Sitting of 19 February 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  COMMITTEE Or SELECTION.
  Mr. Forestier-Walker,Mr. Forestier-Walker, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kendall, Mr. George Thorne, Major Wheler, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Major McKenzie Wood nominated members of the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Frederick Hall.]

  LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
  Ordered, that the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding fifteen members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government Regulations in conflict with, deviation front, or excess of the provisions of the general law.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 119, 150, and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Four be the quorum.
  Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) arc such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the
  1500
  Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have Mower, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Mr. Rhys Daxies.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the negotiations which have taken place between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen Gemeinschaft?
  Mr. FINNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an argeement has been made between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen Gemeinschaft; and, if so, would he give the terms?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on the 15th February to the hon. Member for Batley, a copy of which I am sending them.
  Mr. WHITE: Has any guidance been given to the Government representatives on the Board in regard to this matter; further, having regard to its importance will there be opportunity for discussion in this House before any vital question of policy is decided upon?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the Interessen Gemeinschaft made proposals to the British dye industry and that the proposals came from the German side, owing to the strength of the latter industry which had grown up under Protection?
  Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that some of these questions relate to a period of which I have no official knowledge, and I am therefore unable to state what encouragement may have been given to any proposals of the kind. I will certainly take the earliest opportunity of making a statement to the House as soon as the Board of Trade has anything officially before it.
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the British Dyestuffs Corporation has dismissed a large number of chemists and laboratory assistants, to the serious injury of chemical research in this country; that the corporation has hitherto refused to appoint to the directorate persons with technical and scientific knowledge of dyestuffs manufacture; and will he take steps to provide that the Government nominees to the directorate shall be persons possessing these qualifications?
  Mr. WEBB: I am informed that the appointments of a limited number of research chemists have been terminated within the past three months in connection with a reorganisation of the research work of the corporation. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that an invitation to join the Board of the corporation is now under consideration by a distinguished scientist. The suggestion made by the hon. Member in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.

  GERMAN GOODS (IMPORTATION VIA IRELAND).
  Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any certified instances of German goods being sent to this country via Ireland to evade British taxation; and what steps he is taking in that case to prevent the practice?
  Mr. PENNYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information indicating that British Customs duties have been evaded by
  1502
  Germans exporting goods to Ireland for re-export to England as goods of Irish manufacture?
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Chancellor of tile Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that German goods are sent to the. Irish Free State, and thence forwarded to Great Britain, in order to evade the 26 per cent. Reparation tax on German goods; and if any steps have been taken, or will be taken, to prevent German goods evading in this way the Reparation tax levied by Great Britain and the Allied Powers?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that reports have appeared in the Press in regard to the existence of schemes for evading the Reparation levy in the manner suggested in the question. But so far, the Customs authorities, who are fully alive to the position, have no reason to suppose that successful attempts have been made to carry such schemes into effect.
  Mr. BECKER: If it were found that German goods were being sent via Dublin, would they not pay the same tax as German goods coming direct?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I shall require notice of that question. It is rather a difficult problem and it is complicated by the larger question as to the attitude of Germany towards the duty as a whole.
  Mr. BECKER: Would it he the same if Germany sent the goods via Hull?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great dissatisfaction at the slow procedure of the Reparation Claims Department; that there are many applicants still vainly waiting definite decisions in their respective cases, in many instances suffering acutely in consequence; whether he will take steps to clear off the arrears of work of this body; and whether he will agree to the appointment of a Committee of this House to investigate the causes of delay, the

  1503
  sufficiency of the available money, and the steps which can be taken to wind up the work of the Department on prompt and satisfactory lines?
  Mr. LUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Royal Commission on Suffering and Damage done by Enemy Action is going to report on the, action it recommends with regard to belated claims?
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any indication as to when the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action will be issued?
  Mr. WEBB: The, Second Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action on claims against the £5,000,000 compensation fund is in draft and is now under consideration by the Commission; as soon as the Report has been accepted payment to claimants will commence.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Report will cover the belated claims that have been put in since?
  Mr. WEBB: We have not yet got the Report, therefore I am not quite clear, but I believe that the draft Report, which does cover the belated claims, is nearly completed. Until we get that Report, giving the view of the Commission upon the question of the belated claims, it is hardly possible to say anything.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: When does the, right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Report will be presented?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry that I am not able to say, but I understand the Commission has very nearly finished the draft.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that in the last Parliament the Government promised to have an additional auxiliary tribunal appointed? Has it been appointed and, if not, would it not get over the trouble if it were appointed?
  Mr. WEBB: That, again, relates to a period of which I have no official knowledge.
  Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that a number of
  1504
  claimants who are unable to get satisfaction are actually on the verge of starvation?
  Mr. WEBB: I am aware that a number of these claimants are exceedingly poor, but I believe everything has been done that can be done to quicken up the proceedings. The hon. Member will remember that this Royal Commission is an independent tribunal and is not under the jurisdiction and authority of the Government. We must await the report of the Royal Commission.
  Lord APSLEY again rase—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord wants to know too much at a time.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade why the Reparation Claims Department, in reply to letters complaining of delay, state they cannot say how long it will b before they will have dealt with the applications before them or when decisions on their merits will be made; and whether, having regard to the necessity of many of the applicants, and their liability to die before their cases arc decided, some means can be taken to deal promptly with all the applications?
  Mr. WEBB: As to the first part of the question, all matters relating to the distribution of the £5,000,000 compensation fund arc in the discretion of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, and the Report of that Commission must precede a definite statement regarding any claim. As to the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer I have given to-day to the hon. Member for Southampton.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is proposed to take so that belated claims for reparation may be brought within the purview of the Royal Commission; and if he can give any indication of the date when payment may be expected in respect of reparation for damage, other than personal, caused by enemy action?
  Mr. WEBB: As to the first part of the question, belated claims for reparation are under consideration by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. Pro-

  1505
  perty claims will be dealt with in the Report of the Commission, which is in draft and is now under consideration by the Commission. Payment of awards in cases covered by the Report will commence immediately after its acceptance by the Government.
  Mr. SH0RT: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to expedite the settlement of these claims?
  Mr. WEBB: I will undertake that there shall be no delay after the Report comes into the hands of the Government, but I must repeat that the Government cannot control the Royal Commission.
  Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps whereby the Government can control the Commission?
  Mr. HODGE: How much of the £5,000,000 is left for distribution?
  Mr. WEBB: The Board of Trade has no information as to how far the claims now being reported upon will amount to the total of what is left of the £5,000,000. I do not know whether there is any balance or not. We must wait until we get the Report.
  Sir CHARLES STARMERasked the President of the Board of Trade 'whether he is aware that the fund of £5,000,000 provided to deal with the claims of British subjects for suffering and damage arising out of enemy action during the War has proved totally inadequate to provide reasonable compensation in such cases; and whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction which obtains, it is proposed to allocate any further sum of money for the purpose of providing commensurate compensation to the losses sustained?
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Royal Commission on the Claims of British Nationals for Compensation for Suffering or Damage arising out of Enemy Action has reported; and whether the Government proposes to allot any sum in excess of the £5,000,000 to meet the allowed claims already granted?
  Mr. WEBB: The Royal Commission reported on the claims in respect of loss of life, injury to health, maltreatment during internment and loss of personal effects at sea in January, 1923, and nearly
  1506
  all the sums recommended in cases covered by that Report have been paid. The Second Report of the Commission, in which property claims will be dealt with, is in draft and is under consideration by the Commission. The sum of five million pounds was voted by Parliament as a fund out of which payments could be made to individuals as an act of grace on the part of His Majesty's Government. This is in addition to the insurance schemes which covered the greater number of such cases. Until the Final Report of the Commission has been received, I am unable to express any opinion as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the sum of five millions, but I must not be taken as agreeing to the suggestion that this sum has proved totally inadequate to provide reasonable compensation.
  Mr. HODGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £5,000,000 has been spent, and why his Department continually, in replies, advises those who apply for this money that the sum is totally inadequate?
  Mr. WEBB: I am not aware that any official statement has been made exactly to that effect, nor can I say now how much of the £5,000,000 has been spent, and, even if I could, that would not gratify the desire of the hon. Member, because we need to know how much has been allocated for claims which are or will be admitted. Until we get the Report of the Royal Commission no idea can be formed as to what the amount will be.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the amount of money which is left over from the £5,000,000 is quite insufficient both to meet the claims that were put in in due time and later claims as well, and will he approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to finding more money to deal with delayed claims?
  Mr. WEBB: As soon as we get the necessary information, for which the right hon. Gentleman himself waited, we shall proceed in the direction which he indicates, as, I am sure he would have done if he had had the same information.
  Sir C. STARMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is not s large number of people who are dissatisfied with the amounts, and whether the claims have not been met in the

  1507
  spirit of the grant rather than in the spirit of the injuries received; and will he allow a Court of Appeal to those of us who have suffered injury and are dissatisfied?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put, on the Paper.

  JUVENILE LIFE INSURANCE.
  Colonel PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to give friendly societies equal treatment, to industrial insurance companies in respect to raising the limits of insurance on children's lives?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Woolwich yesterday, in which I indicated that a Bill would be introduced in another place at an early date.

  OVERSEAS TRADE CREDIT AND INSURANCE ACT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Overseas Trade Credit and Insurance Act has been extended to Russia; and whether steps have been taken or will be taken to simplify the administration of the Act and to enlarge its scope?
  Mr. LUNN (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first part of the question, I may refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire. As regards the second part, I am carefully considering whether any steps can usefully be taken further to facilitate the utilisation of the Export Credits Scheme by traders.
  Mr. A. M, SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull what he means by "Simplifying the procedure."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to limit Supplementary Questions. There are many Questions on the Paper, and it is unfair to other hon. Members for hon. Members to ask too many Supplementary Questions.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the prevalence of illegal trawling, he will intimate his intention to put into operation Clause 469 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which gives his Department power to suspend or cancel the certificate of any master who has been convicted of any offence?
  Mr. WEBB: I understand that the Scottish Office is now considering the question of illegal trawling, and the Board of Trade will give any assistance they can in finding an effective remedy for this practice. Until definite proposals can be formulated, it would not be expedient to make any statement about any of the particular remedies which have been suggested.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, along with the Secretary for Scotland, press upon t he Government the advisability of introducing the Illegal Trawling Penalties Bill, so as to strengthen the penalties against illegal trawling?
  Mr. WEBB: I will consult my right hon. Friends on the subject.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH EXPORTS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of United Kingdom produce exported to Russia during 1913, and how much of that total was represented by wholly and partly manufactured goods and how much by unmanufactured?
    Mr. WEBB: The declared value of exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures registered in the year 1913, as consigned to the Russia of that date, was £18,102,683. This amount includes £10,255,028, the value of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured, and £5,424,048, the value of articles classed as raw materials or mainly unmanufactured.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is it thought that the restoration of our Russian export trade in manufactured goods to the figure for 1913, about £10,000,000, is really going to have any effect upon unemployment in this country?
    Mr. WEBB: I am sorry that I cannot give any opinion as to what people may think. I, myself, have not been able to form any judgment on the subject.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister what guarantee will be forthcoming, in the case of the extension of the Trade Facilities Act to Russia, that money advanced will be repaid to the British Treasury; and whether any limit will be fixed governing the extent of such advances?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): No money is advanced by the British Government under the Trade Facilities Acts. These Acts provide for a guarantee of the service of loans raised by applicants in the market in the ordinary way. Before giving such guarantee, either in the case of Russia or in any other case, the Treasury has to receive a recommendation from the Advisory Committee, appointed under the Act, in whose discretion full confidence may be placed.

    RAILWAY MATERIAL, INDIA (ORDERS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has ascertained the reasons why recent British tenders for the supply of five locomotives to the Indian State railways, and thereby to the Egyptian State railways, were higher in price than those of German and Italian firms?
    Mr. WEBB: I have no information on this matter beyond that which has appeared in the public Press.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman institute inquiries as to why British manufacturers are unable to compete with German goods?
    Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that that would be a rather wide inquiry, but I will consult the Secretary of State for India on the subject as he deals with the Indian State railways. At present I have no knowledge of what the tenders were or by what amount the British prices exceeded those of any other country.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I press my right hon. Friend that the point is that British

    1510
    manufacturers are unable to compete in India and Egypt with foreign manufacturers, and that, if so, this is a distinct question for the Board of Trade
    Mr. WEBB: I do not at present see any reason for supposing that British manufacturers on the whole are unable to compete with foreign manufacturers.

    PETROL (INCREASE OF PRICE).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent increase in the price of petrol; and whether, in view of the necessity of supplies being available at reasonable prices, he will introduce legislation to prevent the exploitation of the public by the companies possessing a monopoly of the supply of petrol?
    Mr. WEBB: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Bedford on 14th February, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman meantime do all that he can to encourage the manufacture of motor spirit from British coal?
    Mr. WEBB: I shall be very glad to do all I can to encourage capital to develop British industry.
    Mr. HARDIE: Seeing that we have in this country all the knowledge and facilities necessary to produce industrial alcohol which would compete with petrol, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this is done at once as there is no need for investigation?
    Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that that would involve the use of Parliamentary powers, and I cannot at the moment say anything about Parliamentry powers.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I point out that Parliamentary powers are not required?

    S.S. "HARTINGTON."
    Mr. LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade what action was taken by his Department in the case of the SAS. "Hartington," from which cargo was discharged last year in the port of London

    1511
    without any declaration being made that diseased animals and fittings and fodder had been jettisoned during the voyage from Buenos Ayres; and what action has been taken by the Board to prevent the recurrence of such cases?
    Mr. WEBB: The matter to which the hon. Member refers is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, and no action has been taken by them with regard to it.

    PLANTATION RUBBER.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the exports of plantation rubber from the Netherlands East Indies and from British Malaya (the produce of British Malaya only) for the years ending 31st October, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923.
    Mr. WEBB: The answer contains a number of figures, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    According to published Returns, the exports of the Netherlands East Indies for the years ending 31st October, 1920 to 1923, were as follows:

    —

    1920.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Java

    29,838

    28,777

    30,430

    31,913

    Sumatra, East Coast

    31,200

    33,175

    40,105

    43,608

    Borneo

    4,087

    3,308

    3,638

    4,099

    Similar particulars are not available for the other parts of the Netherlands East Indies, but for the calendar year 1920 the exports were about 8,700 tons; for the calendar year 1921 they were 7,100 tons; and for the calendar year 1922 they were 27,475 tons, and later information is not available.
    Exports from the Federated Malay States during the four years ended 31st October, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, were respectively 110,324 tons, 87,311 tons, 132,316 tons, and 101,094 tons. Similar particulars for the rest of British Malaya are not available, but the net exports (excess of imports over exports) from the Straits Settlements during the 12 months
    1512
    ended 30th September of each year were: 50,263 tons for 1920; 43,770 tons for 1921; 53.982 tons for 1922; and 36,869 tons for 1923. Monthly particulars regarding the exports of British Malaya as a whole have only been available since the middle of 1921; for the 12 months ended 31st October, 1922, they were 213,979 tons, and for the 12 months ended 31st October, 1923, they were 184,108 tons.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    TRINITY HOUSE (CLERICAL OFFICERS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain clerical positions have recently been declared vacant at Trinity House and clerical officers brought in from the Civil Service to replace the temporary staff, who are thus being superseded by persons who have never been in the Trinity House service; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and see whether it is possible to give temporary staff at Trinity House similar treatment to that which has been given to temporary clerks in the Civil Service, namely, that the vacancies in the clerical positions should be open for competition to the temporary staff actually filling such positions at the time?
    Mr. WEBB: I am informed by the Corporation of Trinity House that vacancies for clerical officers are filled strictly in accordance with the terms of the Order-in-Council dated 14th December, 1922, dealing with the re-organisation of the Trinity House staff. This Order provides that all persons appointed to clerical and other posts at Trinity House "shall pass such examination as may be arranged, and such examination shall be held under conditions which arc similar to those for candidates sitting for examinations for similar posts in the Civil Service." Every temporary clerk at Trinity House has been given the opportunity of corn peting at one of the examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners, but those who have offered themselves for examination have failed to qualify.

    WAR OFFICE (PERMANENT FINANCIAL SECRETARY).
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGEasked the Secretary of State for War if the per-

    1513
    manent joint secretary to the War Office on the financial side is retiring from that position on or about the 31st March next; and, if so, if it is proposed to replace this gentleman by another civil servant or will the Secretary to the War Office consider the advisability of filling this position by the appointment of a chartered accountant and throw the appointment open to competition at the salary enjoyed by the present occupant?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): The temporary arrangement referred to in the question terminates on the 2nd proximo, and the Department will thenceforth be organised on normal lines, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State being assisted on the financial side by a deputy with special experience of Army finance. The necessary appointments have been made and announced.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made himself acquainted with the evidence tendered over a series of years before the Public Accounts Committee, whereby it has been revealed that many millions have been lost to the public through the administration of the financial side of the War Office and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for a speech.

    SALARIES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the differentiation between the salaries of civil servants in London, Edinburgh, and the provinces, respectively, was calculated?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member is referring to the case of recruits to the general Treasury Classes outside London, the differentiation was the result of agreement on the Reorganisation Committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. The Committee were of the opinion that the lower cost of living and other conditions of service outside London justify rates generally lower than in London. I ought to add, however, that this matter, with others, is under consideration.

    COTTON CLOTH (TUNISIAN TARIFF).
    Mr. WARDLAW MILNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the large trade hitherto carried on in the sale of T cloths by the Lancashire mills with Tunis has been entirely cut off owing to the French Government placing a high protective tariff on such goods; and whether, seeing that the result has been to seriously curtail production in this country, which is likely to lead to more unemployment, the Government will consider what steps can be taken in the matter?
    Mr. WEBB: I have not received any specific complaints as to the effect of the modification of the Tunisian tariff on British exports of cotton cloth. I shall be happy to consider any information which may be brought to my notice, although I doubt whether anything can be done.

    FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the average number of workpeople employed in the British fabric-glove making industry during the year preceding the imposition of the Safeguarding of Industries Act duty and during the year 1923; and whether he can state the number of British firms engaged in the industry for the two respective periods indicated?
    Mr. WEBB: I regret that the Board of Trade are not in possession of the particulars asked for. Enquiry is being made to see if the particulars can be obtained, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    CEMENT.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the highest and the lowest prices of British and foreign cement in this country for each half-year since 1919, or for such periods as the figures are available?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer contains tables of figures, and perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Fallowing is the answer:
    The following prices of British cement are as quoted in the columns of the "Builder," and relate to "Best Portland Cement delivered in London area":

    —

    Highest per ton.

    Lowest per ton.

    First half of year 1919.

    70s. 6d.–73s. 6d.

    68s.–71s.

    Second half of year 1919.

    73s. 6d.–76s. 6d.

    70s.6d.–73s.6d.

    First half of year 1920.

    84s. 6d.–90s.

    73s.6d.–76s.6d.

    Second half of year 1920.

    87s. 6d.–93s.

    84s. 6d.–90s.

    First half of year 1921.

    107s. 6d.–113s.

    87s. 6d.–93s.

    Second half of year 1921.

    107s. 6d.–113s.

    77s. 6d.–83s.

    First half of year 1922.

    77s. 6d.–80s. 3d.

    70s. 6d.–76s.

    Second half of year 1922.

    63s.–68s. 6d.

    63s.–68s. 6d.

    First half of year 1923.

    63s.–68s. 6d.

    58s.–63s. 6d.

    Second half of year 1923.

    58a.–63s. 6d.

    58s.–63s. 6d.

    Comparable prices of foreign cement are not available. Some particulars, however, have been furnished to the Ministry of Health from April last regarding the prices of British and imported cement respectively at various centres. The figures for four of these centres are as follow:
    Willesden:

    British cement.—April, 1923, to January, 1924, 60s. per ton.

    Foreign cement.—April, 1923, 55s; June to December, 1923, 51s. January, 1924, 53s. per ton.

    Leeds:

    British cement.—April, 1923, to January, 1924, 65s. per ton.

    Foreign cement.—June, 1923, to January, 1924, 50s. per ton.

    Newcastle:

    British cement.—April, 1923, 59s; June, 1923, 60s. 4d.; July, 1923, to January, 1924, 62s. per ton.

    Foreign cement.—April, 1923, 48s.; June, 1923, to January, 1924, 54s. 6d. per ton.

    Glasgow:

    British cement.—April, 1923, 70s. 6d.; June, 1923, to January, 1924, 67s. 6d. per ton.

    Foreign cement—April and June, 1923, 53s.; July, 1923, to January, 1924, 51s. 6d. per ton.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
    Mr. TILLETTasked the President of the Board of Trade who are the authorities responsible for incurring and for checking expenditure in connection with the British Empire Exhibition?
    Mr. LUNN: The responsibility for incurring expenditure in connection with the British Empire Exhibition rests with the Board of Management, assisted by the Finance and Estimates Committees. The expenditure is checked by the Accounts Sub-Committee, and audited by a firm of chartered accountants.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the accounts have been in perfect order up to the present moment?
    Mr. LUNN: I have no information upon the matter.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is there any Clause like the Fair Wages Clause governing the conditions of labour employed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the original question.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the percentage preference allowed by each of the Dominions and Colonies on imports from Great Britain; what was the total amount of exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured articles from this country to the Dominions and Colonies, and to the different countries in Europe, respectively, (luring the last three years for which the Returns are ascertainable; and the amount per head of the population in each instance?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer will be a somewhat lengthy one and involve a detailed statistical statement. I will arrange to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it can be compiled.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING AND RE-ENGAGEMENT.
    Colonel PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, to stimulate recruiting, the Army Council has considered the desirability of guaranteeing security to both officers and men who accept the published terms of enlistment or engagement; whether the present Ministry adheres to the contrary policy, which ruined the careers of a large number of non-commissioned officers and men by curtailing re-engagements for pension; and whether he will consider the extension of pensions to men who are discharged against their will on reduction of establishment?
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. and gallant Member raises questions of policy which I cannot deal with within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but the general answer is that whilst neither the Army nor any other public service is recruited on a basis of absolute security of tenure irrespective of the public interest, curtailment of service would only be resorted to with great reluctance and to meet a public necessity. I may add that, at present, men who complete 12 years' service with the Colours are allowed, if fit and satisfactory, to reengage and serve on for pension, and also that the Royal Warrant for pay makes provision for pensions for men discharged on reduction of establishment after 14 years' service.

    X-RAY OPERATORS.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for War how many X-ray operators were working, directly or indirectly, under his Department during the War; how many of them contracted forms of dermatitis and similar complaints as a result of their work; what has been the policy of his Department in regard to these cases in general and to each individual case; and whether it accepts any responsibility for their condition?
    Mr. WALSH: I regret that the figures asked for are not available. As regards the latter part of the question, in the case of soldiers the general policy has been to treat disease resulting from the working of X-ray apparatus as a disability attributable to service, but in the case of civilians, the Department's powers are
    1518
    subject to the statutory restriction that the disease of X-ray dermitatis is not one of the industrial diseases scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act as entitling to compensation. I am looking sympathetically into this question, and I have already under consideration a particular case which the hon. Member has brought to my notice.

    ACCOUNTANCY.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now publish the Report of the Committee which investigated the question of accountancy in the Army?
    Mr. WALSH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which gave on the 14th instant, which my hon. Friend has doubtless seen.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House has been promised this report for over a year, that many needed reforms have been kept back pending this report, and that this House ought not to be kept without its contents?
    Mr. WALSH: I cannot say what promises were made 12 months ago, as that is a date of which I have no official record. The report was completed in the Department on 23rd October last.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Five months ago.
    Mr. WALSH: Many things have happened in those five months. First of all, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, the Committee is entirely an Interdepartmental Committee. The Army Council has not yet considered the report. At the earliest opportunity, I will get the Army Council to consider it, and as soon as that is done, which, I hope, will be within a very short time, the whole matter will come up for consideration.

    ROYAL CORPS OF SIGNALS (G. E. PALIM).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in March last Lance-Sergeant G. E. Palim, of the Royal Corps of Signals, received his discharge, after 12 years' service with an exemplary record, and his accounts paid 4o the 31st March; that Mr. Palim, who had obtained civil employment, was arrested seven months later for desertion, subjected to the degradation

    1519
    of being moved about the country in handcuffs, and kept under close arrest for nearly three weeks; that this man, after suffering this public degradation, lost his civil employment, and was then informed that the case against him was quashed; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to compensate Mr. Palim for the degradation and loss of employment he has suffered?
    Mr. WALSH: I am making full enquiries into the question asked by the hon. Gentleman, and if he will be good enough to put it down again next week, I hope to be in a position to give a full reply.
    Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is not this a question which could be settled by the War Office without putting it on the Paper and wasting Parliamentary time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to hon. Members that questions dealing with individual cases might be sent to the Departments concerned.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. Is not this a question dealing with the liberty of the subject?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot lay down any rule, but I ask hon. Members to have consideration for their colleagues

    DEPTFORD MARKET.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office le still in possession of Deptford Market; what rate is paid per annum; why is possession retained; and is he aware that a large number of men could be employed there if possession were given up by the War Office?
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House as to the use which is at present being made by the War Office of Deptford Market; and whether, in view of the expense involved in the proposed purchase of the site by the War Office, and seeing that the market formerly provided employment for between 1,500 and 2,000 persons who might again be so employed, and that the loss of this market in London has an adverse effect on the price of meat in London and on certain trades in the surrounding districts of Deptford, he will reconsider the matter?
    Mr. WALSH: I will answer these questions together. Deptford Market is still in the possession of the Department, and it has been decided to exercise the option of purchasing it. The market is used mainly as a depot for the storage and handling of reserve and other stocks of food and forage and for purposes incidental thereto. I regret that I cannot reconsider the decision to purchase. The whole matter received most careful examination before that decision was arrived at. When the purchase has been completed I will give my best consideration to the question of selling or letting any part of the property not required for military purposes. The effect of the release of the depot on private employment is hypothetical, but I would point out that the place had been practically closed for some time when originally taken over in 1914. The rent pending purchase is £10,000 a year.
    Mr. BECKER: Was this market bought specially in order that it might be sold to the War Office, or was it bought from the original owners who had the tenure before 1914?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What was the capital sum paid out for this market; and would it not have been possible to get cheaper land elsewhere which would have been equally efficacious?
    Mr. WALSH: I do not see that these questions arise out of the question on the Paper. If categorical answers are required to them, the questions had better be put down.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not really far more economical to purchase, and is it not the fact that, by this means, we shall avoid a very heavy bill for reinstatement?
    Mr. WALSH: That is really the gist of my answer. The matter has undergone most careful consideration. I myself have done a great deal in going through the papers, and I am fully satisfied that more careful consideration could not have been given to the matter than has been given.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not most unfair, Mr. Speaker, that men who were in the Government until a month ago should put questions of that kind?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on my left was offering support to the Minister?

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War whether Major-General Wauchope has been making investigations in South Africa, on instruction from the War Office into the problem of empire migration; and whether it is proposed to publish his Report?
    Mr. WALSH: Major-General Wauchope went to Australia as War Office representative on the British Oversea Settlement Delegation. He is now on his way home via South Africa, but I am not aware that he has been making any investigations in the latter country. I have not yet received his Report, and I am, therefore, not in a position to give an undertaking as to its publication.

    EX ARMYRANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes, in the immediate future, to take steps to remedy the grievance of ranker officers in respect of their assessment for pension on the basis of non-commissioned rank?
    Mr. WALSH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave on the 12th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Minister receive a deputation of Members of all parties in the House, and enable us to put reasons to him why this matter should be re-considered?
    Major HORE - BELISHA: Is the Minister aware that officers in this category are receiving, after 24 years' service, pensions of 15s. 9d., and does he consider that they can live on that sum?
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister and this party are pledged to the hilt in this matter? I have a letter here to that effect by the Prime Minister, offering to accept the four points of the ranker officers' claim.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the Minister given full consideration to the real hardships
    1522
    suffered by officers of this class, and will he take into consideration some improvement in their present position?
    Mr. WALSH: Apart from the fact that the matter has been, in at least two distinct phases, before this House for over four years—I need not say anything about the awful hullaballoo raised at the moment—the Prime Minister himself promised last week that he would again go into it. It is not within my competence to go against a pledge given by the Prime Minister himself in this House. As he himself has promised to go fully into the matter, I cannot carry it any further.

    WAR DEPARTMENT (WORKMEN'S PENSIONS).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received representations from War Department workmen and their associations in relation to a scheme for the establishment of a pension fund; and whether he will give the matter his favourable consideration?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes, Sir, representations have been received at the War Office, and T will give them careful consideration.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a small deputation of Members of this House who are interested in this subject?
    Mr. WALSH: The considerations arising out of a question such as this are not really matters for a deputation, but matters to be gone into more carefully on actuarial lines.

    STREET TRADING BILL.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to proceed with the Street Trading Bill?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am looking into this matter, but am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there is very strong opposition to

    1523
    this Measure by the street traders of this country, and before coming to a decision will he receive further representations?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am prepared to consider any representations made on the subject.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. COOPER RAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to set up a national employment committee to investigate and recommend employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present unemployment problem, such committee to be non-party and as small as possible consistent with its representative character?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The Government have set up a Committee of the Cabinet the function of which is to formulate schemes to the greatest practicable extent for the relief of unemployment. This Committee is in a position to obtain the best expert advice on any question coming before it. There are already a large number of schemes before the Committee, which is, however, prepared to examine any further proposals that may be put forward.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PURCHASE OF MATERIAL).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that important matters of principle involved in the administrative work of the Unemployed Grants Committee must have the authority of the Government of the day, the condition imposed on local authorities of purchasing all materials for relief works in this country, which was the decision of the late Government, will now be reconsidered?
    Mr. CLYNES: This question is at present under consideration and I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the nature of the answer, and the urgency of this question to local authorities, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the. Adjournment to-morrow night.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (RESOLUTIONS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister when the Debate will be taken on the resolutions of the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference; what arrangements will be made for submitting the various resolutions for the decision of this House; and will the resolutions of each conference be submitted as a whole, or will the Government submit the various resolutions seriatim?
    Mr. CLYNES: The whole question is now under the consideration of the Government, and they will take an early opportunity of informing the House of the procedure which they propose.
    Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the resolutions of the Imperial Economic Conference will be brought before the House at an early date?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir.

    PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1920.
    Mr. G. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation repealing Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920?
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the intentions of the Treasury with regard to the suggested increase in pre-War pensions; and whether, in that case, the Government proposals will include the pensions now paid to Army chaplains?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Government proposes at an early date to promote legislation to deal with pre-War pensions. As regards details, I must ask hon. Members to await the introduction of the Bill.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that include police pensions as well as pre-War pensions?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

    MOTOR-CAR DUTIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that manu-

    1525
    facturers of motor cars and motor accessories find themselves in considerable difficulty in completing their business arrangements for the trade of the current year consequent upon the doubt which prevails that the duties imposed by The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as continued by Section 6 of The Finance Act, 1923, in relation to motor cars, parts and accessories, may not be continued; and whether he can assure the House that these duties which have provided constant employment for large numbers of skilled workmen will be embodied in the Finance Bill of the forthcoming financial year?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have been asked to answer this question. I have taken note of the statement contained in the first part of the question, but I regret that I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the difficult position in which all these business men find themselves, and how important it is to make business arrangements for the coming season, so that—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BRITISH SILVER DEBT).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Great Britain has paid her silver indebtedness (Pitman) to the United States of America; and, if so, what is the amount?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The debt amounted to $122,017,633, and has been repaid, the last payment having been made in September last.
    Sir F. WISE: May I ask if that amount is debited to what is called the "Baldwin Sinking Fund?"
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It has always been regarded as outside the ordinary War Debt.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated approximate cost of removing the means disqualification of old age pensions; the estimated cost of
    1526
    lowering the age limit of old age pensioners to 60 and 65 years of age, respectively; whether he can give the estimated cost of granting allowances to poor widowed mothers with young children; and, if so, at what rate of allowance?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The charge for old age pensions on the existing basis is £24 millions a year, which will automatically increase, owing to the longer life of pensioners, to about £40 millions a year. If the means disqualification were abolished, it is estimated that the present charges would become, for the existing pension at the age of 70, £42 millions; at 65, £73 millions; at 60, £114 millions. I hope to be able to give some information as to the cost of pensions for widows to-morrow on the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes).

    AVONMOUTH FACTORY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the original cost of the Avonmouth controlled factory, near Bristol; whether it has been sold; if so, at what price; and who bought it?
    Mr. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Factory Avonmouth, the original cost of which was approximately one and a half million pounds, has been transferred to the National Smelting Company, Limited. The transfer formed part of a general settlement which disposed of a number of claims and counterclaims outstanding between the company and Government Departments. Under that settlement the Government has received a net sum of £115,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But what sum did the factory represent as against the other claims?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that question. The claim is very complicated, but if the hon. and gallant Member will give further notice, or will consult me personally, I think I can give him the information for which he asks.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (WELFARE CLUBS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total annual amount

    1527
    received from the tax levied upon the subscriptions to welfare clubs?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No information is available as to the total annual amount received from Entertainments Duty on the membership subscriptions of welfare clubs.

    IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY.
    Mr. EMLYN - JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the enormous profits recently disclosed by the Imperial Tobacco Company; and, in view of the necessity of reducing the price of tobacco, if he will, in the event of any reduction in the Tobacco Duty being contemplated in the Budget, negotiate with the companies, as was done in the case of the brewers last year, that they reduce the price of tobacco to the public?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am aware of the profits shown by this company, and have noted the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

    ARTICLED CLERKS (STAMP DUTIES).
    Lieut. - Colonel HODGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to dispense with the necessity for revenue stamping all documents now required to be stamped by entrants into certain of the professions, such as the £80 stamp now required to be affixed on articles of clerkship entered into with a solicitor, etc.?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not able to entertain the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the necessity for paying these stamps and similar duties acts as a direct Government penalty on the sons of poor parents?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that all taxation is a hardship in some cases, but there has been, I understand, hardly any demand at all for either the reduction or the abolition of this tax.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that taxation is at the worst part of a man's career, at the very outset, and that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making a speech.

    SPIRITS (EXPORT ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there is a bonus allowance from public funds of 3d. per proof gallon of exported spirits; what is the estimated annual cost of the excise supervision and administration of this bonus; what the bonus amounted to during the last financial year; if the exporters to Canada and the United States of America share in the bonuses; and how they supply evidence of landing at foreign destinations?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am aware that an allowance of 3d. per proof gallon is paid on British plain spirits exported, the allowance being made as compensation for the enhanced cost of manufacture due to Revenue restrictions. The control and payment of this allowance forms a very minor part of the work of the Customs and Excise Department. No estimate of its cost can be given, but it must he negligible. The total amount paid during the financial year ended 31st March, 1923, was £63,428. The allowance is payable by law in respect of all exported home-made spirits on an official certificate of due shipment of the spirits, and evidence of landing abroad is not required unless there is suspicion that the spirits have, in fact, not been exported.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask if this bonus to whisky exporters, which amounted last year to £63,000, has been paid since the year 1860?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

    INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX (ARREARS).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the balance of arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax to 31st January, 1923, and the amount collected of the arrears for previous years to date?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer is a long one, and contains a number of figures, I will, with the bon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I regret that I am unable, without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to give particulars of the arrears of Income Tax outstanding at any date between the 1st December and the 31st March following, i.e., during the progress of the main collection of the year's tax. It is considered, however, that the arrears now outstanding in respect of previous years of assessment have fallen to a comparatively small sum.
    The approximate amount of Super-tax estimated to be due to be paid but not paid at the 31st January, 1923, in respect of assessments for years prior to 1922–23 was £8,400,000. At the 31st January, 1924, the estimated collectible arrear in respect of these years was about £3,000,000. The two figures are not, however, strictly comparable, as the arrear at the later date includes considerable sums of duty assessed since the earlier date.
    The estimated amount of collectible arrears at the 31st January, 1924, in respect of assessments for the year of assessment 1922–23 is, approximately, £4,000,000.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government, is going to restore the gold standard at an early date?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. T. Johnston).
    Sir F. WISE: Will the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is going to set up deal with the gold standard?
    Mr. MARLEY: I would like to ask whether the hon. Member who puts that question, if he find the gold standard, would bring it into the House, so that we might see it?

    BRITISH PHOSPHATE COMMISSION.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the accounts and balance sheet of the British Phosphate Commission have been or will be presented to Parliament?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The accounts of the British Phosphate Commission will be included in the annual volume of Trading Accounts of Government Departments.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that we shall have that in our hands before we are asked to pass the Colonial Office Supplementary Estimate; does he realise that in that Estimate he is asking the taxpayer to put up another £100,000 for this adventure; and cannot we have the accounts before we are asked to deal with them?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I will inquire into that, and if it be possible it will be done.

  NATIONAL DEBT COMMITTEE.

    TERMS OF REFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of liquidating in whole or in greater part the National Debt?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I propose to appoint a Treasury Committee, with the following terms of reference:
    "To consider and report on the National Debt and on the incidence of existing taxation, with special reference to their effect on trade, industry, employment and national credit."
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided who the members of this Committee shall be, and, if so, will he give the House the names?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Of course, as the House will realise, it takes considerable time to communicate with the various people, and some whom I have invited to join are out of the country at present. But I can assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay, and when the Committee has been constituted, I will communicate the names to the House at once.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I do not want to press him if he does not care to answer now—if the Government intend to abide by the Report made by that Committee?

    HUNGARY.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Prime Minister if he has invited the leader of the Hungarian Socialist Democratic party to come to London to discuss the Hungarian situation with him?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby):
    No, Sir. The Prime Minister issued no such invitation, either directly or indirectly.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman in question has publicly stated in Vienna that the Prime Minister has asked him to come to this country?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I think the report appeared in a paper in Austria, hut I believe that it was denied by the gentleman in question.

    GOODS (PRODUCTION).
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce legislation to counteract the alleged tendency to direct a great deal of our industrial effort to the production of goods which are not necessaries; whether the policy of the Government is to be aimed at the limitation of such production; and whether, for the information and warning of manufacturers concerned, he will state exactly what such articles are?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the other parts, therefore, do not arise.
    Sir L. LYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Solicitor-General has been making speeches in the country to this effect, and, if so, if it is not the view of the Government, will the Prime Minister take steps to see that junior Ministers do not make rash statements?

    EMPIRE COTTON GROWING.
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to carry on the policy of stimulating cotton growing within the Empire; and, if so, whether the Government intends to stipulate that such cotton shall be for Empire consumption and not for rationing amongst other nations?
    Mr. WEBB: I have been asked to reply. The Government regard all increase of the world's supplies of raw cotton as a matter of the greatest importance, and have every intention of carrying on the policy of promoting the development of cotton growing within the Empire, but I do not think that such a restriction as the hon. Member suggests would be in the best interests of either the growers or the British cotton-using industry.
    Sir L. LYLE: Does the Prime Minister or his Government accept the view of the Hamburg International, of which they were themselves members not long ago, that raw material such as cotton should be rationed to all countries?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for Question Time.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT HOLDING).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government holding of Anglo-Persian Oil Company's shares has enabled oil fuel to be supplied to the British Navy at prices which are not subject to the dictation of the closely-controlled oil corporations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

    HEREDITARY PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINDSORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to whom, and to what amounts, hereditary pensions are now being paid; and the total amount so paid up to 31st December, 1923?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend will find particulars of the persons to whom the remaining perpetual pensions are payable, their amounts respectively and the duration of the grant in each case on page 44 of the Finance Accounts for 1922–1923 (House of Commons Paper 89). With regard to the last part of the question, the mere addition of sums paid over a long series of years, including commutation payments, would not give a correct impression of the value of the payments in respect of these pensions.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the questioner has any family interest in this question?

    MEMBERS Oh' PARLIAMENT (FREE RAILWAY PASSES).
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements can be made to issue free railway passes to Members travelling between their constituencies and London?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This matter is under consideration. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will address a. further question to the Leader of the House.
    Captain BERKELEY: Would the hon. Gentleman indicate when that question should be put?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If my hon. and gallant Friend put a question a week hence, it will be possible at that time to give a reply.

    INLAND REVENUE RECEIPTS (ADVERTISEMENT).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that official receipts (A. and C. G. Form, No. 554) are being issued by the Accountant and Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue and under his official stamp bearing and drawing attention to the assertion that a certain brand of tea is the best and purest; and whether he has satisfied himself of the truth of this assertion before allowing it to appear on his official documents?
    Mr. GRAHAM: With a view to producing needed revenue, greater use is now being made for purposes of advertisements of the valuable space on Government publications of all kinds (including pamphlets, forms, books of postage stamps and the like). The advertisement referred to by the hon. Member is clearly shown to be such in order that it cannot be confused with the terms of any official communication. I see no reason why the Government should make itself responsible for the accuracy of the advertisements it receives. I am aware that in another case use has been made in the
    1534
    advertisement of the nature of the official communication which it accompanies to imply a sort of connection between the two, but I have given directions that advertisements of this kind shall not be accepted in future, and that the particular advertisement in question shall be withdrawn as soon as possible.

    BALTIC STATES (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether any commission from his Department is to visit the Baltic republics; and, if so, whether he is able to state the approximate date for that visit and the names of those who will take part in it?
    Mr. WALSH: An invitation has been received from the Baltic States for a small military mission, composed of two or three senior British officers, to visit them for the purpose of discussing with their military authorities various technical questions arising out of the re-organisation of their armies, but it has not yet been decided whether this mission will be sent. The matter is still under consideration.

    PALESTINE (BRITISH TROOPS).
    Dr. SPEROasked the Secretary of State for War the number of British troops employed in Palestine; and if these troops involve any addition to the total numbers figuring in the Army Estimates?
    Mr. WALSH: The number of British troops employed in Palestine at present is 250 all ranks, excluding Royal Air Force personnel. A very small proportion of them may be regarded as added to the Army to meet requirements in Palestine, but for the most part they do not involve any addition to the total numbers shown in the Amy Estimates.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask a question with regard to the order of the questions on the Paper? During last Parliament it was arranged, I think through your courtesy, Sir, and through the courtesy of the Patronage Secretary to

    1535
    the Prime Minister, that Scottish questions should be put down one day in the week early on the Paper to give them a chance of being reached. The first Scottish question on the Paper to-day is No. 79, in the name of the hon. Member for West Perthshire (the Duchess of Atholl), and I put it to you that the same arrangement should now exist, so that Members from Scotland should have their legitimate right of having questions answered earlier in the day.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Might I also raise the same question? Scottish Members having been insulted by having their representation on the Front Bench cut down by two—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I am aware that some hon. Members who cheer would cut it down altogether, if they could—may I ask if you, Sir, will consider giving at least one day per week, so that Scottish Members may put down their questions, and have them answered orally?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put another question in connection with this? It is almost impossible to reach certain Ministers by questions, for instance, the Office of Works and the Postmaster-General, and certain occupants of the Front Bench, who are never likely to be heard, unless some arrangement is made at Question Time. May I suggest it would be very much fairer that there should be a ration of questions to each Minister, and then, when we have worked through the Ministers, we could start again on the others who are more favoured?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Might not a new arrangement be considered whereby Ministers might meet the Members who are putting their questions in one of the Committee rooms in the presence, if necessary, of Press representatives, and so enable some time to be given by the Members, in company with the Minister, in threshing out the questions raised?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House, I am sure, will appreciate my anxiety always to hear the Scottish Members, but, in fact, I do not control or order the arrangement of questions upon the Order Paper. That is a matter which is done through the usual channels for the general convenience of the House, and I am sure if hon. Members will make representations through
    1536
    those channels, every endeavour will be made to bring each Department before the House at least one day in the week. But there is one remedy I can suggest, which is, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy) and all Members of the House will exercise a little more discretion, restraint and unselfishness in supplementary questions, we shall deal with a much larger number. I think in a few days' time—after all, we are only at the beginning of the Session—we shall be able to meet the general convenience in these matters.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to put it to the Leader of the House, whether he will not take into consideration that the functions of the Government have enormously increased since the time when the present period for Scottish questions was fixed; and in view of the great increase in the interest of the proceedings of the House and the Government, may I ask whether the Government itself would not put down a Motion for extending the time of questions?
    Mr. CLYNES: In this matter the Government rest very much in the hands of the House itself. I may say I fully appreciate, Mr. Speaker, what you have said in regard to the future, and it does occur to me that the matter is one which the Government might fairly well consider, though I can at the moment make no promise as to what we shall do.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is not the case that during the last Parliament arrangements were entered into whereby questions relating to Scottish affairs came on early on the Tuesday, and has not that arrangement now been 'broken through? By whose authority has that arrangement broken down, for it seems impossible for us who are here responsible for Scottish constituencies to raise questions concerning the places we represent?
    Mr. SPEAKER: All I can say is that it is no order of mine.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I put this question—and I desire to do so fairly—because it was really a sore point previously with Scottish Members. It was only after a great deal of representation that we had the arrangement made in the last Parliament. I quite

    1537
    accept what you say, and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, had nothing to do in the matter, for you like to hear Scottish speakers, but I want to know why this arrangement has been broken down? I shall put my question to the Leader of the House, and ask if he can state why the arrangement has been broken through, and a new arrangement entered into that prohibits, as it seems likely to do, Scottish questions and answers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am informed at the Table there has been no change in regard to the order of Scottish questions. Anyhow, it is a matter which can best be discussed through the usual channels.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the statement made by the Leader of the House that the Government might consider the advisability of giving more time to the answering of questions, will my right hon. Friend bring before the Cabinet the question as to whether the Government are prepared to recommend to the House to meet earlier so as to give more time? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ten o'clock!"]
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that to night on the Adjournment I will raise the matter of the Government statement on Scottish questions.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Might I make the suggestion hat, with the leave of the House, the first hour op Friday should be devoted to extra questions far Scotland?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should devote an hour to a little reading of Scottish history, and then he would not come here and make such foolish suggestions.

  DOCK STRIKE.

    COURT OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. LEIF JONES(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether any undertaking to abide by the finding of the Court of Inquiry has been given by, or sought, from, the parties concerned in the docks dispute?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): Having regard to the serious loss and inconvenience which would result, from a stoppage of works at the docks, I felt that it was necessary that the public
    1538
    should be fully informed as to the cause and circumstances of the dispute. I have, therefore, exercised my powers under the Industrial Courts Act to appoint a Court of Inquiry and, as the House will be aware, this action does not require the consent of the parties to the dispute. While I hope that the result of the further exploration of the matters in dispute will be to assist in its early settlement, the Court is not an arbitration tribunal, and no undertaking to abide by its conclusions has been sought from, or given by, the parties to the dispute.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: How was it that the right hon. Gentleman did not take that action and act before the dispute broke out?
    Mr. SHAW: I gave, I think, a full explanation of the matter. Immediately the negotiations between the parties broke down, I got the parties together at the Ministry of Labour. I was successful in getting the negotiations going until the Saturday, when they broke down. Immediately the negotiations broke down I took the action that was necessary so that the public would know what that action was in a dispute of a national character.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry will be open to the public?
    Mr. SHAW: I hope so. It is my intention that they shall be.
    Mr. PENNY: In view of the proceedings taken by the Minister of Labour, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that these men go on working while that Court of Arbitration goes on?
    Mr. AYLES: Will the Court of Inquiry not only inquire into the matters which are in dispute between the two parties, but also into the provocative action of the employers at the beginning of the negotiations?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In view of the possibility of the court of inquiry not being able to do anything, not having any authority, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any further steps being taken by him in connection with this strike?
    Mr. SHAW: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that no provocative words will be used in this

    1539
    House in regard to either employers or workmen. The situation is difficult and delicate enough without any provocation on either side. I can assure hon. Members of the House that every step that roan be taken by the Ministry of Labour to bring the parties together in a friendly way to negotiate a settlement will be taken. I hope that in the near future it may be possible to bring the parties together, and so arrive at a settlement; but that, however, will be conditional on a change of front of one or other of the parties.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. LINFIELD(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a definite announcement regarding the future of the German reparation 26 per cent. levy which now has to be met by the British taxpayer; and if not, at what date he hopes to intimate the decision of His Majesty's Government, having regard to the fact that correspondence respecting the deadlock has now been passing between the two Governments for a period of nearly four months, during which time very great inconvenience and damage has accrued to British traders?
    Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order Will you, Sir, tell us what is the urgency of this question? I myself have handed in at the Table a somewhat similar question and it has been accepted as an ordinary question. How can this matter be urgent when Scottish questions are waiting to be answered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I had not observed that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) had put a question on the Paper on the subject, and I am obliged to him for calling my attention to the fact. If that be the case, I cannot accept this private notice question.
    Mr. LINFIELD: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is not one for a point, of Order. If there be a question on the paper, it ought not to be anticipated. That is the rule.
    Mr. HOGGE: I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that my question is not on the paper, but I handed it in at the Table.
    1540
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, and having handed it in at the Table, in that sense it has been handed in If a question be accepted in the ordinary way by the Clerks at the Table, there cannot be —and everybody knows it—any urgency in the matter.
    Mr. LINFIELD: May I submit that the question of urgency arises from the fact that traders are being charged from day to day with German reparations duty?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member admits that this is a subject which has been going on for a long time. Therefore it is not urgent.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to debate every ruling that I give.

    EXHUMATION, KEYNSHAM.
    Mr. DIXEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the defending solicitor and reported in to-day's Press at the inquest proceedings of William Cooper, deceased, at Keynsham, as to the exhumation of the body of the same being made without notice to the defence; and whether his Department were responsible for the exhumation order and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. DAVIES: It was quite unnecessary to give notice of the exhumation to the solicitor in question, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is that treating the defence fairly?
    Mr. DAVIES: According to my information, no such notice is ever given in these cases, and I think it is obvious from the questions that some secrecy must be observed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: What authority has the hon. Gentleman for stating that no action of this kind has been taken hitherto? Is he not aware that the

    1541
    practice in most cases has been to give notice to the defence that it is going to happen, and why is it that a Labour Government—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter, and I want to ask why this departure has been made from the practice? It is a serious matter in which a man's life may be concerned, and I want to ask the hon. Member if he will make further inquiries, and give the defence of this man at least the same chance as he gives the Crown authorities.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that if exhumation takes place before any arrest is made, then no notice is given to anybody? It is done secretly. If, on the other hand, an arrest has been made, and the arrested person has actually employed a solicitor to defend him, is it not his inalienable right to receive every form of information needed for his defence?
    Mr. DAVIES: I will go into this matter, and give consideration to the points raised by my right hon Friend.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It may be too late.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not in order for me to move the Adjournment of the House on this question? If I can get from the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that he is going into this question at once, and will take definite steps, I do not want to interrupt the business of the House, but I do think that his answers are not sufficient in view of the importance of the question.
    Mr. DAVIES: May I say that this question was put into my hands only about a quarter past two o'clock to-day, and that I have had very little time to inquire into the subject. I will, however, go into the matter at once.
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman only received notice of this question at a quarter past two o'clock, why did he give such an authoritative statement?
    Captain RAMAGE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that although the solicitor for the defence was not informed, a doctor representing the defence was present at the exhumation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask if there has been any change in the business for to-morrow as previously announced?
Mr. CLYNES: Yes, to-morrow we propose to take the Diseases of Animals Bill, Second Reading; Supply, Committee, Civil Service and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24; Trade Facilities [Money], Report thereupon; and Ways and Means, Committee.
Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask what are the, Supplementary Estimates?
Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Motion respecting Poplar is going to be taken?
Mr. CLYNES: I expect one day next week.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put down the Supplementary Estimates in the order in which they appear in the printed Estimates, or in any other order?
Mr. CLYNES: As far as I know at the moment, yes.
Mr. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure in which order they are going to be taken, and inform the usual channels as soon as possible?
Mr. C LYNES: Of course, I shall now do that.
Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask when the Leader of the House will be in a position to make an announcement in regard to the Deputy-Chairman?
Mr. CLYNES: I cannot at present say, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down on the Paper.
Captain W. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman informed us before that the Supplementary Estimates were to be taken in the order in which the Resolutions appear. Is that arrangement to be adhered to?
Mr. CLYNES: The Order Paper will be arranged to harmonise with the information that I have given.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the question of a national minimum wage, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Compton.]
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, CHESHIRE.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to foot-and-mouth disease in Cheshire, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Charles Cayzer.]
  ELECTION PLEDGES.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the pledges and promises made by the present Government at the recent Election, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain S. Herbert.]
  BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to bona fide travellers," presented by Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS; supported by Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Mr. Harry Becker, and Captain Terrell; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th February, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    Clauses 1 Repeal of 13 & 14 Geo. 5,c. 2, s. 2 (2) and 2 (Short Title) agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a new Clause on the Paper—[Increase of benefit for children of insured person] in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) which I must rule out of order, as it is outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill seeks to repeal Proviso 2 of Section 2 of the Act of 1923, and the Amendment deals with another matter altogether, namely, Section 4. The same decision applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Garbles Division of Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan).
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it correct that the Bill has been so drafted that it is impossible to proceed with this Amendment of my hon. Friend, and that there can be no enlargement of the scope of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Bill as drawn, and as passed on Second Reading, precludes any extension of its purpose as laid down. Therefore it cannot now be amended in the way suggested.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(Mr. T. Shaw.)
    Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: May I take the opportunity of asking my right hon. Friend when he proposes to introduce the further Bill 1 I made an attempt to introduce an Amendment to this Bill, but it was pointed out by the Chairman that the title of the Bill was so drafted that no Amendment was possible on the lines sugggested. It is extremely important that something further should he done for unemployed workmen with large families of children. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was one of those who voted in the last Parliament for an increase of 1s. per week for an unemployed workman's child. It is an
    1594
    altogether inadequate amount, and I know that he proposes to rectify the matter in a larger Bill. Can he say when he will bring in that Bill? It would have been better if we could have had this slight addition put into this Bill. Apparently, there is going to be a good deal of obstruction from the other side of the House. Heading the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think it is evident that quite unnecessary obstruction was introduced last night, and it may not be so easy to get the next Bill through. This Bill has gone through very easily. We ought to be informed how soon the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce that further Bill. I am sure that my right hon. friend is prepared to bring it in at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member and the Minister that on the Third Reading we must discuss only what is in the Bill.
    Mr. SHAW: I believe the House is unanimous as to this Bill and I simply leave it at that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  TRADE FACILITIES [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient:

  (a) to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922,

  (i) by increasing from fifty million pounds to sixty-five million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed there under; and

  (ii) by extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the period within which guarantees may he given under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921;

  (b) to authorise the Treasury, with a-view to the promotion of employment in the United Kingdom, to pay, in respect of a period not exceeding five years, an amount not exceeding three-quarters of any interest payable in respect of such portion as is to be expended in the United Kingdom of any loan the

  1595
  proceeds whereof are to be applied on or in connection with a public utility undertaking in some part of His Majesty's Dominions or in a British Protectorate, so, however, that the amount so payable by the Treasury shall not exceed one million pounds in any one year or five million pounds in all;

  (c) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1922, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given, and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty, the period during which guarantees under these Acts may remain in force;

  (d) to amend Section three of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Act, 1922 (Session 2), by increasing to seven million pound: the aggregate capital amount of the loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan, the principal and interest of which may be guaranteed under the said Section."—[King's Recommendation signified.].]

  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I wish to draw the attention of the Committee for a very few minutes this afternoon to the Financial Resolution which I am moving, and which appears on the Order Paper to-day to deal with the problem of unemployment. There are two reasons why I am encouraged to-day to make only a brief statement. First of all, this Resolution is merely a preliminary to a Bill which will be discussed, I hope not at any undue length, by the House. In the second place, the policy recommended in our present proposal has already been endorsed by the House of Commons. For these reasons I feel that only a brief statement of a general character is required at the present time. I would like to deal, first, with that part of the Resolution which proposes to adopt the recommendation of the recent Imperial Economic Conference. Hon. Members will recall that, on the second page of the summary of the Report of that Committee, it was proposed to pay up to a maximum not exceeding three-quarters of the interest on any loan raised in this country for expenditure of a capital character in the Dominions. The terms and conditions of the loan are more or less clearly set forth in the Resolution, and they will be elaborated in the Bill.
  I ought to say to the Committee that this represents the adoption of one, at
  1596
  least, of the proposals of the recent Economic Conference, and the whole object of the adoption of this Resolution is to take a step which will minister to employment in this country. The payment up to a maximum of three-quarters of the interest is limited to £1,000,000 in any one year, and to £5,000,000 in all. An application must be lodged within a period of three years, though the proposal itself extends to five years. The fundamental part of the proposition is that it must be capital expenditure involving employment in this country, and at the same time it must be work undertaken by the Colony or the Protectorate. It is one of the conditions embodied in the Bill that it shall apply to work which would not normally be undertaken. That was part of the policy of our predecessors in dealing with unemployment, and it is one of the central parts of this Resolution.
  It would be wrong to mislead the Committee by suggesting that this is other than a limited proposal. It is confined to public utility undertakings. It is suggested that the payment of three-quarters of the interest should be subject to review by the Advisory Committee which already exists under the Trade Facilities Act for the purposes of the guarantee behind capital expenditure in this country. I do not know whether I am strictly in order in dealing with that point at this stage, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that this suggestion is one for the Committee stage of the Bill, which must follow the Resolution. In any case there will be ample opportunities for discussing an Amendment of that kind on the Bill. So much in brief summary for that part of the Resolution referring to the recommendation of the Imperial Economic Conference.
  Another and a very important part of the Resolution deals with the extension of the date under the Export Credits Scheme. We propose to extend to the 8th September, 1926, the period within which guarantees may be given, to the 8th September, 1930, the period during which guarantees may remain in force. I need not recall the history of the Exports Credits Scheme, which is, of course, familiar not only to those who were Members of the last Parliament but also to the new Members of this House. It was launched in 1919,;primarily for the purpose of trying to

  1597
  assist our trade with certain countries in Europe and the Near East, which was suffering dislocation due to depreciated exchanges and other causes. Hon. Members will recall that the early part of this scheme proceeded on the basis of a grant. At a later date, not very long afterwards, that proposal was amended, and the House of Commons agreed to the system of a guarantee of bills, and that has been the policy followed in this matter of export credits ever since.
  I need not detain the Committee with the details of the advance part of the scheme. According to the latest figures, out of the £26,000,000 originally promised by way of guarantee of bills under the amended form of export credits, about £8,500,000 down to a recent date has either been taken up or has been applied for. Therefore there, remains out of the £26,000,000 about £17,500,000 which is available for this purpose, so that it is not necessary this afternoon to ask the House for any further financial provision. All that is required under the Resolution is simply an extension of the date in order that we may continue the policy, we hope, with increasing success, represented in this scheme, and originally introduced in 1919.
  I know there are hon. Members who ask what our liabilities may be under schemes of this kind and what possibility of risk and loss is involved. With regard to the guarantee part of the scheme, hon. Members will recall that it provides for the establishment of a reserve fund which we hold as against any risk and possible loss, and accordingly, with all the information now to hand, I think I can safely say this afternoon that in that part of the scheme any possible loss is covered by the reserve fund which will be established as the scheme develops. That is the position, and I hope it will reassure hon. Members in regard to any doubts which they may entertain on this point.
  Mr. A. M. SA MUEL: Does that cover any possible loss that may arise out of the assistance given by us to our export trade to Rumania?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I cannot reply to that question offhand. Information may be available from the Board of Trade later in the evening giving full information on these specific points. As a matter of fact the Board of Trade is
  1598
  responsible for that part of the scheme and I am only dealing with it generally.
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: From what source does the reserve fund come which is to indemnify all losses sustained under the scheme?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is a premium which the Government charge in respect of the risks involved. I will get my hon. Friend additional information, but that is the principle on which the reserve fund is conceived. I have summarised two parts of the scheme covered by this Resolution—
  Sir BEDDOE REESrose—
  Mr. GRAHAM: I would ask hon. Members to allow me to proceed with my general statement. There will be opportunities later for putting questions with regard to details. My purpose this afternoon is to make a purely general and not a detailed statement. The last part of the Resolution refers to a guarantee of principal and interest in respect of a Sudan loan, and I recognise that that involves a matter of very considerable controversy in the House of Commons; but I am entitled to say to hon. Members that this, of course, is not a proposal of ours. It is a comparatively old story, dating from 1909, and we have succeeded to a set of circumstances of very grave importance, which we are compelled to realise, and we have to make a proposal to-day which I venture to suggest the House of Commons could hardly avoid. T will not take time to indicate the course of legislation since 1909, but hon. Members know that various loans have been raised, and that at a comparatively recent date it was necessary to find £7,000,000 in respect of the work of irrigation in the Gezireh plain, which has very large cotton-producing possibilities. One-half of the £7,000,000, namely £3,500,000, was raised some time ago, and it was hoped at that time that it would not be necessary to come to the House of Commons for any further guarantee as to principal and interest for the surviving £3,500,000. It was believed that by leasing the railways, or some other device, it would be possible to avoid a request of this kind. But these schemes or proposals proved to be impracticable, and accordingly we are asking Parliament in this Resolution to give us powers to guarantee principal and interest in respect of the other half of the

  1599
  loan of 7,000,000, namely £3,500,000 at the present time.
  I need hardly say to the Committee, at this late stage in the negotiations in the Sudan, that, of course, these loans are subject to quite strict regulation. There are certain arrangements regarding priority, and there are certain arrangements affecting the revenue and assets, and, as far as we possibly can, we seek to protect the British Exchequer in the matter of liability. On the wider question of policy there is, undoubtedly, substantial difference of opinion. 1 am not competent to deal with that to-day on its political side, but the main and the important consideration is the great cotton-growing possibility of this desert; and there is, in the second place, the prospect of the provision of considerable employment in this country under the large contract which has been placed with a British firm. As regards the cotton-growing possibilities, I think the burden of evidence goes to show that, if this area can be irrigated and cultivated, it will be possible to plant a cotton crop in July, 1925, and my information is that the contract proceeds on that understanding, and that, if the area which is now specially in mind is cultivated, it will be capable of Sending about 70,000 bales of cotton every year to Lancashire, which I think is a consideration of the very greatest importance to an industry which is exposed to peculiar difficulties at the present time —difficulties which I think many of us believe will not be minimised, at all events in the years that lie immediately ahead.
  Accordingly, from every point of view, whatever Government is in power in this country, it is necessary to try to take a long view of this situation, and the present Government, after reviewing all the facts, have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to ask the Committee to authorise the additional guarantee contained in this Resolution. In the second place, the Committee will expect me to say a word or two regarding the provision of employment under this contract. Not so very long ago the contract in the Sudan was on the basis of cost and percentage. I have always held the view, which I think is shared by a large number of hon. Members, that that is a very undesirable basis for a contract of almost any description and I am, therefore, glad
  1600
  to be able to tell the Committee that the contract is now let on something resembling an economic basis to a British firm, and that that British firm must make a very large call for plant and engineering and other material in this country, and to that extent there will be a definite provision of employment in Great Britain under this part of the Financial Resolution and under the corresponding part of the Bill which is framed upon it. On these two grounds, without going into the political controversies on this matter, I think I have justified the proposal, at all events from the. Treasury point of view, although I ought to say that no doubt the other Department concerned will be willing to give every information on this part of the question.
  I come now very briefly to what is, after all, the immediate and, from many points of view, the urgent part of the Financial Resolution, namely, that part which deals particularly with Trade Facilities, that is to say, the guarantee under the Trade Facilities Acts of capital undertakings—undertakings involving capital expenditure in this country—with a view to the provision of employment. The House has already accepted the principle of this part of the Resolution, and innumerable schemes have already proceeded, after review by the Advisory Committtee estabiished under the Trade Facilities Act. The position at the present time is that the Act expired on the 9th November of last year, and at that time there was a balance remaining, of the guarantee which was available, amounting to between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000. We propose to provide an additional guarantee of £15,000,000 al the present time, and the net effect of our proposal in this Resolution will be that, until the 31st March, 1925, there will be available, by way of guarantee under the Trade Facilities Acts for undertakings involving capital expenditure in Great Britain, a sum of not less than £26,060,000. That, of course, will apply to the later period, subject to the extension of the date, but that is what we are proposing for a period of rather more than one year from the present time, or, perhaps, about a year and a half from the date at which the recent Act expired.
  As hon. Members know, the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Acts exposes every scheme to very close

