure, or any assistance from this House.
    Mr. PEASE: We have received congratulations from every side to-day. In all my long experience of the House of Commons I do not think that I ever heard a warmer tribute to the Government than was paid by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir Donald Maclean). The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) appears to be almost the only critic in regard to the London telephone service. I remember that two or three years ago, when I said that I thought a great improvement had taken place in regard to the London telephone service, that that was received with only a certain amount of appreciation, but to-day, while there have been very few complaints in regard to the service in the country, there have been practically no complaints in regard to London. I have here a return, which has been received from the Telephone Department, showing the amount of time taken in regard to cut-offs, wrong numbers, double connections, no replies, and similar other matters that have been brought before this House from time to time, and I could prove, if necessary, what a very great improvement has taken place. Everybody must realise that the telephone, is a very difficult service, and the human element makes all the difference. During the War we had a very large number of those who had been employed in the service working elsewhere, and it was quite impossible at the conclusion of the War to be able to give the same service which we can give to-day. I believe that the service will improve greatly in the future.
    In connection with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, as to the Advisory Board, I may say that we are under a debt of obligation to several hon. Members of this House for the great help which they have given to the Department. One, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), who has helped us in various directions and taken a very responsible position, also one whose death we all deplore in this House, the late Sir Edward Coates, who, this time last year, occupied a very prominent position as a Member of the Telephone Committee of this House, and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir Evelyn

    1695
    Cecil), who has recently presided over an important Committee and, if I may say so, has issued a very able Report. So far as the Department is concerned, it is impossible to carry out ail the suggestions made by these Committees. They are all seriously considered, and opportunity is taken to improve the service from the advice which is given. The statement made by my right hon. Friend in regard to the reductions which are being made in the service, I think, has been universally approved. There was very little criticism in regard to deliveries on Sundays. I think the vast majority of people are satisfied that, in the existing circumstances, it is wiser for us to change the present plan by the adoption of despatch. At the same time I sympathise to a very great extent with people in the country who happen to have no second post during the day, as I have received a very large number of complaints from various sources which show that there is a certain amount of inconvenience caused. One or two words now on a matter which has not been mentioned—the position of the National Savings Certificates. The work done by the Money Order Office at: Holloway is very little known. When I went there the other day and asked what was the amount of savings certificates that had been issued, I found that on that particular day it was £433,000,000. About one-fifth was in separate certificates. There was a vast amount of work done by the Post Office, and I think it only right that the Committee should have knowledge of it. I could give the separate figures.
    Mr. HURD: Do you say it was done on one day?
    Mr. PEASE: The amount up to that day. In 1916 the number of certificates was 54,000,000, in 1917 it was 86,000,000, in 1918 139,000,000, in 1919 101,000,000, in 1920 57,000,000, in 1921 54,000,000, and in 1922, from January to March, the vast number of 64,000,000. The total issue numbered 559,000,000, representing the investment of £433,000,000. Of this £104,000,000 has been repaid, with interest of about £11,000,000. The announcement of the withdrawal of the original 15s. 6d. certificates on the 31st March, of course, led to a very large increase in the demand before that time. Everyone will realise that that is a matter of considerable
    1696
    importance to the State. It shows the very large number of people who invest their money in this way. With regard to the Savings Bank, it is true that there has been a serious amount of overtime, but the total amount of work done by women, the average amount per week, is 44½ hours. As to illness, due to overtime work, the sickness is not exceptional compared with times gone by. At the same time it is true that there have been arrears of work, but we are taking steps as far as possible to overcome the difficulties that exist. The amount of work done by the Bank has been very great. I will give some figures showing the change between 1913 and 1921. The number of accounts on 31st December, 1913, was 9,181,000; in the year 1921 the total was 13,680,000. The balance due to depositors in 1913 was £187,248,000; in 1921 it was £264,500,000. The average balance was £20 7s. in 1913, and at the end of 1921 it was £19 7s. The number of deposits and the amount of withdrawals were practically identical in both years. The figures of the business transacted show in a marked way the wider spread of the resources of the people from August, 1914, than in any previous period since the Bank was formed in 1861.
    Mr. HURD: There is a change in the value of money.
    Mr. PEASE: That is so; but at the same time the result is very satisfactory, having regard to the amount of interest that could be obtained from other sources. I am sorry that a criticism in regard to the Savings Bank should have arisen. Many questions have been asked me on the subject on various occasions. I appreciate the remark of an hon. Member, that he realises that both the Postmaster-General and myself are very-anxious indeed that there should be no unnecessary overtime work in the Department and steps have been taken to prevent it in future. With regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, it will be realised that as far as economy in the abstract is concerned it is very popular, but that in the concrete it is very unpopular. I had some controversy with him the other day with regard to certain post offices in the City, and as to whether they should be rebuilt or not. I consider that the State

    1697
    ought to provide quite as good accommodation for those it employs as the average employer.
    Mr. AMMON: Does that refer to sub-offices?
    Mr. PEASE: If my hon. Friend will wait, I will quote those particular words from the statement which has been made on that subject. With regard to removal expenses, I think it is realised what they are and that they relate to the very large number of men transferred from one part of the country to another. At the present moment there are, including the engineers, between 200,000 and 220,000 people employed, and it can be imagined that the total of removal expenses is very considerable. As far as general criticism is concerned, I think we are in general accord as to the desirability of economising in every direction, and I know that the right hon. Baronet, as Chairman of the Estimates Committee, thinks that the Department I represent is quite above the average.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What about the trip allowances?
    Mr. PEASE: I am sorry I cannot give my right hon. Friend details of these traffic allowances?
    Mr. AMMON: They are in connection with travelling post offices.
    Mr. PEASE: As my hon. Friend, who was himself in the service, says, they are concerned with travelling post offices. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) was, as I say, for a long period in the service of the State himself, and I was glad to hear his congratulations especially in regard to the good relationship between Post Office employés and the Postmaster-General. It is certain that there will be difficulties, and there will be questions upon which complications will arise and on which complete agreement will not take place, but on the whole the relationship is of a harmonious nature.
    I wish to mention a question which was raised to-day as to whether assistant superintendents of traffic in the London telephone service appointed as a result of the examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners in December, 1921, have yet had the revision of pay promised in the Commissioner's announcement of
    1698
    the examination and if not when it may be expected. I was also asked whether the pay of assistant superintendents of traffic, London telephone service, is under revision; whether such a revision was stated in the Post Office Circular in September, 1920, to be under consideration, and whether the statement was repeated in the Circular in September, 1921, and when the terms of the revision are likely to be announced. I was not able to give the answers to these questions to-day, but this is the answer:
    "Further consideration of the revision of the scales of pay of assistant superintendents of traffic in the London telephone service, which was referred to in announcements in the Post Office Circular, has had to be postponed pending a decision on various other questions which have been under consideration. I hope that it may be possible to proceed with the matter soon."
    With regard to the scale of payment in sub-post offices, my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and others have raised this matter on various occasions. The question is not a very simple one. In the United Kingdom 93 per cent, of the post offices are worked on a commission basis, and this percentage is equalled or exceeded in the United States of America, Canada, Italy and Sweden, while in Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland the percentage exceeds 80. Anyone can realise it is a very serious question. In 1919, during the Debate on the Post Office Estimates, the suggestion was made that a great many of these men and women employed in sub-post offices were sweated or were paid very little wages, and efforts have been made on many occasions to raise the question in the House on the individual pay given to some particular person. It is quite impossible, however, to judge from any particular case. One has to take a great many cases because there are very many reasons why there should be different scales of payment in different areas. In some sub-post offices the amount of work done for the Post Office is comparatively small, while in other offices the greater part of the work is done by an individual.
    Before the separation of Southern Ireland there were about 22,000 scale payment sub-offices employing about 19,000 assistants. The number now under the control of the British Post Office is round about 20,000 employing about 18,000 assistants. I would be the very last to sug-

    1699
    gest we ought to employ people at inadequate rates of pay; at the same time I should like to say to the hon. Member for Central Bristol that these rates in regard to these individuals are fixed on lists sent in to the Post Office by the sub-postmaster on each occasion. It is utterly impossible for us to pay these people who are employed by the sub-postmasters on the same scales as are paid in the ordinary post offices of the country at the present moment.
    Mr. AMMON:I understand the Minister of Labour is writing to the Postmaster-General on the subject of the Trade Boards Act. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman promise——
    Mr. PEASE: I am not in a position to promise anything about that, but if my hon. Friend likes to put a case before me, I will, of course, see that it is considered. Under the present rules of the Department, the wages and conditions of service of sub-postmasters' assistants shall not be less favourable than those of shop assistants of about the same standing in the service of good employers in the same district. That is as far as we have been able to go, and, as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, I can perfectly well say that he will try and follow that up, and if any hon. Member of this House can find an instance where the remuneration of an individual is supposed to be in the nature of sweated labour, or too low, I will take it into consideration and take up the matter with the sub-postmaster concerned. In regard to the question of Sunday deliveries, the question at once arose as to the position of the trade unions in regard to it, and the whole point is this, whether the Postmaster-General is justified or not in arranging for saving about a million of money by giving up Sunday deliveries and despatch before consulting the trade union. It gives a false impression to say there has been no consultation with the union. This took place, however, after the arrangement had been made in regard to Sunday deliveries, but many modifications have been made which have mitigated the effects of the changes on the staff, and I think these have been appreciated.
    In regard to the question which has been raised more than any other to-day,
    1700
    and that is the question of rural telephone exchanges, my right hon. Friend, with whom I have had some conversation since the question has been mentioned, is very anxious, if possible, to find some means of increasing the facilities in the rural areas. From the adumbrations in his speech, it was quite plain that these facilities which he proposes to grant would lead to greater scope in future. It is difficult to say how far that would extend. It is in the interests of the State, of course, that the Department should send their representatives into these areas and try to improve and increase trade as far as possible, and I can assure hon. Members that the Post Office take a very sympathetic interest in this matter, and realise the great importance of the question of rural exchanges, but when the criticism is made in regard to the United States and this country, there really is no exact parallel. The United States is a very different country from this. If you take, for instance, the number of motor-cars which are used in the United States compared with those for the population in this country, you find a very great difference. I personally think it will be a very long time before telephones are used here to the same extent, as in the United States, but I sec no reason why there should not be a very great increase in the numbers used at the present moment.
    With regard to the Wireless Chain, I quite realise that my hon. Friend opposite has for a long time advocated increased facilities being given, and I should be very glad if it were possible this evening to make some statement to show that this was being carried out as quickly as he would desire, but we have had no definite answer from South Africa, we have only just received a reply from India, and, as he knows, consultations are going to take place shortly in regard to the representatives of Canada.
    Mr. HURD: Does that not prove to the right hon. Gentleman the futility of the Post Office methods after 10 years?
    Mr. PEASE: You have to take into account what has taken place in those 10 years. That made a great deal of difference. If there had been no War in those 10 years, the hon. Member's argument would have been very much stronger. With regard to the Imperial

