Sitting of 21 February 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I beg to present an humble petition from the Trustees of the British Museum, humbly praying this Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the trusts reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as this House shall deem fit. — [King's Recommendation Signified.]—Referred to the Committee of Supply.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Croydon Corporation Bill (by Order),
London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Thames Conservancy Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
West Cheshire Water Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

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

    Ex-PENSIONERS (RECURRING DISABILITIES).
    Mr. DUKESasked the Minister of Pensions if he will make provision whereby disabled ex-service men who have been struck off the pensions list, but whose disability has since recurred, should be afforded an opportunity of reexamination by a medical board?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 14th instant to the hon. Member for Rugby and the hon. Member for Tottenham, North, of which I am sending him a copy.

    WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. E. DICKIN).
    Mr. GEORGE OLIVERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the case of Mrs. E. Dickin, 51, Spring Gardens, Ilkeston, whose pension has been reduced from 14s. to 12s. per week on the assumption of an error in assessment: and whether, in view of the fact that the recipient of the pension is a widow with three children living on an income of 39s. per week, he will cause inquiries to be made and instructions issued for this Practice to cease?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Under the new arrangements which I have made for complaint the case will be thoroughly reinvestigated.

    ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether a man who has lost both legs below the knees as a result of war service, and who, through crawling, has now contracted fluid in both knees and, as a consequence is rendered as helpless as a man with both legs off above the knees, is thereby entitled to be granted the maximum constant attendance of £1 per week?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The amount of constant attendance allowance in a case of this nature would depend on medical advice. If, after examination, one of my medical officers reported that the man required an attendant to be constantly at hand throughout the day the maximum allowance of 20s. a week would be granted. If a man's condition were found to be as stated in the question, I have no doubt that the examining medical officer would recommend an allowance at the maximum rate.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor laid it down in this House that a man who had lost both legs by War service was entitled to the maximum attendance allowance for total incapacity?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not looked at the answer of my predecessor, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the statement made in my answer to the latter part of his question shall be carried into effect.
    Mr. MORRISON: If I send my right. hon. Friend the particulars, will he consider them sympathetically?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Every consideration will be given.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether an ex-soldier attending at a limb-fitting centre is entitled to his expenses if so attending; and whether, when such attendance entails an absence of several days, the allowance in respect of loss of remunerative time can be assessed at a more equitable rate than that of treatment allowance only, which may fall far short of the actual loss to the patient?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Men attending a limb-fitting centre are entitled to repayment of their travelling expenses, and, in addition, either to treatment allowances or to compensation for loss of remunerative time on the usual scales. Normally, attendance is not required for more than one day in a week, and in such cases the pensioner receives his pension, together with a payment in respect of remunerative time lost.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes several days for a man to attend a centre, that he has to be away two or three nights, and then has to get back again, that in
    1950
    winter travelling is very difficult, and that it seems hard that a man should lose the amount of money paid to any one who works for him while he is away?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider such cases, as the circumstances are different from those of ordinary cases?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will certainly consider the point raised by the hon. Member. The answer I have given is based on the information I have in the Department.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: May I send particulars of the case to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly.

    RANKER OFFICERS.
    Captain RAMAGEasked the Minister of Pensions, if, when dealing with revision of the scale of pensions in the case of Army-pensioner ranker officers, he will also undertake to consider the position in this respect. of those officers who, having served for various periods before the War as soldiers or non-commissioned officers in the Regular Army without having qualified for service pensions, rejoined the Army on the outbreak of War and were subsequently awarded commissions, thus, in several cases, completing 21 years' service in all?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): I have been asked to reply. The class of case to which I understand the hon. and gallant Member to refer was provided for by the Royal Warrant for Pay, &c., published as Army Order No. 446 of 1920, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. Under the provisions of that warrant a soldier who has served in the Regular Army and on promotion to a temporary commission had not 21 years' service, is allowed to add his service as a temporary officer to his service in the ranks, so as to complete the necessary period for pension, namely, 21 years.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Seeing that there is a large number of new Members of the House, will the hon. and gallant Member send a copy of that warrant to them, so that they will be acquainted with it when similar cases came up?
    Major ATTLEE: I will send a copy to any hon. Member who applies for it.