  1601
  scrutiny. I quite recognise that there is a good deal of objection, or at least of criticism, in regard to the decisions of the Advisory Committee. It is very far from our intention to withdraw from this proposal the necessary elasticity which in our judgment it should show; but, on the other hand, I think the Committee will agree, and our predecessors would agree, that we should be failing in our duty if, without proper investigation, we exposed the British taxpayer to a very large liability in respect of undertakings which, after all, must be promoted by private firms or bodies in this country. There is, outside, a good deal of misapprehension with regard to this scheme. We very often hear that it refers to advances or grants, but, as the Committee knows, nothing of the kind is involved. It only provides guarantees—nothing more—and that after the strict, inquiry to which I have referred. Again, there is criticism on the point that the proposal which we are now making is too limited in its character. I have heard it suggested that them is no reason why we should not extend the guarantee to, say, £100,000,000. [HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I think there are two very practical replies to a proposal of that kind. In the first place, although this scheme does not involve any immediate charge on the State, and, in fact, has involved only a trifling charge, due to one loss of about £4,000, under all the schemes promoted up to the present time, it is, nevertheless, a liability and a possible burden which we must keep in view; and, although I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, it must, of course, be regarded also from the standpoint of our general credit. That, I think, is a consideration which the House of Commons is bound to take into account.
  Apart altogether from an important issue of that kind, there is an immediate and practical issue under this scheme which, I think, affords a full and true reply to the suggestion that we should indefinitely, or almost indefinitely, extend it at the present time. The whole object of the Trade Facilities proposal is to get an early application for guarantees behind schemes involving capital expenditure which will provide employment with the least possible delay. If you indefinitely extend the amount, and certainly if yon extend the date, you encourage the idea that there is plenty of time for
  1602
  applications, and that they may be lodged just as firms find it convenient to do so; whereas, if you keep the proposal on the basis on which we have now placed it, you encourage the idea that applications are to be lodged at an early date with the least possible delay, and in that way we get an early provision of employment under this scheme. At the present time there is almost everything to be said for the last consideration I have advanced, because there will be a real economy to this country if we can get employment now, if I may use that popular phrase. The saving under the Unemployment Insurance Act, in Poor Law relief, and in public health assistance in so far as it arises from ill health due to unemplcyment—the saving under these heads would be very considerable; and it is, therefore, the policy of the Government to try and encourage every scheme which will give early employment. For that reason we have placed this proposal under the Trade Facilities Act in a general category proceeding on that idea, and I venture to hope that, after the House of Commons has looked closely into the scheme, it will support us in that view. I ought to add that, if we find by experience that the applications arc larger in number than we have at present agreed to anticipate, there is no reason why the House of Commons should not consider the extension of the guarantee, and, of course, the necessary adjustment of the date. This is no final or fixed proposal, subject only to the consideration I have advanced regarding the early provision of employment. There is one other restriction which I ought to mention to the Committee in conclusion. After all, while the Government itself might extend the date and enlarge the scope of the guarantee, hon. Members must recall that this money must be raised by firms and undertakings in the ordinary way in the open market, and, of course, they are subject to all the difficulties of the market from time to time. I think that that also encourages the proposition in. the form in which we are now putting it forward.
  I have purposely dealt very briefly and generally with the four parts of the scheme, in order to afford hon. Members in all parts of the Committee the largest opportunity for discussing what is un-

  1603
  deniably an important contribution to the problem of unemployment. We do not suggest that there is anything new in these proposals, but we are confident that, if they Are worked with good will and freedom during the next year or 18 months, they will provide within the four corners of the Dominions, in the Sudan, and in the different countries of the world in which our export credits operate, and also under the trade facilities scheme itself, employment for a very large number of people, and so case that situation of stress, if not of strain, under which this country has suffered during the past three years.
  Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure the Committee in all quarters will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very clear and lucid explanation which he has given of this rather complex Resolution. I do not rise to offer any opposition to it, because it is the policy which the last Government proposed and were carrying out, and it was also the policy of the previous Government. I was very much interested to hear the hon. Gentleman in his closing remarks say that he was confident that this proposal, when given effect to, would result in finding in the different parts of the Empire sources of employment for very large numbers of the people of this country. I can well remember, when I was on that side of the Table and he and his Friends were on this, and when I was proposing precisely the same proposals which he is now submitting to the Committee, and going rather farther than he goes, we were greeted from that side of the House with the taunt that this was trifling with the subject, that these were useless proposals, that they did not go anywhere near the root of the problem, and that we should have to wait for the time when a Socialist Government came into power to show us how to deal with the unemployment question in a drastic manner. Naturally I am only toe glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts the policy we have laid down. I am quite sure that it is a sound and practical policy, and as long as Socialism in practice takes the form of using Government credit to stimulate private enterprise where private enterprise is engaged on sound undertakings, we can assure the hon. Gentleman that that rather novel form of Socialism will secure the complete assent
  1604
  of all my Friends on this side of the House.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will confirm himself and his colleagues in this very sound faith and that he will give a rather wider outlook to this problem. It. is with that purpose I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, and to those of his colleagues of the other Departments associated with him, one or two questions. In the first place, with regard to paragraph (a), I think the hon. Gentleman would have been wiser if he had put in a rather larger figure. I quite agree with the general grounds he has advanced. I think he was quite right in what he said about the method in which these issues have to be raised. Then he went on to say that, if they found by experience that they wanted a larger guarantee from the House, they could always come back and get it. But the hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience of what happens in regard to Parliamentary time, and I think he would be wise to put into his Resolution a sum which will certainly cover anything, even taking the most optimistic view of what is likely to happen, that he is likely to require in the year and a quarter that this scheme is to run. I should have thought, if there was any prospect of a trade revival, if he administers this scheme with a desire to stimulate enterprise, he might well find the limit of £65,000,000 exhausted. My recollection is that a sum of £38,500,000 has already been sanctioned. Then the Committee continued their work, and there were other schemes submitted to them which they considered, on the assumption, quite rightly, that Parliament would renew the Bill. I think that, out of those schemes which came before them since November last, they have practically approved of something like £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. That, for all practical purposes, means that you have already guaranteed £45,000,000 or £46,000,000, and that all you will have for the next 15 months is £20,000,000. I should have thought, if there was the possibility of electrification on the part of some of the railways, it would have been desirable to put in a larger figure, and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman could make this figure, say, £75,000,000.
  I will give another reason why he would be wise to do that. I hope that it may be possible to combine (a) and (b) in some cases. There may well he cases which will

  1605
  require a grant of interest during the period of construction under the powers the hon. Gentleman seeks to take in paragraph (b), but which might be greatly assisted if they could have a guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act which would cover the whole period of the scheme. In that case he should contemplate the possibility that there would be schemes coming from the Dominions and Crown Colonies which might apply to the Trade 'Facilities Act for a guarantee, while applying at the same time to take advantage of the direct grant of interest under paragraph (b). Therefore I suggest to him that he should consider whether he should not increase the sum to £75,000,000.
  With regard to paragraph (b), this was a proposal which was fully thrashed out at the Imperial Conference. We were all unanimous upon the desirability of it, and I am very glad and pleased to see the hon. Gentleman has so promptly adopted it. I only want to ask him two questions about it. I take it he will accept the whole of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference and that these grants will be equally available to private enterprise engaged on work of public utility as they will be to any public authority engaged in public utility work. The second point is with regard to the wording of the Resolution. He says, "For a period not exceeding five years." I take it that that limitation means that in respect to any one transaction the Government liability will not last more than five years, but it does not mean that the scheme will not last more than five years? I take it that the scheme may last eight or nine years, that you will entertain applications for the next three years and that any application so considered may involve grants for a period of five years. It is always difficult to forecast what will be the amount required, but again I should be inclined to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take a rather larger figure than he has taken. He is proposing to limit it to £5,000,000 in all, and £1,000,000 in any one year. It is quite possible that that may be as much as will be done. But, supposing this scheme went better than he expected, I am sure he will be prepared to ask and I am sure the House will give him, wider powers. When we were discussing this at the Imperial Economic Conference, the
  1606
  representative of India explained what the Indian railway programme was likely to be, that the Indian Government accepted the general principle, 1 think, of the Ackworth Report, and that they contemplated the extraordinary expenditure of £100,000,000 in five years on railway development suggested to the Indian Government that they should expedite this programme and put into the first two or three years what would normally have been the orders placed in this country in those years and in the fourth and fifth years. If the Indian Government would be prepared to consider that, there would be an enormous advantage to this country, and I think also a great advantage to Indian railway development which is terribly behind.
  would suggest that an effort should be made by the Government of this country to press upon the Government of India that they should put in hand within two or three years the whole of that railway development programme of £100,000,000. I hope that may he the more possible, because I sec that the Indian Government have made the reform of separating their Railway Budget from the ordinary Indian Budget, and I hope that will mean that it will be more possible to consider this scheme simply on its merits. I should like hint to consider rather carefully before the Report stage whether it would not be wise to put a somewhat larger figure there.
  5.0 P. M.
  There is a perfectly separate point which I understand is not covered in this
  at all. This proposal under (b) was a proposal to give grants to public utility undertakings in the Dominions Or Crown Colonies which, once they received that assistance, could carry on on their own. But there- is a great deal of Colonial development which will not come in under this, which requires not merely a grant of interest but requires a direct loan of money from the British Government if the Colony is to undertake its work at once. That applies not so much, or perhaps not at all, to development in the Dominions, but it applies enormously to development in the Crown Colonies. Let me take one example alone, the further development of the Uganda Railway, which is absolutely vital for the development of cotton growing in Uganda. The hon. Gentleman is probably well acquainted

  1607
  with the extension which is proposed, which is partly in Uganda and partly in Kenya. The route of that has been worked out and the proposal has the enthusiastic support of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation. He will find, if he has not already considered that question that this was a proposal which we considered and which I think even the watchdogs of the Treasury were prepared to admit, but it could not go through on the basis of a mere grant of interest or part interest for a period of five years. It was dependent, so far as part of the expenditure was concerned, on a direct advance from the British Treasury to the Government of Uganda or Kenya. I think he will find, too, that there are other schemes probably when you conic to Nigeria, and the same is the ease when you come to deal with Tanganyika. I know of one very small but if important piece of expenditure on the Lindi tramway. It is another of the cases which the Cotton Corporation have been keen on advocating. You require a direct power for the Government as a Government to make an advance in necessary cases to Colonial Governments. The development of cotton in Africa is simply a question of transport, and that is the view of the Cotton Corporation. You have your experts. I agree a good deal has to be done. You have labour considerations, certainly, but, when you work this out, as I have tried to do, with the Cotton Corporation, you find that transport is the fundamental question.
  If you take Uganda, I believe there will be no difficulty about labour there, just as in the Sudan, where it was anticipated that there would be difficulty about labour, in the extraordinary way in which African labour seems to migrate when it has a certainty, the labour came through in the Sudan. I put the thing too high in saying it is simply a problem of transport, but it is a problem which, even given the labour and given the expert assistance which the Cotton Corporation can give, is absolutely insoluble unless you get the transport problem settled, and that problem in these Crown Colonies which have already incurred large expenditure in development will be insoluble unless the Treasury are prepared to take their courage in both hands and, where there is a case made out for cotton development, are prepared
  1608
  to make a direct advance to the Colonial Government in order that they may go on with railway development. I would beg the hon. Gentleman to include in the financial Resolution whatever financial power is necessary in order to enable the Treasury and the Colonial Office to make those direct grants where they are necessary to the Crown Colony Government. He had much better to do it in this Bill if he is going to do it at all, because he will get it in one single Bill. It is a proposal which, I believe, will be supported from all quarters of the House. We have started with cotton development ten years too late. It ought to have been done years ago. The fact that the American cotton crop is going to be consumed in ever greater proportions at home makes every pound you can invest in this way ten times worth while. I believe it is the best investment for unemployment at present or for employment as affecting the cost of living in future, and is one of the best reforms you could possibly undertake, and I most sincerely hope the hon. Gentleman will include it in this Resolution and in the Bill. I can assure him that the power he has taken here, useful as it is in dealing with public utility undertakings in the Dominions, is going to be useless in dealing with these Crown Colony railways and if he has any doubt about that I hope he will ask the Colonial Secretary who, I am certain, will bear me out. In all these schemes which are prepared for Colonial development he should do what we were doing and keep in the closest possible touch with the Empire Cotton Corporation over the development of any of these transport schemes.
  There is another provision, which I am sorry to see does not figure in this Resolution, which would be appropriate to it and which applies to expenditure at home. One of the alterations which we made in the scope of the Unemployment Grants Committee was to give them the power to make a grant of part, interest for 15 years to revenue producing public utility undertakings, such as gas and electricity companies. I thought it had been agreed with the Treasury that, not only should there he that power of giving the interest year by year to these companies, but that in any approved ease there should be the power to give, in place of interest year by year, the discounted capital value of the interest

  1609
  granted. We had some evidence that that would be a very considerable incentive to public utility companies, particularly to gas companies, in incurring the necessary capital expenditure in putting down and extending their mains and so on. If that is work which could be done it is valuable work. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going back upon that proposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are doing very well."] Really, that is the kind of interruption which shows that the hon. Member cares more about his class prejudice than about finding work.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why worry about it?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not, and I do not think the Financial Secretary will either. But I hope he is not going back upon that proposal. I would ask him, if he proposes to give the discounted capital value in approved cases, whether it requires financial authority apart from the Estimates. If he does require such financial authority ought not that to be included in the Resolution and in the Bill which will be founded upon it?
  I think the increase of the guarantee for the Sudan irrigation needs no apology at all. That irrigation is vital to the development of cotton in the Sudan. I think the full amount should have been taken originally, and I am sure the House will sanction it. My question would go rather in the other direction. I should like to be assured that he is taking full powers now for whatever guarantee is necessary for public issues for the completion of the irrigation of the present Sudan cotton growing scheme. I should be glad if he would deal with the specific points I have raised, and I hope he will see his way to give a further extension and to consider the Amendments which I have suggested. He must move them. We cannot. But I am sure it is right, because I am certain these are the right lines, and now that he has come into practical contact with the problem he will appreciate that there is nothing so good for unemployment as this kind of assistance which helps on the ordinary machine. I hope he will extend it for this reason, that these schemes, which have been of so great help when unemployment has been at is worst, are going to be of most help when trade begins to revive,
  1610
  and just that form of Government assistance is wanted to get behind the machine.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like also to heartily congratulate the Financial Secretary on the extreme lucidity of his statement. I greatly admired the ability with which he selected the salient points of a difficult technical Treasury Resolution, and placed them before us so that we could understand them. We are really discussing a Money Resolution which involves a first-class matter of public policy, and although I should be the last to desire to interrupt the general harmony of the discussion, there are one or two things I should like to say. We have been constantly and insistently criticised on the ground that our policy, and the policy of the succeeding Government, has mainly devoted itself to finding money relief as a palliative rather than, as we ought to have done, making work. That has been the general criticism made against us. Further, the number of men we have been able to find work by our several schemes has always rather been spoken of with some amount of scorn and derision. I do not think I put it too high. Hon. Friends on this side will agree that. I am not overstating the facts. We have been told continuously, and in pretty clear terms, that to give money relief without service in return is really a waste of public money, a criminal waste. a sinful waste and a shameful waste. All these terms have been applied to our efforts. I have no doubt some hon. Members say that they are true. Only last Wednesday the Lord Privy Seal said that what we did was simply to buy off the anger or discontent of the unemployed people by giving them grants or bribes. Let it go at that. Here we have, and I am glad to see it, the Labour party's first constructive essay at finding work as a better alternative to money relief. Do not let me be unfair. This is their first, but it will not be their last by a long way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Certainly, and they have not been at it very long. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says, quite rightly, "This is the same thing over again." The Financial Secretary made that point over and over again. He said the House of Commons had already sanctioned this in principle, and that it has been put into operation by previous Governments.

  1611
  The maximum of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts is to be raised from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000, and the period of the Act is to be re-enacted so as to run to the 31st March, 1925. The second proposal is for the encouragement of development work oversea, and the Government undertakes to pay three-quarters of that part of the interest of a loan raised for such purpose as may be spent in this country. Only one million in this respect is to be spent in any given year, and not more than £5,000,000 in all, I cordially associate myself with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and think the Financial Secretary would be wise to give himself a little financial elbow room in regard to that proposal, and to make it more elastic, and to make provision for a larger expenditure, if it be expedient. The third proposal is an extension of the period of operation of the Overseas Trade Facilities Acts. The Financial Secretary says: "I do not want to raise the maximum of export credits allowed because there are only about £8,000,009 now extant, and £26,000,000 is the maximum." Finally, the Government of the Sudan is to be guaranteed in respect of a loan up to £7,000,000 as against the £3,500,000 previously enacted.
  So far, so good, but with every desire to praise, and with every desire to make allowance, does any hon. Member honestly say that these proposals represent anything approaching the requirement of the Labour Government's undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am glad to hear that. I suppose it will he requited hereafter. [HON. MEMBERS: "You will not have to wait long!"] Hon. Members say that we shall not have to wait long. I am glad to hear that. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that all what we and previous Governments had done was to nibble at this question of dealing with unemployment. I wonder what the Prime Minister calls the present proposals. I will leave it at that: The only direct Treasury expenditure involved in this is a certain, indeed, I will not say a certain, £1,000,000 for each of five years. As regards the rest, it is simply a collatoral guarantee of loans, for which the direct security is such, that the Treasury's repose at night need not be interfered with for any single five minutes. As regards experot credits, there is no direct grant there. The Financial Secretary told
  1612
  us about the reserve fund. I congratulate the Treasury on this scheme they are getting off very well.
  The King's Speech of the late Government promised an extension of the Trade Facilities Acts and the export credit schemes. Its promised aid from public funds for assisting the execution of public enterprises throughout the Empire was rather more than is here proposed. The late Government promised direct grants from public funds, which is rather better for them than long guarantees. There is, therefore, nothing new n any of these proposals, and the Financial Secretary does not claim that they are new Their proposal is rather less, when I take the last point, than was promised in the King's Speech of the late Government. The maximum under the Trade Facilities Acts to-day is £50,000,000. We began by making it £25,000,000. The late Government made it £50,000,000, and I gather that £42,000,000 have been exhausted. On the 16th October £36,000,000 were exhausted. The scheme ran on until some date in November, when the Act expired, and I gather that £42,000,000 of loan guarantees were extant. Therefore, £8,000,000 of the original maximum are left, and with the £15,000,000 additional now proposed the total will be £23,000,000. That is what the Board of Trade will have to deal with under the trade facilities scheme if this Bill passes, and they have a year in which to deal with it.
  The Prime Minister made reference last Tuesday to a very remarkable document which was signed by Sir Allan Smith on behalf of the industrial group. It was a remarkable letter, which was sent on the 24th July last, to the late Prime Minister. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the letter was under consideration, and that proposals arising out of it would he made later on. I am paraphrasing his statement. That remarkable letter pressed in detail the urgency of railway electrification, the extension of tube railways, the re-conditioning of railways, canal and inland waterway development, a Lower Thames tunnel, a Grimsby floating dock, and a dock extension scheme for the London Pert Authority. If a fraction of those proposals were put in hand under the Trade Facilities scheme, the Government would reach their £65,000,000 in no time. I will, at this

  1613
  point, read a sentence or two from an appeal to the Nation by the Labour party itself:
  "Unemployment is a recurrent feature of the existing economic system common to every industrialised country, irrespective of whether it has Protection or Free Trade. The Labour party alone has a positive remedy for it. We denounce as wholly inadequate and belated the programme of winter work provided by the Government.…"
  that is, the late Government,
  "which authorises the prospect of employment for only a fraction of the unemployed in a few industries. The Labour party has urged the immediate adoption of national schemes of production work."
  How far will the extension of the maximum from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000 under the Trade Facilities Acts give you the immediate adoption of national schemes of production? I press that point. I am bound to believe that my hon. Friends are sincere and honest in the appeal they made to the nation. They claim, above all, to be solicitous about those who are out of work. In view of their own promises I say that their present proposals do not go far enough, and they will have to be gingered up considerably. In the "Evening News," on the 15th January, there was an article written by the Lord Privy Seal headed:
  "Finding two million jobs. What labour would do."
  I cannot hold the Lord Privy Seal responsible for the headline. I imagine that he was not responsible for the headlines, but he did say:
  "The schemes of the Government.… that is, the fete Government, and, of course, it would be no lees true of the preceding Government, provide work for only about one in twelve of the unemployed. Can nothing be done for the other eleven?"
  They are not going to do it this way. I press them, and I am entitled to press them, on this point. With all the emphasis I can put behind my words, I associate myself with the proposal that the maximum under the Trade Facilities Acts should be extended, because it is the immediate and fruitful thing now before us for the development of actual work in this country; it will give immediate employment and widen the resources of trade facilities when good times come again. It is a vital proceeding. I press the Government about
  1614
  this point. My right, hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade has just suggested £75,000,000 as the maximum to which the trade facilities schemes should be raised. Of course, I follow all that was said about the inexpediency of going too far, but I would point out that the Government have a year before them, and if they were able to implement one-tenth of the honest professions that they put before the people they will want, not £50,000,000 or £65,000,000, but £100,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Would you vote for that?"] Yes, certainly, I would vote for it like a shot. I press for all I am worth the suggestion made by the late President of the Board of Trade. Instead of adding £15,000,000 to the maximum, and making it £65,000,000, if the Government would make it £75,000,000 a forward step would have been taken, not a very long one, because nobody can claim that it would be a big step. We are waiting for a. good deal More, and my hon. Friends have, told us that we shall not have to wait long. If the Government do what I have suggested, I shall be satisfied that I have not made this appeal in vain.
  Mr. SHORT: I desire to congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the very clear and concise statement which he has made upon this interesting though complex question. The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. LloydGreame) said that this is a question which is not new to the House, and ho chaffed those on this side, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), on their general attitude towards this question. I recall my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister chaffing the ex-President of the Board of Trade for indulging in some form of Socialism. If I recall the words aright, he used the phrase "dabbling in Socialism." The complaint now made by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken is that this does not go far enough. The complaint is that we have not brought in some revolutionary measure, not introduced at this very early stage the first great fundamental change in our economic system which would initiate real Socialism. I suppose that this is the real charge levelled against us. Of course, the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell does not overlook the fact that the Labour

  1615
  party is not in power. It has taken office in very exceptional and very difficult circumstances. It is facing its responsibilities, as the Prime Minister said, with the hearty co-operation of all parties, and it is tackling those responsibilities in the interests of the country. But what would be the position of the right hon. Gentleman later on? He has already indicated his satisfaction with this proposal and has suggested that we should give guarantees to a maximum of £75,000,000.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
  Mr. SHORT: And he went so far as to say that he would vote hundreds of millions of pounds.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not.
  Mr. SHORT: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps spoke in heat, and may have forgotten what he has said. He may have an opportunity before we go out of office of giving his support, but 1 think that we shall find him wanting. In the past few years we have had wide experience of unemployment, and of the administrative and legislative vagaries of the right. hon. Gentleman and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and when we look on the state of the country to-day we see that they have very little on which to congratulate themselves.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: You are taking up our schemes.
  Mr. SHORT: We are taking up your schemes at a very early date, but we are not taking them up because we are satisfied with them. When the Government brings forward those more drastic Measures, which the right hon. Gentleman complains are not produced to-day, possibly I shall be more willing to support it than he will be. A great deal has been said this afternoon by both the preceding speakers as to my hon. Friend's demands being largely an extension of the proposals incorporated in the two previous Acts of 1921 and 1922. While I am pleased with the desire of the Financial Secretary, I should have liked him to give us a little more evidence to justify his faith, and the faith of his Department, in the proposals which he now advances.
  I believe that some hon. Members opposite would give guarantees for an enor-
  1616
  mous amount if they thought that it would bolster up the system of private enterprise. I do not think that there is any limit to the amount of money or credit of this country which they would be willing to use just to bolster up what they term private enterprise. We have been passing through very abnormal times. The conditions have been very peculiar, and I will not deny the cumulative effects of the various proposals which have been brought forward and embodied in the different Acts to deal with unemployment; but, nevertheless, no one who views the problem as I see it, and who appreciates the number of people who are unemployed, can be satisfied with what has been done up to the present. Under the Act of 1921 we gave guarantees to the extent of £25,000,000. That was increased under the Act of 1922 to £50,000,000, and of that sum £40,000,000, I understand, has been used in the way of guarantees.
  We have also given, I think, under the Act of 1922 a substantial loan to Austria. I should have thought that the Financial Secretary would have given us some indication of the benefits derived from that scheme, but he said nothing about it. He made some reference also to the loan to the Sudan, and said that, if it were possible to do this, that and the other, this further grant will of course be available to be used in the interests of the great enterprises of this country. I should have liked him to produce some evidence as to the direct value to this country which has arisen from these proposals. The White Paper shows guarantees to the extent of £38,250,000 under these various Acts. My right hon. Friends who have spoken seemed to get very excited and enthusiastic about the provisions of these various Acts, but I would remind the House that we were told by the right hon. Gentleman only yesterday that there were 176,000 fewer unemployed people to-day than a year ago. I do net know whether the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell is proud of the record of his Government or of the Government which preceded his Government either in connection with the provisions of these two Acts, or any other provisions which they have made, when he remembers that the decline in the number of unemployed during the last 12 months is only 176,000. It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to talk

  1617
  about the wonderful provisions and the extraordinary good that have arisen from these Acts, but unemployed working men and their wives and families have grown tired and sick of the promises that have fallen too often from the lips of right hon. Gentlemen who have occupied prominent positions in the political life of this nation. They are asking for some more tangible solution than has been put forward.
  The sum of £38,000,000 has been guaranteed. Take one item. We have guaranteed to the Finance Company of Poland, Limited, £1,250,000. How is the guarantee to this Polish company to benefit the working people of this country? I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain this later on in view of the fact that we have almost as many unemployed to-day as we had 12 months ago. I do not complain of the Government having brought forward this Money Resolution, but we should not be satisfied with their proposals if they wore to be limited to this. I have sufficient confidence that the opportunity will come soon, when those who are now faced with the task of dealing with this problem will deal with it wisely and judiciously, and I think that they will ultimately deal with it in a manner which will redound not only to the interests of this country, but that when they do formulate their proposals, as I believe they will from time to time, we shall not he given the support of my right hon. Friends but rather challenged with their opposition.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I will not follow the last hon. Member who has expressed feelings of despair in reference to everything that has been done by the present Government, as well as everything that was clone by previous Governments, without making any constructive suggestion whatever in the course of, his speech. I rise to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary with regard to this matter. The Act which is designed to increase employment in this country has now been in operation for over two years. In that time we have guaranteed only £38,500,000. Is there any method by which the machinery of this Act could be improved in order that the rate at which it is used by commercial interests could be increased? So far, the majority of the guarantees have been given to com-
  1618
  panics already in existence, to companies which are able to show profits over a considerable period of years, and upon which there is practically no possibility of loss. Under the existing Act that provision is very necessary, because the Government has no method of recouping itself for any loss on any guarantee. As this House realises, it is only a guarantee: it does not provide any actual money. It provides money only if and when the companies to whom the guarantee has been given happen to fail.
  It seems to me that if, after two years, we have used only £38,500,000, there should be some method by which other ventures and companies, which at present are not able to utilise the machinery of the Act, might be brought under it. I, therefore, suggest that the Department might consider dividing the benefits of the Act into two classes. In the first case, the existing type of company. Which is now assisted, could remain. In the second case, snore speculative companies might be assisted. I remember a speech in the last Parliament by Sir Alfred Mond, who pressed the then Government strongly that the Trade Facilities Act should be made a little more open and free in its assistance. Let me take an analysis of the existing companies which have been assisted. Practically every one of them has been assisted only to the extent of raising money at about one-half or one per cent. less than the rate at which they could raise it in the open market. What is wanted to stimulate the wheels of commerce is to start those new enterprises which are going to open new countries and new mines, to lay railways and so forth. But with any new venture there must be a. certain amount of risk.
  Supposing there were some ten companies, each of which was a new company and with each of which there must be the inevitable risk associated with anything that is new. If they were granted a loan, say, equal to the amount of money provided by private capital, and if the Government were to take, say, 10 per cent. in bonus shares of ordinary stock for their guarantee, it would allow one company in ten to fail, because the profits of the other nine companies would reimburse the Treasury for any loss which had to be made good under the guarantee in the other companies. If that could be done, it would bring within this Act the

  1619
  whole of these new development companies. It would be necessary to have a strong investigation board, so that only thoroughly sound ventures or companies would he assisted, but I think it would be quite possible to guard that, and one would also always have the guarantee that if private enterprise had to put up the amount of money equal to the loan so granted, the whole of the loss would fall upon the private capital before it could fall upon the guarantee given by the Government. If that could he done I am sure that there are large numbers of development enterprises for which the whole of the machinery and plant could he manufactured in this country. The majority of those enterprises will, no doubt, be abroad, and, perhaps, if the Financial Secretary would lock favourably on the suggestion, he might make better terms for those companies engaged in development within the Empire than for companies engaged in development outside the Empire. I would go so far as to say that. I do not think any company should be assisted unless it is within the Empire.
  Sir ROBERT THOMAS: The words "trade facilities" always has a charm for a business man. I was in the House when the Coalition Government introduced this Measure. I was one of those m ho then thought that their offer of £25,000,000 was really tinkering with a very great question. When the late Government supplemented that £25,000,000 with another £25,000,000 and made it £50,000,000, I thought that it was still tinkering with a great problem; and now, when we have a Labour Government offering to increase the maximum amount to £65,000,000, I am still of opinion that it is tinkering with the problem. Up to the present the scheme has achieved neither the object of the Coalition Government nor that which the Conservative Government had in view, namely, to increase trade facilities and to decrease unemployment. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that up to the present this problem has been tinkered with. I can excuse the last Government, because their faults sere so numerous that just another fault did not matter much. But I really did expect something better from a Labour Government which, during the whole time it was in opposition, professed that it could improve trade and
  1620
  solve the unemployment question. It is not enough to say that they have not had sufficient time. They had all the time that they were in opposition. We were constantly told that they expected to come into power at no distant date, and they had abundant opportunity of evolving a practical scheme to increase trade and diminish unemployment. It is no excuse to say that they have only just come into power. I am surprised that the Financial Secretary should come forward now with only the same old re-hash, but with just a little more of the hash consisting of water and potatoes, and with less meat. I expected more meat from him; I expected something more substantial. What about Credit Banks? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has always placed great value upon brains. I think I have heard him say in this House that brains are the most valuable asset we possess in this country.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I did not say so.
  Sir R. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman says he has not said so. He ought to have said it. I would have expected him to come forward with a proposal whereby brains and talent could have a chance in this country. It is not the man with capital who is always the best man to develop industry. With all her faults, Germany never committed that sin. Take the quebracho industry in South America. That industry was founded by a poor boy from Germany who, not because he had great assets at his command, but because he was picked out by a far-seeing German Minister who saw in him character and ability—was picked out, financed, and sent out to the Argentine, and he was the founder of that great quebracho industry which to-day exports to all parts of the world huge quantities of extracts used for tanning purposes. I expected the Financial Secretary to have come forward with an offer to assist by credit facilities the wonderful talents in this country. That is a thing one would expect from a Labour Government. I would not expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) to bring in anything of that sort, because he does not believe that there is any salvation except in the capitalist system. But, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought not to commit that error. Although he says that he never advocated a policy of subsidising brains, yet I hope

  1621
  that to-day he will give us some promise that ability and talent in this country is to be assisted. That would give his party real kudos. An hon. Member of the Labour party interrupts to say that he has a scheme. I hope he will get up and tell us what it is, because I am very sorry that the Front Bench of the Labour Party are rather poor in any scheme which has been put forward to-day.
  There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. A great deal can be done to improve our Consular service. The subject is germane to this Resolution. I brought it before the House in the Parliament before the last and several others have done so.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Has this subject anything to do with a Money Resolution under the Trade Facilities Act?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems now to be travelling rather wide of the Resolution.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir R. THOMAS: I do not wish to transgress the rules, but we are dealing with trade facilities, and anything connected with trade facilities surely is germane to the present discussion The Consular Service has a great deal to do with the advantages—[laughter.] The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) laughs. Perhaps he has not had much experience of the Consular Service, though, unfortunately, these positions are usually occupied by members of his class, who go either into the Church or into the Consular Service, and do not particularly shine in one department or the other. I have travelled around the world twice, and perhaps my Noble Friend has not done so. I have seen how our Consular Service is worked. I have seen how the Consuls of other countries pay attention to commercial travellers and traders and take the trouble of introducing them to potential customers. Many of our Consuls who belong to the select class think it is infra dig to have anything to do with trade, and therefore I would suggest to the Financial Secretary that he should pay a, little attention to that Department, because I am perfectly certain he will facilitate trade very considerably if he does so. In conclusion, I urge upon the Government that when they next attempt to deal with this
  1622
  I problem they should present really comprehensive proposals which will go to the root of trade depression and will also go to the root of the unemployment evil.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I am sure the Committee has been exceedingly interested in the expositions of the class trouble which we have had from the benches below the Gangway. The social revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, have attacked the Mensheviks on the Front Government Bench for not going far enough on the revolutionary path. That will, perhaps, form a fitting subject for the speech which is to be delivered from the benches opposite by an hon. Member who has been making a special study of election literature and speeches. I trust he will pay as much attention to the revolutionaries below the Gangway as to the Mensheviks on the Front Government Bench. It must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that what is now before us does not at all represent the Labour party proposals regarding unemployment. It is only smart debating —or perhaps not smart debating—on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) to pretend that these extensions of the Trades Facilities Acts represent the proposals which the Labour administration intend to make for the relief of unemployment. The Financial Secretary said he had inherited a large part of these proposals, and if I gathered aright, he questioned the wisdom and validity of part of them. But he has inherited them and I suppose in his legal phraseology he would call them a damnosa hreditas. Certainly there is one part, namely that relating to the Sudan loan, of which I think he might have given a more detailed explanation to the Committee. He said there was strict regulation of this loan and the Committee will be indebted to him for an explanation as to how this guarantee is regulated. Certainly at the Public Accounts Committee upstairs we never seem able to get before us any official whom we could cross-examine regarding this expenditure at Gezireh in the Sudan. We were told that the Sudan was not a Crown Colony, that it was not a Dominion, that it was not a Protectorate, but somebody discovered at last that it was a Condominium—what that is, I never was able to understand.