    1701
    cable service, which runs from Penzance to Halifax (Nova Scotia) via the Azores, it was formerly a German cable running from Emden to New York via the Azores. It is worked by the Post Office at the Central Telegraph Office, London, and by the Pacific Cable Board at Halifax, the expenses of the Halifax station being borne by the Post Office. My hon. Friend referred to the rates. The rate is 4½d. to Canada, the week-end service at quarter rates to Australasia, and the deferred Press rates 2½d. and 4½d. to Canada and Australasia respectively. That, in spite of the depression in trade, the load over the cable remains satisfactory is rather surprising. The cable since its purchase has been leased to one of the Atlantic companies, but is now to be taken over and worked by the Post Office.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us cheaper rates at certain hours to lessen the load?
    Mr. PEASE: I am only speaking for myself when I say the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a very good one. I would be very glad if it could be carried out. I wish to refer to the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), when he said that he hoped next year, if there were a reduction made in the Post Office charges, the first item might be the parcels post. I am hardly telling a secret when I say that that is very near to the heart of the Postmaster-General, who would have liked very much to-night to have been able to decrease the cost of sending parcels. When we consider what my right hon. Friend has been able to accomplish, it is quite as much as the most optimistic person could have thought possible. As to the question of circulars being posted abroad, I have had a great deal of criticism and have received a great number of letters, and answered a large number of letters during the past year.
    The question is, what is the alternative? We have to take into account the question of the exchanges, and everybody will realise when they see what the cost of the particular stamp required is in Austria, Germany and some other countries that it is impossible for us to prevent this trade taking place. It would be impossible also to divert the trade, which is caused by the fact that many of
    1702
    the printers are out of employment owing to the printing being done in foreign countries instead of this. If my hon. and learned Friend can find some method by which we can overcome this difficulty we should be only too glad.
    Mr. INSKIP: I could have suggested a very easy method to the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that he should restore the postage to the same level at which it stood when the contracts were being performed in this country.
    Mr. PEASE: In that case the loss to the nation would be very much greater than it is at the present time. No one could possibly compete with Austria at present, so far as stamps are concerned, or with Germany. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have really considered the matter before he made that suggestion. So far as the total amount of money is concerned, as stated by my right hon. Friend, the amount was £15,000 last year. As he wants to know the monthly figures, he can have them:—September, £152,000; October, £362,000; November, £218,000; December, £219,000; January, £197,000; February, £936,000; March, £339,000. The majority of those circulars were sent by about three or four firms. It is not always entirely to the advantage of the firm to send out these circulars under a foreign stamp, and I hope it will be of less advantage in the future. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) said, I do not think he was in his place when I was speaking.
    Major HILLS: Yes, yes!
    Mr. PEASE: I have dealt with that point as to the question of the Advisory Board. I do not know what the opinion of my right hon. Friend is as to a representative of the National Farmers' Union being a member of that Board. I have no doubt that he will consider the suggestion. With reference to the suggestion that it would be possible to charge 1d. per word for cables for Canada——
    Mr. HURD: No, that is the aim.
    Mr. PEASE: Just one word with reference to the question of restoring newspaper rates. I am told it would cost between £400,000 and £500,000 a year.

    1703
    Everyone will realise that that is a very large sum. There may be a day dawning when it will be possible to carry it out.
    Dr. MURRAY: Was it not stated in Debate last year or the year before that it would be £200,000?
    Mr. PEASE: I am sorry I have not got a copy of that Debate before me now.
    Dr. MURRAY: I read it yesterday.
    Mr. PEASE: These are the figures which I have been given by the Department to-day. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Major Mol-son) asked in regard to the question of calling at the Post Office for letters on Sunday morning, and suggested that it might be possible, for an extra rate, to obtain extra facilities. That has been considered on many occasions, and it is quite impossible. Of course, it seems a very simple matter where the hon. Gentleman is only considering one particular post office, where there is only one man, but when one considers what it would mean to the Service generally it will be seen that it is a very important matter.
    I want to deal with the complaints of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), to whose speech we were all glad to listen. I hope he may often take part in our Debates. I can assure him that very few people have made a more successful maiden speech. Among the complaints he made was one in regard to the question of a motor cycle being used by a man who was not permitted to continue using it. I will inquire into that. I have no knowledge of any law in the Post Office in regard to that question. Those who heard the speeches of the Postmaster-General and my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir H. Norman) will realise that there are great things in store in the development of wireless telegraphy. My right hon.
    Friend opposite was listened to with great attention when he foreshadowed the possibility of hundreds of thousands of people all over the country listening to the speeches of the politicians or the music at some great hall. One must realise that there is the possibility of a great change taking place in a very short time owing to the law registration fee. I sincerely trust, so far as Cambridge is concerned, that there may be some way to meet the difficulty which I know-exists both in respect to postal facilities and the rural telephones and in regard to one or two other matters which have been brought to my notice lately by people in that county of whose council my hon. Friend is Chairman. I have, I think, dealt with most of the criticisms put forward, but there was one thing mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxford. So far as wages are concerned we have to take into consideration that the Arbitration Board has settled the wages of postal servants. In regard to the two figures my hon. Friend gave of £15,000,000 and £45,000,000 they are not comparable, because in one ease the bonus is taken into account and in the other there is no bonus, wages are, roughly, 130 per cent, above pre-War level. I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with other cases; but we desire to obtain this Vote to-night. I sincerely trust that, whatever the delinquencies of the Post Office, the day may dawn in which we shall be able better to carry out the motives of the whole community.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £29,821,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 8: Noes, 92.

    Division No. 04.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Cairns, John

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Sir C. Oman and Sir F. Banbury.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Remer, J. R.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Biane, T. A.

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

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

    Brown, Major D, C.

    Atkey, A. R

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Bruton, Sir James

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Kidd, James

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Elveden, Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Sutton, John Edward

    Evans, Ernest

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Swan, J. E.

    Finney, Samuel

    Manville, Edward

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

    Forrest, Walter

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Neal, Arthur

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Winterton, Earl

    Greene, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Wise, Frederick

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parker, James

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perring, William George

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Hancock, John George

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    McCurdy.

    Resolution agreed to.

    Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
    Committee to sit again on Monday next.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to provide for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses of the Secretary of State under any Act of the present Session to make better provision for furthering British settlement in His Majesty's Oversea Dominions, so however that the aggregate amount expended by the Secretary of State under any scheme or schemes under any such Act shall not exceed one million five hundred
1706
thousand pounds in the current financial year or three million pounds in any subsequent financial year, exclusive of the amount of any sums received by way of interest on or repayment of advances previously made."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  SOCKS (PURCHASES).
  SOCKS (PURCHASES).
  TOWER, SHOREHAM HARBOUR.
  TOWER, SHOREHAM HARBOUR.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  RECORD OFFICES (DISABLED OFFICERS).
  RECORD OFFICES (DISABLED OFFICERS).
  REGIMENTS OF GUARDS.
  REGIMENTS OF GUARDS.
  IMPRISONED DESERTER.
  IMPRISONED DESERTER.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (DEFICIT).
  SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (DEFICIT).
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAY COMPANIES (GUARANTEED LOAN).
  UNDERGROUND RAILWAY COMPANIES (GUARANTEED LOAN).
  HOME GROWN SUGAR LIMITED.
  HOME GROWN SUGAR LIMITED.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE (INITIAL SALARY).
  CIVIL SERVICE (INITIAL SALARY).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  POST OFFICE.
  POST OFFICE.
POST OFFICE.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
  SUB-OFFICES (REMUNERATION).
  SUB-OFFICES (REMUNERATION).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (ASSISTANT SUPER- INTENDENTS OF TRAFFIC, LONDON).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (ASSISTANT SUPER- INTENDENTS OF TRAFFIC, LONDON).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (PROMOTION).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (PROMOTION).
EDUCATION.
  HIGHLY-RATED AEEAS (GEANTS).
  HIGHLY-RATED AEEAS (GEANTS).
  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (WOMEN).
  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (WOMEN).
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  ACCOUNTS (ANNUAL STATEMENT) ORDER.
  ACCOUNTS (ANNUAL STATEMENT) ORDER.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  PRIVATE BILLS AND LOCAL INQUIRIES.
  PRIVATE BILLS AND LOCAL INQUIRIES.
  BOROUGH EXTENSIONS (APPLICATIONS).
  BOROUGH EXTENSIONS (APPLICATIONS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES'ACCOUNTS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES'ACCOUNTS.
HOUSING.
  EJECTMENT, CASTLETHORPE.
  EJECTMENT, CASTLETHORPE.
  THURSO (UNFIT HOUSE).
  THURSO (UNFIT HOUSE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EMPIRE AND FOREIGN TRADE.
  EMPIRE AND FOREIGN TRADE.
  IMPORT DUTIES, AMERICA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY (MOTOR-CAR PARTS).
  IMPORT DUTIES, AMERICA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY (MOTOR-CAR PARTS).
  BRITISH-MADE MARGARINE.
  BRITISH-MADE MARGARINE.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  DYES (FRANCE AND GERMANY).
  DYES (FRANCE AND GERMANY).
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  DUMPING (COMMITTEES' REPORTS).
  DUMPING (COMMITTEES' REPORTS).
  GERMAN ALUMINIUM HOLLOW-WARE.
  GERMAN ALUMINIUM HOLLOW-WARE.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  FORESHORE RIGHTS, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  DOMESTIC SEEVICE.
  DOMESTIC SEEVICE.
  DROGHEDA.
  DROGHEDA.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS (SUBSTITUTION).
  MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS (SUBSTITUTION).
  WOMEN MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  WOMEN MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
  ITALY AND TURKEY (AGREEMENT).
  ITALY AND TURKEY (AGREEMENT).
  TURKEY AND GREECE.
  TURKEY AND GREECE.
  EGYPT (ZAGHLOUL PASHA).
  EGYPT (ZAGHLOUL PASHA).
  HORSE BREEDING (GRANTS).
  HORSE BREEDING (GRANTS).
  CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).
  CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).
  CROWN v. WILTS UNITED DAIRIES, LIMITED.
  CROWN v. WILTS UNITED DAIRIES, LIMITED.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL of DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the powers of the Courts of the Universities of Scotland in the making of Ordinances for the superannuation and pensioning of principals and professors, and for the admission of lecturers and readers to the Senatus Academicus, and to provide for the admission of lecturers and readers to membership of the General Councils of those Universities; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Indian High Courts Bill, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name. It is the usual Motion made at this period of the session.
Moved, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 15th of June next:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 15th of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the
236
Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday, the 9th instant next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday, the 11th instant next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday, the 11th instant next.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CARDIFF EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by Select Committee made.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a very modest measure. It is supported by the Scapa Society, the Royal Automobile Club, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the National Trust, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Before I explain its provisions, which I can do very shortly, it may be as well if I point out that, strangely enough, until quite recent times the eye, as compared with the other senses, has received no protection at the hands of the law, whereas the nose is protected against offensive odours, and the ear is protected against offensive noises. The result of this has been that the country, to a great extent, is covered with advertisements, many of them of an objectionable character; the view of the advertiser being, apparently, that the more incongruous the situation the greater will be the effect produced upon the public. I have often wondered what the traditional intelligent foreigner must have thought who, after a journey from Dover to London and passing these monstrosities, was told that not only was it impossible to forbid them, but that they were not even taxed.