    REGULATIONS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions if he will favourably consider the revision of the Regulations which prevent on the death of husband or wife the transfer of the deceased's pension to the surviving parent?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This matter is bound up with other questions affecting the general scheme of pensions for parents and dependants, which is at present receiving my personal consideration.
    Mr. THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman the power to alter the Regulations, without altering the Royal Warrant?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand I have no power to make the change suggested, but the matter will be given the most sympathetic consideration possible.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the decision of the New Zealand Government to grant war pensions in all cases in which there is a reasonable presumption that the physical or mental condition which has resulted in disablement was caused or aggravated by employment as a member of the forces; and whether he will frame his proposed regulations on a similar basis?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the provisions of the New Zealand legislation which I gather that my hon. Friend has in mind, though the effect of that legislation is not quite as stated in his question. The provisions referred to will not be lost sight of in the consideration which is now being given to the general question.

    MACHINE GUN CORPS (JOHN WEBB).
    Mr. MURRELLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that John Webb, No. 61819, Machine Gun Corps, of The Cottage, Battery Lane, Portishead, Somerset, an ex-soldier with 10 years' service, who has suffered from frozen feet, jaundice, malaria, and a wounded foot, and has been pronounced a constitutional wreck and fit for nothing by the medical board, has been refused any pension; and whether he will have
    1952
    the case further inquired into with a view to securing for this man the pension his service and wounds deserve?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am arranging for this man to be examined by a medical board at an early date, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    CIRCULARS 356 AND 363.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has given instructions for the withdrawal of Circulars 356 and 363; and, if not, whether Members of Parliament can he supplied with copies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have issued instructions modifying the procedure to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am sending him copies of Circulars issued to war pensions committees which explain the present position.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does that answer refer to the position, qualified in the, way the Minister has indicated, or to the position prior to the issue of the modification?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It will cover both positions.

    CLAIMS (LEGAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. BIRKETTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now considered the question of affording to pensioners skilled legal assistance in the presentation of their cases before the tribunals and elsewhere; and whether he will take steps to ascertain, through the Law Officers of the Crown or otherwise, whether any effective and practical scheme can be devised whereby such skilled legal assistance could be provided voluntarily by members of both branches of the legal profession?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As the hon. Member is aware, the procedure of the tribunals is entirely determined by the Lord Chancellor, and I can only suggest that he should address his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

    NEED PENSIONS (HIGHLANDS).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the need pensions of smallholders in the Highlands are partly

    1953
    based upon an estimate of income from the holding, and that, owing to the failure of the harvest last year, there will, in many cases, be no income at all from these holdings; and whether he will make special arrangements for the immediate consideration of those cases in which a review of these need pensions is claimed, so that decisions can be accelerated and adjustments made during the existing period of hardship?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Need pensions are open to reconsideration at any time, on application by the pensioner through the local office of the Ministry, and should the circumstances be found to have materially changed for the worse during the currency of an award, the pension would be increased. I am taking steps to ensure that applications from these pensioners are dealt with promptly and sympathetically.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that information is given to those concerned that they can have their pensions reviewed, in view of the fact that there is so much distress in the Highlands?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I believe intimation has already gone to the officer affected to take such steps as are necessary.
    Mr. F. MARTINWill the Minister consider the issue of instructions that in the assessment of the incomes of dependants, who are occupants of crofts and small holdings, the incomes shall not be reckoned at more than the rents of the holdings, as in the case of Parliamentary assessments?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret I cannot give an answer on that point to-day. If the hon. Member will place the question on the Paper, I will get him the information required.

    FINAL AWARDS.
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Minister of Pensions what proportion of final awards made during the past 12 months has been assessed at disability nil?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The percentage of final award made during the past 12 months in which disablement was assessed at nil is loss than four.

    WIDOWS' AND CHILDREN' PENSIONS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions approximately the number of widows and children who are at present receiving pensions from his Department; and whether the numbers show an increase or decrease compared with the figures 12 months ago?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The approximate number of widows of deceased officers and men now in receipt of pension is 161,000, as compared with 165,500 a year ago. The number of children of deceased officers and men for whom pensions or allowances are in payment is 323,000, as compared to 343,000 a year ago. The reduction is almost entirely due to re-marriages, deaths, and, in the case of children, to their attaining the age of 16.