  1623
  However, the Sudan seems to be governed by an army officer—a GovernorGeneral—with a nominated council. The nominated council and the Governor-General appear to be the Government of the Sudan referred to in the White Paper. From paragraph (d) of the Paper one would gather that the Government of the Sudan was getting the money. Nominally perhaps it is, but the Government of the Sudan does not operate with the money. It is not irrigating the plains or growing cotton; it is handing over the work to a private syndicate. Over that syndicate this House, as far as I can gather, has no, control whatever. A year ago or thereabouts a loan of £3,500,000 was guaranteed. To-day we are asked for a further guarantee of £3,500,000 and the late President of the Board of Trade this afternoon indicated that, in future, further guarantees will be asked for in connection with this project. We have, arrived at a state of affairs where £13,000,000 is not to be the limit of the total sum which this House has to guarantee. Further indeterminate sums have yet to be announced. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said there was strict regulation of this loan. It is about time. Certainly, part of this money already spent was not so strictly regulated. There was a period in which this money was paid out like water to a foreign contractor on a 10 per cent. basis. He was to get 10 per cent. of the total sums expended, as his profit. Exactly what sums he pocketed I do not know, but, ultimately, the facts were brought to the notice of the Treasury—I believe through an official of the Sudan Government—and the contract was stopped, a heavy payment having to be made to the contractor for the stopping of the contract. There did not appear to be very strict regulation up to that point. When this contractor was cleared out of the way, it appears a British firm secured the contract. I should like from the Financial Secretary, a clear, definite statement as to what control the Treasury, or the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office, or any other Department of the Government has—what control the British Government and. this Parliament has—over the expenditure of public money in the Sudan as operated by this British syndicate. We were told by the Financial Secretary that in 1925 he expected there would be 70,000 bales of cotton.
  Mr. GRAHAM: The position, strictly speaking, is that under the contract which is now being completed this work must be overtaken by 1925, and it is expected that these 70,000 bales will be forthcoming sometime after that date.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Then, I understand, 70,000 bales of cotton are expected after 1925. At what price? Is there any guarantee that steps will be taken to ensure that this syndicate is to be regarded as a public utility company, and is to have its profits regulated so that Britain will get the benefit of cheap cotton? Up to last year this syndicate was paying 35 per cent. What steps are being taken to ensure that the consumers in this country will get cheap cotton? That is a question to which we should get an answer. The Committee should also get some information as to how the natives in the Sudan are being treated. What compensation was paid to the natives who were compulsorily removed to make way for the Gezireh scheme. What wages are they receiving? Is it true that their salt and sugar taxes have been tremendously increased? What relation have this scheme and the proposals of this afternoon, to the statement made by General Smuts quite recently in London, when he appealed to the Government of this country to go ahead developing its cotton resources in Africa, because there was an illimitable supply of cheap labour? Is cheap labour the basis of the scheme? What are the terms upon which labour is being paid? What guarantees have we against the exploitation of these poor natives in the Sudan by this syndicate, backed up by moneys and guarantees provided by this House? What guarantees have we that the natives are being treated fairly, not to say generously? Is it the case that their old ancestral common lands have been taken from them? Is it the ease that those ancestral common lands are now being irrigated by a. syndicate which is making fabulous profits, and is it the ease that petitions made, not by, but on behalf of these natives have been turned down by the Government of the Sudan and have never been allowed to reach London at all? What proposal is the present Government making for the more, democratic government of the Sudan, particularly in view of the large expenditure in public money and in guarantees which this House has given?
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: About a week ago I happened to be speaking to a somewhat prominent industrialist in Lancashire, and in the course of conversation I said: "Have you had any of these trade facility credits in your business?" He said: "Good Heavens! What do you take me for? Do you suppose I would touch them?" I venture to say that that is what is thought of these trade facility moneys and credits from the point of view of the more respectable industrialists of this country. After all, what is this plan of trade facilities? It is simply what our hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have been putting forward in their programme year after year. It is the socialisation of credit, and nothing else. It is putting the control of credit to a certain extent in the hands of committees more or less under a Department of State; in other words, ultimately the democratic Government of the country is to decide who is to have credit and who is not to have credit, and I venture to say that that is socialisation of credit, and nothing else. When this plan of socialising credit was introduced by the Coalition Government, and subsequently confirmed by a so-called Conservative Government, it was justified on the ground that it was a stimulation of trade, and thereby one method of decreasing unemployment in this country, but it never occurred to either of those Governments, any more than it has occurred, apparently, to the existing Government, that if you extend credit in one (Erection you inevitably contract it in another.
  As a matter of fact—and I think anybody engaged in legitimate industry in this House will confirm me in this—there has been no restriction of credit whatsoever for legitimate industry in this country during the last few years. I may say that I myself have had to call, through the ordinary sources, for considerable credits for capital expenditure, and I have never found the least difficulty in getting it at very reasonable rates, indeed. But if the Government is to come in and say to various firms who cannot raise money on reasonable terms, or on what they think to be reasonable terms, that the whole credit of the taxpayer—for it is the taxpayer who finds the credit—is to be put behind their concerns, it simply means in the long run that there must be
  1626
  a contraction of credit allowances for legitimate business in other directions. When these economic factors are not absolutely obvious and plain to everyone, when these effects are not seen, they are neglected invariably by all politicians. Nevertheless, although we may not see the definite effects, it must inevitably be the case when these credits are granted, that if you strain credit in' one direction you must contract it in another, that you cannot at any given moment erect a structure of credit without taking the material from some structure of credit already in existence.
  Therefore, although 1 am afraid I am almost alone in my protest against this policy, I feel that I must protest against it, because, after all, we have to consider the opinion of people outside this House, and though we congratulate ourselves on these wonderful devices, these wonderful tricks in juggling credit from one direction to another, and say what enormous benefit we are doing to the country, yet, in the long run and ultimately, the fact remains that we are simply juggling with credit, and we are not doing any good to anyone on earth, and particularly not to anyone in this country. When I say that, however, I do not forget that it is just possible that in some instances we are benefiting a certain number of industrialists abroad. For instance, I know that among other credits which we as taxpayers are supporting is one of a million and quarter sterling to some company operating in financing undertakings in Poland, and I venture to say that that company has been refused credit, in all probability, by the usual credit merchants, that is to say, the bankers, for the simple reason that no banker and no credit merchant in the world expects that company ever to be paid for what it does in Poland. In other words, what we propose to do is to take people, firms, or individuals who cannot raise credit from the ordinary credit merchants, in the ordinary legitimate way, and to provide them with credit at the expense of the taxpayer, which is ultimately the expense of the worker in this country. One can go on doing this sort of thing indefinitely without the results becoming apparent, as I have already suggested. For instance, at the present time, credits are easy to obtain for any legitimate business, and although we are financing, or rather

  1627
  providing credits to, firms to the amount of millions of pounds—perhaps, ultimately, to as much as £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 or even £70,000,000—the amount involved is so small in comparison with the total credits used in industry in this country that possibly legitimate business may still be able to get credit for its own purposes on reasonable terms through the ordinary channels, namely, the bankers. Nevertherless, although the difference may be fractional, there is a difference, and we are deceiving ourselves, I say, if we think we can ever give these credits without contracting credits in other directions.
  Sir ROBERT ASKE: These proposals are of great importance, not merely for the reasons which have been given, that they are framed in order to create employment, but because, with the exception of the housing schemes, which, of course, affect the building trade, these are the only proposals in the policy of the Government as outlined in the statement of the Prime Minister which can in any way give employment to those engaged in the skilled trades in this country. They are not ambitious proposals at that, and the Government apparently does not expect very much from them, because the amount of credit facilities is do be no more than was allocated last year, whereas under the Export Credits scheme, only the unexpended balances are supposed to be sufficient. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches nave suggested that these are not the only proposals which the Government have in mind, but, with respect to those hon. Members, I would submit that the problem of unemployment is a present day problem, that the crisis will never be greater than it is to-day, and surely, if the Government have any practical proposals which they can put forward for relieving the serious depression in the skilled trades, it is the duty of the Government to put forward those proposals now, and if they have any proposals of that kind, they will receive every support and sympathy from these benches. I would say that we on these benches had hoped and been led to hope for greater things, for new ideas, for a wider vision, and if these simple proposals are the culminating point, after all the close study and the weighty consideration which the Government have given to the question of unemployment in
  1628
  the skilled trades, one must confess that the mountain has been in labour and has brought forth a mouse.
  My object is to encourage the Government to greater optimism in the potentialities of trade facilities. I do not think it is just to this scheme to regard it merely from the experience of the past, because the success or failure of these schemes depends, not upon the bare machinery, but upon the policy pursued by the Administration. It is quite possible, by adopting a too conservative policy, by declining all risk, by insisting upon an amount of cover behind the guarantees equivalent to a gilt-edged security, to stifle the demand for the guarantees and thereby largely to neutralise the effect of the scheme, whereas, on the other hand, it is equally possible, by backing hazardous and speculative ventures, to run the country into grave 'risk and loss, and it is quite obvious that the true policy of the Administration lies in the golden mean between the two.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), it is not the opinion of the industrialists of this country that these trade facilities are not valuable. On the other hand, it is the opinion, as I can assure the Government, of a large number of the most eminent and experienced industrialists that the administration of the scheme has been far too cautious, and much too narrow. I am not making any reflection in any way against the Advisory Committee, because the Gentlemen who compose it have undoubtedly worked conscientiously and faithfully, hut it is only natural that in the absence of a definite lead from the Government, placed as they are in the position of trustees for the nation, they should be inclined to anticipate that if there should be any call under the guarantees, it would be attributed by the Treasury to want of care on their part. Consequently, it is only natural that the Advisory Committee should be very chary in granting guarantees, which, although not involving as much risk as commercial men normally take in their own businesses, having securities against their guarantees, yet which might, if untoward circumstances occurred. such as war, or riots, or revolution in the foreign Governments concerned, eventuate in some loss under the guarantees.

  1629
  Those considerations undoubtedly are very apt to incline the Advisory Committee to grant these facilities principally either to wealthy corporations which are just as well able to raise these loans on the open market without the guarantee, although perhaps not at quite so cheap a rate, or else to incline them towards wealthy concerns which can put up a very large margin of cover behind the guarantees. At all events, that is the opinion of a large section of the commercial community, and if one analyses the list of grants which have been made, we must appreciate that there is a good deal in the criticism they make. The point that I wish to make is that the Government should exercise more enterprise in the way in which these schemes are handled, and if they did, there would, in my submission, be a requirement for a larger amount under the scheme. I quite agree with what hon. Members opposite have said, that the amount provided under this scheme is not sufficient if the administration is of a more generous and enterprising character, without involving any risk at all.
  With reference to what the hon. Member for Mossley said, it is not merely a question of these facilities- being provided on terms on which loans are ordinarily raised on the market. What these facilities are specially intended to provide for is this situation, that there is a great field for British enterprise in foreign countries to-day, but the people who want to buy our goods, the people who want to make contracts with us, are unable under actual conditions to pay for them now. They can provide sound securities, securities on their works, erected or to be erected under the schemes which would be dealt with under the facilities, their plants, their revenue, bank guarantees, deposit of currency, and so forth, but they cannot pay now. On the other hand, the industrialists of this country are not in a position to lock up their capital over a period of years. If our business people can be afforded facilities to meet this situation by which their commitments will be backed to a fair and reasonable extent by the State guarantee, without requiring the provisions of excessive margins of security, or without compelling the persons guaranteed to lock up much of their capital, there is no doubt in the world that there are plenty of people in this country who are both
  1630
  able and eager to take advantage of the guarantee. Therefore I would respectfully press upon the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution not merely that he should increase the amounts which are intended to be provided in it, but that he should take steps to ensure that the administration of these facilities shall be dealt with on a broadminded, courageous, business basis, taking sound commercial risks, having always the assurance that the Treasury have behind their guarantee securities which are given by the persons guaranteed, and the full solvency of those-persons themselves.
  I would submit that this policy would pay the country, because even if there should be some call under any of the guarantees—and the calls have been very nominal, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, up to the present—that is not necessarily a loss, because the projects which would have been dealt with under the guarantee would have placed in work a large number of the men engaged in the skilled trades of the country, who would otherwise have been a charge on the State as unemployed. In the nature of events that work would have preserved a high level of craftsmanship, which necessarily must deteriorate by disuse and unemployment, and it could never he to the advantage of a great industrial community like ours that the skill of the finest workmen in the world should rust when they are able and willing to work. In the next place, it would prevent the demobilisation of labour in the industry, and, moreover, by getting in touch with foreign customers at the present time, when our country alone is able and willing to accommodate them, we should have a great chance of permanently securing the trade of those countries.
  There is one other consideration, the last I will raise. It is suggested that this is socialised credit. I would submit to the Committee this consideration, that British credit, which stands higher today than ever it did, is the product of the manual skill, and the thoroughness and the genius of the British workman, combined with the wise direction of management as applied to the capital resources of the country. That credit represents the stored-up energy accumulated by those forces in good times and in bad over a long series of years. It is the reserve

  1631
  on which the country can fall in time of need, and it is the duty of the country now, in these times of unparalleled depression and unemployment, to place that credit as a buttress to the factories, the mills and the shipyards of the country, to place it at the hack of the workman and his tools by a much more liberal and generous grant of facilities under this scheme than has hitherto been placed.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I have a great deal of sympathy with those who have spoken, and their criticism of the Government. I do not want to criticise those who have spoken, but I notice that they all begin on the same strain and end at the same point. The Labour Government has not introduced a social revolution, and hon. Members seem disappointed. We need to guarantee the expenditure of the money under discussion. I want to make some reference to the great facilities given in this proposal. I have an idea that we will require to extend it oven to a greater extent than either the late Government or the previous Government anticipated. It may be that our industry requires a lift, and can be helped in that way. I took pleasure in noticing that the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) has taken up my idea of a very large sum, although he admits that his Government began at £25,000,000. He has more imagination now in Opposition than he had when he was in power, and he talks quite freely about the big sums that we should guarantee. Like him, I want to do something more, but I want to suggest that we might extend it a little further than he has suggested.
  It will have been noticed, from statements made in the course of this discussion, that we have been financing some industry in Poland. I would like the Member who replies on behalf of the Government to tell us something in connection with the factory there. I would like to know who owns it, and who controls it, and, further, whether we are doing something that will help to create unemployment in this country as a result of British credit. I also want to draw attention to one of the countries we have been helping, namely, Austria. The Coalition Government passed £30,000,000 of credit to Austria. The Conservative
  1632
  Government were a little more modest and allotted £20,000,000. I think the Prime Minister stated that the Allies were finding part of that, but we had to pass it. I would like to know if his optimism has been rewarded to any extent and if our Allies, who have never paid interest on War debt, have considered the trifling sum of £50,000,000. One of the peculiar things in connection with the Austrian credits is this, and Protectionist members of ire late Government made some reference to it, I think, during the Election. We advanced money in the way of credits to Austria to help their industries, and then one of the leading Members of the Government referred to that as dumping. The people of this country, however, were not told that not only were the Austrian goods produced as the result of British credit, but the Government of this country gave them facilities to hold an exhibition in. London in order to get a market for the goods they had produced. I think when we make a statement we should go the whole length, and deal with all the facts.
  We have a wonderful outlet for our credits. At the Lausanne Conference, I read in the paper, the Russian Government suggested that they would get guarantees to the amount of £400,000,000. That was laughed at at that time, but since then a sum of £300,000,000 has been under discussion, I think, in some circles in this country. At one time £300,000,000 was a lot of money, but during the War we learned to talk in thousands of millions, and £300,000,000 to-day is not as much as it was in 1914. In addition to recognising the Government of Russia, if we could extend those guarantees there, I have an idea that it would do more for trade in this country than any of the other schemes. The Russians have vast supplies of raw material. The raw material coming here s tinned into manufactured material, and I think we would benefit immensely by a suggestion of something like that. We have been told that they are short of rolling-stock and engines. We require orders of that kind, and I venture to suggest that a generous gesture of that kind might do more to cover the difficulties existing between Russia and Great Britain than anything else. I know this will be heresy to some people, but we have already spent

  1633
  money on Austria, and I think there is under consideration the giving of something to Hungary. If we can help those countries that practically hold out nothing to us in the way of trade, but only competition, I suggest that there is greater profit in helping a country like Russia in that way than some of the others. If we are risking the money to a certain extent, we create employment in this country, save the money that would be paid out in doles, and benefit the industrial worker.
  I regret that the total sum is £5,000,000. I would like to help the Dominions in order to create a new market, and I think that this Government ought to take a more generous view, not on the lines suggested by some hon. Members on the other side. The proposal is to guarantee public utility societies, but I notice that hon. Members go outside that suggestion and add private undertakings. I think the hon. Member for West. Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) told us quite enough about private undertakings. We want to know more about these private undertakings than the Minister has yet told us. We want to know where the money is going, how it is being spent, and what likelihood this country has of getting something in return. All I want to say in connection with the Sudanese business is that Egypt is in a very troubled state just now, if we can believe the papers. We do not know what the future is going to bring forth so far as Egypt is concerned. We are spending millions of the taxpayers' money by way of guarantee to the Sudanese. I think it is a bit of a gamble. At any rate, we will guarantee, if the present 3½ millions is passed, thirteen millions money. It may be said that hon. Members have suggested that we are only carrying out the policy of the last two Governments. I want to state frankly that I should like to cut adrift from the policy of the last two Governments. I am not prepared to support 3½ millions for the Sudanese Government, for them to give to some syndicate which is making some 35 per cent. profit.
  The Labour Government, I think, ought to have given a clear lead in this matter. Supposing we had taken the suggestion so very generously given from different parts of the House, and stopped the trade facilities, that stoppage would have been the talk of the House! As a matter of fact every party in the House is in favour of the policy. Yet speaker
  1634
  after speaker suggests that we have no right to carry forward that policy. I am independent enough to say that if a policy is good I do not care what party puts it forward I am prepared to back it up. If a policy is bad, as is this guaranteeing of money to the Sudanese, then I think we ought to scrap it. That is my position, and unless the Minister can give us more guarantee than he has given my opposition is the same to-night as it was when the matter was under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: This Bill is one which I believe to be a good one, and which I support wholeheartedly, no matter what is done by other Members on this side of the House, because I approve of the assurance given to us by the Prime Minister that he proposes to help industry all that he possibly can. I believe that that would be one of the best means of relieving the unemployment problem. I agree with him that the present Government will have a better chance of dealing with some of these things than the last Government had, and for this simple reason, that it will not be so hide-bound by precedent as previous Governments have been. In cases of an abnormal kind it is sometimes necessary to do things that at normal times would not be warranted or desirable. I should like to make a plea to the Government—I believe it could be done—that in this Bill there should be some consideration given to an industry that is passing through a. very difficult period just now. I refer to the cotton-spinning industry of Lancashire, and especially to the American section of it.
  Under the Trade Facilities Act and credits, we have for long done what we possibly could to help business in foreign countries. I believe it is very essential that we should turn our attention now to giving credits to the industries in our own country. At the present time in Lancashire there is a very serious condition of affairs. It has been brought about—apart from the usual recognised capital in the industry—by the withdrawal, at call, of capital which is now being taken from the industry—capital that the industry sorely needs if it is to carry on with efficiency. The position now is this, that there is no more additional capital being brought into Lancashire at the present time, and a great

  1635
  deal of misery and misfortune is being caused to a great many in all grades of society in Lancashire by the fact that it is impossible at present to find the capital that is needed. It may be said that the system to which I refer, the loan system in the cotton mills of Lancashire—and it has been said, by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer—is a system which ought not to apply. That may be so. It is very easy for people to be wise after the event. But this system of loans subject to withdrawal in Lancashire is a system on which the greater part of the large cotton spinning industry has been built.
  In days gone by, when this industry was prosperous, there is not the slightest doubt but that it was a very considerable asset to this nation. It is not only because of the needs of the industry, but because I believe it is essential, in the interests of the Government itself, that the industry should be looked after, and that the industry should be given back that credit which the industry itself was so willing to give, and did willingly give, during the War to help the War, that I speak as I do. Some of that credit should be given back to the industry to help it, and to help the industry to win through in what is a very grave crisis brought about by the aftermath of the War. It may be said that if the Government, through this system of credit, were to take over any loans in the cotton spinning industry, that would be a very dangerous precedent, and it might entail very serious loss. The best answer I can give to that is to say what has been done, and what has happened in the past.
  So far as can be computed, for fifty years in the Oldham district, which is the biggest centre of this system and the biggest centre of the cotton spinning, not only in Lancashire but in the world— during fifty years the total capital losses can be written down as certainly less than half of 1 per cent. My suggestion is this: that the Government, by co-operation with the leading banks, could easily evolve a system whereby there would be no risk at all to the Government, but where they would simply give their credit. The industry itself is not asking for any subsidies, but simply that that credit which the nation gave to its own nationals, and in the same degree as it
  1636
  gave to the nationals of other countries, should he given here. It surely could do this. It could surely arrange a scheme with the banks to take over these loans. I would suggest a rate of interest of a half per cent. above the bank interest, and another half per cent. to go towards a guarantee fund. I am certain that that could be arranged, and that there would not be the slightest loss entailed upon the Exchequer of this country. The advantage would be that that would give to this industry something which it is losing, and that is not only the capital which we all know from bitter experience it is impossible to avoid in dealing with an industry that previously had about three-quarters or five-eighths of its total trade in exports. That is the reason why this industry, perhaps, has suffered more than any other, and the losses have been very considerable. There are men, aye, and women too, engaged in it who have sunk their all in it, men who are very rich, and also a great many who are very poor. Hon. Members would perhaps have been surprised if they could have seen a meeting held at Oldham about a week ago, which would have shown them that the question of holding capital in these mills is certainly not confined, as hon. Members might suppose, to one particular class of the community. There were over 5,000 persons gathered together. The feeling prevalent amongst them was shown by this gathering, and that is, something will have to he done, and soon, if the industry is to survive and to go on as before, really as a great asset of the nation
  To the Members of my own party who think that this is asking something that is almost an impossible project I would say, by way of reminder, that perhaps one of our greatest financiers of recent years, the late Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, to whom I mentioned this matter about six months before his death, said that there was nothing at all outside the bounds of practical politics in the proposal which I then suggested to him. It is not only essential for the trade that something should be done. I would appeal to the Government that if they possibly can they should, at any rate, give an assurance that they will confer with the banks—because we ask for nothing more if they will do that—to see if something could not

  1637
  be arranged which would prevent what is becoming a loss, not only of the capital of the people in Lancashire, but has further results. I am sorry to say that some of the people are losing what I think is more important even than their capital. They are losing their faith in the future. They have been going through a tremendously hard time. Many of them have fought hard against circumstances during the last four years. A great many, I will remind hon. Members, have gone under. A great many more will go under unless something is done.
  The industry asks for no gifts, but I do think we are entitled to ask for a return of that credit which we so willingly gave during the war time to help to win the War. A return of this credit will help those concerned to "keep their Find up "till such times as are sure to arrive when the cotton spinning industry conies round again. I have lived long enough to see times of depression before. I certainly will not say that I have ever seen a time quite so bad as the recent one has been. At the same time, there has never yet been a depression in the cotton industry but what it has been succeeded sooner or later by a turn in the right direction. That turn will come again. In my judgment it will never come without there is peace throughout the world, because we, as a big exporting nation, unfortunately are dependent more on a general resumption of the normal trade of the world than any other industry. It is because of that, because I think this Government, as I have said before, not being afraid of precedent, will take bolder steps than the last one did that I shall very heartily support this Bill. I hope the Government will take the suggestion I have made into consideration, and confer with the leading bankers to see whether something cannot be done, without any risk whatever of capital loss by the Government, and which, while it would be a very great improvement to the trade of Lancashire, in the long run would be in the best interests of the Government and of the country.
  7.0 P. M.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I ask for that indulgence which the Committee always gives to a new Member while I endeavour
  1638
  to deal with some points which seem to me to have a great bearing on the subject of this Resolution, but which, so far as I have been able to find out, have not yet been touched upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Lanarkshire (Mr. Sullivan) told us that he regretted that the Labour Government had not departed from the policy of the last two Governments with regard to the matter with which we are dealing to-night; and from a very different point of view I con fess that I share that regret. I am not intending to oppose the development, by means of the Trade Facilities Acts, of the resources of this country in the way of new railways, new roads, new docks, electric supply works, and similar public under-takings, which in my opinion can be carried out most advantageously during a time such as that through which we are passing, when the general trade of the country is depressed and when both capital and labour can be spared from the general and usual trade channels to the undertaking of special work of this kind.
  My disappointment arises rather from the fact that in my opinion these developments could be stimulated to an immensely greater degree than they will ever be under these proposals, and at no cost and no risk of cost to the taxpayers of this country, if only the Government were to attack the fundamental problems which at present restrict such developments, instead of merely dealing with them by means of guarantees. As long as undertakings of this kind are exposed to the conditions which prevail, a very large number of them cannot be carried out in such a way as to be self-supporting, and, although no doubt it is true that the Treasury has not up to the present time been called upon to contribute anything substantial under the guarantees which it has already given, I should be very much surprised to be told there is no risk of any serious losses to be met.
  I can make my argument clearer if I take a concrete case, because it shows not only what I believe to be the risks but also what I believe to be the remedies. One of the undertakings which has been guaranteed already under these Acts is the extension of the tube railway from Golders Green to Edgware. That is a desirable undertaking in itself, but I shall be very much surprised if the Treasury

  1639
  is not called upon to pay, and to pay heavily, under that guarantee in the years which are before us, because, even at pre-War costs of railway development, undertakings of that kind hardly, if at all, succeed in paying their way, and under those costs, as they stand to-day, I have a very strong suspicion that, under present conditions, they must result in a substantial lose. What happened when that guarantee was given? The very first thing that happened was this. I happened to notice it in the local papers of that district. Local auctioneers immediately announced an auction sale, and stated as the principal attraction of the property which they were offering for competition, that it was opposite to the proposed new tube station. There can be no doubt that the consequence of the building of that railway extension, at the expense ultimately, as I believe it will be, of the taxpayer, or at all events at the risk of the taxpayer, has been to add many thousands, and more than thousands, of pounds to the value of land in the neighbourhood of Edgware and similar districts, just as the building of the original tube to Hampstead and Golders Green resulted in the addition of many thousands of pounds to the value of land which up to that time consisted mainly of dairy farms, and which is now built over by the Hampstead Garden Suburb and other building developments.
  In exactly the same way, if you take the main roads which have been constructed during the last few years with assistance from these Acts, you have only to travel over any one of them to see auctioneers' announcements stating that valuable building frontages are offered for sale. I was pleased to notice in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the PrimeMinister immediately after the Adjournment, that it was proposed to tap some of that value which has been given by means of these undertakings by a tax upon land. My point, however, is that that does not go far enough. because the essential fact of the situation is that undertakings of this kind, instead of being carried out by ones and twos with Treasury guarantees under these Trade Facilities Acts, could be carried out by tens and twenties tomorrow, and could be financed at no expense whatever to the taxpayer if those who are going to carry them out had the benefit of, and could offer as security for
  1640
  the capital which they require to raise, or the loan which they require to obtain, the increased land value which they themselves are about to create.
  In saying that, I am giving not merely my own opinion but the considered opinion of a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott), who held office in the late Governments. That Committee, of which I was a member. inquired into the question of the acquisition of land for public purposes, and heard the representations from the railway managers of the country. They told that Committee that they had plans ready for the extension of railways and the opening up of new railways which would develop new industrial and residential districts in all parts of the country but that they could not carry them out owing to the impossibility of financing them under present conditions. They gave the Committee example after example of cases where new railways had been built, even in pre-War days, which had resulted in heavy losses to those who had found the money to build them, while at the same time those railways had resulted in putting into the pockets of adjacent landowners ten times, and in one case, eighteen times, the value of the land which existed before the new railway was built. They further told the Committee that if only they could have a charge upon those increased values sufficient to cover them against loss on the cost, of construction of the line, they would not require to come to the Treasury or to anybody else for the purpose of financing those undertakings, but that they could finance them in the City at once on the security which they would then be able to offer. That Committee unanimously recommended that this proposal should be carried out., arid that powers should be given to public utility undertakings as well as to public authorities to take a betterment charge on the increased value which they themselves proposed to create, and that they should be given that power at the time when they were embarking on that undertaking, so that they would be able to raise the necessary funds and to finance the undertakings without any cost to the country at all.
  I contend that under this system which we are pursuing and which I regret to-see that the Labour Government is con-

  1641
  tinuing to pursue we are curtailing enormously the amount of development which might be undertaken. The mischief of it is not merely that public money passes into the hands of private individuals but that the undertakings are not carried out owing to the fact that, as long as private individuals are in a position to annex that money, the undertakings can never be made to be self-supporting, and therefore cannot be carried out. Undertakings of this kind, such as railway extensions, road extensions, new docks and harbours, and the great schemes of hydro-electric power supply, which have been several times under the consideration of this House, could all be carried out provided that those who provided the money for them could be assured that the results were not going to be diverted into the pockets of adjacent landowners, but at least were going into the pockets of the undertakers to a sufficient extent to guarantee them against loss.
  Not only do they require a guarantee of that kind, not at the expense of the taxpayer, but out of the new wealth which they themselves are going to create, hut they require also that which was equally recommended by this Committee but which was never carried out by either of the Governments which have been in power since its report was made, namely, an amendment of the present system of obtaining powers for carrying out undertakings of this kind, so that they can obtain them more quickly than they can at present. The present machinery for obtaining powers for carrying out local development works is cumbersome and out of date. Years are wasted before undertakings can be commenced. In times like the present, when it is vitally important to find work to relieve unemployment, work of a genuinely productive character, we cannot afford to have time wasted by ancient regulations. At present powers can only begin to be obtained for work of this kind by giving notice in a November or in a December. If the promoters miss the November or December, they have to await till the following year. The Committee of which I have spoken recommended that all ancient anomalies of that kind should be swept away. These undertakings also cannot afford to be burdened, as they are burdened at the present if they are
  1642
  carried out by public utility corporations, with the cost of the excessive compensation payable under the antiquated Lands Clauses Act. The Government which introduced the Land Acquisition Act of 1919 should have extended the application of that reform (to public utility undertakings. Nor can these undertakings be carried out successfully if they are to be burdened with rates imposed, as they are at present imposed, on the cost of the improvements which they themselves are carrying out. What we are doing by this system of guaranteeing loans at the expense of the Treasury is simply to feed with public money all these cankers which at present are hampering development, instead of going to the root of them and cutting them right out.
  There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is, that part of the Resolution which deals with the extension of the time for export credits. It is a most remarkable thing that money which was sanctioned by former Parliaments for the purpose of export credits has not been used. An enormous part of it has never been applied for and is still available. I venture to offer this suggestion, without any disrespect to the eminent gentlemen who compose the Committee to which application has to be made for these credits. In my belief one of the principal reasons why that money has not been applied for and has not been used is that those who conduct commercial undertakings are extremely timid and chary of exposing their financial position to anybody whom they regard as possibly in business similar to their own, and to anybody other than those people to whom they are accustomed to go for accommodation of this kind.
  If ever that system of export credits is to be made a success, in my opinion, it will have to be worked through the banks, and not through any Committee, however, eminent or disinterested. If you allow people to apply to the banks, and if they approve and are prepared to participate in the granting of a loan, then let it go forward to the Committee, and you should not require the applicants to submit their financial affairs to an examination by any Committee, and then you will get these export credit facilities actually used. I am convinced that no amount of extension of the time or the limit will carry us any further forward