237
I said that it was only in recent years that any attempt was made to cope with this evil, but fortunately the advertisers over-reached themselves by their own energy. When one enterprising gentleman put up a huge advertisement on Dover cliffs, and somebody else utilised the Nelson column, and a third person Edinburgh Castle, for an advertisement, the local patience was exhausted, and provisions were introduced into private Bills for the purpose of suppressing this nuisance. It was constantly the case, I believe, that in promoting private Bills a provision of this kind was introduced, but very frequently it was refused. After a considerable amount of work chiefly on the part of that excellent Society, the Scapa Society, and on the part of many public-spirited individuals, at last, in 1907, a Bill was passed, with the assistance of the Government of the day. That Bill contained a very important principle, because it laid down that the public, acting through their local authorities, had the right to protect scenery from defacement.
The 1907 Bill, I may observe, was mildness itself, being of an extremely limited character, and confined practically to the protection of public pleasure grounds, to the height of hoardings, and to cases where the natural beauty of the landscape was disfigured. However monstrous and objectionable advertisements might be, they obtained a new lease of life for five years, and there was no possibility of interfering with them. All that the present Bill does is slightly to increase the powers of local authorities and to enable them to exercise a more general control over the amenities of their streets and local landscapes. It is obvious that some extension of the 1907 Bill is required, because there is very little protection, at present, for the neighbourhood of a cathedral or church, or for the street which has architectural merits.
The Bill is not directed against advertisements as advertisements, but against advertisements which are in the wrong place. No sane person is opposed to advertisement in principle. In the present day it is a necessity for the purpose of enabling a person who wants to buy something to obtain the necessary information. What we contend is that advertisement is unreasonable when it is used as a weapon of offence, and consists, as it often does, of more or less inaccurate and mendacious statements repeated with wearisome iteration.
238
I cannot imagine why anyone should be afraid of the present Bill. Urban councils, town councils, and county councils are the authorities under the Bill, and if they are prepared to act they have to submit their by-laws to the close scrutiny of the Home Office. My own fear is that the measure may not be sufficiently drastic and that there may be a large number of local authorities who will not take advantage of the Bill.
In the happy event of their doing so, the first thing to disappear will be, I imagine, what are known as "field boards." I understood that these field boards had no friends except those who are responsible for their erection, but to my surprise I found that they had powerful friends in this House. Last year Lord Askwith introduced a Bill somewhat similar to the measure I am now proposing and it was killed by the Lord Chancellor in the space of ten minutes by the ridicule he heaped upon the proposal to do away with field boards. I remember that the Lord Chancellor expressly denied the charge that he was a Philistine. His argument ran: "What is a field board? A gigantic bottle conveys nothing to me; neither does a sausage nor an elephant. I look upon it merely as a landmark which tells me how far I have advanced upon my journey." There is no doubt something to be said from the point of view of the traveller, but if the Lord Chancellor was condemned to live permanently in the neighbourhood of a bottle or a sausage he would regard these creations with somewhat different feelings.
The Bill was also opposed on more serious grounds by two pillars of industry, Lord Southwark and Lord Riddell, both of whom represented it as a most serious menace to the industries of the country. Lord Riddell made the interesting admission that he would be glad if this particular form of advertisement could be suppressed. He said newspapers were not in favour of it. I fancy my noble friend Lord Riddell must undergo many pangs, because I observe that his own organ is, perhaps, more extensively advertised than any other, and I should attach greater weight to these objections, and to the menace to our industries, if it had not been for the fact that many of these advertisements represented goods of foreign origin, and, before the war, frequently of German origin.

239
I do not know whether I am personally of a peculiar nature, but the effect that all these appeals produce on me is exactly the opposite to that which is intended. If these advertisements adhered more strictly to the truth I should have less objection to them, but they are frequently competitors in inaccuracy, and the impression they always leave upon me is such that if I had a chance I would infinitely prefer to buy some other commodity than that which is so advertised. There is a particular brand of whisky manufactured, I believe, by a gentleman who is a member of this House. I do not know whether he is present or not this afternoon, and perhaps what I am saying would not weigh very much with him. But in no circumstances, in view of his advertisements, would I ever drink his whisky if I could obtain anything else.
The fact is that we are slowly realising that these blatant advertisements do not produce the effect intended. There has been some discussion recently in The Times on this subject, and sonic of the more important firms, who have hitherto been conspicuous by their activity, have expressed the opinion that they are wasting their money. One firm which advertises very extensively, announced that they recognise that public feeling is against them, and the other day the representatives of Bovril, another extensively advertised commodity, stated that the firm did not approve the policy of spoiling country scenery. May I also say that the motor industry, represented by the Automobile Club, is supporting this Bill, and they have co-operated with the societies I have mentioned for the purpose of securing the abolition of the tyre advertisement which now covers the country. If it had not been for the obstinate opposition of one firm I believe that this advertisement would have disappeared altogether. It is becoming recognised that this is a waste of money, and when I hear these fears of impending disaster, I am reminded of the fact that in former days when I was a member of Parliament it was considered necessary to spend large sums of money for placards and pictures. I shudder when I think of all the atrocities which were perpetrated in my name. Now all that expenditure has disappeared, and nobody is any the worse for it. That is a point of view which is gaining ground.
On the other hand, advertisement is such an obsession at the present moment that anybody who presumes to criticise it is
240
denounced as a hopeless reactionary. The spirit of the advertiser is well illustrated by a remark reported to have been made by a noble Lord at a function the other day, where, addressing his brother "boosters," he observed that the choice of the present Viceroy of India must be looked upon as a splendid advertisement for the town of Reading. There speaks the real spirit of the advertiser. Apparently, there is a reasonable prospect of our postage stamps being used for the purpose of advertisement, and we may contemplate the possibility of the Sovereign's head being in close juxtaposition with a quack remedy or something of that kind. We are also threatened with the placarding of lamp posts and the inside of post offices with advertisements. So many persons are obsessed with this passion for advertisement that I am convinced that there are any number who, if they had the chance, would plaster the dome of St. Paul's, Cleopatra's Needle, and anything else they could get hold of. I sometimes wonder that they do not suggest that the bald heads of their middle-aged friends should be utilised for the same purpose.
The obsession of advertisement has been carried to such a pitch that it is transferred from commodities to persons. I do not suppose that any commodity, or, so far as that goes, any person has been so extensively advertised as the present Prime Minister. There is literally nothing about that distinguished man that is unknown to us. We are supplied gratis with his biography; we see him, in the illustrated papers, in the recesses of his library; we see him gazing into graves, or romping with his children round Christmas trees, or planting potatoes. His only rival in publicity is that great journalistic hydra-headed rival whose doings are reported, no doubt at enormous expense, and the particulars of whose very meals are communicated to us across Continents and hemispheres.
The passion has even become international. A meeting of the Supreme Council is as much advertised as the movements of cinema artists on a holiday tour. We see these illustrious beings depart for the place of rendezvous; we see them represented in more or less unbecoming attitudes and clothes; we see photographs of them inculcating golf, probably on totally erroneous principles, and with fatal results upon the political career of at least one of the participators. The obsession

241
of publicity on the part of many public men is so great that I am convinced there are a number of people who, if they were on their deathbeds, would arrange, if possible, to have massed brass bands beneath their windows in order to advertise the fact, unless they were forbidden by some local by-law.
All this, however, does not really concern us, and the kind of advertisement to which I have alluded appears in its proper place in the Press, where it has to be paid for by somebody. All that concerns us in this Bill is to give local authorities and the public the right of preserving the amenities of their streets and monuments, and, above all, those rural amenities which are one of the greatest assets of this country, more valuable here than in other countries on account of the overcrowded state of our land. I venture to repeat that there is nothing in this Bill to which any reasonable person could take exception, and I trust that I may obtain for it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I have no wish to hinder this Bill in any way, nor is there any such desire on the part of the railway companies. Indeed, we have always wished to improve the landscape for those who travel in our trains, and we have shown the genuineness of our endeavours to embellish the country by the magnificent permanent ways which we have laid down through rural districts. There is one small Amendment, however, which I shall move in Committee, as to the effect of the Bill in the open stations of our lines, which might be to prevent the exhibition of time tables. This is such a small matter that I am sure the noble Lord will accept the Amendment when the right time comes.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this is the third time within the last two years that this matter has been brought before the House in the form of a Bill coming up for Second Reading. Although hitherto no opposition has been evinced to the proposals of my noble friend, the debate on the last occasion, as he has already mentioned, did show that there is a very considerable difference of opinion in regard to the points at issue, and it must be considered that this subject is distinctly a controversial one.
242
In these circumstances, and in view of the pressure of other matters upon their time and attention, and also of the fact that they certainly would not be able to give facilities for the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government do not feel that they are in position to give any undertaking either one way or another. We feel that before it would be possible to consider the question of lending assistance to a Bill of this nature, signs of a greater measure of agreement must be shown between those who support the Bill and those who oppose it.
Taking this particular Bill on its merits, even if there were no opposition to the principle of the measure, I may say that from a Departmental and administrative point of view there is considerable doubt whether the procedure which the Bill proposes to enact is the right method of dealing with this problem. It is true, as my noble friend has said, that the Bill does no more than extend the provisions of the Advertisements Regulation Act of 1907, and it adds the smaller urban district councils to the local authorities brought under that Act. In practice, however, it has been found in the administration of the Act of 1907 that the procedure of that Act presents many difficulties, and experience of the working of the Act suggests that this procedure is not the most suitable or effective means of dealing with this problem. From the Departmental and administrative standpoint, therefore, this Bill would not, in the opinion of my right honourable friend's Department, be so effective in furthering the cause which its promoters have in view as they may perhaps hope. At the same time, as I have said, the Government do not wish to take any part on one side or the other, and should my noble friend wish to proceed to a Division, the Government will leave the matter entirely in your Lordships' hands.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is very different from the measure introduced last year and criticised by the Lord Chancellor. This Bill is extremely simple, and, whatever may be said about its procedure, it is difficult to see how anyone can seriously oppose the object which it has in view. That object may be gathered from the first clause of the Bill which gives power to local authorities—

243
"to make byelaws for regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places, in such manner and by such means as to—

(a) affect injuriously the amenities or disfigure the aspect of a town, village or street, or of any historic or public building or monument or any place frequented by the public on account of its beauty or historic interest; or

(b) disfigure the aspect of landscape or interfere with the view of rural scenery from a road or railway, or from any public place or water."

No one can see the advertisements by which places of great beauty are often disfigured without thinking that this Bill has a most commendable object, and, in my view, that object could not be stated in simpler terms than in the clause to which I have just referred. I do not think that anybody can object to legislation for this purpose.
During the debate last year a good deal was said by some noble Lord about possibly interfering with the legitimate purposes of manufacture and trade. I cannot think that that is a sound argument. It has been said that you must tolerate tall chimneys and factories, because on them the industries of the country depend. I agree. We must submit to a certain loss of amenity in the interests, the substantial interests, of the country, but these advertisements are not in the interests of the country; they are merely put there for the purpose of puffing the wares in which the persons who put up the advertisements happen to be interested. I cannot see why any one is entitled to complain of not being allowed to disfigure the beauty spots of the country, or to disfigure some spot of historic interest in a town, by erecting these unsightly and unpleasant advertisements to which attention has been called.
I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It may be, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl who represents the Government, that the procedure is capable of improvement. If so, I am certain that that will be attended to in Committee, and that any reasonable improvement will be made. At the same time, the machinery is exceedingly simple and there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions in case the procedure is not complied with, and I assume that the promoters of the Bill will be ready to consider any other suggestions that can be made to make the procedure more effective and possibly more simple. For these reasons I hope
244
that the Bill will receive the approval of this House.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, as I was responsible for the Bill of last year I may say that I did not divide the House upon it for three reasons. One was that the House was very empty at the time; another was that the Lord Chancellor made an extremely funny speech, which was perhaps the most sarcastic indictment of these advertisements that can be thought of; and the third was that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, whose absence to-day we all regret, was unable to support it, although he is chairman of one of the principal societies concerned, because he considered that the terms of the Bill were rather too drastic. Those are the reasons why the Bill was withdrawn. This Bill is not nearly so drastic as mine was, and I support it as a matter of business. I do not think that any advertisement firms who carry on their business legitimately can be hurt by it.
I have received from a very large number of places in the country resolutions in favour of something being done. They state that places of resort, where tourists come to see beautiful scenery, meet with objection owing to the disfiguring advertisements which they have no power to put down, and they would like to have more simple means of dealing with these advertisements than exist at the present time under the Act of 1907. For that Act Lord Balfour of Burleigh was responsible. He was also responsible for a Bill brought in during the summer of the year that he died. I took up another Bill trying to amend his Bill, to bring it more into conformity with suggestions made by the Home Office. That Bill was withdrawn. Now Lord Newton has brought in a very innocuous Bill, which I think your Lordships should pass.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, before I deal with the provisions of this Bill, to which I am going to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading,