    HOSPITAL. TREATMENT.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions whether any hospitals are still maintained by his Department for pensioners or for treatment; will he state how many there are and where they are situated, and the number of men for which they are available; and if men occupying or attending such hospitals have any reductions made from their full pensions?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There are at present 33 ministry hospitals with accommodation for about 7,800 in-patients. I will send the hon. Member a list of them. When a man is admitted for in-patient treatment his pension is withdrawn, and in lieu of it, treatment allowances are granted.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. STRANGERasked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the desirability of granting full disability pensions to all those with war disability during the period of their unemployment in view of the fact that there are large numbers of disabled ex-service men now receiving Poor Law relief who are thus maintained at the expense of the ratepayers of the particular locality in which they happen to live, instead of at the expense of the whole community on whose behalf they have suffered?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no authority to adopt this suggestion, which is entirely inconsistent with the principle on which disablement pensions are required to be awarded.

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions the sum estimated to have been saved by the reduction of dependants' pensions; what was the method adopted in the investigation; whether the individual pensioner whose case was under consideration was summoned to appear before the tribunal or had any opportunity to state reasons why the pension should not be reduced; and whether the pre-war employers of the deceased soldier were asked to produce their wages books before the reassessment was made?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It will not be possible to make the estimate desired by my hon. Friend until we see the effect of the extended arrangements for dealing with complaints which have recently been brought into operation. Inquiry officers have from the first been instructed to report fully the grounds of objection made by pensioners, and these were fully considered by the Ministry. It is and has been the practice to verify the soldier's pre-enlistment earnings, and where necessary by obtaining a certificate from the employers. In cases of doubt the earnings would be verified by the inquiry officer.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases where dependants' pensions have been reduced no one has asked any question regarding the circumstances in which they were placed, and consequently no opportunity has been given of making any statement on the matter.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was not aware of that fact, but, if the hon. Member will supply the information, it shall certainly be considered.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that a considerable number of ex-service men engaged as temporary civil servants under the Ministry in Edinburgh have received notice of dismissal as at 31st March; and, if so, does he propose allowing these notices to take effect at that date?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Owing to a decrease in the volume of work to be performed,
    1956
    the retention of the full staff now engaged cannot be justified after the 31st March. I have, however, arranged to discuss the question of the redundants with a representative of the men concernd to-morrow morning, and I will communicate my decision to the hon. Member in due course.
    Mr. LOVERSEED: Will the same information be supplied to other hon. Members in whose constituencies there are ex-service men in the same position?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If any hon. Member applies for the answer, I will certainly give it to him.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that instructions were issued by his predecessors to the effect that disabled ex-service men were to be the last to be discharged from temporary positions in the Civil Service; that a number of these men have received notification that their services are to be dispensed with; and whether he will take steps to see that not only these men, but also all ex-service men who served in the theatres of war, are retained until the whole of the non-service temporary officers have been discharged.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that the standing instructions, based on the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, give preference for retention, subject to the overriding consideration of efficiency, to disabled ex-service men, and I regret that it has therefore been necessary to include some of these men amongst those declared redundant. As I informed the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 14th instant, the possibility of finding further employment for them is being explored. None would, however, be competent to replace any of the remaining non-service temporary officials who now number only 11, of whom three are under notice.
    Sir F. HALL: Provided these disabled ex-service men are competent to carry out the duties, will the Minister see that they are not discharged while non-service men are retained?
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the Minister give any idea of the numbers who are being discharged while "conchies" are being kept?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In regard to the latter point, I do not think there is any foundation in the suggestion that "conchies" are being kept.
    Viscount CURZON: They are.
    Mr. ROBERTS: On the other question, it would be impossible for me to give any definite information to-day, but the matter will be considered.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. PIELOUasked the Minister of Pensions if it is his intention to be responsible for some 600 ex-service men who are suffering from mental trouble, who are, at the moment, under the care of the guardians?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to those ex-service men for whose maintenance the responsibility of my Department came to an end on the 30th September, 1922, under the expressed terms of Article 7 (2) of the Royal Warrant. The Government have decided to meet the charge for the maintenance from the 1st April next of these men by means of a special Exchequer Grant, which will not, however, fall on the Vote of my Department. I understand that Parliament will be asked to make the necessary provision in the Votes of the Board of Control for England and Wales and General Board of Control for Scotland.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Will the grant in aid be made direct to the guardians?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No. As the latter part of the answer implies, that will not be so.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the asylums are not under the control of the guardians, but under the control of the counties?
    Mr. POTTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. John Perkins, aged 46, formerly No. 52,012, ex-Private, Durham Light Infantry, was admitted to Storthes Hall asylum, Kirkburton, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, on the 13th August, 1917, and became chargeable to the Minister of Pensions as a war-service patient; and whether, seeing that the Ministry no longer accepts responsibility for his
    1958
    maintenance since the Pensions Appeal Tribunal decided that Perkins' insanity was neither due to nor aggravated by war service, and that the Pensions Ministry accepted responsibility for maintenance over five years, he will have inquiries made into the actual cause of disability in this case?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries into this case, but I hope shortly to be in a position to communicate the result to my hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGANasked the Minister of Pensions the total number of ex-service pensioners of the Welsh region who are receiving treatment and are maintained under the regulations who were inmates of public mental institutions in December, 1923; what number, if any, are in these public institutions who are treated as pauper lunatics; and will he take steps to provide an institution in Wales to deal with this class of ex-service men apart and separate from the Poor Law institutions?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There are 380 such cases, all of whom are classified as service patients, and are thus on the legal footing of private patients, and in no sense within the ambit of the Poor Law. It would not be practicable to establish a separate institution for them, among other reasons, because experience has shown that in the majority of eases the relatives would not agree to transfers which, by removing the patient a long distance from his home, would render frequent visits impossible.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the Minister aware that repeated applications having been made, a promise was given of a separate institution for the Welsh region at the request of a majority of the relatives of the men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Are these men still in the same institution as they were in during the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and myself?
    Mr. ROBERTS: With regard to the first supplementary question, I do not think I can give any further information to-day beyond that contained in my reply, and I am not aware of the information suggested by the hon. and gallant Member; it is not in my possession, at