  1643
  in encouraging our export trade, because you will not get commercial people to submit their financial affairs to an inquiry like that which is imposed upon them at the present time. I do not wish to oppose this Resolution, because, bad as I believe the system is under which it is sought to use public money in the encouragement of developments such as those which are contemplated, I would rather see them encouraged by a bad system than have no system at all. I hope the Government will devote their attention to a real remedy which will promote these, developments on a large scale, and not impose the risk of a heavy burden in the future on the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. HANNON: May I offer my respectful congratulations to the hon. Member who has just spoken on his admirable speech. Although I do not agree with everything that he has said, his speech is certainly an index that interesting discourses will come from him in this House in the near future. I may say that I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name to the money Resolution. During the sittings of the Imperial Economic Conference I think it was understood, and I think it was expressed in one of the recommendations of the Conference, that proposals coming from the overseas Dominions and Dependencies with the recommendation of the overseas Governments should not be submitted to an Advisory Committee in this country, but should be accepted on the recommendation of the Dominion Governments, and should be approved in consultation with the particular Department concerned. If that was the recommendation of the Imperial Economic Conference no one would like to interfere with it, and on that ground I do not propose to move my Amendment. With regard to the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Motion, I would like to suggest that an Amendment be inserted at the end of paragraph A, that guarantees under that paragraph, before approval, should be submitted for the approval of the Advisory Committee. I suggest, to the Financial Secretary that the same proviso should also be inserted after paragraph C. The Financial Secretary may say that this point is covered by the provisions embodied in this money Resolution, but
  1644
  I think it would be better if a proviso were inserted in each of these cases in the Resolution now before the Committee.
  I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Hendon as to the amount which is being provided by the present Government additional to what was provided by the late Government. Those of us who have read the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite previous to the Election, and during the course of the Election, would have imagined that there would be bold schemes of broad vision brought forward at once from the benches opposite. But as a matter of fact the scheme put forward by the Financial Secretary is a very modest and moderate one, and it shows within what rigid limitations hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are going to be kept by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) complaining of the want of enterprise in the development of industry on the part of hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Labour party, more especially remembering the important part which the right hon. Gentleman himself played in putting them in office.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He was disappointed.
  Mr. HANNON: I would like to call the attention of the Committee to a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell. During the course of last summer a series of representations were made to the late Prime Minister to encourage the application of public credit to the development of a, number of schemes in this country, and foremost amongst them was the electrification of railways. After mature consideration and the examination of a series of reports prepared by eminent engineers who stand at the head of their profession in this country, it was agreed that great schemes for the electrification of railways were possible in this country. The Industrial Group, after examining all the arguments put forward, pressed upon the late Prime Minister the desirability of extending, as far as possible, public credit in that direction.
  A few years ago an elaborate report was made on the importance of carrying out electrification of the main line to Brighton. It was shown that there would be an

  1645
  immense saving in the working expenses of the line, that the transport capacity of the line would be enormously increased, and that it would be a great advantage, from the public point of view, as well as from the point of view of the railways, that this scheme should be carried out. The wisdom of that proposition was justified last year when a distinguished Belgian and a distinguished American engineer confirmed these proposals, but so far nothing has been done. In the neighbourhood of Liverpool Street there is the possibility of a large scheme of electrification, and on the North Eastern Railway between Newcastle and York projects for electrification have been under consideration, and all these great schemes can only he carried out by some extension of public credit within limitations which will safeguard the taxpayer.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it the contention of the hon. Member that the railway companies have no existing reserves, larger even than they ever had before, with which they could carry out these improvements?
  Mr. HANNON: It is true that the railway companies have very considerable reserves, but they are all earmarked for carrying out large schemes which were neglected and got in arrear during the War. The railways of this country were not kept up to the usual standard of capacity for inland transport during the War, and therefore it was necessary for the railway companies to devote considerable time and expense to bringing their railway system up to date. The reserves which hon. Members opposite talk so much about are very properly being employed for that purpose. My contention is that under these schemes an immense amount of valuable opportunities for the employment of skilled labour in this country will be found if only these credits are extended more generously to railway companies. The railway companies, having regard to the interests of their shareholders and the obligation of maintaining the efficiency of their lines, cannot undertake large expenditure of this nature without the assistance of the State, and I suggest that it will be a very admirable departure in public finance on the part of the Government if the representative of the Government will consider as generously
  1646
  as he can these proposals which have been under the consideration of his predecessors.
  The real reason why I am pressing this point is its influence on the employment of skilled labour. No scheme which could be recommended for consideration by the Government will tend more to employ skilled labour than schemes of electrification. I think hon. Members opposite will all agree that if you can find employment for skilled labour in its own particular field it is much better than expenditure on relief works. From a public point of view, it would be of immense advantage to have these schemes, which are eminently desirable, financed; because they would be a distinct encouragement to the employment of skilled labour. Another recommendation is one relating to water transport in the Midlands. I represent a constituency which is one of the greatest commercial communities in this nation, and in Birmingham we desire to develop, if we possibly can, the enlargement of our water transport facilities between Birmingham and Worcester. Hon. Members of this House know that we have had a series of Commissions sitting on water transport for years past, and of all the futile and hopeless reports which have been prepared by Commissions and Committees none have had a more unhappy fate than those reports. After a good deal of examination of the various schemes which are possible in the Midlands, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) recommended, through the Report of a Committee of which he was chairman two years ago, that certain schemes should be taken up for definite consideration by the Government. One of those schemes was taken up, namely, the Trent scheme, and that is now being effectively carried out.
  In Birmingham, however, we are desirous of developing a scheme which would enable us to bring a larger volume of traffic from the Severn up to Birmingham, thus facilitating the transport of our goods and raw materials up and down that waterway. We do not suggest that this will in any way interfere with railway communication, although, of course, it is well known that a constant struggle has been going on between the railways and the canals. We suggest that it would he a valuable addition to railway trans-

  1647
  port, by enabling a very considerable volume of heavy traffic to be carried. I would ask the Financial Secretary if he would be kind enough to refer to previous correspondence which has taken place with his Department on the subject of the development of this inland waterway between Birmingham and Sharpness, and whether he would consider the desirability of receiving a deputation to submit to him proposals which might advantageously be supported under the provisions of the present Resolution.
  I hold very strongly that, in order that this Resolution may meet the full requirements of the Bill which will follow it, and which will deal with schemes of the nature of those which are already in progress and which are contemplated, by the Government, the amount should he increased to £75,000,000. I am quite satisfied that, if reasonable facilities are given, if a somewhat generous consideration is extended to the schemes submitted to the Government, a great number of schemes will he brought before the Treasury for the consideration of the Advisory Committee, and it will very soon be found that the amount of money which the House is now invited to provide will be exhausted. The hon. Gentleman knows that during the past few years the Advisory Committee, owing entirely to its sense of responsibility to the Treasury, has been imposing upon schemes conditions which the hon. Gentleman might see his way to relax a little. In point of fact, very few of the guarantees which have been approved by the Advisory Committee have been so approved on security less valuable than that which might be considered by any ordinary bank. Hon. Members may think that these schemes, so far as they have gone, have not been of distinct advantage to the industrial community, but we have evidence on every side that, where credit facilities of this character have been provided, industry has had an opportunity of reasserting itself, industrial organisation has been extended, and opportunities for employment have been found for workmen. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this Resolution. I appeal to him to enlarge the amount which he proposes to make available, and I think he will not find on this side of the House any opposition to his continuance of the wise and careful
  1648
  policy in the development of industry and the finding of opportunities for employment which has been pursued by my right hon. Friends above the Gangway during previous years.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: My association with Lancashire has been long enough for me to understand the regard and consideration that must be paid, by anyone who has any association with that county, to the cotton industry. I would suggest, however, that the remarks of the hon. Member opposite are too belated to be made here; they should have been addressed to the Government of the party to which he himself belongs. The Lancashire cotton trade suffers in many directions. If I remember rightly, the late Prime Minister, speaking at the Manchester Constitutional Club just before the Election, said that, if he were connected with the Lancashire cotton trade, one thing that he would fear most was the constant draining away from Lancashire of high-class machinery that was sent to India to be used in competition with the labour of Lancashire. That is a fact of which every one connected with the Lancashire cotton trade is only too well aware. There is a. constant export of high-class, up-to-date machinery to countries where the wages paid for labour are very low and the hours of labour are very long. I was astonished, however, after reading that statement of the late Prime Minister, to discover that in the last proposals of the Conservative Government, before it went out of office, there was a suggestion that £1,000,000 should be guaranteed to the firm of Tata for the purpose of enabling them to enlarge their textile trade in Bombay. As a matter of fact, almost before the echoes of the late Prime Minister's speech had died away, Messrs. Tata did advertise for capital in this country, and held out the guarantee of the late Conservative Government. Here, therefore, was the late Prime Minister deploring the danger to the Lancashire cotton trade from the extension of the cotton trade in India, and at the same time helping that very same trade, which injures Lanca shire, by guarantees of credits on a very large scale.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is not the hon. Member wrong in saying that that guarantee was given for the cotton industry? Was not the guarantee given to

  1649
  the Tata Company under the Trade Facilities Act a guarantee in respect of a hydroelectric power station?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, but it does not seem to me to matter much whether it was for hydro-electric power or for spinning frames. The whole thing was used for the development of the textile trade of Bombay. If it is to be argued that the Government are justified in assisting the development of cheap electricity for the Bombay cotton trade, why did they not do the same thing for the Lancashire cotton trade, and discover the same reasons? I can well understand that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) finds this Debate somewhat disconcerting. Time brings tremendous revenges, and probably gentlemen who at one time occupied seats in this Chamber are now turning in their graves to hear the principles that they once derided gaining ground so rapidly on the other side of the House of Commons and on this side below the Gangway.
  It undoubtedly is the fact that Capitalism, which is partially decrepit at the present moment, is turning to a semi-Socialistic form of assistance. It has been suggested that the Financial Secretary should cut himself adrift from all this, and I would do that in so far as such assistance is given to private enterprise. Private enterprise should help itself or go down. It must either maintain itself on its own philosophy and by its own efforts or it must look to us for assistance. That is a perfectly honest and fair position to take up, but at the present moment the difficulty is not a shortage of capital in the country. It is not a question of there being no money for investment, provided that the investment can be made generous enough. I find that when the "Daily Mail" required £8,000,000 there was sufficient money in the country for £40,000,000 to be offered in five-and-twenty minutes. That does not show any shortage of capital. Again, when the Japanese Government wants money on very attractive terms—something in the neighbourhood of 7 per cent.—I find that it is over-subscribed in a few minutes. Why do these firms come to the State for cheap money for development purposes in the Crown Colonies and in the Dominions? They come because there is going to be no immediate return upon the money, or
  1650
  because, if there is going to be a return, it is not going to be large enough. They then come here wanting a guarantee of public money to help them out of their difficulties. To me that does not seem to he quite a sound policy.
  The Financial Secretary said that he had inherited these schemes. He has, and he has inherited something else also, namely, the opportunity, which hon. Members on both sides of the House utilise to the fullest extent, of gibing at his inheritance, and at the conditions which he is thereby compelled to impose. What is the use of the cheap gibes we are constantly getting at the Government? The leader of the Liberal party has recently told us, in connection with a slight departure from what he considers to be principle on the question of Poplar, that, if we deviate in the slightest degree from the straight line, he will at once turn the Government out. What is the use of telling the Government they cannot do things, while at the same time party leaders are telling them that they will not be allowed to do those things? The whole thing is humbug; it is cheap political by-play that is unworthy of the situation. No sensible person supposes for a single moment that the suggestions put forward this afternoon constitute the stock in trade of the Labour Government for dealing with unemployment. They deal with a temporary expedient that gives an opportunity for immediate action. But what is the difference? I have been long enough in this House to hear proposals of a similar description treated as though they were absolute solutions of the unemployment problem. We have been told repeatedly that these proposals would solve the problem. The difference between us and those on the other side and below the Gangway is that they regarded these things as a solution in themselves, whereas we have merely regarded them as a means to an end for developing something of a far more radical character.
  I agree that these proposals cannot he regarded in any sense as solving the problem, and I am sure that, if hon. Members will possess their souls in patience and wait until the proposals of the Government are produced, they will discover something into which they can get their teeth far more than at the present moment. I shall support these

  1651
  proposals, naturally, because, as I have said, they are a temporary expedient and will help in a slight degree. The sum, however, is altogether inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) mentioned £100,000,000, but everyone who understands the situation in the industrial world to-day knows that even an expenditure of £100,000,000 is not going to wipe out unemployment. It is not a question of the expenditure of £100,000,000, but of hundreds of millions, even £1,000,000,000 or more, before it will be possible to absorb the large number of unemployed people that we have at the present moment. In any case, however, whatever it may cost the country, the cost will be little compared with the loss that constantly accrues to the country through the holding up of the labour of millions of willing workers who could produce wealth, but are prevented by circumstances over which they have no control. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke about land values. I agree that those values ought not to be created and then absorbed by those who have done nothing whatever in return for what they get but I should be in favour of those values being taken by the companies who carried out the original enterprise. I hold that these values are social values and should come to the community, and, so far as we are concerned, we will not entertain proposals of a character opposed to that principle. These values are created by the activities of the community and should come back to the community responsible for their creation. I hope that along these lines we shall ultimately develop.
  Mr. ARNOLD WILIAMS: I hope we may now come back to the subject under discussion. I take it we are discussing the Trade Facilities Act and not half-a-dozen other things. We hope the Government will bring forward other schemes for dealing with unemployment, but they are not under discussion at the present time. I take it that the Trade Facilities Act is for one specific purpose, that is, for dealing with unemployment. If it can be proved that the present working of the Trade Facilities Act does not solve the problem of unemployment, then we must try to find a way in which it can be made to fulfil that purpose. We
  1652
  must look at this from the point of view of risk. There are four kinds of risk; what we call the insurance risk, the business risk, business speculation and gambling. I submit that the way in which the trade facilities have been granted do not come within any of these four headings of risk, but are something far and away above them. You have a Committee administering the trade facilities in the sense that if there are losses they will be called to book. It seems to me we can only deal with trade facilities in three different ways. (i.) We can only make it adequate by extending the time not only to March, 1925, but even beyond that; (ii.) by extending the amount: (iii.) and by seeing what the Government can do with a view to relieving the existing Committee from a responsibility which is too heavy for them.
  There have been one or two points mentioned which call for some reply. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) built the whole of his remarks upon the assumption that if you give credit in one place you restrict it in another. Time and time again throughout the Debate we have heard the suggestion that the Government is granting money. It seems to me that a fallacy lies in the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley. The Government is not granting credits, but simply assisting some businesses to get credits that they might not possibly be able to get otherwise. There is quite a big distinction there. The position so far is that unemployment has only decreased by 176,000 in the last 12 months. It is safe to assume that, while other schemes have been in operation, the trade facilities have not done very much. Those businesses which have been granted assistance by way of guarantee could have obtained money irrespective of this scheme. It should not be beyond the power of the Financial Secretary and his colleagues to devise a means by which the State need not necessarily take a large risk and yet make it possible for other businesses to obtain credits of this kind. We have had references this afternoon by one of my own colleagues to the tube railway. He says the Treasury is to be called upon some day to find money there. I submit that that is wrong. The most that can happen is that the Government will have to find money, but it will probably find the money on a prior charge

  1653
  and get a reasonable rate of interest on it. There is a distinction between losing money and getting a reasonable return for it. Another point has been made to the effect that all the money has not yet been used, that it has not been applied for, but there is a. big difference between money being applied for and being granted. This money has been applied for, but it has not been granted. May I sum up my three points; I am strongly in favour of trade facilities, but I would like the, time extended; the amount increased, and I would like to see it dealt with on more lenient terms.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am very reluctant to interfere in any way with the time that would otherwise be occupied by this Debate, but, unfortunately from our point of view to-night, there is a private Member's Motion at 8.15. The Government attaches very great importance to getting at least the Committee stage of this Resolution if we possibly can, and I want, therefore, to make a special appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to let us have at least this stage of the Resolution before the private Member's Motion is taken. I am encouraged to make a request of that kind by the fact that hon. Members who have not so far taken part in the Debate will have an opportunity of further discussion on the Report stage of the Resolution, and they will have an opportunity on all stages of the Bill which must follow. I earnestly appeal to the Committee, looking to the urgency of the problem and the fact that the Trade Facilities Act has expired, to give us this stage of the Financial Resolution to-night. I will try to deal very briefly, not with all the questions raised by hon. Members, because many of them are really more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill, but with some of the questions of a more urgent character Dealing with one or two points put by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), let me explain that under the principal Act the Advisory Committee must be consulted, and I therefore think that the suggestion he made is unnecessary, for in any event it would be an Amendment that would fall to be taken on the Second Reading or the Committee stage of the Bill rather than to be put down for incorporation in the Financial Resolution.
  1654
  Then the hon. Member referred to the importance of assisting railway undertakings under the Trade Facilities scheme. I have no doubt the House is aware that a considerable measure of assistance by way of guarantee has already been given to railway enterprise. There are two schemes, the City and South London, which has been assisted with a guarantee covering £6,500,000, and the South Eastern and Chatham Railway, which has been assisted with a guarantee of £5,500,000. There are, of course, other schemes under consideration. Hon. Members will recall that the railway companies in this country are from some points of view in a strong position under the legislation of 1921. It is true that the sum of £51,000,000 provided under that Act was in respect to war-time agreements, but as the Act has worked out in operation, I think it is perfectly fair to suggest that it has contributed in no mean way to the strong position of the railway undertakings, and I think it is fair to expect them to do a great deal without coming under this scheme, which is designed in the first place to assist people who require a guarantee and who might not be able to get on in business if a guarantee should not be forthcoming. That seems to me to be a very fair principle to lay down, when we remember that we are dealing with the money of the taxpayers of this country, and that we must look to all the facts of the situation under every scheme before we give the benefits of the Trade Facilities Act. In reply to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood), I ought to say at once-that I have not had an opportunity personally of considering in detail the very interesting scheme he put forward, and I think it would be unfair to hint and to the Committee if at this late hour of the Debate I should, attempt to reply to him. I will undertake to consider the scheme in detail, to meet any representations he cares to make, and to see Low far we are able to meet the proposals he has put forward.
  8.0 P. M.
  Coming to the introductory speech of the right hon. Gentleman the former President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame)—and here, in passing, I should like to express my gratitude for the kindly references which he and other Members of the Committee made to me— I should like to deal with the question he asked, and to say that we on this side

  1655
  of the House do not pretend that this scheme is in any way a novel scheme or a solution of the problem of unemployment. It is only one part of a series of schemes which the Government will present to the House in successive weeks. But we do not underrate in any way the contribution which may be made to the solution of unemployment under the four heads of this Resolution. Much of the discussion has turned on the sum of £65,000,000 which we have fixed under the extended guarantee. I agree that, looking to the state of industry in this country and to the mass of unemployment, the aggregate amount of £65,000,000 is perhaps, from some points of view, a trifling sum, but we must remember that this applies strictly to the period falling between November, 1923, and 31st March, 1925, and that during that time an amount equal to about £22,000,000, to be precise, will be available. All that has got to be raised by the industries themselves in the open market. We could quite easily, by a stroke of the pen, increase the amount to £75,000,000 or £80,000,000 or even £100,000,000 under this proposal, but we very definitely took the view, having regard to the urgency of the question, to keep to this figure, because we can always extend it on short notice if that course is decided upon. I want to place this further consideration before the Committee. In the course of a few weeks the Government will require to indicate more plainly than I can indicate to-night the kind of financial burden or obligation which many of our proposals will involve. We must, therefore, place this scheme, which goes to an amount of £22,000,000 now outstanding in a little more than a year, in strict relation to all the other schemes which we are to bring forward, and finally we must put the aggregate under this scheme and the others in strict relation to the problem of the country's credit as a whole. I do not mind very much what Government is in power in this country when I say, without fear of contradiction, that any Government which impairs the credit of the country only makes it a hundred times more difficult for it to carry out the very schemes which it intends to pursue; and at the Treasury, though my experience there has certainly
  1656
  been very brief, that is the kind of consideration which we are in duty bound to keep in mind. These are the wider arguments behind the suggestion which we make in this proposal for £65,000,000, and I am going to ask the Committee not to press us for a larger sum by way of guarantee. There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal could be done by this means, and we have a perfectly open mind as to its extension in future.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested a combination of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Financial Resolution. The effect of that combination would be to link up in some way the proposal for strict trade facilities, that is the £26,000,000 or £22,000,000 scheme, between November next and March, 1925, with (b) the second proposal, covering the £1,000,000 per annum by way of payment of a maximum of three-quarters of the interest on loans raised in this country by the Dominions, Governments or Protectorates for works of a public utility character. On that point the strict position is that the Colonies and Protectorates could come now to the Trade Facilities Committee, but I see no difficulty whatever in arriving at a kind of working agreement, as I conceive it, between the first two parts of this Resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman would be content with that assurance at the present stage, I think we shall be able to meet him when the matter comes to closer detail. I am satisfied that there will be no particular difficulty on this point. Other questions were raised regarding the precise scope of the Resolution adopted by the Imperial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman asked me Whether this provision which we intend to make under (b) of the Resolution would apply to companies which were engaged in works of a public utility character—I understood the question to be where the companies themselves were not strictly of a public utility description. The definition of public utility company has always been difficult.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That was not precisely my point. My point was whether you would give this contribution of interest in a suitable case, whether the public utility undertaking was carried on by a municipality, a Government, or a private company.
  Mr. GRAHAM: My reply on that point is that I am afraid, generally, of course, the proposal must subscribe to the conditions of a public utility undertaking. I am afraid I must adhere to that generally at the moment, but where the work is of a public utility character, I do not anticipate any difficulty in practice. Beyond that at this stage I cannot go, because, of course, the difficulties of establishing any kind of private enterprise in the Dominions are considerable.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: This is rather an important point. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Resolution of the Imperial Conference it is specific on the point. These public utility undertakings might be under either public or private control or management.
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they are still of a public utility character. Provided we are agreed on that point, I do not anticipate any difficulty under the other. I hope I have made that point plain. As regards the other question he asked regarding the Indian railways and grants in Kenya and Uganda, I think at the moment they are really beyond the scope of this Resolution, and as proposals applying to those areas will be presented to the House, I could not undertake at this stage to say they will be covered by a scheme of this kind. They involve political and other difficulties which at this stage I dare not take time to explain.
  Points were presented by one or two other hon. Members to which I must offer only a very brief reply. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) suggested that, after all, the liability of the Treasury under our proposal was not very much more than £1,000,000 per annum for five years, that criticism referring, of course, to proposals arising out of the Resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference. That is perfectly true as regards the payment of the sum but, of course, the House will agree that it raises a very large issue if any Government in this country is going to embark upon advances or grants or loans perhaps on other than the terms in which we are trying to help industry in different parts of the World at present. This proposal to pay up to a maximum of three quarters of the interest on any loan raised in this country by the Dominions
  1658
  would cover an amount of about £26,000,000 or £27,000,000, if we assume that the loans were raised at about 5 per cent., and, of course, if they were raised at less than that the amounts to be covered would be greater. T suggest at this stage, since, after all, this is the first appearance of a Resolution of this kind, that it is by no means a negligible contribution for a Government to make, especially as the matter is purely experimental and only time can tell how far public utility undertakings in the Colonies and Dominions and Protectorates will avail themselves of this arrangement. I offer these facts in reply to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman made.
  Then there is one other large question which arises from his speech. We have succeeded to this legislation. Everything has to be done to stimulate employment, and while criticism of the exact form of this proposal has been launched in Debates in previous Parliaments, hon. Members generally have concluded that, after all, we shall have to continue the system, at all events for the time being. In such a state of affairs we can only take the best steps we possibly can to see that the taxpayer is not involved in loss, and while the conditions laid down by the Advisory Committee are strict, on the whole, from the taxpayers' point of view, there is justification for a good deal of this Resolution. I will say a word or two later about proposed administrative changes, but up to the present time we have been able to guarantee a very large sum of money—£38,000,000 or £40,000,000 —and the only loss we have incurred has been on one small scheme applying to a brickwork which landed the State for a contribution of rather less than £4,000. So I think, on the whole, that reflect^ credit on the way this work has been carried out, and while 1 agree that it is desirable to have a good deal of elasticity, still no Advisory Committee under any Act of Parliament is entitled to take too great a risk, because any loss that accrued would wipe out any immediate gain in the provision of employment. These are things that we have to keep very clearly in view.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) suggested that we might try to improve the machinery of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Acts. That has been

  1659
  the subject of consideration in the Treasury during these weeks. I cannot to-night make a definite statement as to what form any change in the administrative Regulations will take, but we are very sincerely desirous that, subject to the conditions I have tried to lay down in the earlier part of my speech, we should give the greatest measure of freedom, and I hope, perhaps at an early date, to be able to make some definite statement on that point. In view of the shortness of time, I have been compelled to leave out any reference at all to the question of the Sudan loan, and I have done so after consideration for a reason which, I am sure, the Committee will appreciate. On the Second Reading of the Bill which will follow this Financial Resolution there will be an opportunity for hon. Members further to discuss the position in the Sudan, and I hope also, if it is required, there will he an opportunity for the Foreign Office to give explanations and information which are within their province and not within mine. For that reason, looking to the fact that much fuller information will be provided than I can offer the Committee to-night, I trust hon. Members will not expect me to go into a detailed reply on the question of the Sudan.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the provision of this money now will not commit us to facilitating operations in the Sudan, and enabling them to raise cotton which they would be able to sell at any price they like in the British market?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to give notice that a reply will be expected from the Foreign Office on the Report stage.
  Mr. GRAHAM: The time has nearly expired and I dare not attempt to give a reply, but I am satisfied that the information which will be given by the Foreign Office will meet hon. Members on this point. There is a very great deal of information to give, and I entirely agree that the House is entitled to have it. In view of the appeal I made earlier, I ask the Committee, because this is really a matter of urgency, to give us the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL rose—
  Mr. MORGAN JONES rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  AIR DEFENCE.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to move:
  "That this House, whilst earnestly desiring the further limitation of armaments so far as is consistent with the safety and integrity of the Empire, affirms the principle laid down by the late Government and accepted by the Imperial Conference that Great Britain must maintain a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of her shores."
  In moving the Resolution. I should like to make two over-riding observations, which I would ask hon. Members to read into everything I am going to say. The first observation is this: In the course of my remarks I shall have to make certain comparisons with the Air Force of the biggest air power in Europe, our friends and Allies the French, and I wish to make it quite clear that in these comparisons there is no suggestion, disguised or undisguised, of hostility towards our friends and Allies, and that in making the comparison I am not suggesting that a breach in the friendly relations between the two countries is likely, any more than I suggest that a breach between ourselves and the United States of America is likely in comparing the strength of the British Navy with the strength of the Navy of the United States. I would ask hon. Members to remember these observations in connection with any comparisons that I may make between British air power and French air power.
  There is another over-riding observation that I would venture also to make. I am just as anxious as any hon. Member in any part of the House to see a limitation of armaments. I am just as apprehensive as any Member of the House in seeing a possibility of a new armaments race starting in the world, and provided that in the meanwhile no risk is taken with our national defence, I am prepared

  1661
  to look most sympathetically at any attempts that this Government, or any other Government, may make to bring about a general reduction of armaments, whether it be by international conference, whether it be by treaty of mutual guarantee, or whether it be—and perhaps this is the most efficacious of all methods—by a mobilisation of public opinion in the various countries of Europe. In this connection, I see on the Paper two Amendments to my Resolution which directly raise the question of an international conference and a treaty of mutual guarantee.
  As to the first, I think the Prime Minister was very wise the other day when he said that an international conference must come' at the end and not at the beginning of negotiations, and I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the history of post-War Europe has been a history of failure after failure at international conferences, owing to the fact that the ground had not been sufficiently prepared and that a sufficient measure of agreement had not been reached before the conferences sat. As to a treaty of mutual guarantee there again I would like to say a word of caution. There is a risk and a very real risk that in entering upon a treaty of mutual guarantee we may be increasing and not, diminishing our commitments. I will not say more than that this evening, but hope that I have said enough to show that the first sentence of my Resolution expresses the view of hon. Members upon this side of the House just as it does the view of hon. Members of the Labour party or hon. Members of the Liberal party. We are just as anxious as they are to see a limitation of armaments, provided that that limitation can be general and provided also that it is consistent with the safety and integrity of the British Empire.
  A week ago the Prime Minister was asked certain questions by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with reference to the attitude of the Government upon the question of national defence generally. Among the observations which he made, he said this:
  "For some time to come the bargaining power of a British Foreign Secretary is not to depend upon military force but upon the reasonableness of the policy which he presents."
  1662
  I am not prepared to go so far as to say that diplomacy is always successful in proportion to the force which is behind it. At the same time 1 cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister, when he enters upon the many difficult negotiations that are before him, will find that it is not a disadvantage, at any rate, to have behind him a supreme Navy, and that it is not an advantage to have behind him an Air Force which, while it is excellent in quality, is altogether insignificant in quantity. But I do not want to linger on that phrase which was used by the Prime Minister. I would pass rather to his other observations. The Prime Minister said, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition:
  "My Government is making a general survey of defence problems. Not only is it doing that, it is making a general investigation of the inter-relation between foreign politics and national defence."
  I think that that is a very natural action for any new Government to take. The right hon. Gentleman is following the footsteps, certainly, of his immediate predecessors, and, I should imagine, of most of his predecessors, for it is exactly the kind of survey that the late Government undertook when it came into office in 1923; I have, no objection whatever to make against it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there is everything to be said in favour of it, provided that, while this general survey is being carried out, the more urgent and necessary aspects of national defence are not ignored or even delayed. But I wish to-night to press the Government to define their attitude somewhat more clearly on what I regard as the most urgent, and I believe to be the least controversial aspect of national defence, the question of air defence. I say, advisedly, the least controversial and the most urgent question of national defence, because t cannot believe that there is any substantial section of Members in this House, or any large body of public opinion in the country, that can regard with equanimity the fact that the capital of the Empire and the shores of this country are in so vulnerable a condition against the most terrible of modern attacks.
  Let me in a very few sentences summarise the air position as I see it to-clay, or rather let me go back to the time when the late Government took office 18 months ago, and carry on the story until the pre-

  1663
  sent time. I became Secretary of State for Air in October, 1922, just at the most critical time of the Chanak crisis. At that moment—this fact may surprise many hon. Members—we had within these shores only 24 first line aeroplanes, trained and available for home defence. I mean by first line aeroplanes the machines themselves, the reserves, and the personnel that go to keep them in the air. Owing to certain action which the late Government took we have now about 80 first line machines definitely allocated to home defence.
  Compare those two figures with the similar figure of our friends and neighbours the French. At the present moment there are in France about 1,000 first line aeroplanes. Of these about 600 are included in what is known as the French Independent Striking Force. Then there are another 400 over and above this figure that are allocated to duties with the French Army. But speaking generally, and not going into details, it is true to say that there are in France at the present moment about 1,000 first line machines against a little more than 100—for that I take it is the comparable figure—in this country. If you take the figures of the French Independent Striking Force you have 600 machines as compared with our 80 home defence machines. If you add a certain number of the army cooperation machines the comparison is between 1,000 and 100. Every hon. Member will agree that that is a striking disparity, and I wonder whether all hon. Members realise fully its significance.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these French machines are bombers and how many merely scouts?
  Sir S. HOARE: I cannot say off hand, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figures which I have given are comparable, that in each case there are a certain percentage of bombers and a certain percentage of fighters, and whatever that percentage might be the figures that I have given are comparable. I was saying that I wonder whether all hon. Members realise fully the significance of this disparity. Let me put it in another form; and here again let me remind hon. Members of the observation which I made
  1664
  at the beginning of my speech, that nothing which I am saying is intended in any way to convey the idea that I think that a war between the two old friends and Allies, England and France, is in the least likely. During the War the greatest amount of bombs that was ever dropped upon these shores in the space of a single month was 12 tons. Eight hundred machines could drop 170 tons of bombs upon London, not in the course of a month, but in the course of 24 hours, and keep up a bomb attack of 75 tons per day for an indefinite period. That is a very sinister and significant fact for every hon. Member to consider.
  If further details arc needed in this connection, I would draw attention to a most interesting book that has just been published by a most distinguished French airman. M. Rend Fonck, not only a great war pilot but a very influential member of the Chamber of Deputies, the Chairman of the French Aeronautic League. M. Fonck calculates that a force of 500 aeroplanes could, in the space of a single right, obliterate from the face of the earth a city a kilometre square. He calculates, further, that a force of this size could wipe off the surface of the globe a city as big as Paris in the course of a fortnight or three weeks. I think that those two or three examples should be sufficient to impress upon every hon. Member the gravity of the question and the extreme urgency of this aspect of this problem of national defence.
  As soon as I became responsible for the Air Force, I put these facts before the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, and the result of my representations was that, without delay, we set in motion the comparatively small scheme of expansion that was initiated in the time of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Captain Guest). But it was quite obvious that that expansion was not sufficient. On that account Mr. Bonar Law appointed a Committee of investigation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. If right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will look at the voluminous evidence that was offered to that Committee, and at the piles of minutes and memoranda that were circulated in connection with it, they will agree with me that there was never a, fuller or more detailed inquiry into any question of national defence. The result of that inquiry was announced to the House last June. The Government