245
I hope I may be permitted to say a few words in order to show what an important matter this question of allotments has become in the country, how closely it affects the lives of so many people, and what interest it is to many thousands of our population. The allotments movement during recent years has been growing to an enormous extent. The figures that we have are not absolutely reliable, because local authorities and others have not always furnished returns, but I think the figures are sufficiently reliable to prove to your Lordships that this matter does concern a very large part of our population.
In 1914, prior to the war, it was estimated that in England and Wales, excluding rural parishes having no parish councils, there were 101,592 acres let to 453,627 allotment holders. On December 1, 1920, which is the latest date for which returns are available, there were 157,620 acres let to 1,163,790 allotment holders; that is to say, that from 1914 to the end of 1920 there had been an increase in the acreage of allotments of 56,000 acres, and in the number of allotment holders of 700,000 persons. I do not think it is worth my while to deal further with the subject, because any of your Lordships knows well that if you take a railway journey of any length through any portion of England or Wales you will see, around almost all our towns, a regular circle or belt of land cultivated as allotments. Nor do I think it is necessary for me to dwell upon the importance of this allotment movement to the people themselves. The Departmental Committee on which I sat had overwhelming evidence of how much these allotments are valued by the present holders, and also of how large a number of people still require allotments.
It is proved conclusively that these allotment gardens provide a valuable addition to our home food supplies; that the vegetables grown upon them are most valuable to the holders and their families; that they provide healthy work and recreation for many men who lead sedentary lives in the towns; and also that they largely tend to eliminate social unrest, especially in times of discontent and unemployment. Further, the fact that allotment holders in no way consist of one class of the population, but include people of all professions and trades who have a common interest in allotments and allotment societies, has the same tendency, as was once said of the hunting field, to bring
246
people together who would not otherwise meet. I will not, therefore, detain your Lordships longer on those two aspects of the matter.
I have no doubt that the first question which will arise in many of your Lordships' minds will be this. You will say: "if the allotments have increased to this enormous extent and things seem to be going on pretty smoothly, why introduce fresh legislation to deal with the matter? Why not leave well done" In order to explain why, in our opinion, fresh legislation is necessary I shall have briefly to explain what happened during the war. Under the D.O.R.A. powers the Ministry entered on a large area, mainly unoccupied land, with the local authorities acting as their agents, in order to increase the food supply of the nation at a time when the country was afraid of starvation. Under the powers of that Act allotment gardens were provided for more than 250,000 persons. In April, 1921, the Minister decided to withdraw as from March 25, 1923, from possession of all lands entered on for allotments under the Defence of the Realm Act.
The first reason that guided the Ministry in taking that course was the difficulty, nearly five years after the signing of the Armistice, of justifying the use of war emergency legislation for the purpose of retaining possession of land for allotments. There was, secondly, the desirability of placing the provision of allotments on a more permanent basis as regards tenure; and, thirdly, there was the necessity of reducing the Ministry's expenditure in the interests of national economy. The Ministry considered that they had held this land quite long enough, and that it was high time that a settlement was made with the owners, the compensation paid up, and the whole matter between the Ministry and the plot holders settled once for all. As your Lordships will remember, the Ministry of Agriculture before the war had never been an allotment authority. The authorities for allotments were the different local councils throughout the country, and we considered that it was high time that we reverted to the old practice; that the Ministry should settle up its accounts at the latest by March, 1923; and that the local authorities should again become the proper authorities for allotments.
The Minister's decision to withdraw from the allotments caused great consternation

247
among the plot holders. They have done exceedingly well. They produced a large amount of food during the time that the country wanted food very much, and there is no doubt that a great many of these men, especially in towns, appreciated their allotments very highly, and desired to retain the land as long as possible, or to obtain other land in place of it. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland received a deputation of the National Union of Allotment Holders, who put the case very strongly to the Ministers, and they decided to appoint a Departmental Committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, to inquire into the whole matter. That Committee contained people representative of all interests. It might be said of it, as I think has been said of a good many Departmental Committees, that we were all rather inclined to play for the interests that we represented. I have often felt that some of the people sitting on these Committees should be in the witness box giving evidence, instead of hearing it, as many of them in this case knew a great deal of the facts of the case, and had formed strong opinions on the subject. The result, however, was highly satisfactory, and it is, I think, some argument in favour of the proposals that I am bringing forward to-day that, in spite of the composition of the Committee, representing different interests, we were enabled —I confess, by mutual concessions—to present a unanimous Report, and no single member entered a word of protest on any point. That goes to prove, I think, that these proposals have received careful examination and embody no very dangerous doctrine.
I will now refer briefly to the chief provisions of the Bill. Let us consider Clauses 1 and 2 together, because it was really on those clauses, which are perhaps the most important in the Bill, that the compromise was effected. The evidence given by representatives of the allotment holders was unanimous on the point that there was a keen desire for security of tenure. It is obvious that the cultivators of allotments would be more likely to make good use of their land, with the result of better cultivation and increased production, if security of tenure were made possible. This security can only be obtained if land is purchased, but, owing to the high capital value of the land in the vicinity of urban districts, where the demand is keenest, it is not possible, as a general rule, for land to be
248
purchased for allotments; it can only be hired, subject to its resumption by the owner if he requires it for building, mining, or other industrial purposes.
Bound up with the question of tenure of what may be described as building land is the question of the payment of compensation to the allotment holder when he has to give up the land, upon the owner requiring it for building. It was fairly clear that, as regards every class of land, the allotment holders would prefer sufficiently long notice to enable them to harvest their crops rather than compensation for dispossession. The Committee had, therefore, to consider what was the best means of enabling the wishes of the allotment holders and the national interest in regard to food production to be met, without prejudicing unduly the interests of the owners of land, the provision of houses, and the general industrial development of towns. The proposals contained in Clauses 1 and 2 are a compromise between the claims of all interests concerned on this point.
In the case of land for allotments not required for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, the basis of the Bill is that the tenant of an allotment garden must receive at least six months' notice to quit, and, moreover, this notice must not expire between March 25 and September 29, which is the normal summer cropping season of allotments. The object, of course, is to enable the plot holder to harvest his crops. As a set-off to this extended notice the allotment holder will no longer be entitled to compensation for disturbance under the Agriculture Act, 1920, or for compensation for crops under the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, as the six months' notice will, of course, give him time to harvest his crops. Where the owner reasonably desires to resume possession of this land for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, he can do so by giving three months' notice, but in that case he will have to pay compensation for the crops and unexhausted manure, though he will not have to pay compensation for disturbance or for labour.
Clause 1 will not affect the operation of any notice to quit, re-entry made, or proceedings for recovery of possession commenced before the date of the passing of the Act; and, similarly, Clause 2 will not apply to any tenancy which is terminated

249
by the effluxion of time before the date of the passing of the Act, or when notice to quit has been given, re-entry made, or proceedings for recovery of possession commenced before that date. The proposal in these two clauses is an attempt to balance the scales evenly between the parties concerned. In the opinion of the Committee who reported in its favour, it would not have the affect of retarding the development of land or building, and would at the same time give the plot holders a greater security of tenure and would do away with the grievance of their having to turn out in the middle of their cropping season and, after being turned out, of nothing being done with the land.
Clause 4 makes certain amendments in existing legislation as regards the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments. Section 1 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, provides that an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments in England and Wales duly made before August 19, 1922, need not be submitted to and confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Committee heard evidence both from the representatives of the local authorities and the allotment holders urging that this period should be extended in order that the procedure of compulsory acquisition might be modified and shortened. They felt that the time was very short and that if all these Orders had to be confirmed by the Ministry—which always meant that a Commissioner had to be sent down, a public Inquiry held, and other procedure gone through—it would entail a good deal of delay in enabling people to provide land for those men who were going to be dispossessed. Very strong evidence was placed before the Committee that the need for having such Orders confirmed should be put off for another year.
Subsection (2) of this clause facilitates the temporary user for allotments of land of railways and other public undertakings which is not required for the moment for the purpose of the undertaking. I might say, in passing, that the railways have been, perhaps, the very best friends of allotment holders. They have willingly given for the purpose of allotments land which was not required at the moment. It was pointed out to the Committee that land had been bought for waterworks or other public utility services, and in some cases lay waste in considerable stretches. And it was
250
suggested that until it was necessary to erect works upon it, that land, instead of lying waste, should be allowed to be cultivated as allotments.
Clause 5 enables borough and urban district councils to purchase land voluntarily for perpetual rents instead of paying cash. There are cases where the purchase price would be heavy, and some difficulty would be experienced in finding the money to buy the land. If it can he voluntarily agreed this clause permits the allotment authority to acquire the land in that manner.
Clause 6 confers on borough and urban councils practically the same powers as regards unoccupied land as are at present possessed by the Ministry under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, except that in this case the owner is given power to resume possession by giving the ordinary six months' notice, or on one month's notice if the land is reasonably required for any other purpose than agriculture. A large area of land was converted into allotments during the war, as I have already stated, and the proposal in this clause merely enables owners of land which might otherwise remain or become derelict to be used for allotments until they require it for any purpose other than agriculture. Inasmuch as the owner can resume possession at one month's notice if the land is reasonably required for other than agricultural purposes, any objection on that score would appear to be met. We all know that on the outskirts of London there is a large amount of land which has been partly built upon, and that during the war those portions which were not being built upon were cultivated as allotments. The object of this clause is to prevent this land becoming derelict land when, very likely, no building operations would take place on it for another year or two. If the price of building comes down a good deal of this land will undoubtedly be very speedily built upon, and will no longer be available for allotments. At the present moment there seems to be a certain check in the building trade, and it is a pity that men should be turned out of this land until building operations really commence, at a time when the councils are perhaps quite unable to find other land.
Clause 7 restricts the obligation of borough and urban authorities to the

251
provision of allotment gardens of twenty poles. That we consider quite sufficient for allotment gardens in urban areas. Clause 8 requires allotment authorities in boroughs or urban districts to establish an allotments committee and to furnish that Committee with a substantial portion of co-opted members representative of allotment holders. A great many of those interested in the allotments movement were most anxious that a clause such as this should be inserted. They believed it would have the effect of removing the friction which occasionally arose between councils and allotment holders and would tend in that way to the better administration of the allotments. They also believed that claims could be better attended to in certain councils where a rather unsympathetic attitude was taken up by the members of the council.
There is a feeling that there are sonic councils—who are the allotment authorities throughout the country—who would practically turn down every suggestion made by the allotment holders, and really do not put their best efforts forward to try to secure land which really is available and would be suitable. Those who are interested in the allotments movement are most anxious that these committees should be set up. By this means they think that they will get better attention and be able to secure land in certain places where the councils have refused to take any action whatever. There is a proviso in the clause stating that there may be certain boroughs in which it would be unnecessary to insist upon such a committee being set up, and the Minister has power, in those cases, to say that it shall not be insisted upon.
Clause 9 merely extends the power of county councils to let land for allotments. The county council already has power to let land to a parish council for allotments, but it has no power to let allotments direct to allotment holders. By Clause 10 the county council of a borough or urban district working a tramway or omnibus service is enabled to charge reduced fares to occupiers of allotment gardens provided by the council when the allotment holders are using the tramway or omnibus service for the purpose of going to and from their allotments. It was considered by many that in some of our large cities where it was impossible to obtain land at a sufficiently low price to enable plot holders to take up that land, there might be highly
252
suitable land a little distance out of the town, and that if the allotment holders had access to it by means of a cheap method of getting to and from, it would be highly desirable that such land should be purchased, and let to them. This is purely permissive on the part of the council and merely enables them, if such a state of things exists, to give preferential treatment in the way of travelling facilities to allotment holders when they are going to and from their allotments.
Clause 11 readjusts the financial conditions as to allotments, but maintains the principle that the allotment undertaking is intended to be self-supporting. There may, however, be paid out of the rates the legal and other incidental expenses attaching to the acquisition of land, the cost of public roads across the allotments, and the sinking fund charges for redemption of the purchase money. This latter has always been a grievance. I do not know that it is a very substantial one, because it does not really put up the rent of the allotments to any great extent. There has, however, always been a feeling that if the sinking fund is included in the rent the allotment holders are practically buying the land for the council, and that at the end of the term of eighty years, or whatever period the loan is granted for, the allotment holders have really bought the land for the council.
The rating of allotments is dealt with in Clause 12. There was a good deal of difference of opinion as to how allotments at the present time were rated, and apparently there was some difference in various parts of the country regarding the rating of allotments. This clause lays it down that the local authority providing land for allotments may be rated as occupiers and not the allotment holders. Clause 13 extends to eighty years the period for which loans may be borrowed, while Clause 14 deals with a matter connected with the New Forest which I do not think I need explain at the present time. Perhaps when we get into Committee, if we do so, I may make an explanation in regard to it.
There is nothing of particular note to be said in regard to the interpretation clause, though reference may be made to two points, perhaps. In the first part of Clause 15 the allotment garden is defined as an area not exceeding 40 poles which is cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable

253
crops. I think that I ought to refer also to an exception in Clause 15 providing that where any question arises as to whether land utilised for allotments is reasonably required by a private landlord for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, the matter shall be determined by a certificate issued by the Minister of Agriculture. To this there may be a certain amount of opposition, but I may say that we here follow the precedent laid down in Section 46 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. This section provides that where land has been compulsorily hired for allotments the landlord can resume possession for building, etc., if he can satisfy the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he requires it for that purpose. In this matter we are following the precedent of the previous Act.
It is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length in dealing further with the clauses of the Bill. To sum up, I may say that Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 8 are the chief clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 gives greater security of tenure to the allotment holder, and enables him to secure his crop. Clause 2 relieves the landowner of the heavy and uncertain compensation he has to pay on resuming possession of his land. Speaking from my own experience, and I think it may also be the experience of many of your Lordships—and we had evidence to that effect—I believe that one of the causes which operates against a landowner being willing to let his land for allotments is the fear that when he wants possession of his land he is liable to very heavy and uncertain compensation. We believe that if this fear is removed, and if it is known that the landowner can resume possession of his land at six months' notice at any time except between the dates I have mentioned, he will be much more willing to let the land for allotments than he has been previously.
Clause 8 is considered of very great importance by both the present and prospective allotment holders. There is a feeling, justly or unjustly, among the allotment holders, present and prospective, that certain councils do not give them fair play, and do not look after their interests. They attach the greatest importance to the allotment holders having a committee set up, on which they would be represented, to place their case before the councils. Of course, anything decided upon by these committees in connection with administrative, legislative or financial matters
254
would have to be sanctioned by the council. Clause 6, which is also of very great importance, allows councils to enter upon unoccupied land which is defined here as land not rated—that is, practically waste land.
The evidence that we had before us showed that in days gone by the allotments question was always considered a rural one. During recent years, however, there can be no doubt that it has ceased to a great extent to be rural, and has become a most pressing and burning urban question. To those noble Lords who would criticise, and perhaps even oppose this Bill, I should like to say that it is of no use, as certain critics have already done, to pay lip service to the value of the allotments movement and do absolutely nothing to further it. I can fully appreciate, and admit, the great difficulty of dealing with the matter, and the difficulty lies in the fact that, unfortunately, where the demand for allotments is keenest the supply of land available is the least. That is the great difficulty we have to face. I do not think we heard any witness who favoured the expropriation of the owner or who wished to obtain allotments by taking the property of other people.
One of the chief causes of irritation among allotment holders has been that after they have been turned off their allotments a few scaffold poles have been dumped down on the crop they were not able to reap and then for month after month nothing else was done. The allotment holder walking to his work would pass his allotment with these scaffold poles on it, and the land lying derelict and waste. It is hoped that such grievances will be remedied by this Bill. Allotment authorities will have better powers to acquire land while doing no injury to owners of property. On these grounds; therefore, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' notice. It is a question which will, no doubt, greatly interest many of your Lordships who have had much experience in the management of land and allotments. In dealing with this matter I hope you will always bear in mind the extreme urgency of the case, and the fact that thousands of people now living in our towns desire these allotments.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I can candidly say that this is the most difficult

255
Bill to read and understand I have ever seen. It is legislation by reference run mad. What we want is a Bill expressing in clear language exactly what the law is to be so that the land owner and every member of a local authority, as well as every allotment holder, may know exactly what the position is. A rather curious provision is inserted in the measure whereby a parish meeting, not a parish council, comes into the Bill with certain powers to act. I should like to attend one of these parish meetings in order to see the faces of the members when they read this Bill and endeavour to make out exactly what their powers are. The epithets that will be hurled at the head of the Minister will probably surpass those at Billingsgate.
Why has not the Minister introduced a consolidating Bill making the position perfectly clear? In order to know how the matter stands it is necessary to study at least eight, if not ten, Acts of Parliament. Why may not people make their own contracts without the interference of the Minister, who, under this Bill, is claiming the powers of a Lenin or Trotsky? The noble Earl who has just introduced it referred to one of the greatest blots on the measure—namely, that it will hold up and impede the building industry. It will be extremely difficult to acquire for building land which has been let for allotments; in fact, it will be impossible unless the Minister gives a certificate. I want to know why the Minister is to give a certicate. The Bill says a certificate will be given if the land is "reasonably required" for building purposes. Why reasonably? If it is required for building purposes it is required for building purposes. Why is the Minister to say it the building purpose is reasonable or not?
Allotments have been provided in many places by many individuals, and in the agreement there is usually a clause which says that the land can be taken back for any purpose other than agricultural. Not a bit of it, says the Minister; only if I give my certificate. The Land Union, on whose behalf I am speaking, has aways been favourable to the creation of allotments. They gave evidence before the Departmental Committee on Allotments and have always laid great stress on the necessity for providing allotments. But they have always emphasised the necessity of being able to re-enter the land when it is required for building. That is not granted in the Bill as an application has to be made to the Minister for his consent.
256
Where the land has been compulsorily acquired, under Section 1 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, contracts have been made as to getting back the land. Those contracts are all being upset by this Bill. The same remark applies to land, which has been voluntarily let, either to a council or individual. The contract is being upset. I was always under the impression that it was the duty of Parliament to enforce contracts, not to break them. The position is further aggravated by the measure which the Minister of Agriculture is to introduce consolidating certain enactments relating to agricultural holdings. In that Bill allotments are referred to, and now comes this present Bill which will upset the consolidating Bill. I hope my noble friend will agree to hold up the consolidating Agricultural Holdings Bill until the present measure becomes law in order that it may also be incorporated in the Consolidation Bill.
My noble friend referred to the clause which gives the Minister power to say that a borough council or urban district council need not, if he exempts them, setup an allotment committee. I am rather doubtful about that. I should have thought that a borough council and an urban district council would know best whether allotments were required in the district and whether an allotment committee should be set up. Under the Bill an allotment committee must be set up unless the Minister gives an exemption.
The pedigree of this Bill is by confusion out of mystery. Why do the Government wrap up their intentions in such mystery? Why have they brought in what I can only call this confused measure? The position as regards getting back land for building purposes, as my noble friend explained—though I do not think he explained it fully —is, so far as I can make out, as follows. Land which has been taken under D.O.R.A. remains with unaltered conditions, and there is no right of re-entry. If unrated D.O.R.A. lands are required and are in urban districts, then the right of entry is at one month if the Minister gives a certificate, but in the case of land compulsorily acquired under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, with an agreed clause for re-entry, this can only be enforced with a certificate at a minimum of three months, and the same applies to voluntary agreements, also with a minimum of three months, notwithstanding anything in the contract to the contrary.

257
My point is that it will impede the building industry, if you have to wait for the Minister to give his certificate. We are short enough of houses in all conscience at the present moment, and we do not want another Minister to come and interfere with building. I am thinking of what will happen if an individual buys a plot of land to build a house. He has no certainty that the Minister will grant a certificate. I am assuming that the land is naturally used for allotments. Some of us have had rather bad experiences of Government Departments' methods in replying to letters. Is such a man certain of getting his certificate within three months, supposing there are hundreds of applications coming to the Minister for leave to get hold of the land? I should really like to suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw this Bill and bring in another in its place, a clear straightforward Bill, so that every one will know exactly where he is. If he does not see his way to do that, I most earnestly press him to give an interval of at least three weeks between the Second Reading and the Committee stage.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that it is desirable to withdraw this Bill, because it seems to me very necessary that we should proceed with legislation to deal with this question in some direction without delay. I rise, therefore, as a supporter of the Bill. I may say that I have for a very long time taken an interest in the extension of allotments. Anything that I could do in that way was gladly done, because I am of opinion that the extension of allotments throughout the country is a vital necessity to the welfare of our national life as a whole.
There is, however, one point to which I should like to draw attention with reference to the powers given in Clause 4, subsection (2), as they may affect lands which have been let out for allotments by public authorities such as railway companies and dock and harbour trusts. As your Lordships know, these public authorities have in the past freely let land for the purpose of allotments. It seems to me absolutely necessary, when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill, that it should be made clear that there is a distinction between the method of dealing with this class of land and land occupied by individual owners for personal purposes. I do not see why a public authority which has been
258
set up by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out public duties in the interest of trade and the development of commerce should, when they require to resume possession of land for the purpose of developing their business, be obliged to go to the Minister of Agriculture for his consent to do so. I hope, and indeed I feel sure, that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give his sympathetic consideration to the point which I have raised when we come to the Committee stage.
Danger is threatened to these public authorities not only by Clause 4, subsection (2), but also by Clause 6. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage it will made plain that there is, and must be, a clear distinction between land let for allotments by a private individual and land let by a public authority which requires it for the benefit of the interests for which it has been set up. I may say that I listened with much pleasure to the very clear statement made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in support of the main grounds upon which it is necessary that we should pass it, and I hope that, subject to the necessary Amendments, it will be passed without delay.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with all the opinions to which my noble friend has just given expression. Like him, I am strongly in favour of allotments, but I cannot say that I am very strongly in favour of this Bill. Perhaps I am not sufficiently hardened, and one has no right to express any surprise at the doings of the Government, unless by accident they are consistent, but I must confess I am surprised that the noble Earl has not explained to the House why, on the very same day on which he brings in a Consolidation Bill for agricultural holdings, he should also bring in a Bill dealing with allotments which completely upsets many of the provisions of his Consolidation Bill.
My noble friend, Lord Dynevor, pointed out how enormously complicated the Bill is. I think he might have gone even further, because, so far as I understand the Bill, there are two different kinds of allotments. There is the allotment which is under 40 poles of land or which is let to a public authority or corporation to be sub-let as allotments. Such an allotment comes under the provisions of this Bill, but anything which is even 41 poles in extent apparently comes under the provisions

259
of Statutes already in existence. You have the Allotments Act and the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act of 1887; you have all the various existing Small Holdings and Allotments Acts; you have the Agricultural Holdings Acts, so far as they apply; and you have the Bill which the noble Earl is, I believe, going to ask your Lordships to read a second time after he has disposed of this Bill.
I should have thought that with ever one million allotment holders in this country it would have been worth while to bring in a simple consolidating Bill dealing with allotments, a Bill which every local authority and allotment holder would have a chance of understanding. The question of allotments has always been a very difficult one. On the one hand, you want to give the holder security of tenure, or, at any rate, compensation for the crops he is growing if the land is to be taken away at short notice. On the other hand, you want to encourage owners of land to let their land for allotments more readily. What are we doing under this Bill? Whatever the contract of tenancy, if that tenancy comes to an end between Lady Day and Michaelmas, however long the notice, compensation for crops is levied on the owner of the land.
There are cases, probably a good many, where vacant land in the middle of cities or just outside cities has been let to small holders on such terms as these: "We do not quite know when we shall be able to undertake building, but as soon as prices come down we shall have to go ahead; in the interval you can use the land for allotments and we shall let it to you at a peppercorn rent, because we are anxious you should grow crops so long as it is possible." No rack rent is charged for that land, because the owners of the land are only anxious to do all they can to assist allotments. It is let on the understanding that they can resume possession at very short notice if it is required for building. Now, if possession of that land is resumed for building between Lady Day and Michaelmas those owners, in spite of the very low terms on which they let the land, will be liable to pay compensation to the allotment holders for the crops growing on that land. I do not think that that is a provision which is going to encourage owners to let their land for allotments in the future.
260
As regards two smaller points in connection with compensation, as I read the Bill compensation is payable to a tenant who commits a breach of contract in his tenancy under Clause 1 (c). If he commits a breach of tenancy and the tenancy is terminated under the paragraph, he still has to be paid compensation under Clause 2. Similarly, where very long notice, possibly nine months or a year, has been given, but re-entry takes place under Clause 1 (b) which speaks of three months' notice, compensation is also payable, apparently. I suggest that that is not equitable, nor is it likely to encourage owners to let their land for allotments.
There is a paragraph in the Report of the Departmental Committee, paragraph 31, of which apparently no notice is taken in the Bill. The Committee pointed out that if the Government were going to interfere with the contract of tenancy some quid pro quo should be given to the owners in consequence. The paragraph reads as follows—
"The Committee recognise that the proposed interference with existing contracts of tenancy may involve some provision for meeting any alleged grievance on the part of the landlord based on the contention that the rent of the land was adjusted in view of the contract of tenancy containing a power of resumption which was materially more favourable to him than the power now proposed by us."
No such provision appears in the Bill.
There is a further strong point against this Bill. The noble Earl in speaking of Clause 4 pointed out that there was very great urgency for the provision of allotments, and that therefore great delay would be caused when application had to be made to the Minister, but he did not point out that under Clause 6, subsection 3 (b) where an owner desires to resume possession of his holding he has to prove to the Minister that the land is reasonably required. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if delay will be caused when application has to be made to the Minister, it is also likely to take a very long time if the owner wishes to resume possession under similar circumstances.
I confess I am surprised at Clause 8. I should have thought that the councils of the borough and urban districts were properly elected bodies, and therefore might reasonably be supposed to represent the views of their constituents. Unless the Minister orders otherwise, every one of these properly elected bodies is to be compelled to appoint an allotments committee.