    1959
    any rate, and I cannot refer to it to-day. With regard to the other point, what has been indicated is substantially correct.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the Minister not aware that twice during the last three months this matter has been sent up to headquarters and a promise made to deal with it?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will look into the point.
    Major TRYON: In view of the fact that these men are still in the same building, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Prime Minister's statement that they are not now interned was most misleading?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the conditions under which his Departmental staff work in the General Post Office buildings, Spring Gardens, Manchester, of the lack of proper office accommodation, the delay and inconvenience caused to pensioners, and the public generally obliged to visit the premises on business; whether he is aware that those desirous of interviewing officials are placed behind barbed wire entanglements; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There has been difficulty in obtaining suitable accommodation for the Ministry's staff in Manchester, and my attention has been drawn to deficiencies in the accommodation provided in the area office premises, which will be remedied as far as possible. The barbed wire referred to by the hon. Member is placed at the top of high partitions separating the Ministry's office from the Post Office, to prevent unauthorised entrance. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works with a view to obtaining better accommodation as quickly as possible.
    Mr. COMPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the provision of better accommodation for females, such as widows, who have delicate interviews with officials? Is not
    1960
    something necessary that is different from the present arrangement, under which interviews take place in front of the general staff of the Department?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That point shall certainly be considered. I hope that we shall come to adequate arrangements with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions whether a large reduction of the medical staff of the Ministry is in contemplation; if so, on whose recommendation will such reduction be made; and whether he will consider withholding such reduction until the proposed Departmental Committee has considered the same and reported?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Owing to the inevitable reduction of the work of my Department, there is necessarily a corresponding decrease in the medical staff required. I am not contemplating any special reductions in the medical staff.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGANasked the Minister of Pensions what reduction of staff, if any, has taken place at the headquarters of the Ministry in London from 1st July to 31st December, 1923; and what was the total number of staff employed at that date?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The staff of the headquarters branches in London, including Pension Issue Office, was reduced during the half year ended 31st December, 1923, by 811. The total number employed on that date was 6,126.
    Mr. BECKER: How many of these were temporary ex-service men?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid I cannot answer that question now, but I will be pleased to supply the information.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANasked the Minister of Pensions the number of medical men employed at the Ministry headquarters in all grades in December, 1923; how many of them are over 60 years of age; and how many of them were engaged actually in the various theatres of war on active service?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The number of medical men employed at Ministry headquarters on 31st December last in all grades was 31, of whom three are over