  1665
  accepted the principle embodied in my Resolution, that, however improbable war may be, none the less a country like ours cannot afford to be in so vulnerable a position, and that, therefore, an Air Force must be built up sufficient to defend these shores from any possible air attack.
  That was the principle announced to the House last June. On the strength of it I at once took action and set on foot a programme for carrying the principle into effect. As a first stage of expansion we agreed upon an increase of the Air Force for the purpose of home defence which would bring it up to a strength of 600 first line machines. That is a strength of 32 squadrons, devoted primarily to home defence. We worked out this programme as quickly as we could. We took the preliminary steps, and I was authorised to spend a substantial sum of money in bringing it into effect.
  The first question that I wish to ask the Government is, are they going on with this expansion for home defence or are they not? Are they proceeding with the same expedition that I was attempting to apply to it last year? The House must keep in mind the fact that, however insistently we press on with this expansion, it must, in the nature of things, take a considerable time. It is very difficult in peace time to double one of the great fighting forces. You have none of the methods of war time, with which you can hastily, in a few weeks, extemporise a great fighting force. Let me give a single instance. The greater numbers of the skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force arc recruited as boys. A boy's training takes three years. That in itself shows that, however much one presses on with this expansion, it must take considerable time before it is completed. The moral of that is that no unnecessary delay must be placed in its way.
  I, therefore, want to ask the Government whether they are going to press on with it as speedily as I was attempting to press on with it while I was in office? Are they going on with my programme of buying aerodromes? Are they going on with my programme of enlisting larger numbers of boys? Are they going on with my programme of ordering machines? On all these points I should like as clear an answer as the Government can give me. Then there is another question. Is the Government going to adopt the general
  1666
  principle which I was attempting to apply to the constitution of the force This, I would remind the House, is a force for home defence, a force that it is not intended to take to the more distant parts of the Empire on garrison duty, and because it is a home defence force based upon these shores you can apply to it methods of recruitment and training that you would not apply to a force that might be going, say, to India or Iraq. On that ground I embodied in my programme large elements of what I will call non-regular personnel for these home defence squadrons. In my programme there was to be a nucleus of regular squadrons, but there were also to be squadrons rather in the nature of territorial squadrons, to be called auxiliary Air Force squadrons, and, in addition, there were to be Special Reserve squadrons. Besides that, we intended to carry out as much of the non-flying duties as possible by civilian labour. I think those proposals were wise for more reasons than one. In the first place, 1 believed they would be economical from the point of view of finance. Secondly, I believe they were wise from the fact that by diffusing knowledge of the air and of aviation, in the great industrial centres of this country, you would be strengthening the general air sense of the country.
  I should like then to ask the Government, as my second question: Are they going to continue this general framework of non-regular personnel in addition to regular personnel and, if they are going to continue it, are they going to introduce without delay the Auxiliary Air Force Bill? We included the Auxiliary Air Force Bill in the King's Speech, and, had the Government of which I was a member remained in office, one of our first acts would have been to introduce that Bill. It is a Bill upon which depends the development of these non-regular elements in the Home Defence Force, for without it we cannot create Auxiliary Air Force squadrons and a Special Reserve for the Air Force.
  I come to my third question which is concerned with another branch of the subject, namely, civil aviation, I am aware that there are certain people who take the view that civil aviation can be a substitute for military aviation. A time may come in the future when civil aviation will have so far developed that

  1667
  it may almost be regarded as a substitute, but my belief, for what it is worth, is that the time is still far distant and that the most we can hope for in the near future is that civil aviation should be, not a substitute for military aviation, but, if properly developed, be a supplement, and on that account very valuable to military aviation For that reason, while I was in office I did what I could, side by side with this military expansion, to develop civil aviation in various ways. Perhaps the most conspicuous way in which I attempted to develop it was by bringing together the various small civil aviation transport enterprises into one strong company. Before I left office, an agreement was signed between the Government and the new enterprise. I think anyone who looks at the conditions of that agreement with an impartial mind, will say that no obstacles should be placed in the way of carrying out the agreement, because under it there is every chance of civil aviation developing extensively and of British civil aviation taking the lead in Europe. I have no reason to suppose that the present Government have any intention other than to support, in every way in their power, the launching of this civil aviation enterprise, but I shall be re-assured if the Under-Secretary of State for Air will confirm my belief, namely, that this Government is just as anxious as the last. Government to see civil aviation developing, and to see it put upon such a basis that in the future it will no longer be spoon-fed and dependent upon subsidies —in many ways most objectionable—but will be built to stand upon its own footing and develop, just like any other economic enterprise, and gradually drive its lines across the whole face of Europe.
  Lastly—and I do not wish to labour this side of the question, because I am not sure that it comes very definitely within the terms of my Resolution—I should like to say something with reference to the development of airships. There, again, I believe, if civil airships are developed just in the same way as civil aeroplanes, I hope, are going to develop, you will gradually build up a reserve both of skilled personnel and technical material which may stand you in very good stead at a time of emergency. For one of the first conditions upon which we insisted, both in the aeroplane agreement and in the agreement we were on the point of
  1668
  making with reference to airships, was that both the personnel and the material should be at the command of the State in time of national emergency. The Prime Minister, yesterday, said the Government were reconsidering the question of airships. I will not say more than this at present—that we should think it most regrettable if, after these months of investigation and years of negotiation, the scheme of airship development upon which we were virtually agreed when we went out of office should be held up, and that there should be another long period during which no airship development was taking place.
  These are the specific questions that I venture to ask the representatives of the Government. I hope that they will be able to satisfy all sections of the House in the answer that they give, and I hope further that they will accept the Resolution which stands in my name. The Resolution, as hon. Members will see, is very moderately worded. It is a Resolution which asks for the bare minimum of Air Force necessary for the immediate defence of the country. It is a Resolution that will not involve the Exchequer —I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the bench opposite—in very great expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, and I am not sure whether he means by that that he agrees with me or disagrees, but if he disagrees with me, let me point out to the House that the whole of this programme, a programme under which the British Air Force is going to be doubled, is, when the full expenditure comes into being—not this year, but in future years—not going to amount to more than between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a year. That may be a. great sum, but at any rate it is a very small sum as compared with the far larger sums spent upon other branches of national defence.
  Perhaps morn important than that, this Resolution is almost word for word the Resolution agreed to by the Imperial Conference, and I can tell the House that in all the field of national defence that was surveyed by the Dominion Premiers, there was none that excited more interest, there was none that occasioned more anxiety, than the question of air defence. Therefore, I would press upon the House that they should accept this Resolution this evening, a Resolution which, as I

  1669
  say, calls for the very barest minimum of Air Force defence, a Resolution which was agreed to by the Dominion Premiers at the Imperial Conference, and a Resolution that, in my view, embodies a policy and a programme that is more vitally urgent to the safety of the country than any other phase of national defence at the present moment.
  9.0 P. M.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. W. Leach): I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). It must be clear to the House that he is a master of his subject, and that he speaks with a sense of very deep conviction. I must admit that he has put his case with very much temperance of speech, and I shall seek to meet, so far as I am able, his request for information from the Government. He has drawn a very alarming picture of the disparity of the Force between ourselves and France. Whether that be so or not, the responsibility does not lie with us. It is our legacy and not our responsibility, but for the moment I must decline to be alarmed about it. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us of his earnest desire for a further limitation of armaments, consistent, as he puts it, with the safety and integrity of the Empire. Everybody wants a decrease of armaments, perhaps even the armament makers. I came into this House one night recently, and I heard a Member on the opposite benches saying that what he wanted was a clean bill of health without slaughter. It struck me that I had stumbled into the Debate that was clown for to-night. Everybody in the world wants less armaments. The extraordinary thing is that what everybody wants nobody can have. The one thing that was knocked on the head during the War was the doctrine that in order to get peace we must be prepared for war. All the nations in the world that prepared most got the most war. Preparedness is not the best weapon in diplomacy. The best weapon in diplomacy is to have a sound and righteous cause. I always think that preparedness indicates a fear of one's neighbours, a disbelief in the righteousness of the intentions of those neighbours. Well, I am not a disbeliever in the righteousness of France's intentions.
  1670
  I am reminded by this Resolution, which is divided into two parts, of an ancient military slogan: "Trust in God, but keep your powder dry." It was a cynical motto. Perhaps there may be something to be gained out of this Debate to-night if we can learn which to rely on ourselves most. Moreover, about 2,000 years ago, a great reformer laid down the principles for solving this problem of national defence. Most unfortunately, nobody accepted his views on the matter. They were buried with Him. I want to see some new excavation works to raise the lid of the Sarcophagus of the New Testament. Perhaps the Churches may yet oblige in this matter, and not leave it wholly to the statesmen of a Labour Government. I believe a new Gospel is needed. I suggest that if you want peace, you must prepare for peace. This Government is preparing for peace. We can already see a break in the clouds.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants me to define the attitude of the Government towards national defence. He asks in plain, explicit terms are we going on with the expansion scheme? I am going to tell him in plain and explicit terms that there is no change in the policy of the Government for the time being on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] Let us examine what those expansion proposals are. First, there was the increase for home defence authorised by the Coalition Government in August, 1922. It was then decided to form 15 new squadrons, to be completed, approximately, by April, 1925. At that time we had only three squadrons allotted for home defence. The total by April, 1925, will thus be 18 squadrons. This decision was re-affirmed by Mr. Bonar Law's Government. A further increase of 34 squadrons was approved by the late Government in the way that the late Secretary of State for Air indicated. This announcement was made to the House on 26th June of last year. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to go more closely into the details of the expansion scheme than that, and I think the House will agree that wisdom lies in the barest of statements on these proposals at this juncture. That plan for the time being will not be interfered with. Continuity has been agreed to by the Govern-

  1671
  ment. This Government has taken over the responsibilities left to it by its predecessors.
  The scheme itself is being worked out in definite stages, and it will not, and does not, debar us from taking full advantage of any new movement in the direction of disarmament, or in the reduction of armaments. We should welcome a new Washington Conference. We shall do what in us lies to make such a Conference possible. As the House knows, the Treaty of Mutual Guarantees proposed by the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League of Nations is already in draft. It is now being considered by the various Governments. If that Treaty be approved, reductions will presumably be practicable. I think His Majesty's Government can be trusted not to be slow or backward in all efforts towards such an agreement. My predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this Resolution to-night, has pointed out the difficulties which stand in the way of quick increase of air squadrons. Let us not forget them. You have, for instance, to remember that there is the provision of stations for the accommodation of these squadrons. There has to be the acquisition of land, and the erection of buildings. There has to be the enlistment and training of men. There has to be the increase in the numbers of boy mechanics, and facilities for their training. All this, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, takes time. The scheme is going forward, and any deviation from it, if contemplated by this Government, will be brought before this House, and will have to he sanctioned here.
  The right hon. Gentleman put to me the question, what are we doing about the Auxiliary Air Force? He also laid stress upon the non-regular side of the Reserve Force. What I have to tell him is; that that scheme is going forward. The Auxiliary Air Force and the Air Force Reserve Bill is on the list of essential Bills to be submitted to this House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it will require legislation in order to establish those forces. He then asks me, what steps are being taken in regard to ordering machines of a new type to meet the requirements of this new force? I have to say that the whole scheme is growing up
  1672
  in regular and definite stages, and sufficient machines are being ordered to equip those squadrons that will come into being during the coming year. It must be borne in mind that during the formation of the squadrons, and pending the delivery of the new machines, some of the squadrons will, for the time being, have only training machines and present types of service machines. Time will remedy that.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman asks me in regard to civil aviation, what are we doing with reference to the proposals that went through the House while he was Minister for Air, bringing four companies into one Imperial Transport Company. That agreement, as he says, has been signed. It is a fait accompli. This legacy, also, so far as the present Government can do so, will be properly fulfilled. We are anxious to foster civil aviation. We shall take whatever measures that are open to us to do so. In regard to airships, I can add no more to the Prime Minister's answer on the subject of that scheme which is associated with the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). We are vitally interested in seeing that the lighter-than-air ships shall be explored, encouraged and fostered in every proper way that is open, to us.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Does that mean under private enterprise, or national enterprise?
  Mr. LEACH: No decision in regard to public or private enterprise in this matter has yet been reached.
  Captain W. BENN: Will they be kept under the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman and not handed over to the Admiralty?
  Mr. LEACH: That is another of those problems about which a decision has not been reached. A solution may possibly be discovered. The Admiralty are fine, stubborn people, with whom it is good to argue. The Noble Lord the Minister for Air is having great joy in his discussion with them.
  The second part of this Resolution calls for a home defence Air Force sufficiently strong to provide an adequate protection against the strongest air force that is likely to be within striking distance of our shores. I suppose that on that as a pious declaration little criticism can be made;

  1673
  but I have wondered whether it is a practical proposition. I have wondered what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman envisaged, supposing you have the unhappy event of war. Say our signallers warn us of the approach, say, of 100 fighting aeroplanes upon London. Are we to have 100 to go up to meet them? [HON. MEMBERS: "TWO hundred!"] Two hundred ready! [HON. MEMBERS: "Five hundred!"] is each man, each airman, to single out the individual that he proposes to attack, and set the thing going in that way7 What is adequate protection? Suppose there is an attack on Portsmouth, or Harwich, or Plymouth. Are aeroplanes to be stationed in the expectation that all these places are likely to be attacked?
  Can aeroplanes give adequate protection against aeroplanes. Everybody knows they cannot. If we had 50 machines to one against the strongest air force within striking distance, we would not be adequately protected, in the opinion of some people, and if we were ringed round from the Humber to the Thames, and around the South Coast to Cornwall, with machines every hundred yards, there would be somebody still saying that this was not adequate protection. Totally adequate protection is like the totally honest man, it has never been discovered. The air force is an attacking weapon, not a weapon of defence. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman disavows any intention of embarking on another armaments race, but this Resolution almost seems as if there was a desire for another armaments race. It asks, or seems to ask, for a new one-Power standard Air Force. When you have got that, some lunatic will demand a two-Power standard. Then the hysterical Press will back him up and probably demand a three-Power standard. I am not a great military strategist or an expert. I can see that an army can keep another army off, and that a navy can prevent another navy landing men, and also that an air force, so far, cannot prevent an air raid. It is not pleasant to contemplate it, but up to date—and the Resolution ignores it—the only adequate defence that I can see is a changed international atmosphere. If we continue to put fear at the helm and folly at the prow we shall steer straight for the next war.
  Major - General SEELY: We have listened to a most astounding doctrine given at the close of the speech of the Under-Secretary, a doctrine which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would really mean the disbandment of our Army and of our Navy, and of our Air Force, too. Surely, with all respect, Sir, we must challenge the Government on this point of view. I will only detain the House for a little while, but I will endeavour to show that this matter is of vital importance to us. The Under-Secretary asks: "What is the defence against aeroplanes?" He answers that by saying, a Change in the national spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] He said "the national spirit." [HON. MEMBERS: "The international."] Well, the international spirit. He did say "national," but let, it stand—a change in the international spirit. Who are the aggressors? Who have been the aggressors? [Interruption.] This country or others? This country has not been, and is not now, an aggressive country. We were forced into the late war.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Forced into the China War!
  Major-General S EELY: We have throughout endeavoured to pursue a peaceful policy, and shall continue to do so, but if we are to be told from the Treasury Bench that we are to rely for our national safety on a change in the international spirit without the provision of adequate defence provided by this House, then, I say, I challenge the Government. Let us see what the danger is. There is a real danger to this country owing to the new methods of air attack, a subject which I have studied to the best of my ability for many years. So far as I have been able to ascertain from every source the facts are these: During the late War, as the late Secretary for Air said, the greatest weight of bombs dropped upon this country in any one month was 12 tons. I speak now of France, not because there is any chance that France will attack this country. Indeed I am quite sure that if this Motion were accepted by the Government and acted upon, that no one would be more delighted than the French nation and Marshal Foch. Since they maintain such defence forces as they consider necessary and in face of certain possible

  1675
  dangers let us take them as an example. What would happen suppose a force similar to that which France has now were to be employed against this country'? What are the facts?
  A year ago the French had it in their power, if, instead of being our ally and our greatest friend, they had been our enemy, to drop upon any selected point more than 10 times the weight in bombs in one raid which the Germans dropped on us in one month. When my hon. Friends in this House look back upon the effect, in the month of September, 1917, of the dropping of that small number, and when they realise that the new force, easily created, can drop at least 300 times as much, and when they reflect on how people fled into the Tubes, and how all works stopped for days on end, surely they ought not to minimise this danger.
  Let us consider it in the form of casualties to human beings. We are told the matter has always been exaggerated. That is quite true, but it can be said with certainty that not less than 100 casualties will follow every ton of bombs dropped. I challenge contradiction on this. It follows as a consequence that, assuming the force to which I have referred to be capable of dropping 90 per cent. of its available bomb dropping power in the first raid, 75 per cent. in the next, and from 45 to 50 per cent. for successive days, in the absence of an adequate force to prevent it, in the first raid there would be 12,600 casualties; in the second raid there would be 10,000 casualties, and for an indefinite period thereafter, in the absence of an adequate Air Force, which is asked for in this Motion, there would be from 8,000 to 9,000 casualties daily, certainly and unavoidably.
  Supposing that this force were employed to set fire to a town. The London County Council retains a certain fire brigade. It is known how many fires can be put out in a given time. It is quite certain that, if it were decided to set the place on fire, instead of destroying human life, by the ordinary method of dropping explosive bombs, in the absence of an adequate Air Force the whole of London would certainly be set on fire. If, to take a third case, it were decided by this very modest force to attack railway centres, it is quite certain that trains would cease to run and that London could not be fed. We
  1676
  therefore come to this conclusion, which I think will not be disputed by any impartial authority, that the result of an attack of this kind, in the absence of an adequate Air Force, would certainly be that London would have to be evacuated within a few days. The Under-Secretary of State said: "But what is the defence for this? Are you going to have an aeroplane every hundred yards all round I What about Portsmouth What about Harwich?" Surely he must see that in this new and disastrous phase—and nobody thinks it more disastrous than I do; in fact, I was Chairman of the Limitation of Armaments Committee, and I care as much as anybody else about the limitation of armaments—that this is, alas, a matter of reprisals. If it is asked, "Is there an answer to an aeroplane?" the reply is, "There is no other answer but another aeroplane."
  Mr. B. TURNER: There is an answer— the New Testament.
  Major-General SEELY: I have only two other points to make. This Motion contains two sections. First, the limitation of armaments, and, secondly, an adequate Air Force. I say that unless you accept the second you will never get the first. How was it we managed to come to an agreement with America on the limitation of naval armaments? Because everybody knew we had nothing to fear. We shall not get the Powers of the world to agree to limitation of air armaments, which is more necessary even than the limitation of naval armaments. unless we can say in regard to the air, as we have said in the case of the Navy and still can say, that we have nothing to fear. We are in a situation of grave danger, and we must put that right before we can appeal to the, Powers of the world.
  My third point is this, and it is much less controversial. We make this appeal in the interests of Imperial safety. It is the fact that the British Empire cannot survive if this country is destroyed. It is an Imperial question, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who I know cares for this and kindred questions, to see whether the Dominions and India cannot co-operate with us in. this question of an adequate air defence, and then as a united Empire, fearing nothing, we can appeal

  1677
  to the world at least to abate armaments and to put an end to this senseless struggle.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as an extraordinary one. We have just listened to another extraordinary speech from himself. The picture he has drawn is an exceedingly deplorable one. He might just as well have conic face to face with the facts of the situation, and have recognised that the only possible nation from which could come about the dire effects to which he has alluded, is the nation that he has referred to as "our dear friends." I will ask succeeding speakers to tell me from whom they apprehend this danger. Is the danger to come from Germany? Even the most militant of the anti-Germans in this country is compelled to admit that the Treaty of Versailles has effectively disarmed Germany. There can be no danger apprehended from that quarter if the Allies maintain the Treaty of Versailles in its entirety. Therefore, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany can be wiped out as a possible danger so far as an attack by air force is concerned. Is the danger to be apprehended from the Scandinavian countries, or from Switzerland, Belgium, or Holland? You cannot say that any of these countries constitute a danger to this country, and I do not think anyone will argue that there is a danger of these small countries uniting against us. If that be so, then the only possible danger which you apprehend is France, to whom hon. Members have been referring to its our friend. Let us face the situation. I come back now to the plea of the Under-Secretary for Air for an international understanding. If you can eliminate in Europe all your possible opponents, and leave only our present ally France, surely it ought not to be outside the realm of common sense, statesmanship and diplomacy to so arrange matters between. France and ourselves that all possible danger of such a terrible holocaust shall be removed entirely from the realm of international possibility.
  It is all very well to refer to the Labour Party as idealists, but in this matter some idealism is necessary and badly wanted. It seems to me that unless some of that idealism can be translated into action we shall never make any progress, and no
  1678
  hon. Member of this House ought to deplore the fact that such an attempt is being made. Surely we ought to encourage any attempt that may be made in that direction. Hon. Members opposite during the last War preached that it was a war to end war. You took young men from their homes and appealed to their moral sense. You told them on your recruiting platforms and in your propaganda that you were appealing to them by every sense of decency to help you to crush the militarism of Germany in order to lay the basis of peace in the future; and now when the Under-Secretary declares that a Government has come into power which will make an effort to establish international relationships upon common sense and not upon common fear, the idea is ridiculed.
  I am aware that it takes more than one to make a bargain, but somebody has got to make the attempt. From what the last speaker has said it is obvious that we arc hopelessly inferior to France, and it is exceedingly doubtful if we could possibly catch up to France if we started on the race for aerial supremacy. Suppose France goes on building aeroplanes. She will complete the race almost before we begin, and by all we can do we do not alter the ratio, which remains actually what it is at the present moment. I say that it is time that from this House a gesture should go forth to indicate that at least we are prepared to act, and not use mere words. I believe with all my heart that if this country were definitely to begin by making a courageous attempt to bring about. by international relationships, first of all a diminution of armaments and a stoppage of this infernal race, that would lead up to the establishment of some poker that would take the place of armaments and war, and our country would go down to posterity as one of the greatest countries that ever existed.
  Captain EDEN: May I, at the outset, ask for the usual courtesy and indulgence which is always extended to a maiden speech. The last speaker made great play of a little geographical tour, and he asked us from what quarter we expected an attack from the air. I do not know, but I do not think that is the point we want to discuss. Surely, the point is rather that we should prepare to defend ourselves against an attack from any

  1679
  quarter. There can be little doubt that this question is of exceptional interest in this House, and the reasons are not very far to seek. In the first place, it is not in the nature of things possible to provide hastily and at a moment's notice for air defence; and, in the second place, the very heart of our country, the city of London, is especially vulnerable to attack from the air. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will not be tempted too much by sentiment, and will rather act, as we gather from the speech of the Under-Secretary, not in accordance with his principles, but in accordance with the programme he has inherited from other parties, and that the Government will, as a matter of insurance, protect this country from the danger of attacks from the air.
  The Under-Secretary asked what was meant by adequate protection, and he said he believed preparedness was not a good weapon. That may be, but unpreparedness is a very much worse weapon, and it is a double-edged one, likely to hurt us very seriously. The Under-Secretary quoted an old military maxim, and I will quote one which is that "Attack is the best possible form of defence." [HON. MEMBERS "No, no!"] I expected hon. Members opposite would be a little surprised at that doctrine. I was not suggesting that we should drop our bombs on other countries, but simply that we should have the means at our disposal to answer any attack by an attack. It is a natural temptation to hon. Members opposite, some of whose views on defence were fairly well known during the years of the War, to adopt the attitude of that very useful animal the terrier, and roll on their backs and wave their paws in the air with a pathetic expression. But that is not the line on which we can hope to insure this country against attack from the air. I believe and hope that hon. Members opposite will carry out the programme which they have inherited, and will safeguard these shores, so far as they may, from the greatest peril of modern war.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Several points emerge from this very interesting Debate, for example, the well known point of the horrors of aerial warfare. Everyone who has studied it knows how horrid
  1680
  it was in the last war, and how infinitely more horrid it may become in the next war. That is agreed, but it is further to be pointed out that there is no real way of preventing what my lion and gallant Friend described as the events which might happen in the event of a future war. If those things happen here, there is no way of preventing them. The Under-Secretary asked, would we have aeroplanes round the coast, and so on. Of course that is not the way to prevent it; the only possible way of preventing it is by doing the same thing to other people. If it be the fact that aerial combat merely means the duplication of these horrors on one side and on the other, we have to consider the subject extremely seriously.
  In the first place, I understand the Government to accept this Resolution. It surprises me, although I applaud it, that they are prepared to go on with the programme which the right hon. Gentleman initiated. That was stated in terms by the Under-Secretary. I think they are right, although I am surprised, because the Labour party only six months ago pledged themselves in their Conference to oppose it. That is their view, but I think they are wise, and I am not throwing that in their teeth. It is, however, a very impotent conclusnon, because no one pretends that the program of the right hon. Gentleman was an effective answer numerically to the French programme. Thirty-nine squadrons, which, I suppose, we have now, arc no answer to 126 French squadrons. It is not a race in armaments. It is a stimulus without being an effective race, and what I missed from all these speeches was, if I may say so with great respect to the House, any practical suggestion as to how this terrible situation is to he faced.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, I understand, is to reply, whether the Government accepts something like this theory—that there is a pool of money for national defence which is limited in character, and that, if it appears that modern warfare is better conducted by air than by sea or land, are they prepared to see that any necessary increase in air expenditure is not met by increased taxation, but by economies in the other Departments? That is the first point. I am not advocating increased expenditure, but am only asking whether the

  1681
  Government accept this principle. It was a point made by the Geddes Committee, and I think it is a perfectly sound one. The second point about which I want to ask is, are the Government taking practical steps to utilise the existing Air Force to the best advantage? There are eight squadrons in Iraq; is it the intention—and the right hon. Gentleman is the best qualified Minister to answer—to bring those squadrons home at the earliest possible moment, and, if so, when?
  Then we come to the really important point, namely, what steps are the Government taking—not by vague aspirations such as those, laudable enough in a sense, expressed by the Under-Secretary on peace—what practical steps are they taking to put this policy into operation? The right hon. Gentleman said, I think quite inaccurately, that the best bargaining force was an enormous Air Force in hand. I understood him to say that we were in a strong position at the Washington Conference because we had an undefeated Navy, but I do not think that that was an asset at all. I think that in point of fact the Americans knew quite well that in course of time they would beat us, and I do not believe the number of ships counted at all, but that it was the noble impulse of the President of the United States and also of our own representative, whose work was brilliantly useful in the service of humanity. What practical steps are the Government taking?
  There is the Pact of Mutual Guarantee. I do not know whether it has been announced in this House what the Government is doing about that. Have we replied? Some countries have replied; have we replied? Have we examined it? Are the Government proposing to examine it, and are they inclined to use what appears to be the only practical method which has yet been suggested for meeting a really urgent situation—I mean that in the Schedule to this Pact there will have to be a table of the Air Force which we propose to permit to ourselves. That, again, is a difficulty. How are you to distinguish between the civilian machine and the fighting machine? I venture to say that, if you do something which cripples civil aviation, you take a step against peace, because, in my judgment, aviation is capable of becoming one of the
  1682
  greatest agencies for peace in the world. Secondly, the Government in this Schedule will have to go over again all the discussions which took place in the Committee of the Washington Conference, and a very hopeless Report it was, as the right hon. Gentleman remembers quite well, which was issued by that Committee. They laid down five ways of testing air power, and each in its turn was rejected as being impracticable.
  These are the practical questions. I have always been moved by appeals to idealism, and, speaking for myself, I earnestly hope that the last War did something to bring war to an end. It would be a disgraceful betrayal of many men who went out and laid down their lives unless the Government took practical steps—not merely talking in a vague and optimistic way—in the direction of bringing about disarmament. I would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to tell us what practical steps they are taking in the directions I have suggested, or in others, to bring to an end a horror which, if it is permitted to grow and comes upon us in another war, will certainly destroy civilisation itself.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Of the points which have appeared in this Debate so far, the first is the reply of the Labour party, "Who is your enemy?" With regard to that, the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) appeared to think that he could take a fully developed Air Force out of his head in exactly the same way as a conjuror. An Air Force, however, must be built up over a series of years. If one refers to history, one realises that we were not very friendly with France ever Fashoda, although now we are the greatest friends, and that 10 years after that we were fighting Germany. One has to look, therefore, upon the provision of an Air Force exactly in the same way as upon paying one's fire insurance premium, and until the Labour party will admit the ordinary common sense of that premise, I do not think they will ever go very far in a Debate of this character.
  Two other points appeared to emerge. One was that raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely), and the other was raised by the last speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight stated that we had in some

  1683
  manner to bring the Empire as a whole into this matter, and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Bonn) pointed out that the appalling consequences of not meeting and dealing with this problem of air warfare would bring civilisation down in ruins unless it could be dealt with in some adequate way. I think all those who devote their time to devising air machines and war machines are more sensible than other people to the great gravity of this question. I should like to impress upon the House, to the best of my ability, the extraordinary gravity of this issue, because we appear to be between two courses. One is, that we have got to maintain our supremacy until such time as we can get disarmament, and the other is to develop some system of Government throughout the civilised world in which disarmament will be possible. The might of this Empire, the wealth of it and its economic power in the world were built up by virtue of the fact that we could have a cheap Army and a comparatively cheap Navy for our overseas work. Hon. Members know that the Navy used to be the cheapest form of fighting force that could be obtained, and it is because we have not had the burden of a Continental Army to keep up that we were able with a cheap Army and a relatively cheap Navy to build up our Empire at comparatively small cost.
  Now science has brought in a new element, and we have to bear the continental burden and the Imperial burden, and unless we can relieve ourselves of half that burden, we shall put upon this country such an economic strain that we shall not be able to afford it. As far as the continental burden is concerned, we shall have to support that until such time as hon. Members opposite are successful in developing their disarmament policy. I, for one, heartily hope that they will be speedily successful, but, pending that time, we have got to support the double burden of a continental system which will now be transferred entirely to the air, as well as our Imeprial burden. It seems to me that the most urgent problem we have before us to-day is the development of our Empire, because we have got to make the Dominions do their share of the economic upkeep of our defence forces. They do not do it to-day
  1684
  in any respect in comparison with the taxation upon this country. I believe the best method we shall have of carrying this burden during the transitional stage, that is, between the time when we get disarmament and that in which we have to keep up our forces to the extent of making us safe, will be by developing our Empire as speedily as we possibly can, so that our Dominions will share with us the necessary burden of armaments during this transitional period. Therefore I. would direct the attention of the Under-Secretary for Air to the absolute importance of speeding up our air communications, which will be one of the vital factors towards binding our Empire together in such a manner that we can make political control coincide with economic dependence.
  10.0 P. M.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the
  COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I do not think that the House will regret the Motion we are now discussing, because, while there have been, and will be, legitimate differences of opinion upon this subject, it would he a reflection upon this country and all that was said and done in the War, if we found in a Debate of this kind that this House was indifferent to the great ideal of peace. Indeed, I could conceive of nothing more disastrous, more dangerous, nothing that would he so much calculated to destroy all hope, than to assume that the last word in this question is either air, naval or military defence. While we must endeavour to be practical—and I will endeavour to show in a moment that we are practical—we must, at the same time, keep clearly at the back of our minds That the object of all people and all parties must be in the direction of peace and disarmament. We are not going to
  ask the House to accept this Motion, and I am going to give reasons which, I believe, will satisfy even my right hon. Friend who moved it. In doing that I would be wanting in my duty if I did not pay a tribute to him not only for his
  speech to-night—everyone who heard it appreciated at—but for his remarkable ability and efforts in connection with this particular problem. As one who has given some consideration to and read of his work in connection with the Imperial Conference, I wish to pay him publicly that tribute. But in doing that I would

  1685
  point out that his own Resolution or Motion which he asks the House to accept is absolutely inconsistent with his own policy. What does the Resolution say
  It says:
  "That Great Britain must maintain a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of her shores."
  My right hon. Friend knows that that is impossible. He knows perfectly well that if there had been no change of Government and he was standing at this box to-night and giving effect absolutely to his own policy and the policy he submitted to the imperial Conference, the latter part of this Resolution would not be fulfilled.
  Sir S. HOARE: I would like to make it clear that that is not so. Our policy was definitely to make the Air Force adequate. This increase was to be the first stage, and, when it had been carried out, we would have surveyed the position and if necessary we would have gone on. But it was only to be the first stage.
  Mr. THOMAS: I know that, and I will deal with that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Air has already given an assurance that, so far as the first stage is concerned, we are continuing it. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman and also to my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely), who, I think, misrepresented what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. I think he did misrepresent it. My hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that it was the Government's intention to give effect to the first stage. My right hon. Friend knows that and acknowledged it while he was speaking.
  Major-General SEELY: When the right. hon. Gentleman says "misrepresent," I suppose he means unintentionally. I had no intention of misrepresenting it.
  Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I should be the last to suggest it. I can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my hon. Friend. I want to come back to the Motion, and I want the House to understand the reasons why the Government could not possibly accept it. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman opposite was still Minister for Air, supposing full effect was given to the policy which he laid down and which was accepted by the Government, in four
  1686
  years' time, assuming that France did not build one solitary additional aeroplane, when full effect bad been given to his policy and all the money had been spent, we should then be in the possession of something like four-fifths of the striking force of the French. I want to be quite fair to the House. I will not pose as an expert on this. I am merely endeavouring to state the factors which have influenced the Government in coming to their decision. After all, that is what every hon. Member has to do. It is not a question of party. It is a question of trying to do the right thing. Therefore I repeat that the Resolution the right hon. Gentleman has now submitted would not be given effect to, even if full effect was given by this Government to his own policy. I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that whilst we are talking about the danger in this matter and France is mentioned, nothing would be so unfortunate as for the mention of France to be construed as an attack upon her. I think there is general agreement on that. But that must not blind us to the fact that it is France that we are dealing with. What other conclusion could anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech come to, when he stated this short fact, that France at this moment could drop 175 tons of bombs in 24 hours? He went on to say a great French expert anticipated that such a development could take place that whole cities could be wiped out, all of which we must accept, and all of which is perfectly true. But do not let any of us deceive ourselves that if this is going to be the result of the progress of science and development in this connection, it is money or aeroplanes that are going to save us; we have to face the cold, hard fact that the only adequate protection is, that nations realise their obligations and that their obligations and their duties lie in the direction of peace. But the Government position, whilst keeping that in mind is precisely the same as that of the late Prime Minister last June. In answer to a question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he said that so far as he was concerned, he would give a general outline of the defence, but that the House would have a full opportunity, when the Estimates were submitted, of discussing it in detail. The Government's position is identical with that.