261
If there was a real desire in any district for allotments surely the urban and district councils might be, and in fact would be, compelled, by reason of the electors' views, to take cognizance of the fact. I think it is advisable that allotment committees should be set up, and power given for the purpose, but that is an entirely different thing from compelling councils to set up a committee whether it is desired or not unless the Minister says that they need not do so.
All through this Bill there seems to me to be a substratum of bureaucracy, and I congratulate the noble Earl upon his optimism in thinking that he is going to get this Bill through Parliament when everybody is talking about bureaucracy, and everybody will see in this Bill an opportunity for continuing officials at the Ministries who might otherwise be dispensed with. I hope when this Bill goes into Committee that your Lordships will consider its various provisions and if the noble Earl does not, as I hope he will, follow the suggestion which has been made to bring in a consolidating measure, that you will ensure that it shall be a simple measure and that everything contained in the Bill shall be such that most of us may be able to understand.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a very few words with reference to this question? I shall intervene neither as a supporter of the Bill nor, so far as I understand it now, as an opponent. It is a great many years since I was first called upon, as a subordinate member of an Administration, to introduce what I believe was the first attempt on the part of the Government to facilitate the acquisition of allotments throughout the country by passing an Act of Parliament. Since then much water has flowed under the bridge. Many changes have taken place, and the legislation on the Statute Book to-day dealing with allotments is much more voluminous than I think anybody contemplated in those days. What I would desire, with great respect, to urge upon the Government, is the desirability of adopting two recommendations which have come from noble Lords speaking on the other side of the House.
The one which I desire to press with great earnestness is that this Bill should not be taken in Committee until there has been a very considerable interval allowed to elapse. Speaking for myself, I have
262
only had this Bill in my hands for a few hours. That is, of course, my own fault, although I observe that it was ordered to be printed only as recently as April 5. While I have some small knowledge of legislation on this subject and on other subjects, and while I am a practical owner of land, and one who has taken great interest in the allotments question, and in the terms upon which allotments can properly and well be let, I assure your Lordships that after spending a considerable time this morning upon the Bill I have the greatest difficulty in arriving at a clear conclusion as to what will be the exact result if the clauses pass in their present form.
I share the view expressed by the noble Earl who spoke immediately before me. It is to me a most extraordinary thing that, at this period of our history, the Government should seek to impose upon a local authority the obligation to do that which they have never found it necessary or desirable to do in the exercise of their own powers. If a local authority does not think it necessary to appoint a committee, and has not done so, surely it must be clear that there is nothing for such a committee to do, and no need for a new authority to deal with this question in their area. And where a great local authority has omitted to set up an allotments committee and your Lordships pass legislation to compel them to do so, do you believe that that is the way to get good administration, or do you think it is in the least likely to ensure their good will for the objects of this measure? Whatever compulsion you may think it necessary to adopt, surely in the case of local authorities who, as my noble friend said just now, are popularly elected bodies, you can leave it to them to exercise their own judgment as to whether or not a committee should be appointed.
There is another feature in this Bill which I regard with some regret, and that is the constant interference which is permitted by the Minister. It is a mere commonplace now to say that the less interference there is by Government Departments in our local affairs the more likely we are to get on well. I believe that to be literally true. My noble friend, in the clear and able speech in which he presented this Bill, referred to the developments that had occurred during the war, the large areas of land which were brought into productivity, and the great work that

263
was done, alike by the local authorities and by the people. All that is very true. But I do not know whether my noble friend has in mind the practical experience gained by many of us who visited some of these allotments. It is a pure delusion to imagine that all you have to do is to acquire land and let it to the people, and that then everything is sure to go well. There is no more difficult task.
And I am a little anxious about some of the powers in this Bill, among others that which enables local authorites compulsorily to acquire vacant land. I do not know what the Ministry has in mind when it uses that phrase "vacant land." So far as concerns vacant land of an agricultural character, I do not believe there is an acre vacant in the country which it would be worth while to turn into allotments at any time. If what is meant is land in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, or even within towns, which is awaiting development for building purposes, perhaps some of that land might wisely and profitably be utilised for this purpose, but it is a dangerous power to put into the hands of any local body to enable them to take land compulsorily for a purpose of this kind without very considerable safeguards.
I confess I was a little surprised and disappointed at a portion of my noble friend's speech, for I had hoped that he would have given us more evidence of the existence of the difficulties to which he referred more than once in his speech. He described in picturesque language the hardships which fall upon men who, having been in the occupation of land and sown crops, are not allowed to reap them, and are called upon every day, in pursuance of their work, to pass by the land which they have cultivated, the crops of which they have never been allowed to gather. That is a serious state of things, if it exists, but surely we are entitled to ask for direct evidence showing that in certain parts of the country this very undesirable state of things exists. During the last two years I have not been able to take much active part in what is going on outside, but I confess it is news to me that there is any real difficulty in providing allotments to-day. Everybody will agree with the eloquent words which my noble friend used at the beginning of his speech, when he told us of the good which comes from allotments, and the desirability of their wide extension. Yes, if the land is
264
suitable, and if the people to whom it is given know how to cultivate it, and if they will proceed to cultivate it in the proper fashion, then I believe allotments to be a very great blessing. But if, on the contrary, the land is unsuitable, or is let on conditions which are not satisfactory, or let to people who do not know the difficulties of the task which they have taken in hand, we had much better not facilitate the acquisition of allotments, in the general interest of the State.
As I stated, I have risen neither as a sup porter of the Bill nor as an opponent—certainly not as an opponent; but not as a supporter either, because I am not sufficiently satisfied as to what the Bill will do. What I have said I have said as a firm believer in the policy of allotments, and as a cordial supporter of His Majesty's Government in their very difficult position. In my concluding sentence I would urge upon the Government the desirability, in the interests of all concerned, and of the cause which they have at heart, of postponing the next stage of this Bill for such a period of time as will enable us to examine it more closely ourselves, and to ascertain from experts, who know more than we do about it, what is likely to be the effect of these clauses.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I am sure we are very glad to see my noble friend, Lord Long, among us, and in restored health. I rise to call attention to one point. I cordially agree with what Lord Long has said as to the difficulty of understanding this Bill, and as to the very great powers it confers. You will notice that Clause 9 begins—
"A county council may let land—"
Clause 10 says—
"A council of a borough or urban district—"
may do certain things. Clause 11 then says that "a council" may do certain things. Then, when you refer to the interpretation clause, you read:
"The expression 'council' shall, in the case of a rural parish not having a parish council, mean the parish meeting."
The powers conferred in this Bill seem so very grave that we ought to have a clear understanding. No parish council should ever be allowed to use any compulsory powers whatever, but I do not gather from this Bill whether this is so or not. We ought to be very careful in these days, when we want every possible economy in the

265
rates, to see that no power should be given for compulsory acquisition unless there is some strong superior authority. I also cordially support the idea that we should not force allotment committees on local representative bodies. County councils are pleading very strongly to-day for the abolition of what are now hybrid committees, which have been forced upon us during the war. Those Committees are becoming unnecessary, and I think, perhaps, more will be heard about the inadvisability of interfering with the principle of local self-government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think I shall be expressing the feeling of the House when I say how glad we are to see Lord Long to-day and with what great pleasure we welcome him and the ripe experience he can bring to aid us in our debates. There are two aspects of the particular question which we are considering—the rural allotment and the urban allotment. My noble friend is equally entitled to speak on both, because he has been Minister of Agriculture and President of the Local Government Board. The occupation of those two great posts, added to his own lifelong experience, makes him an almost unrivalled authority on such subjects as that on which he has addressed your Lordships to-day.
I do not think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will contradict me when say that it has been introduced more to deal with the urban allotment than with the rural. The urban allotment is a comparatively new feature in our agricultural system, and I do not think that anybody who has followed the growth of the allotment movement in our great cities and urban districts can doubt the great value of the movement. For the first time it has formed some link in agricultural matters between the urban and the rural population. There are now, in our great towns, a small number of voters who have a glimmering of some of the difficulties which confront the farmer in the pursuit of his profession. They know that crops do not emanate from the ground in the same way as a sausage does from the end of a machine. They have learned for the first time, and with surprise, that the elements—the drought and the rain—play an important part in the farmers' fortunes, and they have met, also with surprise, an insect pest of which they had never heard before they began to cultivate an allotment.
266
I am sure that Parliament will always wish to do what it can to support this movement, which arose spontaneously during the war, and really forms such an important link in our agricultural and social system. That being so, this House will be prepared prima facie to welcome with cordiality such a Bill as my noble friend has introduced. But I confess that I think the particular criticism we have heard from my two noble friends behind me, each of whom has evidently studied the Bill very closely, will require a very careful answer from His Majesty's Government. The Bill is obscure. Nobody can look at it even for a few minutes without seeing that it has gone to extravagant lengths in legislation by reference. That is really becoming the plague of our Parliamentary life. To understand this Bill a noble Lord must sit down at the table with about half a dozen Acts of Parliament open in front of him. He must look from the one to the others, from the others to the one, and back to the original draft, and then, unless he has a skilled lawyer by his side, he cannot have the least idea of what the references finally imply. In order to get rid of that very evil in our agricultural legislation His Majesty's Government introduced the Agricultural Holdings Consolidation Bill, which they will ask the House to read a second time to-day. It is, surely, a Gilbertian proceeding on one and the same day to read a second time a Consolidation Bill and another Bill which is going at once to amend and alter the law contained in the consolidation measure.
The case for consolidation in respect of the law of allotments is only less strong than the case for consolidation of the law in respect of agricultural holdings. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill indicates assent to that proposition, and I am glad that he does, because I do not think he could have failed to do so. But look at the position in which Parliament is placed. On the one hand there is an effort to clarify the law and make it intelligible to the ordinary man, and on the other hand the Government are bringing in a Bill which is more unintelligible than even the average efforts of modern draftsmen. On the top of that there is the evil to which my noble friends have alluded, and to which Lord Long has drawn special attention out of his wide experience—this perpetual reference to the Minister, this perpetual interference by a Government Department, even to the extent of leaving it to the Minister to say.