    1961
    60 years of age. 29 of these officers served during the War, 23 of them having served overseas.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether the small percentage of male officials at the Ministry of Pensions who are not ex-service men were prevented from serving in His Majesty's forces during the War by reason of age or disability, or if any were excused service on the ground of their conscientious objections to such services?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The officials referred to were either over age or medically rejected for enlistment or were exempted from military service by Committees appointed by the War Cabinet to review exemptions granted by Government Departments. There are no conscientious objectors amongst them.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether, in view of the strong feeling on this subject among ex-service men and their dependants, the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he intends to continue the policy of his predecessor, and that is, rigidly to exclude from his office all conscientious objectors?
    Mr. HUDSON: Before an answer is given, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that several conscientious objectors have been sent to this House by the electorate? [HON MEMBERS: Shame!]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has said that there are none in his Department.
    Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps I did not make my question quite clear. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible for him to make an announcement that the policy at present in force was going to be continued. Do I understand you rule that out of Order, Sir?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper. I think that notice should be given of a question on policy.
    Earl WINTERTON: I will give notice for Monday.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Pensions the number of staff employed by his Department at the Issue Office at Acton, together with the number employed by any other Department in the
    1962
    same building; and how those numbers, respectively, compare with the number of employés at the Pensions Issue Office a year ago?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The number of staff now employed by my Department in the Acton premises is 3,498, as compared with 4,802 in February, 1923. I have no information as to the staff employed by other Departments at Acton.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it fully occupied?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That I cannot say.

    THAMES EMBANKMENT (TRAFFIC CONTROL).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the excessive speed at which many cars are driven along the Thames Embankment during the evening; and whether, having regard to the grave danger to workpeople crossing the road in order to board the tramcars, he will advise the Commissioner of Police to institute some form of control opposite to the Temple station?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): The Commissioner of Police informs me that his attention has been called to the fast driving of cars along the Embankment. Controls have been worked from time to time, and a number of offenders have been detected and prosecuted. The Commissioner will not hesitate to extend the working of these controls if they fail to check the abuse.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman inform whether any of the cars stopped were proceeding towards Battersea?
    Mr. MARCH: Does the hon. Gentleman know that some motorists cannot see the refuges that are in the road?
    Mr. DAVIES: I must have notice of those questions.

    POLICE PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the great discrepancy between

    1963
    the amounts of pensions received by pre-War police pensioners and those who have retired since or during the War; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    Mr. DAVIES: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday to questions on this subject put by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But is the hon. Gentleman pressing the Treasury to consider this matter favourably?
    Mr. DAVIES: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he will find that that point has been answered there.

    PRISONS (EDUCATIONAL WORK).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners have reported that, in carrying out their arrangements for educational work in prisons, they have been prevented by financial reasons from undertaking educational work of any kind in two of His Majesty's prisons and whether he will see that provision is made in the forthcoming Estimates for such classes as the Commissioners consider desirable?
    Mr. DAVIES: I will see that the possibility of finding funds for the further development of educational work in prisons is thoroughly examined in connection with the Estimates for the ensuing year, but I am not confident that very much more can be done in that direction at present, in view of the pressure of many competing claims.
    Mr. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the amount of unpaid educational work now being carried on in prisons and Borstal institutions by the help of voluntary teachers; whether he is aware that this is hampered by the lack of any financial assistance towards
    1964
    the cost of travelling expenses in the case of a number of teachers who are glad to offer their services without pay for this work; and whether the Government will now assist the work of the Prison Commissioners by making provision for the payment of such expenses where the prison authorities consider it desirable?
    Mr. DAVIES: I can assure the hon. Member that the value of the voluntary assistance which the Prison Commissioners are receiving in this way is fully recognised, and I hope that the Estimates for the ensuing financial year will make adequate provision for meeting such expenses as are referred to in the question.

    ALIENS (IMMIGRATION).
    Mr. PIELOUasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens permitted to enter this country during the six months ending the 31st January, 1924; from what countries they originate; and is it proposed, in view of the large amount of unemployment existing in this country, to make the Regulations permitting aliens to land more drastic?
    Mr. DAVIES: I ask leave to give the figures up to the end of last year. They are most conveniently dealt with for periods of not less than a Quarter. For the last six months of the year 1923, 184,228 aliens were given leave to land in this country. They came from all the countries of the world. All but a very small number came on temporary visits for purposes of business or pleasure; and, as I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Penny) last Monday, there is no reason to think that they added to the unemployment in this country. I may add that the outflow of aliens in the same period, namely 200,238, was larger than the inflow.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether the policy of the Government will be continued, and no aliens allowed to land in this country who are likely to take away work from our own people?
    Mr. COMPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the number of maid servants that have been

    1965
    brought over here by Gentlemen on the opposite benches? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought not to make allegations in the form of a supplementary question. With regard to the supplementary question on policy, when an Under-Secretary is answering, it is only fair to put on the Paper larger questions on the policy of the Department.

  JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.

    CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution Guernsey has offered to the Imperial Exchequer; and what is the amount of pensions and dependant allowances paid by the Imperial Government in that island?
    Mr. DAVIES: The States of Guernsey, by a Resolution passed on the 6th instant, have offered the sum of £220,000 as a lump sum contribution to the Exchequer. I am informed by the Ministry of Pensions that the amount of pensions and allowances disbursed by them in the island (including Alderney and Sark) for the current financial year is in round figures £55,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution Jersey has offered to the Imperial Exchequer; and what is the amount of pensions and dependant allowances disbursed by the Imperial Government in that island?
    Mr. DAVIES: The States of Jersey, on the 1st December last, passed a Resolution declining to make an annual contribution to the Exchequer. I am informed by the Ministry of Pensions that the amount of pensions and allowances disbursed by them in the island for the current financial year is in round figures £46,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Does the hon. Member think nothing can be done to bring more pressure to bear upon Jersey to help the Imperial Exchequer,
    1966
    when we are spending so much money in the Channel Islands in the form of pensions?
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the people of Jersey are exempt by law from service, and that they nevertheless sent 17½ per cent. of their population to the War under the promise of the Home Government—not the Imperial Government—that their pay and pensions should be paid?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

    POLICE PROBATIONERS.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police regulations provide for any appeal against adverse reports on probationers, or if probationers refused full admission to the constabulary have any opportunity of being heard before adverse reports are ratified?
    Mr. DAVIES: Under the Police Regulations, the services of a constable may be dispensed with at any time while he is on probation if the chief officer of police considers that he is not fitted for the duties of his office, or is not likely to become an efficient and well conducted constable. This course may be taken independently of any specific offence against discipline, and the procedure laid down with regard to disciplinary cases will not apply.
    Mr. BROWN: In prima facie cases of injustice, am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer there is no redress whatever, no appeal, and no inquiry possible on the part of the Department or anyone else?
    Mr. HAYES: Is the Department now considering the adoption of the principle of establishing appeal tribunals, to which men, who feel they may have been victimised, or have grievances in the service, may appeal from the Chief Constable?
    Mr. DAVIES: I shall require notice of those two supplementary questions.

    DETENTION IN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. TOOLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Stanley Crutchley, aged 14, of 20, Ezard Street, Higher Openshaw, Manchester, was, on the 3rd February, 1920, sentenced by the Manchester magistrates to three years' detention in an industrial school for his first crime of stealing a £5 note; that later he escaped from the home and upon re-arrest was sentenced to a, further term of two years' detention; that his father, who is a, workman with four people dependent on his earnings, was also ordered to contribute the sum of 5s. per week for five years out of his weekly income of £2 8s.; and whether, in view of the fact that this was the boy s first offence, and of the great hardship imposed upon the parents, he will consider the advisability of securing some remission of the sentence?
    Mr. DAVIES: This case was carefully considered last August, and it was decided to review the circumstances after the boy had received a few months' further training. I am in communication with the managers of the school, as well as with my hon. Friend, in regard to the case.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men on the unemployment dole are going to gaol periodically for arrears, and cannot he modify the Regulations and so prevent the creation of gaolbirds?
    Mr. TOOLE: Will the hon. Gentleman advise the magistrates in the Manchester district as to the necessity of using the probationary system for first offenders of this description?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am in entire sympathy with the views of the two hon. Gentlemen, but, with regard to this particular case, if my hon. Friend will assure me that there is employment for this boy, I will give favourable consideration to the question of his release.

    APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS (RECOGNISANCES).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home
    1968
    Department whether he is aware that a person convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction who has a right to appeal from such conviction to a Court of Quarter Sessions is required to enter into a recognisance, with or without a surety or sureties, in a sum up to £80 before he can proceed with such appeal; and whether, seeing that this precludes many poor persons from exercising their right of appeal, he will take steps to remedy this hardship?
    Mr. DAVIES: I recognise that the obligation to give security for the costs of an appeal before the appeal can be entered must often have the effect of preventing persons who have been convicted at Petty Sessions from appealing to Quarter Sessions, but I am advised that to abolish this requirement of the law would be likely to lead to graver evil than the present law involves.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not inflicting a hardship upon the poor to continue this requirement of security? I should have thought it would appeal to a Labour Government.

    TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the requisitioning of His Majesty's Government, on or about the 30th July, 1914, of the battleships which were in course of construction in this country for account of Turkey, without the return to that country of the sum of about £5,000,000 paid by Turkey on account thereof, gave rise to a campaign of reprisal against British subjects resident in Turkey by the Turkish Government, though still a neutral State, seizing and requisitioning on an extensive scale the property of British nationals; and whether, seeing that the said £5,000,000 then remained a sum legally attachable by British nationals having claims against the Turkish Government in respect of seizures and requisitioning of property and that British nationals were only deprived of this right to attach against the £5,000,000 by the subsequent action of His Majesty's Government, after war had been declared against Turkey, in seizing this sum without taking into consideration the claims of British nationals which

    1969
    had arisen as a counter-charge thereon, steps will now be taken to compensate such British nationals?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Turkey possessed certain claims on His Majesty's Government arising out of the requisitioning of the battleships. The Turkish declaration of war prevented the assessment and payment of these claims to Turkey, and, in accordance with international law, transferred the Turkish claim to His Majesty's Government. There was never any sum belonging to Turkey legally attachable by British nationals. The claims of British nationals against Turkey will be considered by the Inter-Allied Commission to be appointed under the provisions of the Convention relating to the Assessment and Reparation of Damage suffered in Turkey, which was signed at Paris on 23rd November, 1923 (Cmd. Paper 2028).
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he will do all he can for the British citizens who have suffered very severely in Constantinople, and who look to the British Government to see that their claims are put forward in the near future? They have waited five years.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am sure everyone will feel sympathy with these people, and steps will be taken to ensure that their claims are considered.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: If these reprisals were taken before war was declared, why should the claims of British nationals be left to an international committee?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not gather that that was so.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: What is the amount of claims by British nationals?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    Oil SUPPLIES.
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ERSKINE:
    46. To ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to come to an equitable agreement with the Shell Company to
    1970
    safeguard the future oil supply of the Navy at a reasonable price, and utilise the £20,000,000 which the 5,000,000 shares would realise in rebuilding slum areas and in social betterments generally?
    Mr. ERSKINE: May I, with your permission, Sir, withdraw this question, as, obviously, there is a mistake in the text?

    WIDOWS OF NAVAL RATINGS (PENSIONS).
    Sir B. FALLE
    47. To ask the Prime Minister, whether he will consider the guarantee of a sum of £200,000 in order to operate a contributory scheme of pensions to widows of naval ratings; or will he authorise the loan of this amount, following the precedent established when the Navy and Army Canteen Board was created, repayable in a given number of years and free of interest?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I have not received the answer.
    Sir B. FALLE: I did not hear the reason given for not answering question No. 47.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that by some mischance the Minister has not received the answer.
    Mr. CLYN ES: My information was that it was to be answered by the Treasury.
    Sir B. FALLE: May I put it down again?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. LUMLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to the acceleration of the construction of cruisers and other vessels?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. I have had this question down every week this Session, the last occasion being yesterday, and I was asked to put it down again next Tuesday.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May I submit that it is absolutely immaterial to the House whether hon. Members have certain questions down, because, on a question of public interest, we want the information as soon as possible?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I think that if the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville) will consult his Front Bench, he will find that I made every effort to get in touch with him this morning, in order to give him the opportunity of raising this matter, having regard to the fact that he has shown so much interest in it.
    The Government have decided, in view of the serious unemployment, to proceed with the laying down of five cruisers—three of which will be built in the Royal Dockyards—and two destroyers. Tenders will be invited at once from contractors, so that it will be possible to proceed with the work as soon as the necessary Parliamentary sanction has been given.
    Mr. AMERY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what decision has been taken with regard to the submarine depot ship, the minelayers, and the other items of the programme which I submitted to the House a month ago?
    Mr. AMMON: No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to those items.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Are we to understand that these boats are actually needed urgently for the defence of the country? Would it not be better to use the money in something more productive?
    Mr. THURTLE: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, would he inform the House whether or not this decision is to be taken as a great moral gesture to the world?
    Mr. AMERY: Arising out of the answer to my supplementary question, are we to understand that no decision has yet been taken against the building of the other items in that programme, but that they are still under consideration?
    Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman may understand that the matter is still under consideration.
    Sir A. BENN: May I ask if a cruiser is going to be put down at Devonport?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that this decision is final, and that the House is to have no opportunity of discussing it? Does the hon. Gentleman
    1972
    intend to allow the House to have any voice in this question?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to start these cruisers without asking the House for the money first?
    Mr. DOYLE: Apart from the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made in regard to the dockyards, is it proposed that any of that work should come to the Tyne?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: With regard to the original reply, which is unsatisfactory, is it not the fact that the original programme was eight, whereas only five are going to be built, and, if so, how is Barrow going to get a cruiser in competition?
    Mr. AMERY: In view of the urgency of the unemployment situation, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman proposes to submit a token Vote to the House in the immediate future, without waiting for the introduction of the Navy Estimates?
    Mr. AMMON: I do not think that that will be necessary. The tenders will be invited at once.
    Mr. HUDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that when these cruisers are laid down, if they are laid down, it will lead to the laying down of further cruisers in foreign countries, and by that means lead to a possible catastrophe, which will create more unemployment than ever?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman clearly give us a decision that these tenders will not be accepted until the approval of the House of Commons has been given?
    Mr. AMMON: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson), it should be understood that these are largely replacements, and not additions to our naval armaments. The other matter will arise in the ordinary way on the Estimates.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment, of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the decision of the Government to lay down five new cruisers."
    The pleasure of the House not having been, signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not fewer than Forty Members having accordingly risen,
    The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.
    HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has the necessary number of supporters, and accordingly the discussion will take place at a quarter past eight.
    HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If an hon. Member obtain the requisite number of supporters, there is no question of a Division.