  1687
  First, we say clearly and definitely that there is no break in the continuity of our policy. That is to say, the first stage is going on and there has been no break whatsoever. The two Bills are being introduced and pressed at an early stage, and their importance is fully recognised. But the Government want to survey the whole question, because this is not alone a question of the air. The Navy and the Army are involved in it, and the Government not only want to survey the question as a whole, but they want to be free to bring about disarmament if they can. My hon. Friend asks how they are going to do it, but no one can say yet. The most we can say is, that there will be no disarmament until confidence is established, and our first effort and our first aim ought to be, and will be, to establish confidence. He asked me, what is the position of the eight squadrons in Iraq. I do not think that arises on this Motion. To deal with that aspect of the question a number of factors must be considered, and, obviously, it does not come within the category of home defence.
  Mr. PRINGLE: You can bring them back.
  Mr. THOMAS: You cannot possibly, and I am not going to be baited into bringing in this very difficult problem of Iraq in connection with home defence. But I would ask the House to remember that my hon. Friend has given the maximum assurance. He has clearly demonstrated what is the policy of the Government. It is the legacy handed down to us. The Air Estimates will be put down at any date when the Opposition feel that they would like them discussed, and a full, definite statement on the whole policy will be given. But the Government ask the House not only to realise their difficulty, but to realise that their clear, definite policy is to have a free hand, and whilst recognising defence, whilst realising the Colonial aspect of the question, whilst giving an assurance of a continuity of the first stages of this programme, to reserve to themselves the absolute right to do nothing or to be committed to nothing which would prevent them working for disarmament in future.
  Rear - Admiral SUETER: We have listened to some extraordinary speeches to-night. As an old airman, I am exceedingly surprised at the speech of the Under Secretary of State for Air. Here we have an hon. Member concerned with the fighting forces giving us such a speech as that which he delivered to-night. I do Dot know what is happening to hon. Members in this House when they talk so much about disarmament, in view of the extraordinary condition of Europe at the present time. Can any hon. Member tell me what is likely to happen within the next 20 years in Europe? Notwithstanding, they come to this House and talk about disarmament. If we had carried out before the War the policy of the Under-Secretary for Air we should have lost the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "There would have been no war!"] We should have lost the War, and some hon. Members opposite would have felt the German bayonets.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" "Sit down"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rising on a point of Order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point of Order is this: that the hon. and gallant Member opposite must be Rip van Winkle, because he is referring to the Air Force before the War. There was no Air Force before the War.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—[HON.MEMBERS: "Sit down! Shut up!"]—Do not tell me to shut up. I will shut you up.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: If the hon. Member who has just interrupted will get are interpreter, I shall be able to understand what he says. Before the War, we had very great difficulty in building up an air service. During the War be built up an Air Service, and at the end of the War we had the finest Air Service in the world. As an airman, what I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Air, the Under-Secretary of State, the ex-Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State—the House bristles with them—what they have done with that wonderful Air Service. We hear that we have only eighty first-class aeroplanes for the defence of

  1689
  this country. What has happened to the fighting machines that we had at the end of the War? The fault is that the Secretaries of State for Air have never pressed their claims properly on the Government. In this financial year, £122,000,000 of the taxpayers' money are to be devoted to defence. Have we a defence of these islands? We certainly have not from the air point of view. The City of London, great commercial centres and other towns could be bombed and we could not put up an adequate defence. The reason is that the Secretaries of State for Air have not pressed for the right amount of money for the defence of our homes. In the current financial year, out of the £122,000,000 for defence purposes, the Air Service only gets £12,000,000, while the Army and Navy get the remainder. I submit to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and I ask him to pass it on to the Secretary of State, that he must press for an equal proportion of the money available for the fighting Services. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiling. I do not know what amount he will give this year for the fighting Services, but if he gives £100,000,000 the Air ought to get 33⅓ of that amount in order to bring it up to the right standard.
  The former Secretary of State for Air mentioned airships, and the Under-Secretary of State for Air said the Government were interested in airships and were going to develop them. I saw in the Press to-day a statement that it was intended to scrap the Burney airship scheme, and experiment with old airships.
  Mr. LEACH: The hon. Member must not believe everything that he sees in the Press.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I am only telling the hon. Member what I saw in the Press, and I want to warn the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Under-Secretary of State for Air on this point and ask them to press on the Secretary of State for Air that if he risks men's lives in old airships it will be a disastrous policy. We have had an example of that just now in the Mediterranean. The French took over one of the Zeppelin airships, and lost the "Dixmude" with about 35 men on board. She was getting to be an old airship. I happened to pass
  1690
  the airship shed near Toulon when she went out over the Mediterranean. She had a long cruise and the morning after she was lost I picked up off the shore near Cannes great pieces of ice, salt water frozen on the shore. [Laughter.] If hon. Members can afford to taught at 35 people being drowned, all I have to say is God help them. The great fall of temperature, during the night before the morning when she was lost, reduced her buoyancy. The gas contracted, and she came under the lee of the coast of Sicily. No doubt she had not enough buoyancy and a squall caught her and drove her into the sea. That comes of using old airships. I do hope that the Government are not going to use old airships. If they do they are sure to lose their crews.
  I should like to say a few words now on the subject of accidents. We are having far too many accidents with aeroplanes. I cannot take up my paper without seeing an aeroplane accident. During the early days of the Air Service we had far fewer accidents in the naval wing than in the military wing. I attribute that to the skill of our mechanics in looking after the machines. Every time that I see that an aeroplane has been lost through an accident, I think it is probably the fault of the mechanics, who do not look after the machines properly. I would like the Under-Secretary for Air to give his attention to this point. We have heard some extraordinary speeches to-night. At times I really thought that I was in church. If we are going to be defended in this Empire by sermons on the Mount, then God help us!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) and the proposer of the Motion, who has brought forward the most important question which a private Member could bring up. But I would ask all these three pundits how they expect to defend London or Birmingham or any other great city by aeroplanes from the attacks of other aeroplanes at night? I believe that it is a fact that aeroplanes have fought aeroplanes at night, and shot each other down, but just as it is extremely difficult for destroyers to find other destroyers at sea at night, working

  1691
  in two dimensions, so it is only by a sheer fluke that working in three dimensions two aeroplanes can find each other at night in thick weather. I would also like to point out. to the Under-Secretary for Air that while you are defending one city—if you can defend a city by aeroplane which I doubt—the enemy will probably find out where your defences are. It is not difficult, after all, to find out where our aerodromes are, or our mechanical workshops, and to attack places where aeroplanes are not concentrated. That is not an unfair argument.
  The conclusion that I reach is that the only sound strategy that can be adopted is to attack the other people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I notice that I have the support of hon. [embers opposite. Therefore, it comes to this: that we cannot defend our cities by aeroplane. We may invent other scientific devices, and experiment with a vast network of captive balloons and aerial mines and various poison gas devices, but by aeroplanes we cannot defend our great cities, our munition centres or our railway centres. What do we do? We build up a force sufficiently strong to threaten the nerve centres of possible enemies, and then we get people in the French Chamber or the Belgiar Chamber starting debates like that in this House to-night, talking about defending hearths and homes, and pointing to the Air Force we have raised here from the hard-driven taxpayers' money in England, and again piling up armaments. Once more we start on the wicked race of armaments which has always ended in war. At, present there are three Staff colleges where the young idea and the middle-aged idea are taught the outlines of strategy and tactics in their various arms. There is one at Greenwich, one at Camberley, and one at Andover. Incidentally, there ought to be only one Staff College, because all war is one to-day. But I do not press that point now. The next best thing is done. There are friendly visits between the staffs, and they play war games in which each staff takes part. Two favourite war games are studied to-day. One is in connection with the defence of Singapore. I need not spend much time about that now. The second is aerial war. Against whom? The strongest air Power.
  1692
  That is against France; it is no use blinking the fact.
  Right through this Debate to-night, beginning with the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), followed by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely), there has been the motif that we must arm against France. France in her turn will make a note of the new air arms advocated by the right hon. Member for Chelsea. I notice that he is apparently dissatisfied with the very modest contribution made by the Conservative Government to this armament and that he is now egging on the Labour party to out-trump what he did. These preparations will be used by the scaremongers in France, by the newspapers in France, supported in turn by the private armament makers in France, as a reason for obtaining still further French air armaments, and as the French are able to build up, for the same amount of money, much greater forces than we are—they pay their men less and they borrow men from the army—they will either outbuild us or run us into an expenditure of money which we simply cannot afford commensurate with an all-powerful Navy and the very expensive Army that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite demand. There is only one remedy and that is public opinion. If the speeches to-night, especially those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight, were broadcast and were explained to and understood by the masses of the people in this country and in France, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Russia, you would, eventually, after a few lectures of that sort, educate public opinion to such an extent that a remedy would be demanded and there is only one remedy and that is all round disarmament and an international police force. [Laughter.] It is very easy to laugh and to say other countries will not do it.. How do hon. Members know they will not do it?
  Rear-Admiral SU ETER: The representative of the United States the other (lay said the time was not ripe for universal disarmament.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper but which I do not intend to move

  1693
  at this time, especially as the Government arc not accepting the Motion, he will see that 1 suggest a conference of European Powers. The United States are not within aerial striking distance of these shores and can be left out. But let us have a United States of Europe in aerial matters. This is going to come, but the difference is that it may come before another great war—with Bolshevism—or it may come afterwards. If we are going to nave another great war, we shall get Bolshevistic internationals and I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will emphasise that fact. If the peoples of Europe are again to experience the horrors of modern scientific aerial warfare in an intensified form, I am convinced they will rise in sheer desperation and overthrow the existing system of society. Then we shall get internationalism after a catastrophe which will probably mean the end of civilisat ion as we know it. The alternative is to be sensible and to educate public opinion. I hope the Government will do what they can to influence public opinion by sane propaganda and education on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "We always did!"] Hon. Members say they always did so, but they are in a much better position to do so now, and I hope they will use their power in that direction. A little money spent on advocating this cause would be of more use than a great deal more money spent on aeroplanes of doubtful utility. These are the only lines on which we can go, and I look upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman as well-meaning but mischievous.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir PAGE CROFT: Will the hon. and gallant Member state what he would do in the meantime?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will certainly tell the hon. and gallant Member what I would do. While we are compelled to have an Air Force, let us have an efficient Air Force. When we reach the Estimates I hope to have a word to say upon that point, but this is not the time. We must recognise the unfortunate fact that at present we cannot absolutely lead a race in disarmament, but, in the meantime, let us explore every avenue to see if we cannot get this matter arranged by agreement. With a falling French franc and a falling Belgian franc and an active public opinion in this country and in other countries, I believe something can be done.
  1694
  When hon. Gentlemen opposite are talking of preparation for war and are seeing nothing but inevitable war, let them consider how necessary it is that we should be on good terms with the greatest country in Europe, Russia. Russia to-day is in the mire, but she has a great population and she could become the greatest air power on the Continent of Europe. Apart from air power, she has tremendous potential military power, and if we have to go to war, she could be an extremely valuable ally to us. If war is inevitable, if all our efforts to bring about universal disarmament by consent fail, then we have to look for a fresh balance of power. We cannot get away from that conclusion, and that balance of power lies on the line London-Berlin-Moscow.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOO RE-BRABAZON: I ask the indulgence of the House for the first time I address it from this Table, because, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I had no opportunity of addressing the House from the Government side of the Table. I am exceedingly happy that the first time that I speak from this Table is upon a subject which I have very near to my heart. It is at the same time a shock to one, or to anybody who took part in the early days of aviation, to see the horrors that have been brought into an already troubled world. I have myself spoken in this House many times on aviation questions, and the Air Force itself had to fight for its existence even in this House. At one time we were nearly swallowed by the War Office, and at another time almost by the Admiralty, but we have escaped them both, and we have not been shot down yet. The question of the air has never really been appreciated by the public in this country, but if there was one thing which really was of transcendent importance to be derived from the late War, it was the change from two-dimensional to three-dimensional warfare, and the public and the Governments before then always seemed to look upon this change rather as a cow looks at a passing train, with no appreciation of the wonder that was coining into being.
  To-night I was somewhat surprised to hear from the benches opposite a cheer when the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) said that this country had not been aggressive. The only aggressive speeches that I have

  1695
  listened to in this House, during the last few years, were delivered by Members of the party opposite on the question of the Ruhr, against France, in the last Parliament, but to-night we have had appeals for moral gestures with regard to disarmament. I hope the present Government will give all the moral gestures it can, but I think it is a little unfair to the past Governments to deny them their moral gestures in regard to disarmament, because, if we take the three Forces one by one, were we not the first to give up conscription and to get back to our prewar Army? With regard to the Navy, in which we were pre-eminent, did we not immediately comply with the Washington Conference? And what was the position with regard to the air? Surely everybody knows that at the end of the War we had an Air Force by a great deal transcending any air force in the world, and within 18 months it had shrunk to be almost insignificant. Those were great moral gestures towards disarmament, but what has been the re suit from the point of view of the air on the part of France, our nearest neighbour? Those great moral gestures of disarmament brought about a proportion of power of 12 to 1 against us. On that basis it seems to me that moral gestures are not a very efficient way of getting disarmament, and I think it ought to be known to the whole country that, even with the present programme going through, we shall still be in the position of only having half the force which is across the Channel.
  Hon. Members opposite dislike spending money upon armaments, but, after all, it is an insurance policy, and all their social programme, and all their aspirations with regard to better conditions for the people of this country, will necessarily fall to the ground, and be wasted, if by any chance this country might be defeated. It is surely the duty of any Government, and still more the duty of a Government which professes great interest in the social advancement of this country, to ensure, at any rate, that it is secure. There are two ways of limiting armaments. One of them is to stop your opponent building against you. We on this side of the House welcome everything the Government can do in order to stop Powers abroad building these big armaments against us. But if you can-
  1696
  not stop it, what else are you to do as a great nation but build against them? There are only two ways of meeting it, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight that by building against an opponent you do influence him in coming to an agreement on the question of armaments. I do not say that hon. Members opposite have anything but the very best intentions with regard to limiting the Air Force, but do not let us forget that the silliest mistakes in history have always been done with the very best intentions, and, although I am not referring to Members on the Front Bench, it seems to us that many hon. Members opposite appear to live in a world where there are not hats, but only halos. Some of the halos do not fit very well, and have slipped down, and they seem to be looking at the world through a fog. Hon. Members on the Front Bench now have the emoluments of office. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did not your people have them!"] I am not complaining. I am congratulating them on having them, but, now that they have got them, I warn them that should they ever receive a letter from Spain regarding a certain prisoner, not to part with any of their hard-earned money. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are too many Scottish Members!"]
  I see with great pleasure opposite to me a row of Parsifals. But I should like to remind this row of Parsifals, though we in this country may be of a moral integrity better than any other country in the world, that outside this country we have to compete in the world with men and not with angels. One word in regard to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are clever in their effort to escape the Resolution by trying to point out that my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for Air put down a programme which the Government arc pursuing, and which completely exonerates them from having to accept, in principle, the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Air did in an interruption explain that the programme was a step towards an ideal, and that was—
  Mr. THOMAS: Is it not true, looking at the Bill, that this programme was to have been accomplished in four years, and that there was no indication by the late Government that they would go further?
  Sir S. HOARE: If I may have the opportunity again of putting the matter right, may I say that that was not the intention of the late Government? The late Government made it perfectly plain that this was the first stage in a much bigger programme, and that they hoped, when they had carried through the first stage, that they would find that change in the atmosphere of Europe that would make it unnecessary for them to go on to the ultimate. The Government definitely admitted the necessity of carrying out a complete policy.
  Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly our position. We accept the first stage, and in going on with the first stage we want to be free to see, when the change comes to which reference has been made, what can best follow.
  Sir S. HOARE: That is exactly the object of this Resolution. That is what this Resolution carries out, and I should like to think that I shall have the support in the Lobby of the right hon. Member.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in any arrangement with foreign countries at any time a new condition of affairs would immediately arise? What we do want to get from the Government, and the Minister, is to accept the principle that the late Government accepted; that was the principle laid down that Great Britain must maintain a home defence air force of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance from her shores. It is for that reason that we are going to divide the House to-night upon this Resolution, because we want to be satisfied that the programme initiated by the late. Government is being pursued. We want it perfectly clear to what end it is being pursued, and what is the ultimate of the programme which the Government are now carrying out.
  Mr. THURTLE: I confess I view the position of the Treasury Bench and the attitude of the Government towards the Air Force with a. certain amount of misgiving. I did think we might expect from a Labour Government that, in whatever other things they might compromise, there would be a certain firmness of principle in regard to this matter of disarmament.
  1698
  We are told they are to stand by the programme which has been laid down by the past Government. There is, in my opinion, no justification whatever for a Labour Government, pledged as the present Treasury Bench is pledged to the principle of disarmament, taking up an attitude of that kind. As I look at the Treasury Bench, I imagine there must be a number of uneasy consciences on it. When I think of the right lion. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and other right hon. Members, who I know are definitely and firmly pledged to the principle of disarmament and who are connected with an organisation which is pledged up to the hilt to oppose Votes for Services of this kind, I do consider that we have every reason to expect a different kind of attitude from them than this one.
  I want to put a new point of view to this House. It is somewhat heterodox, but it is worth while the House considering it. The whole idea of this air defence force is to get into the minds of the people of this country the thought that they are to a certain extent secure from air attacks. I submit to the House that it is undesirable that the people of this country should have that idea in their minds, because it has been pointed out that it cannot be a real guarantee in any case, and a false sense of security of that sort in my opinion has very serious disadvantages. I conceive, in view of the terrible effects which are going to result from future war, that there may be in war itself its own antidote. If the people of this country can get into their minds what the results of war in the future will be, and that not only the fighting forces will be involved but practically the whole of the population of the country, I believe they will think very hard and very long before they decide upon war.
  There is one point which has not been emphasised in this Debate, and that is that one of the fruitful causes of war and the prolongation of it is the fact that in war there is a divorce as -between the fighting men and. the non-fighting population. In the last War they were burning Jingoes in this House; they were burning Jingoes in Fleet Street, but those who were in the fighting line and in the heart of things were up against the reality of war, and there was not that Jingo spirit to be found in them. The Jingo spirit was exorcised by the experiences through

  1699
  which the men went. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I was there. Some of my blood stained the fields of France, as well as yours. If by some means the experiences of the non-fighting population could be made approximately equivalent to the experiences of the fighting population, war would be viewed in a very different kind of way. If you get the possibility of these tremendous air raids spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman as being likely to destroy whole cities and produce enormous casualties in a single night—if you have that kind of feeling implanted in the hearts, not only of people of this country but of other countries, that will tend in the direction of peace.
  Captain GUEST: I have only two or three words to address to the House on this subject. The Debate, in my opinion, up to the present is certainly unsatisfactory. We have listened to a most moderate statement by the late Secretary of State for Air, and the claims he pressed forward and the promises he asked for from the Government were by no means excessive. I think the Under-Secretary for Air replied in terms which left us in grave doubt as to what the Government were going to do, and we got the impression that the Government were not going to oppose the Resolution. We have heard from the Colonial Secretary that the Government intend to oppose it, and therefore we must scan the reasons why the Government are offering this opposition. I am dissatisfied with his specious argument. I do not consider that the best case has been made out by the late Secretary of State for Air, and we find a considerable difference of opinion even on the benches which usually support the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When a Government is divided between its followers and its leaders, it makes it much easier for the rest of us to support the Resolution and vote for it. I agree that the Air Estimates is the proper time for going into many of these matters, but as I intend to vote for the Resolution I thought I would just give my reason- for doing so.
  Captain BERKELEY: I wish to say that I am very much astonished to hear any approbation for this Resolution coming from a quarter so well versed in
  1700
  foreign affairs as the last speaker, for to me this Resolution seems to be a piece of tremendous folly on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it—
  Sir S. HOARE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Captain BERKELEY: The whole of the information which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked for in his Resolution could have been obtained by correspondence with the Ministry. The Government have made it clear—[EON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I hope the House will not divide on this question—
  Sir S. HOARE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. MILLS: Before that Question is put, may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you promised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order. order!"]—
  11.0 P. M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Had the hon. Member risen before—I was looking for him several times—I should have given him the opportunity to ask his question.
  Mr. MILLS: My friends will testify
  Mr. SPEAKER: I looked several times for the hon. Member, but he did not rise.
  Mr. MILLS: I beg to persist in my question—
  Sir S. HOARE: On a point of Order. I moved the Closure twice before eleven o'clock. Did you not accept it, Sir?
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Was the Closure moved in due time?
  Mr. MILLS: The Closure was not accepted, and I rose to put my question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I noticed that the right. hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, but. I did not accept it for the reason that, in my opinion, the Debate, on a matter of this magnitude, which has been given such a short period of time, ought to be resumed when the Air Estimates for the year are before us.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Henley-on-Thames and parts of the rural districts of Henley, in the county of Oxford, and Wokingham, in the county of Berks, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924,, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I desire to point out that, of the 32 Orders which have appeared or still appear on the Order Paper, 28 were made by the hon. and gallant Member foe Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabaeon) when he was responsible for the Ministry of Transport. Eleven of these were presented to the House of Commons and appeared on the Order Paper of the 13th November last. I cannot, of course, give the reasons why the hon. and gallant Gentleman refrained from asking for confirmation of those Orders during November, but I am aware that the failure to do so has occasioned considerable inconvenience in the localities affected, and and has delayed the commencemnt of useful work and the supply of electricity to consumers. I am now merely attempting to secure the approval of the House, at the earliest opportunity, of the action of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should like to add that I have been ready all day yesterday and to-day with the papers in the House, following what I believe is the usual practice, in case any hon. Member had any criticism to offer, but not a soul has been near me during these two days. I am quite prepared to give an undertaking, so far as I can, that Orders for which I am responsible shall not accumulate again, and in future I will only deal with a few Orders at a time. In these circumstances I hope the House will allow the Orders to go through.
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Minister for Transport does riot quite understand our objections to this large number of Electricity Orders. We are quite willing to see them passed, but we do not like having this extraordinary number of 32 put down on one night. Since I have been in this House 11 have always tried to be a champion of private Members, and private Members have not
  1702
  got many opportunities of making themselves heard. I think they will ill want this opportunity in future. When you get a Socialist Government, with a reactionary Front Bench, there will be many questions that Members will wish to discuss. I want to give an opportunity to the hon. and learned Member for Penistone to make his voice heard. We only have Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and Fridays, and I was rather horrified by a hint from a Member of the Front Bench that even those opportunities may be encroached upon in the near future. This makes it ail the more important that time may be given to private Members to raise questions they wish to raise. When a Government puts down 32 of those Orders at a time when private Members wish to raise questions on the adjournment, it is a new form of obstruction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think there is some reason in the point raised. I consider that ten m one evening would be a reasonable limit.
  Sir CHARLES STARMER: On a point of Order. I would ask that the last Order should be one of the ten included this evening. It has been held up for a long time. They want to get on with the work, and to get light in a seaside place. This Order was held up for a change of Government.
  Major-General SEELY: Is it not quite unusual and contrary to all custom in this House to hold up public works by obstructing these Orders?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think my suggestion is a reasonable one. We should be able to clear them off to-morrow.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: On that point of Order. There are 22 Orders on the Paper, and I think it might be a good arrangement that they should be divided into 11 to-night and 11 to-morrow night.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Glasgow, Cadder, Old Monkland, New Monk-land, Bothwell, Rutherglen, and Carmun-nock, in the county of Lanark, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924 be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the. Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Market Harborough and part of the rural district of Market Harborough, in the county of Leicester, and the urban districts of Des-borough, Rothwell, and Burton Latimer, and parts of the rural districts of Kettering, Oxenden, and Wellingborough, in the county of Northampton, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882. to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Seaton, and the parish of Beer, and parts of the parishes of Axmouth and Colyton, in the rural district of Axminster, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Feltham and Sunbury-on-Thames, in the county of Middlesex, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Horwich, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Llangennech and Llanedy, in the rural district of Llanelly, in the county of Carmarthen, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Saffron Walden, in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Guiseley and Yeadon, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Billing-ham, in the county of Durham, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Wick-ford, Downham, and Ramsden Bell House, in the rural district of Billericay and part of the parish of R.unwell, in the rural district of Chelmsford, all in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient that the limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by Section eighteen of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such Section mentioned and be paid to the cattle pleuropneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to moneys so provided in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I do not want to allow this thing to go further without an answer being, given to the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. This is to some extent, I agree, a local matter, but there is at the same time a principle behind it and as far as there is a principle involved it is important for the whole country. Here is a case where the Aberdeenshire County Council went out of its

  1705
  way to take upon itself a risk of having to pay some £4,000 in order, if possible, to clear the county of foot-and-mouth disease, and I think it is quite obvious now that the reason why the Government did not assume the responsibility of slaughtering the herd was that they were going to be landed in a liability amounting to some hundreds of thousands of pounds probably. That, however, has not taken place. It has only amounted to some £3,000, and I hope we shall get some assurance from the Government that they are going to shoulder the responsibility of paying this money. I am sorry -that when the Ministry replied last night they did not see fit to give some reply, and it is only because we are entitled to a reply that I fee: bound to intervene, and so far as my friends and myself are concerned, we are going to divide the House on this Resolution unless we get a promise that the money will be paid or the whole matter be gone into in a sympathetic manner.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The hon. Member only told me of his intention to raise this matter a very few minutes ago. I can undertake that it will be gone into in the most sympathetic manner possible. We are bound only by the provisions of the Act under which we work, and the objects for which compensation can be given are extremely limited by that Act. There are many objects of sympathy, very deserving objects, for which, in my opinion, compensation might very well be given. For instance, there are the cases of men thrown out of employment as a result of the outbreak. Most difficult cases occur, but we are absolutely precluded from dealing with them under the terms of the Act of 1894. All I can do is to say that the moat sympathetic consideration possible will be given to the matter. At a later stage the subject will come up again, and I shall be very glad, if my hon. Friend likes, to say then all that we have found it possible to recommend on the subject, and to go further into the matter.
  Major M. WOOD: Is there any other case where a herd of cattle has been slaughtered and no compensation given by the Government? Why should there be an exception in this particular case?
  Mr. BUXTON: To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any other case.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Why should there be an exception here?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will inquire very fully into the case. I much regret that my hon. Friends were not kind enough to tell me an hour ago that they intended to raise this matter, because I should then have been able to give an answer which I shall have to give later.
  Major M. WOOD: The case was given yesterday.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. Let us recall what occurred yesterday. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. F. Martin) raised the case, and put it clearly and forcibly on the Committee Stage. The right hon. Gentleman was unfortunately absent, but he had two representatives here, both of whom replied on the Debate, and the whole of the last hour was taken up by Ministerial replies. We had, first of all, a reply from the Parliamentary Private Secretary, which is a very unusual occurrence. I always understood in the old days that when a man was made a Parliamentary Private Secretary it was to shut his mouth. I speak from experience. I was once a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The old practice has been reversed. The Prime Minister has told us that there are to be new methods and a new spirit in the new Government. Consequently, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, no matter what violence it does to the arrangement of business, have been allowed the gift of tongues. In view of this new liberty or licence granted to the present Government, three official representatives are now entitled to reply. On the present occasion the case was put very clearly. It was only a local case, but as it was an Aberdeenshire case one would have thought that it would have appealed to some hon. Members. It was, however, deliberately ignored, not only by the Parliamentary Private Secretary, but by the Parliamentary Secretary, and now on the second day the Minister comes to the House and says he knows nothing about it. It is not merely a matter of the procedure of the Government; there

  1707
  is something more in it. This is a case in which no eompensation has peen paid, and the only reason that I can imagine why no compensation has been paid is that—
  Mr. MacNElLL WEIR: It is Aberdeen.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Another example of the gift of tongues on the part of a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister tells us that it is because it was in Aberdeenshire that no compensation was paid. It is remarkable that when you have a Government with a Prime Minister from the North-East of Scotland the assertion is made that because the case happened to occur in Aberdeenshire that no compensation is to be paid. One could hardly expect that from a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon is Prime Minister. Apparently, compensation is not payable under the existing Diseases of Animals Act.
  We are entitled to know why compensation is not paid. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire is willing to volunteer an explanation, but he may be as unhappy in his explanation as the Parliamentary Private Secretary of the Prime Minister. So we are entitled to have a real explanation from the Minister of Agriculture. And for this reason. If it turns out that no compensation is payable under the Diseases of Animals Act, and that this Resolution does not cover compensation in that case, it would be necessary in order to authorise payment in that case to have a further Financial Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman should be in a position, before the House passes this Resolution, to state on what grounds compensation has been refused in this particular case. If it is true that the Resolution does not authorise payment, it will be necessary later on to have a further Financial Resolution. The only way in which compensation could be paid is by an Amendment introduced into the Bill, which would necessitate a further Financial Resolution. In such an important situation it is most unfortunate, first of all yesterday that neither the Parliamentary Private Secretary nor the Under-Secretary could reply, and that to-day, after 24 hours, the Minister himself is in ignorance of the matter.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it significant that at the beginning of our sitting to-day and at the end of it a Scottish grievance should arise. Here we have a typical example of what is happening with regard to Scotland. I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland present. It should have been his duty, as head of agriculture in Scotland, to look fully into matters of this kind. As it is, we in Scotland are legislated for and administered by an English Minister of Agriculture, and it is most significant that the one case in which compensation has been refused is a Scottish case. I strongly protest against any such maladministration, and if my hon. Friends behind me are prepared to take any action to resist any Bill which is produced with such a grievance. I will support them.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): In saying a word or two on this matter, I wish to repeat what the Minister has said in regard to the want of any proper notice that this question was going to be raised. The hon. Member did raise the question yesterday. Unfortunately, owing to the shortness of time in which I had to reply at a later stage of the Debate, no reference was made to it; but it is true that the hon. Member had spoken to me about this question earlier in the day, and I told him then that, so far as I had been able to ascertain, it was not possible for the Ministry to accept any financial liability but I also told him something else. I said that I would again consult the officials at the Ministry and see whether or not the case could be reviewed from that Standpoint which he was seeking. I think, that conversation having taken place earlier in the day, it is hardly fair to the Ministry at this stage to raise the question and give us so short a notice of the intention to do so. The real explanation in this case is that when the disease broke out among this herd of cattle, the Ministry, exercising its powers, decided not to slaughter, but to carry out the policy of isolation. The Ministry was acting quite within its rights in taking up that attitude. Later on the local people felt that that was not the correct policy, and used the powers they possessed to put into operation a policy of slaughter