267
whether a borough council is or is not to have an allotments committee. Surely that is interference by Government Departments run mad, and my noble friend is very sanguine if he thinks, in the present mood of Parliament, that such a provision is likely to be found in the Bill when it finally emerges for the Royal Assent. The position being thus, I think the claim made by Lord Dynevor, and backed up by Lord Long, that we should have time before we are asked to go into Committee, is a just one, and I hope my noble friend, in his reply, will be conciliatory in that matter.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the noble Earl in his opening remarks complimented the railways upon the way in which they have at all times treated the allotment question. Therefore, I need hardly say that in rising now on their behalf it is not because I wish in any way to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. There are, however, some clauses which will require considerable amendment in Committee if they are to meet our views, and we are of opinion that it is only right to mention them upon Second Reading. The Bill will considerably affect the interests of railway companies in respect of land which they hold under the authority of Parliament for the development of their undertakings. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 require notice to be given which is of such a length that, in the case of railway lands which have been acquired very frequently with a view to emergencies, would make the works on those lands almost impossible of execution. In paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (1) six months' notice to quit has to be given. If notice was given immediately after September 29 it would mean that a year would elapse before possession could be obtained. The provision in paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1), which permits re-entry on three months' notice, is subject to some Ministerial authority which we are not under to-day, and which we should regret being placed under in the future. The railway companies have let their allotments on exceedingly short notice. I forget what it is, but the notice is very short in the majority of cases, and the rents have been fixed having regard to that tenure. Where land has been taken in the past compensation has always been paid.
The other clause to which we object very strongly is Clause 4. It repeals, so far as the hiring of land is concerned, the exemption in favour of statutory undertakings
268
contained in Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. That repeal we should regret, and in Committee we shall undoubtedly oppose it. The exemption from compulsory acquisition of land acquired by railway and similar undertakings for statutory purposes is a standard exception recognised in a long series of precedents, and we should object to those precedents being interfered with. There are also matters arising on one or two other clauses in which we are interested, but these are Committee points. Nevertheless, we thought that your Lordships ought to be advised on Second Reading of those I have mentioned, and no doubt when the Committee stage comes they will have due consideration at your Lordships' hands.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, in the few words which I shall say in reply I desire to answer what, I think, was the chief objection to the Bill raised by almost every speaker. That objection was that the Bill was complicated and difficult to understand. I am not responsible for the drafting of the Bill, and I admit that there is a good deal of legislation by reference in it. A great many of your Lordships have had previous knowledge of these matters, and have had to deal with them yourselves. It must be borne in mind that when you have to deal with a matter like this, which is already dealt with in a great many other Acts, you must refer inevitably to those other Acts. I do not put myself forward as a Parliamentary draftsman, but I think the only way you can get over the difficulty is to quote the whole of the sections to which you refer. Whenever a question has to be dealt with which is already the subject of a large number of Acts of Parliament it is almost impossible to frame a Bill dealing with that question which does not contain a great deal of reference to those previous Acts. Some of your Lordships spoke about the difficulty of understanding this Bill, but I may say, in passing, that several noble Lords seemed to understand it remarkably well, and I think that perhaps they have rather exaggerated the difficulties of understanding it.
Your Lordships may say: "Why not, instead of bringing in a difficult Bill like this, bring forward a Consolidation Bill?" I made it as clear as I could in my opening statement that at the present moment we are faced with the difficulty that 250,000 plot holders will probably have to leave

269
their plots by March of next year, and it is with the object of making provision for these men, and at the same time helping the acquisition of land for allotments all over the country—but chiefly, however, to provide for the men who will be dispossessed—that we thought it necessary to bring in this legislation. We hope that this Bill may become an Act of Parliament during this session and thus another Act will be added to the numerous Acts already dealing with allotments. In that event, we should next session bring in a Consolidation Bill. I think it would hardly be wise to bring in such a Bill at this moment. It was one of the recommendations of the Committee that the law relating to allotments should be consolidated, but we thought it best that we should first bring in this Bill, which will make important alterations, and then, if this Bill received the sanction of Parliament, bring in a Consolidation Bill next session dealing with the whole question of allotments.
May I say one word in regard to the complaint that it is the Minister who is left to decide the question whether land is required for building or other purposes. In the definition clause—Clause 15—the subsection says—
"Where under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required for any particular purpose, the question shall be determined—"
"Where any question arises" means that if the council or allotment holders think that they are simply being dispossessed at the whim of some person, or at the whim even of a railway company, they should be able to say: "We should like to have some evidence that the land is reasonably required." I think that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no question will arise. The person who requires the land will write to the council and say: "I want to resume possession of my land. I am going to begin building." Or the railway company will write and say: "We want to resume possession of our land, because we want to begin making a siding." In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no question will arise. I fully admit that it is one of the difficulties we have to overcome, and I am the last person to say that the best authority to decide is the Minister mentioned in the Bill. It is a matter which very properly can be discussed in Committee, when we can hear all the views, and we may come to the conclusion that there is some other and
270
better authority. I think myself that there must be some court of appeal in this matter.
I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, who voices the views of the Land Union, that we received valuable assistance from the evidence which the Land Union gave us. I have the advantage also of having received the Land Union's journal. The evidence, so far as I recollect it, was that the Union thought it was right and proper that arty vacant land or any land that was not required immediately for building should be temporarily used for allotments till it was required.
LORD DYNEVOR: I quite agree; but I never said that in my speech.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That was the view which the Land Union took. Taking the statement of the evidence published by them, the only question on which we differed, so far as I can recollect, was that their evidence was to the effect that the proof that the land was required for building, or for these other purposes, should be that the owner must inform the council in possession of the land that he wanted the land because some one was prepared to pay more than 25 years' purchase for it. That was their suggestion of the way to get over the difficulty. It was carefully examined by the Committee. and we came to the conclusion that that was not a very sound method.
I will quote only one example. Take the case of the land to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred—the land in districts which are already being built upon, and where there is still a certain amount of waste land not immediately required for building. Much of that land is defined in the Bill as land which has no rateable value. The value of that land is nil so far as rates are concerned. Consequently, the council may enter thereon and pay no rent whatsoever. But if some one should come along and say that he has an offer of, say, 5s. per acre for the land, then according to the Land Union, he would be able to enter on it and get rid of the tenants. That is hardly a sound suggestion, and the proposal in the Bill is considered the best in the circumstances. This is a question on which your Lordships are well qualified to give an opinion and I have no doubt it will receive careful attention in Committee.
With regard to the other point that has been raised—namely, the settling up of allotments committees, I fully recognise

271
there is a difficulty, and it will be perfectly open for noble Lords to move Amendments on that subject in Committee. I still emphasise the point that there is a very pressing demand on the part of allotment holders that these committees should be appointed. They feel that in many instances councils which are unsympathetic to allotments find every device they can in order to avoid getting the land, and they put great stress indeed upon the provision. It is a matter which, of course, can be debated in Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, was doubtful whether it was wise to place these men on the land. I think he said it was not wise unless the men knew something about land. That is true to a certain extent, but our experience and the evidence go to show that an enormous number of townsmen who have these allotments have made a tremendous success of them. The amount of vegetables and food they have produced is perfectly wonderful. One of the objects of the Bill is to get over the difficulty which will occur in March, 1923, when many of these men will have to quit. At least 90 per cent. of these men who have been in occupation of their holdings for several years have shown by their management that they are capable of making them a success. It is really the need of meeting these cases that has prompted legislation in this direction.
I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to the other points which have been raised. I have endeavoured to answer, briefly, the chief criticisms that have been passed, and I hope your Lordships will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading. Several noble Lords have expressed a desire that the Committee stage should not be hurried, and, of course, I am quite willing to fall in with that suggestion. In the circumstances it would be better, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, for me to postpone putting the Committee stage down for any particular day until I have consulted with noble Lords who are interested as to what day would be most convenient. We should, of course, like to get the Bill through this House so that it could go to another place before Whitsuntide.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will put down the Committee stage for this day week pro forma.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, during the debates on the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill of last year the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh emphasised the necessity for a Consolidation Bill as regards agricultural holdings, and I was then able to assure your Lordships that such a Bill was being prepared. A measure dealing with the Agricultural Holdings Acts applicable to Scotland has already been introduced and is now before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. This Bill refers to England and Wales, and consolidates and repeals The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887, The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1913, The Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919, the whole of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1920, The Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1921, and Section 5 of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Acts, 1921. Your Lordships will therefore realise that we are doing something to make the law a little clearer, and I hope we shall be able to do the same thing with regard to allotments.
If your Lordships are good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading I propose that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, of which Lord Muir Mackenzie is Chairman. I should also like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great assistance which the Ministry of Agriculture has received in the preparation of this measure from the Central Landowners' Association and Lord Clinton. Their suggestions have been most helpful, and it is only right I should acknowledge their valuable assistance.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2£.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl to assure us that there is nothing but consolidation in this Bill and that no change of the law is involved. My only other question has some reference to the debate which has just closed. I should like to know whether the noble Earl intends to proceed with Part II of the present Bill which deals with allotments, cottage gardens, compensation for disturbance, and other matters. Having regard to what has just passed on the Second Reading of the Allotments Bill one would imagine that he will probably not proceed