  1709
  of their own. The law on this matter is that where the Ministry give instructions for slaughter to take place, the financial obligation rests on the Ministry, but where the local authority give the order to slaughter, the financial obligation rests upon the local authority. The local authority have accepted that obligation, and now my hon. and gallant Friend asks that the Ministry should refund to the local authority the money expended. I submit that this is not a procedure which it is very easy for any Ministry to follow. The law is clear and explicit. As a matter of fact, this occurred before we came into office, and we are defending the actions of a previous Government. But the facts of the case may as well be made clear. At the moment we can give no answer other than that which we have already given, and we can announce no decision different from that already reached.
  Mr. F. MARTIN: What has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary exactly represents the facts of the case with regard to the conversation which I had with him this afternoon. He has naturally given an accurate account of what took place, but the matter has now been raised because, when that conversation took place, at all events, was led to understand that this Resolution would not be taken again to-night. We were rather alarmed when we discovered that a further stage was being taken, and we wanted to safeguard our interests.
  That is why we have raised the question at this late hour. We expected that at this stage we should get an answer from the Minister which we did not get yesterday. The point which I endeavoured to make yesterday was that, considering everything, it is now quite apparent that the proper policy in this case in Aberdeenshire was the policy of slaughter, and not the policy of isolation. The county
  1710
  council, having been forced to take upon itself the responsibility of slaughter, and having incurred liability for compensation, we take the view that this is a case where the State might come forward and relieve the county council of that liability. Looking back on all that happened, there can be no doubt that the policy of isolation in this case was a mistake and the policy of slaughter was correct. Considering the enormous amount of compensation paid in other parts of the country, we thought a sum of £2,000 or £3,000 would not be a very great addition, and that it was really a moral duty to the County of Aberdeen to provide for it. I realise there might be a difficulty in bringing what I want within the four corners of these proposals, but I hope, even now, the Minister will give the matter full consideration and, if possible, do justice in the case of Aberdeenshire.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. W. R. Smith and Mr. William Graham.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL,
  "to remove temporarily the limit of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1922," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43..]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being Half-past Eleven of tilt Clock Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SCOTLAND.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
  MONEY LENDERS (INTEREST).
  MONEY LENDERS (INTEREST).
  JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  Peeblesshire Committee:
  Peeblesshire Committee:
  Roxburgshire Committee:
  Roxburgshire Committee:
  Selkirkshire Committee:
  Selkirkshire Committee:
  POLICE CELLS, GLASGOW (DESTITUTE PERSONS).
  POLICE CELLS, GLASGOW (DESTITUTE PERSONS).
  FACULTY OF ADVOCATES (ADMISSION FEES).
  FACULTY OF ADVOCATES (ADMISSION FEES).
  GLASGOW POLICE OFFICIALS.
  GLASGOW POLICE OFFICIALS.
  SHERIFFS AND SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE.
  SHERIFFS AND SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE.
  CRIMINAL CASES (WOMEN MEDICAL EXAMINERS).
  CRIMINAL CASES (WOMEN MEDICAL EXAMINERS).
  RIVER CLYDE (DEPOSIT DREDGINGS).
  RIVER CLYDE (DEPOSIT DREDGINGS).
  FARRIERS' ASSOCIATION AND BLACKSMITHS' UNION.
  FARRIERS' ASSOCIATION AND BLACKSMITHS' UNION.
  SCOTTISH SHALE On WORKS.
  SCOTTISH SHALE On WORKS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  FEU DUTIES, ARGYLLSHIRE.
  FEU DUTIES, ARGYLLSHIRE.
  WHALING.
  WHALING.
  COMMON GRAZING, BORGIE (FENCE).
  COMMON GRAZING, BORGIE (FENCE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. E. BRADLEY).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. E. BRADLEY).
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
  APPRENTICES (GRANTS).
  APPRENTICES (GRANTS).
  NAVAL PENSIONS.
  NAVAL PENSIONS.
EDUCATION.
  PROVISION OF MEALS, SCOTLAND.
  PROVISION OF MEALS, SCOTLAND.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MUSIC TUITION.
  MUSIC TUITION.
ROYAL NAVY.
  OIL FUEL STORAGE DEPOTS.
  OIL FUEL STORAGE DEPOTS.
  DEVONPORT B R RACKS (PUNISHMENTS).
  DEVONPORT B R RACKS (PUNISHMENTS).
  GREAT WAR (ROLL OF HONOUR).
  GREAT WAR (ROLL OF HONOUR).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (A. MITCHELL).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (A. MITCHELL).
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  POST OFFICE.
  POST OFFICE.
  WAR MEDALS.
  WAR MEDALS.
TRANSPORT.
  RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (ROAD GRANTS).
  RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (ROAD GRANTS).
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  LONOON TRAFFIC.
  LONOON TRAFFIC.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  LONDON-MAIDSTONE ROAD.
  LONDON-MAIDSTONE ROAD.
  CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS).
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  WATER COMMUNICATION, BIRMINGHAM AND SHARPNESS.
  WATER COMMUNICATION, BIRMINGHAM AND SHARPNESS.
POST OFFICE.
  EMPIRE WIRELESS CHAIN.
  EMPIRE WIRELESS CHAIN.
  LETTERS FOR RUSSIA (LENINGRAD).
  LETTERS FOR RUSSIA (LENINGRAD).
  BUILDING WORK.
  BUILDING WORK.
  OFFICES (REDUCTIONS).
  OFFICES (REDUCTIONS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  WEST LOGE (SUE-OFFICE).
  WEST LOGE (SUE-OFFICE).
  FOREIGN POSTED CIRCULARS.
  FOREIGN POSTED CIRCULARS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICE.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICE.
  SALARIED SUB POSTMASTERS.
  SALARIED SUB POSTMASTERS.
  POST OFFICE CHARGES.
  POST OFFICE CHARGES.
  POSTMEN, LOOS (HALF-HOLIDAY).
  POSTMEN, LOOS (HALF-HOLIDAY).
HOUSING.
  RATE OF CONSTRUCTION.
  RATE OF CONSTRUCTION.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  DURHAM COUNTY.
  BRICKLAYING.
  BRICKLAYING.
  WATER SUPPLY, KNUTSFORD.
  WATER SUPPLY, KNUTSFORD.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGES).
  POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGES).
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.
  VENEREAL DISEASES (FREE TREATMENT).
  VENEREAL DISEASES (FREE TREATMENT).
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FORMS.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FORMS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT (GAP).
  BENEFIT (GAP).
  RIVER SEVERN BARRAGE ACHEME
  RIVER SEVERN BARRAGE ACHEME
  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE, QUEENSFERRY.
  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE, QUEENSFERRY.
  ENEMY ACTTON CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTTON CLAIMS.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTED BUTTER.
  IMPORTED BUTTER.
  MANUFACTURED SILK Goons (IMPORTS).
  MANUFACTURED SILK Goons (IMPORTS).
  PETROL PRICES.
  PETROL PRICES.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
AGRICULTURE.
  LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT SCHEME (GRANTS).
  LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT SCHEME (GRANTS).
  SEED SUPPLIES. SCOTLAND.
  SEED SUPPLIES. SCOTLAND.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIGHTING).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIGHTING).
  INDIA (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  INDIA (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  OVERSEA VISITORS (ACCOMMODATION).
  OVERSEA VISITORS (ACCOMMODATION).
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.
  FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION.
  FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION.
  TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  STAMP DUTY.
  STAMP DUTY.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY (GRATUITY).
  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY (GRATUITY).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT.
  SUGAR DUTY.
  SUGAR DUTY.
  TANGANYIKA AND UGANDA (RAILWAY).
  TANGANYIKA AND UGANDA (RAILWAY).
  ADEN.
  ADEN.
  EAST AFRICAN INDIAN CONGRESS.
  EAST AFRICAN INDIAN CONGRESS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  BELLFIELD AND AUCHENBEG COLLIERIES.
  BELLFIELD AND AUCHENBEG COLLIERIES.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  ACCT DENTS.
  ACCT DENTS.
  COMMISSION ON SUBSIDENCE.
  COMMISSION ON SUBSIDENCE.
  CAGE-ARRESTING DEVICE.
  CAGE-ARRESTING DEVICE.
  PROBATION SYSTEM.
  PROBATION SYSTEM.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

OFFENCES BY MOTORISTS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to several cases in which persons convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor ear have been sentenced only to the payment of fines, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to issue a circular to magistrates advising sentences of imprisonment in all similar cases. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I imagine that most of your Lordships will be inclined to support the view that I am going to lay before you on the matter concerned in my Question, and I hope that I shall have the general assent of this House in the measures that I shall venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government. In the course of reading the ordinary daily Press my attention has been called a great deal lately to the very large increase in the number of cases of motorists who are drunk when driving motor cars. I think most of your Lordships know—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him, but Lord Parmoor, who is going to answer this Question, is not at present in his place, but will be here in a moment. I hope it may be convenient to take the next Question on the Paper first—that of the noble Viscount, Lord Novar.
EARL RUSSELL: I If Lord Novar is here, and if that course is convenient to the noble Viscount, I would, of course, assent.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I found myself in considerable trouble through adopting this procedure on a previous occasion, but if the noble and learned Viscount desires, I will simply put my Question without making any further observation. It is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to take up the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill now awaiting Second Beading in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount is quite right in suggesting that this procedure should be taken only with the assent of the House, and I ought to move, for the convenience of the noble Viscount as well as of myself, that the noble Viscount's Question should take precedence of that of the noble Earl. This is a formality which should not be omitted, and I beg, therefore, to move that the Question of the noble Viscount take precedence over the Question of the noble Earl.
Moved, That the Question standing in the name of Viscount Novar on the Order Paper this day have precedence over that of Earl Russell.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am afraid, if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to say so, that I could not hear what he was saying, and I do not quite know what is the Motion before the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The Motion before the House is to the effect that the Question of the noble Viscount should be taken before that of the noble Earl, as Lord Parmoor cannot, for the moment, be here. By the time it has been disposed of, I hope that Lord Parmoor will have arrived.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to offer, but I really think we are entitled—
LORD PARMOOR [who at this moment, entered the House]: I must apologise to your Lordships, but there is sometimes unavoidable delay in the crossing to the House. I am aware of the Question that has been asked.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: I It has not been asked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will withdraw my Motion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the Motion is withdrawn of course I will say no more.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: I find myself very much embarrassed by this interlude, but if your Lordships will allow me to continue, I was about to remark, before the noble and learned Lord came in, that I

189
have been for the past quarter of a century driving motor cars, and I have driven 200,000 miles with my own hands. Your Lordships will therefore understand that I am not unfamiliar with traffic conditions of modern development. During that time I have always tried to stand up for the rights of motorists to the reasonable use of the roads, and I have always deprecated anything in the nature of persecution by useless police traps; but I have never supported the improper use of the roads by motorists, and I find, on looking at the newspapers, that there is a very considerable number of cases of drunkenness. I also find that there is a remarkable difference in the sentences imposed when conviction has been obtained.
I have here a set of cuttings taken as random, and on the first I find these headlines: "Forty miles an hour: Driving in traffic when staggering drunk: £23 fine." They relate to a case at the South Western Police Court. I may say that these are not all cases in which there is a difference between the provinces and the Stipendiaries in London. There is a considerable difference in the practice which obtains in the London Stipendiary Courts. I find that at the Mansion House a man charged with being drunk was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. I find that at Caterham a man driving an army wagon without lights when drunk, was sent to prison. I also find, which I think is a matter of some importance, that two of these cases relate to people who, having been sentenced to imprisonment, have appealed to Quarter Sessions and had their sentences of imprisonment reduced to fines. There seems to me to be two objections to that course. One is that if you do get inequality of sentence by the magistrates, it is important that it should not be put right by the Quarter Sessions. The other objection is that poor men are not able to appeal to the Quarter Sessions, and therefore do not get the same chance as rich motorists. Then, at Bow Street, a drunken driver was sent to prison for a month's hard labour, and at Worcester a farmer was sent to prison for being drunk in charge of a motor car. I recollect a case, too, in which a motorist was charged with driving in a drunken manner between Kew and Richmond. He had driven zigzag all
190
over the road for a distance of three miles, and had driven into three people, and he was let off with a fine of £40.
It seems to me that a person who drives a motor car upon the public roads ought to be responsible and ought to be made to take full responsibility, for driving safely and without danger to the public. I feel this so much that I should be prepared to support an amendment-of the civil law which would presume negligence on the part of a motorist in case of an accident. I should do that in spite of the fact that every time I go out I see negligence, and, indeed, criminal negligence, on the part of pedestrians. Yet I think it is for the man who brings these dangerous vehicles on to the public roads to take all proper care. If I take that view with regard to the sober, sane and skilful driver, your Lordships can imagine how shocked I am that men should go about in charge of motor cars when they are not sober. I suggest to the Government that they should do something by way of circular from the Home Office to the magistrates, to suggest that in clear cases of drunkenness the sentence should always be one of imprisonment without the option of a fine.
None of us, I am sure, wish to fetter the discretion of the Stipendiary Magistrates or of the Bench of Justices. We realise that only those who hear the case can recognise its true gravity, and that newspaper reports are necessarily only partial reports, but I think that a lead might be given to the magistrates as to what official view is taken of these offences. Circulars of this kind have been issued in the past, and if the Government can issue such a circular with regard to these offences by motorists I think, and I hope, that your Lordships will agree that the circular might add that in all such cases the licence shall be suspended for a period of at least twelve months. It seems to me that the person who drives a motor car upon the public roads in that condition, so utterly careless of the life and limb of His Majesty's other subjects, should be debarred from driving for a very considerable time, and the suspension of the licence I look upon as almost as important as the deterrent of imprisonment. I hope the Government may see their way to take some steps of this sort, and that I may have the general support of your Lordships in the propositions I have enunciated.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is sympathetic in this sense, that I suppose we all agree as to the dangers of any one being drunk when driving a motor car, and that the punishment involved should be one of a serious kind. The objection that I have to give, in answer to the noble Earl, can be stated very shortly, and at the same time I can point out to him an occasion on which the matters that he desires to bring forward can be more fully discussed than on a Question and answer. On the first point, which does not arise directly out of his Question, I do not think it right that the appeal from the magistrates to the superior court of Quarter Sessions should be taken away. It is a very serious matter to take away a right of appeal, which has existed for many centuries, on a question of this sort. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not think that an appeal should be taker away.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble and learned Lord must have misapprehended what I said. I never suggested that the right of appeal should be taken away, but what I meant to suggest was that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions might also receive this circular, and have it in mind when appeals come before them.
LORD PARMOOR: I will deal with the matter in a moment. The second point with which I wish to deal, and to which the noble Earl's Question does not refer, relates to cases of drunken persons driving motor cars to the detriment or danger of the public at all. Although I do not wish to be too technical in what I say, the noble Earl wants to call attention to several cases in which persons have been convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car, which is a different offence altogether. So far as concerns persons drunk in charge of a motor car, which has been held in all our Courts to be an entirely distinct matter from drunkenness whilst driving a motor car, the offence is governed by the old Licensing Act of 1872. I think the penalties there are chiefly applicable to drunkenness in cases where the person is in charge, not of a motor
192
car, but of a carriage or wagon, or some vehicle of that kind.
The present law is this. Drunkenness in charge of a motor car is merely an offence under the Licencing Act of 1872. It is punishable either with a fine of 40 s. or one month's imprisonment. In my view, and in the view of the Government, that is an entirely inadequate penalty, having regard to the nature of the offence, and if the noble Lord will wait until Tuesday next, when the Criminal Justice Bill will be introduced, he will have an opportunity, if he thinks the provision there made is inadequate or unsuitable, of moving an Amendment. I will read to the noble Earl the proposal in that Bill:
"Any person who is drunk while in charge, on any highway or other public place, of any motor car within the meaning of the Motor Car Act, 1903, shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
If the noble Earl thinks that there ought to be no option of a fine, and that in every case of that kind the penalty should be imprisonment, that is a matter for the Legislature to consider and determine, and the noble Earl can move an Amendment.
But what he is asking is a very different thing. If the Legislature has given the option of a fine it is quite clear that no administrative body has a right to interfere with the option, which, within the discretion of the magistrate, is given by the Legislature itself. No administrative body has the right to say that that option is to be taken away, and that imprisonment is to be the only punishment for the offence. Indeed, I wonder at the noble Earl raising a point of that kind, because I believe he is very strongly in favour of the liberty of the subject being preserved under legislative provisions. I believe it is true that in certain very exceptional cases suggestions have been made to magistrates that imprisonment instead of a fine would be advisable. But unless the case is a very exceptional one, I think interference by an administrative body with the magistrate's discretion, given by the Legislature, is very much to be deprecated. As a Chairman of Quarter Sessions I have had a certain number of these cases before me, and I

193
am advised that where the charge is one not of driving a motor car to the danger of the public, but merely of being in charge of a motor car, which may be absolutely stationary at the time, imprisonment in all cases is thought to be rather extreme.
LORD LAMBOURNE: The noble Earl, in his remarks, spoke of a circular being issued from the Home Office to magistrates generally, suggesting that they should consider, when inflicting a sentence, the extreme danger of reckless driving to the public. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord does not think that advisable?
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad the noble Lord has called my attention to that. I do not think it is advisable to issue instructions which may interfere with the discretion given to magistrates by the Legislature. But the question with which I was dealing was not a question of reckless driving, to which entirely different penalties apply. That is quite a different offence, and has to be dealt with in a different way.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether I am entitled to say a word in reply. The Lord President of the Council indicates that I am not. I am entirely in the hands of the House. But the noble and learned Lord seems to have entirely misapprehended my Question May I make it clear that I asked for no alteration of the law? The law as it stands is sufficient. If the law as it stands were not sufficient, the magistrates would not be able to impose imprisonment in some cases. The really important point, with which the noble and learned Lord has not dealt at all, is the inequality of sentences as between bench and bench. In one quarter a man will be fined 40 s., and in another in a precisely similar case, the penalty will be imprisonment with hard labour. Inequality of sentence is a very undesirable thing.
On the administrative question, as to whether it is wise to issue a circular or not, I am entirely in the hands of the noble and learned Lord. But what I suggested was nothing in the way of instructions to magistrates, and, as I expressly said, nothing in the way of removing their discretion, but merely a suggestion to magistrates that, when they are imposing
194
sentences, they should consider whether a. long suspension of the licence—a point with which the noble and learned Lord did not deal—and a sentence of imprisonment are not desirable, instead of a fine. If my Question on the Paper appears to refer to drunkenness whilst in charge of a motor car, which the noble and learned Lord has misinterpreted as an offence under the Licensing Act, I think it is clear to most of your Lordships, as I certainly made it clear in my observations, that I was referring to cases of dangerous driving in a. motor car. I wished to make my points clear, because I honestly do not think they have been met.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry if the noble Earl does not consider that his points have been met, but I do not think I have in any way misconceived his Question. So long as you have Judges and magistrates dealing with matters of this kind, and acting on their discretion as regards the particular conditions of each case, you will always have the element of inequality. There probably is no inequality if you have all the facts before you, as Judges or magistrates have when they deal with the matter either by imprisonment or by fine. No one can feel more strongly than I do the danger of people driving motor cars when drunk. That is a very serious offence indeed, but it is a different matter from that to which my attention was called. At the same time, I think that all these things are matters for the Legislature, and not for an administrative office.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to take up the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill now awaiting Second Reading in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are giving favourable consideration to this Bill. But there has been a little delay in getting further with it. That there will be even further delay is inevitable, because the noble Viscount will recall that he himself, in drafting his Bill, introduced certain variations from the

195
Committee's Report in which the general scheme was contained. Of that Committee I speak with some knowledge, because I was its Chairman and sat for a year endeavouring to make a settlement between the Church and those interested. The question of teinds which had been raised is due to the circumstance that the Bill has gone to Scotland, where they are now considering it. The state of affairs there is rather like a wasp's nest just at present, and we must let the wasps settle down. We hope that in the end they will come to something like unanimity of mind and as soon as they do we shall know where we stand. But at this moment we have not reached that stage. Until the Bill comes back well considered in Scotland we are, therefore, delayed. I promise various noble Lords, who are interested in this Bill, that there shall be good notice given of the Second Reading in order that they may, too, know that their interests are observed. When we shall reach the Second Reading stage I do not know; but the sooner the better so far as I am concerned. I cannot promise a date until I know what has been done.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: Am I to understand from the noble and learned Viscount that the Bill will be sent to the heritors who are equally interested with the Church in the matter?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill has been read a, first time and printed, and it has gone down to Scotland. I can assure the noble Viscount that everybody there, so far as I can find out, is reading it and making, comments on it.

EFFECT OF ROAD WASHINGS ON FISHERIES.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH rose to move for a Return containing a general report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1919 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on fisheries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not make this Motion in any spirit of hostility, but one of very keen anticipation of the Report which I
196
am so anxious to get. England, at the present time, is desolated and violated by motor cars of every sort, kind and description, and life here would be absolutely unendurable if means were not taken to keep down the dust resulting from this species of progress. For this purpose tar has been very largely used. At the same time many fish have died since motoring began, and many people ascribe the death of those fish throughout the country to the effect of tarring the roads. This is a very great misfortune, which I think can be avoided.
I have seen in the Report of the Rivera Pollution Committee, which has been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the name of a friend of mine with whom I have worked for a. long time. He represents 100,000 anglers. If you multiply that number by that of other representatives throughout the country I think you will find that there are some millions—I am very sorry to have to guess at their numbers—of the poorer classes of the community who are deeply interested in preserving the fish life of this country. This 100,000—I think I am accurate there—arc very harmless people, students of nature who are more addicted to romance than to violence, and it would be a thousand pities to spoil their recreation.
To put it on a more sordid ground. I should like to bring this argument to the notice of His Majesty's Government. I have what used to be one of the finest trout streams in the south of England. Fish of 5 lbs. and even up to II lbs. in weight were taken from it. That did not often happen, but it has been known. When motoring came in these fish disappeared entirely from this river, and the river is now valueless, although I have stocked it three times. This is the argument I should like to address to His Majesty's Government. I believe that this river would be worth—so, at least, I have been told—over £700 a year. I should like to point out to His Majesty's Government that if I got £700 a year for this river they would get more than half of it. I am taxed at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ for Income Tax and 6. for Super-Tax. Therefore, if I got £700 for this river the Government would get £350, and more really, because I should have the expense of stocking the river and looking after it, and it is very doubtful whether I should be able to deduct any of those expenses.

197
Anyhow, in regard to this particular river, if the Government could only stop the pollution they would be in a much sounder position than that in which I should be. If that one instance is multiplied by the many all over England which will occur to noble Lords, it will be seen that the fish in our rivers are a great deal too valuable even to His Majesty's Government to be destroyed by tar, if such a process can possibly be prevented.
The Government have had a very valuable Report. I happen to know some of the gentlemen who served on this Committee. Most excellent laboratory experiments were made with regard to the effect of tar on fish life. Field experiments were also conducted by taking stretches of water and observing the effect of tar on the fish life there. I venture to hope that His Majesty's present Government may succeed where apparently other Governments have failed, through this Report. These experiments were carried out between 1919 and 1921. I think the Report is due and, indeed, overdue, though I know that the Ministry has been very much overworked. I should like also to be assured as to whether it is overwork or want of money which has prevented the issue of this Report, because I can assure the Government that it would be of the most inestimable value to this country if those who are interested in these matters were able to get at this valuable evidence and see the deductions which have been drawn from it. I will not say anything further in regard to the matter, but I venture to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That there be laid before this House a Return containing a general report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1919 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on Fisheries.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the appeal made to His Majesty's Government by the noble Lord opposite. As chairman of a fisheries board and as a member of the Committee (appointed by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, when he was at the Ministry of
198
Agriculture), which has been sitting for two years considering the question of river pollution, I have had some experience in connection with the pollution of rivers. We have realised that pollution exists at present from four causes. One obviously is sewage. But perhaps the most serious causes of pollution are chemical works on the banks of rivers which send in alkaline poisons as well as acids. Another cause of pollution is sheep-dipping, which, of course, generally occurs in the summer, or in the early autumn months. But there is this other item in connection with rivers pollution,—namely, pollution from the tarring of roads which is doing a great deal of harm to our rivers.
Those of us who have looked into this question realise that bitumen can be used in place of tar in the making of roads. The only drawback in connection with the use of bitumen as against tar is that it is more expensive. Experiments have been made which show that even a mixture of 70 per cent. of bitumen and 30 per cent. of tar will make an effluent almost innocuous to fish life. It is most desirable, however, that at danger points, where the tar can reach a river without proper filtration, special precautions should be taken. Tar can reach the river in two ways. It can reach it when there is a shower of rain falling upon tar which has recently been put upon the roads, and also when there is rain and a road, which has been laid with tar, is crumbling. The increased expense of bitumen as compared with tar is really due to the fact that you have to roll the road to a very much greater extent when bitumen is used than when tar is used, and it can only be done, I understand, in a dry period in order to secure the best results. It is most important in the interests of fish life that this method of poisoning fish should be eliminated, if it can possibly be done, and I am sure that the road surveyors and county authorities will do their part in trying to deal with the situation at the danger points.
Members of fishery boards realise that money may be spent for years in fish hatcheries and in developing fisheries in order to secure the sport of all classes in the community, and that all our work and money may be of no avail through the ignorance or the carelessness of a road authority at a particular moment. There-

199
fore it is important that those Reports which have been given to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Transport Department should be published widely to the community in order that fish may be preserved from those sources of pollution which, unhappily, occur too often at the present time.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I shall not detain you for more than a moment. As a member of a county road board I am fully aware of all the difficulties with which we have to contend in order to meet the demands for transport at the present time, and as a member of a fishery board I am also aware of the difficulties that we have to encounter in preventing pollution. I am not going to give a lecture either on road making or on the question of dealing with pollution. Far too many people seem to think that fishing is a sport that merely interests a few people, but, as Lord Desborough has pointed out very clearly, fishing is an enormous source of revenue to the country, and also affords employment to a very considerable number of people. I rise to make the suggestion to His Majesty's Government that, if possible, the Ministry of Transport, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, should frame some Bill which would prevent local authorities using any material for the construction or repair of roads which is injurious to fish life; or, in other words, that any material used by road authorities should first receive the sanction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Government are entirely in accord with the views of Lord Desborough and Lord Gainford. I am not at the moment able to deal with the question of a by-law, but that will be considered. I should like to make one or two statements to show how the matter stands, in order that your Lordships may see what the Government have done. I say at once that we hope to give the general Report, under conditions that I will state, for which Lord Desborough asks. This is not a new matter, as the noble Lord knows very well. Research experiments have been undertaken, and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport are
200
very grateful for what has been done to assist them by the county authorities of Hampshire at Alresford on a site very kindly lent by Sir Joseph Tichborne. Two Interim Reports have already been issued, and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will read one passage from each, because I think it is important, as has been suggested by Lord Gainford, that the matter should be published as widely as possible.
This is a letter written from the Ministry of Transport on April 18, 1922, and sent to the clerks to county councils, county boroughs, county burghs, borough and burgh councils, district committees and urban and rural councils and other highway authorities in England and Wales and Scotland. I will not read the whole of the letter, but only the material part of it, which, I think, will be found to confirm the views expressed by Lord Desborough;—
"The concluding paragraph in the Committee's Report is as follow:—
"'In view of the extreme precautions which are clearly necessary to avoid damage to fisheries by the washings from tarred roads at certain periods in the life of the surface of such roads, the Committee considers that highway authorities should give a preference to asphaltic bitumen free from tar product" for the treatment of roads draining directly into fishing waters, as there is no evidence before the Committee, so far as preliminary experiments at the Government Laboratory and elsewhere have gone, that washing from such bitumen have any specific deleterious action on fish or other stream life.'"
Perhaps I ought to say that that is a paragraph in a Report which condems very strongly the tarring of roads as leading to the destruction of fish, and that that view was reached as the result of scientific research and actual experiments. Where the tar from the roads was conducted into the artificial ponds for experimental purposes all the trout died. You could not have better evidence than that.
A second Report was issued and sent to all the local authorities on May 5, 1923. This is the second Interim Report of the Committee to which Lord Desborough has referred. I will quote this passage from
it:
"The sub-committee is therefore of opinion that drainage from bituminous roads, of the nature described in paragraphs

201
3 and 5 of the Report and obtained under practical conditions, will show no appreciable toxic character due either to soluble materials extracted by the rain from the bitumen itself, or to colloidal particles derived from the bituminous surface on disintegration."
The two Reports, taken together, show that tar is a source of destruction of fish to the extent which the noble Lord has found, practically destroying the value of fishing rights, and also fishing amenities, in any river that the tar is allowed to reach from the road surface. On the other hand, bituminous material can be used without any damage or danger. The two Interim Reports on these two points have been sent to the local authorities in all parts of the country.
The noble Lord wishes, in addition to that, as I understand, for a Return containing a, general Report of the laboratory experiment and field experiments carried out during the years 1019 to 1921 by the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the effect of washings from tarred roads on fisheries. The desire of the Government is that that Report should be issued and printed as soon as possible, and I can give that undertaking. I can also explain the reason why it has not been issued up to this date. I think the noble Lord has in his mind—because he has always been friendly in these matters—a common desire with the Government to obtain the reform in order to assist the fisheries to which he has referred. No doubt one of the reasons is economy. The other reason has been almost stated by Lord Gainford. There is a small scientific staff dealing with these matters in the Departments of Agriculture and Transport, and that staff has been continuously engaged in preparing material and in assisting the General Committee on Pollution of Rivers—an extremely important matter. Lord Gainford is Chairman of that Committee, and he knows the amount of assistance that has been given by these scientific advisers. All their time has been occupied up to this moment. The desire, of the Government is that this most valuable Report should be widely published at the earliest possible moment. It will not be, to-morrow, of course, but I am told that there is a hope that it may be issued in the course of a few months. The Government
202
entirely agrees with the view that it is a most valuable document, and ought to be made public at the earliest moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a matter of urgency on which I desire to take the opinion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and also to hear the views of members of your Lordships' House. At the present moment the Unemployment Insurance Bill is passing through the other House. It is a measure on which everyone is agreed, and all Parties in the other House are endeavouring to pass it as quickly as possible. It has not been completed there yet, but my information is that it will pass through the. other House to-night. The object of the Bill is to fill up what are called "gaps." There are certain periods of unemployment insurance which are not covered by the existing law and the result is that there is a great waste of public money in order to fill up those gaps with various kinds of relief. The Bill proposes merely to fill up those gaps and make unemployment insurance continuous. All Parties are in favour of its passing as soon as possible.
If we read the Bill a first time tomorrow there are two courses which may be taken. The Bill is required by Wednesday of next week. We can either put down a Motion of urgency and suspend the Standing Orders on Thursday of this week, or it will be in time if we suspend the Standing Orders on Tuesday of next week and then take the Bill through all its stages, and the Royal Commission, on that day. I am in the hands of your Lordships as to which course will suit your convenience. If we can be assured of getting the Bill through all its stages on Tuesday next we can put down the necessary Motion to suspend the Standing Orders for that day, but if your Lordships are willing to take it on Thursday of this week that can be done.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has asked me a question the answer to which is in the hands of the House, because he, as well as noble Lords on this side, desires to

203
consult the convenience of the House. He first suggested that we should read the, Bill a first time to-morrow and that the Standing Orders should be suspended on Thursday in order that all the other stages of the Bill should be taken on that day in order to carry the measure into law. I should have no objection to that course, assuming that the case, for the Bill is as stated by the noble and learned Viscount, except that Earl Beauchamp has an important Motion dealing with the rescission of the Poplar Order on the Order Paper for that day. It comes after the Second Reading of certain Bills, and, obviously, he and these who follow him will desire to occupy a considerable portion of the time of your Lordships' House on what is an important Motion. If the Unemployment Insurance Bill is taken as suggested by the Lord Chancellor, the Standing Orders being suspended, it would take precedence of Earl Beauchamp's Motion. If the noble Earl thinks the discussion on the Bill can be sufficiently compressed so as not to deprive him of the opportunity which he now enjoys I have no objection, but I think his convenience in the matter should be considered. I think it would he better to take the Bill on Thursday if we can do so, rather than on Tuesday of next week. There are at present on the Order Paper a Question and a Motion for that day, and I understand that the Secretary of State for India desires to take advantage of that occasion to make the statement upon India which he had proposed originally to make to-day but which, for reasons of public interest, he has desired to postpone. That again is a matter of capital importance and we should desire to give him every opportunity we can. Subject, therefore, to what Earl Beauchamp may have to say I should be rather disposed to. dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Bill on Thursday next.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a copy of the Bill in my lands at the moment. It is a single clause measure. There is one single question involved, and it is not ore on which I apprehend there would be a great deal of discussion. It ought not to take a long time.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned
204
Viscount and to the noble Marquess for their references to my Motion. Important matters are connected with the Motion I have on the Order Paper for Thursday and there are difficult legal questions about the rescission of the Poplar Order on which I hope more than one noble and learned Lord in this House will give us their opinion. We want all the help we can get, and I should prefer that the Unemployment Insurance Bill should stand over until next week. If that is a generally acceptable course it would be the best thing to do. We all regret that the Secretary of State for India was unable to make his statement to-day but it might be possible for him to make it to-morrow. If it is postponed until Tuesday of next week then it would have to come after the Unemployment Insurance Bill had been disposed of.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, there are matters already on the Order Paper for to-morrow, and in view of the important decision taken by the National Assembly yesterday I think I should like to consult members of the Government before making my statement. It would be more convenient for me to make it next Tuesday.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Would it not be possible to take the Unemployment Insurance Bill—if it is only a very short measure—after the debate on Poplar on Thursday night?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I gather from what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has just told me that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will take but a very small measure of our time, probably not more than a few moments. Therefore the noble Earl will not be in the least retarded from making his Motion on Thursday nor will its importance be in the least minimised. It will merely mean that the moment when he makes his Motion will be postponed by five minutes, ten minutes, a quarter of an hour, or whatever the period may be. I think, therefore, that the general convenience will, on the whole, be best consulted by taking the Bill upon Thursday and asking the noble Earl then to proceed with his Motion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite agree able to that in the circumstances. I must confess that I understood it was going to be a much longer business. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack assures me that his speech on this occasion will not exceed the limits which have been mentioned by the noble Marquees I have no objection to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I give my noble friend that promise. I think a Notice of Motion should be given for Thursday to give the Unemployment
206
Insurance Bill precedence and to suspend the Standing Orders in order that it may go through all its stages.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday last on the subject of Consolidation Bills as desired by this House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.