273
with Part II of this Bill until Parliament has decided what is to be done with the allotments question.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I can assure the noble Marquess that there is nothing in this Bill except consolidation. If there is anything more in it no doubt Lord Muir Mackenzie's Committee will quickly find it out. With regard to the question of proceeding with Part II, I think it would be something to get this Consolidation Bill and even that part of it dealing with allotments and cottage gardens. After all, we do not know that the Allotment Bill is going to pass into law; and if it does, then the most convenient way would be to amend the Consolidation Bill afterwards.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, reference having been made to the Consolidation Bill Committee, I should like to say one word. I have looked sufficiently at the Bill which is now before the House to see that it corresponds very closely indeed with the Bill consolidating the Acts applicable to Scotland with which we have already dealt to a considerable extent in the Joint Committee. It would appear, however, as if the two Bills had been drafted quite independently. The result is that I can already see that some of the points which arise for the consideration of the Committee as to consolidation are the same in both Bills, and yet in the Bills themselves they have been drafted somewhat differently. That seems to me to be rather awkward, and I think it would be natural for the Joint Committee to try to make the Acts correspond, so that wherever these questions arise they should be solved in the same way for both Bills. It does not always necessarily follow that that should be so, but it would generally be so. What I suggest to the noble Earl is that perhaps he might consult with the noble Lord who is responsible for the Agriculture Bill for Scotland and give instructions that at the next meeting of the Committee, which is next Wednesday, the draftsmen of both Bills should be present, so that we may have presented to us one aspect rather than two aspects of the consolidation of certain sections. That would certainly assist the work of the Committee, and would, I think, produce a satisfactory result.
The next thing which I wish to say has already been anticipated by the noble
274
Marquess opposite. On looking at the noble Earl's Bill, I was surprised to see that a small Part II was inserted which dealt with one of the Allotments Acts, and it appeared to me that, unless there was going to be a complete consolidation of the Allotments Acts, it was better not to bring it into the Agricultural Holdings Bill. I should rather like to support what was suggested by the noble Marquess opposite, that Part II should not be proceeded with unless very strong reasons are given before our Committee as to why it has been added to the Bill. I should like to point out that in the course of the discussions in the Committee in relation to the Bill applying to Scotland, it was suggested by some members that the Allotments Acts relating to Scotland—I am not quite sure whether I am using the right expression in calling them Allotments Acts, but I mean the Acts dealing with small holdings in Scotland—should have been incorporated in this consolidation, and something has fallen to-night from some noble Lords suggesting that they thought that in the Bill now before the House the consolidation of the Allotments Acts would have been desirable at the same time.
I venture to comment upon the remark of the noble Earl that he was not responsible for the drafting of the Bill. I have always understood that the Minister in charge of a Bill is responsible for the drafting. He may find fault with his draftsman if he thinks fit, but before the House your Lordships can appeal only to the Minister in charge of the Bill as to the drafting. What I particularly wanted to say, however, was that I agree with him entirely that the proper course on Bills of this kind is to take amendment first, by itself, and then to consolidate. If you put the two together you find yourself in a great difficulty, because you throw open to debate the whole of the legislation on the subject, and, if the House will forgive me for saying so, a Bill which comes before us in that form is very seldom really examined in this House. The substantial Amendments are examined, but the consolidation Amendments are passed without examination. I venture to think, therefore, that this House will be well advised to adhere to the general principle of taking Amendments first and then consolidating them. If the noble Earl will forgive me, I shall take the liberty of repeating these remarks next Tuesday when I see his Bill relating to Fisheries.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised two or three very technical and interesting questions. I have consulted with my noble friend beside me, and he suggests that in going into Committee on Tuesday next, as he proposes, he should make a statement to the House on the general question raised by Lord Muir Mackenzie. The two subsequent points raised by the noble and learned Lord are clearly points which must arise upon the Committee stage of the Bill itself. The main question of principle, however, is one which I think could most suitably be dealt with on going into Committee. If your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading now, we shall put it down for Tuesday.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BURNING OF TURKISH VILLAGES.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS had on the Paper the following Questions—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any definite information as to the number of Turkish villages burned in the zone of the Smyrna-Aidin Railway, and also in the zone of the Smyrna-Cassaba Railway since the Greek occupation; and also as to loss of life.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have received any information as to the alleged burning by Greek soldiers on the night of 14th or 15th February of a mosque at a Turkish village some distance from Keushk, containing crowds of Turkish men, women and children.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have two Questions on the Paper, and I should like to combine upon one of them the very few remarks I have to make. Such information as I have on this matter comes to me in this way. For two years I have been President of the Smyrna-Aidin Railway, and although I have not been there, I am in the way of meeting many people coming from Smyrna. I get a great deal of information from that district, some of which I am able to verify pretty accurately, while some is only hearsay information. As regards the zone of the Smyrna-Aidin Railway, my information is pretty accurate. In that zone since the Greek Army went into occupation, I am informed that they have burnt at least fifty or sixty villages occupied by Turks. There has been loss of life. It is quite impossible to say how much, but whether
276
the people were killed or driven away, at any rate the Turkish population has to a very great extent disappeared from those villages.
As regards the zone occupied by the French Railway, the Smyrna-Cassaba Railway, my information is more in the nature of hearsay, but I believe it is in the main accurate, or I should not repeat it. I am told that the number of Trukish villages burned by the Greeks is something like three or four hundred. I made these statements in the city the other day in connection with a business matter at a meeting of the railway. They were purported to be answered by the Greek Chargé d'Affaires in a letter which he wrote to the newspapers, and he met them by answering a statement which I did not make. I said that I believed three or four hundred villages had been burned in the Cassaba zone. He said that if I looked at the map I should find that there were not that number of villages on the railway. I did not say that there were. In the zone to which I referred there are, I believe, considerably more than three or four hundred Turkish villages. I wish to know what information the Government possess in regard to this matter.
My second Question concerns the burning of a mosque at a place called Keushk, and I want to know whether the Government have any information. Is it true that men, women and children were driven into this mosque, that the mosque was burned, and that a number of people lost their lives? The importance of this question lies in the fact that if my information is correct this outrage was committed not only by Greek irregulars but by Greek soldiers in uniform. That is a point upon which it is important that we should have information, and I put these Questions because I wonder whether it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to do anything to stop this kind of thing. I know it is extremely difficult. I am not asking impossibilities of the Government. I only want to suggest that it might be possible to send out English officers. There is a great respect for the English officer in uniform in Anatolia, and if but a few English officers were in the district I do not think that this kind of outrage would occur. They take place in districts where there are no independent European observers, and if somebody could be sent there to watch events it would, I believe, do something to stop these outrages.
When the Greek evacuation takes place Allied officers, as I understand, will be sent as observers, and I can only say that the sooner these Allied officers are sent out the better in order that these things should stop, because the longer the Greek occupation exists the worse is this going to be. It may be thought that these constitute acts of war, that frontier villages are being burnt in pursuance of military operations. I cannot speak of villages outside the railway zone with which I am connected, but I do say that the villages within that zone were in peaceful occupation of the Greeks. They burnt the villages, and the people are gone. What is going to happen when the Turks return? I understand it was virtually agreed at the last Conference that there is to be a Greek evacuation of Asia Minor. When the Turks come back and find the Turkish villages burnt and the people gone, what is going to happen to the Greek villages?
In the interest of the miserable population of this country—Turks or Greeks—something ought to be done to check these proceedings, and I put these Questions to the Government to-day in the hope that it may be possible, even before the Armistice, for them to send somebody into this country to observe what is going on. It may be said that there is a state of war, that technically you cannot send anybody there; but I doubt very much whether, technically, there is war. I fancy that the Greeks have never declared war on the Kemalists. Undoubtedly, warlike operations are taking place, but I question whether the Greeks have full legal rights as belligerents concerning neutral Powers. At any rate my object has been to call attention to the subject, and I earnestly hope that it may be possible for His Majesty's Government, without putting the British taxpayer to great expense, to use moral influence in order to prevent this sort of thing going on in this unfortunate country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord St. Davids will understand from my reply that the information at the disposal of the Foreign Office is very sparse. As regards his Question with reference to the mosque at Keushk, the Foreign Office understand that a mixed Greek detachment, consisting partly of soldiers and partly of armed civilians, is reported to have attacked the Moslem village of Karatepe, near Keushk, in the Meander valley, on the night of Tuesday, February 14. The village appears to have been held by a Turkish band of about
278
fifteen men, believed to have formed part of the following of the noted Turkish brigand, Tekelioglou Ismail. The Greeks are reported to have entered the village after about an hour's fighting, and to have destroyed it. They are alleged to have burnt the mosque while a number of villagers were in it, causing the death of about 150 persons. No confirmation of these allegations has been received.
As regards the zone of the Smyrna-Aidin railway, reliable information was received by Mg Majesty's Government in September, 1921, that a number of villages in the valley of the Little Meander and also in the region between Aidin and Baindir had been burnt by the Greeks during the period of their retreat after the Battle of the Sakkaria, as a result of the activity of Turkish bands and of attacks by the latter on isolated Greek posts. The village of Karatepe, near Keushk, was also burnt by Greek bands last February, in the circumstances which I have described to the noble Lord in reply to his other Question. No reliable information regarding the total number of villages destroyed, or regarding the total loss of life, has been received by His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord says—what everybody I am sure will endorse—that it is most desirable that such outrages, by whomsoever committed, should be checked, and he suggests that the district should, in effect, be put under the control of British officers. So far as I know, no such invitation has been received from either of the belligerent Powers, and even though one were aware offhand that finances were available for such an enterprise, or that adequately trained officers who know the districts and, of course, the language as well, are available, apart from those difficulties I am afraid that under present conditions it is very questionable whether such a course would commend itself to either of the parties concerned.

PALESTINE CONSTITUTION.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government for information on the following points connected with the proposed Palestine Constitution—

1. Whether the Palestine Civil Service, in so far as it is recruited in this country, will form part of the general Colonial Civil Service.

2. Whether English Jews holding official positions in Palestine will be considered as Palestinians, and if so

279
whether Arabs will be equally eligible for such positions.

3. How many elected members of the Legislative Council are allotted to the Moslems, Christians, and Jews; and, approximately, how many voters each such member will represent.

4. Whether the electoral divisions will be denominations or areas, and if the latter, whether the residential qualification for the franchise will be based on residence in Palestine as a whole or in such areas.

5. Whether the Turkish system of elected District Councils will be revived; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Questions standing in my name I should like to say, with regard to the first, that at the present moment British officers employed in Palestine are in a very unsatisfactory position. They are under very short contracts, and these contracts have in many cases been broken. They are under this additional disadvantage, that their chances of promotion may depend upon whether or not they find favour in the eyes of the Zionist Commission. As regards the second Question, there is a tendency among English Jews to claim a preference over other Englishmen employed in Palestine on the ground that they are Palestinians, and over other Palestinians on the ground that they are Englishmen. It is desirable that their status should be defined, and that if they are Englishmen they should have the same chance as other Englishmen, and if they are Palestinians they should have the same chance as other Palestinians. As regards the last three Questions, it is impossible to criticise the proposals of the Government until we know what they are, and I therefore beg formally to move for Papers.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords; the answer to the first Question of the noble Lord is that members of the Palestine Civil Service who are recruited from England will be on the same footing as members of the Civil Services of Colonies and Protectorates and will be subject to the same general rules. They will be eligible for transfer to posts in the Colonies, and officers in the Colonies are eligible for transfer to Palestine. A Colony is responsible for its own Service, and some of these Services are closed, or practically so. Transfers in these cases would as a rule only take place in the more responsible posts
280
that are not normally filled by promotion within the Service of the Colony concerned.
As regards the second Question, English Jews who wish to become Palestinians, whether they hold official positions or not, may do so, if they fulfil the conditions attached to the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship. These conditions are formulated in a Nationality Law, which cannot, become effective until Palestine is formally severed from the Ottoman Empire by ratification of a Treaty of Peace with Turkey. In any case there is no discrimination in the Palestine Civil Service against Palestinian Arabs who, if they possess the necessary qualifications, may fill vacancies as they occur. At the present time there is a large number of Palestinian Arabs who hold the posts of district inspectors, judges, medical officers of health, inspectors in the Agricultural and Veterinary Services, inspectors in the Education Department and in the Revenue Department.
The third and fourth Questions deal with matters arising out of the electoral system to be set up in Palestine. The system is one of indirect election. For the purpose of primary elections every district is to be divided into voting areas, and the voters within such areas will be entitled to elect a number of secondary electors, to be determined in the following manner. The Governor of the district, in consultation with the President of any municipal or local council in the district, and the head men of the villages will define the voting areas, and will determine the number of secondary electors to be elected in each voting area on the basis that every 200 primary electors shall elect one secondary elector. Voters will be registered in the villages or quarters in which they reside.
The secondary electors are to be formed into twelve electoral colleges, according to the religious community to which they belong; that is to say, that there will be separate electoral colleges for Moslems, Christians and Jews. The number of colleges to be allotted to each religious community will be determined by the High Commissioner, having regard to the number of secondary electors belonging to the several communities. Each electoral college will elect one member. Thus, it is clear that there will be twelve members, but the exact number of seats on the Legislative Council given to Moslems, Christians and Jews respectively cannot be determined until the secondary electors have been divided up into their own colleges, while

281
the number of the colleges assigned to each community depends in turn on the number of secondary electors in each community. If it be assumed that there are 150,000 primary electors in Palestine, then there would be approximately 800 secondary electors, to be divided into twelve colleges, each electing one member for the Legislative Council.
As regards the fifth Question I am not able to say whether administrative councils will be revived in districts. These councils undoubtedly justified their existence in Palestine when the central authority of government was in Constantinople, but it is not obvious that they will be necessary, at any rate immediately, in the country which is now being administered from its own capital. The Palestine Government will doubtless consider the wisdom of reinstituting these councils when the circumstances are such as to justify consideration.
LORD RAGLAN: I do not quite understand the difficulty of the noble Duke in telling us how many members of each religious body will form the Legislative Council. The population of Palestine is known approximately; therefore, if it is intended that the same number of each religious community shall have the same electoral value there can be no difficulty in giving me the information now.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: It depends entirely on the manner of voting.
LORD RAGLAN: They must vote by religions. Christians are not going to vote for Moslems, and Moslems are not going to vote for Jews.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: We must wait and see.
LORD RAGLAN: I can assure the noble Duke that they will not in any case. I understand the residential qualification will be entirely on the district where the voters reside, and not on residence in Palestine as a whole.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: That is so.
LORD RAGLAN: As regards the administrative councils I cannot see that it makes any difference where the capital of a country is. These councils practically correspond to our parish councils, or, at any rate, to our urban district councils, and, if the noble Duke admits that they were useful bodies under the Turkish Government, I cannot conceive why they will not be equally useful under the present' Government.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: It is obvious that, where affairs are administered from a capital close at hand, as Jerusalem is, the authorities will be able to keep in much closer touch generally with local affairs than they could when the capital was in Constantinople.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that, except for judicial business, the House do adjourn until Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of May 3.]

NEATH CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TORQUAY CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
The LORD SPEAKER The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:
London County Council (General Powers).
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Exeter Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.