    GOVERNMENT PLANS.
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Prime Minister when a statement may be expected detailing the plans of the Government in regard to unemployment: and, if the plans of the Government are not yet matured, what temporary steps he proposes to take to alleviate the distress prevailing in the industrial areas?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Government are not yet in a position to make a detailed statement on their plans in regard to unemployment. The temporary steps which it is proposed to take have been announced from time to time in this House.
    Sir G. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Election, in a manifesto by the Labour party, signed by the Prime Minister and himself, the statement was made that the Labour party was the only party which had an effective remedy for unemployment?
    Mr. CLYNES: We are confident that events will prove the accuracy of that statement.
    Captain Viscount EDNAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a date when a statement will be made?

    SUGGESTED INQUIRY.
    Mr. HARLANDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger to the country arising from recurrent
    1974
    unemployment, the Government proposes to make an inquiry into the underlying causes and possible prevention of extensive unemployment?
    Mr. CLYNES: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a special enquiry of the kind suggested at this juncture.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
    Mr. STRANGERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strikes during the past month, he is at once prepared to introduce legislation similar to that adopted by the Labour Government of the Australian Commonwealth in the Conciliation and Arbitration. Acts to ensure on the one hand fair conditions for the workers and on the other hand to secure that those in other trades shall not have their living jeopardised by a dispute in which they have no direct interest?
    Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to similar questions by the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) and the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Penny) on the 14th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. STRANGER: May I ask whether the Prime Minister can direct that an independent Committee be set up to inquire into the best method of avoiding strikes?

  DOCK STRIKE.
    SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

      PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
      Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the House with reference to the position in the dock dispute?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I am happy to report that as the result of the negotiations carried on all day yesterday the representatives of both sides early this morning agreed to terms which the union spokesmen decided to put before their delegate meeting this evening, with a recommendation that they should agree. The Minister of Labour, who has handled this matter with great skill and patience, hopes that the dispute will be finally settled to-night, and that

      1975
      before the House rises he may be able to communicate the terms of agreement to hon. Members. If this hope is fulfilled work will be resumed in some ports tomorrow, and I understand in practically all the others on the following day.
      Under these circumstances the Government does not propose to put into operation any of the machinery it was prepared to set up to secure a food supply to the public. With the co-operation of the leaders of the union the mails are being handled to-day. May I add this? I regret that I could not give more information in response to the great pressure put upon me yesterday, but I considered that to do so would have been most damaging to the negotiations for which we were responsible, and had I yielded there would have been no settlement to-day.
      Mr. SEXTON: With the indulgence of the House, may I be permitted to pay a tribute to the Labour Minister for the patience and ability with which he has dealt with this dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
      Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the agreement includes what is known as the "Blue" Union, which was responsible for an earlier strike, and which is demanding an increase of 2s. 6d. in wages?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I must take up again to-day the position that I took up yesterdy. The matter is now under negotiation, and I feel that it is perfectly safe in the hands of those who are in charge of it. The final terms will be announced before the House adjourns to-night.

      POLICE PROTECTION.
      Sir F. HALLasked she Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to by the Government to the effect that during the dock strike the police forces are not to be allowed to protect men who might want to work?
      Mr. DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. No such decision has been come to.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the statement made at a meeting held on the 15th instant, by one of
      1976
      the Labour Members, to the effect that the police would not be used to assist those desirous of working, and whether we are to understand that the Government do not agree with that policy?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That question should come at the end.

      MINERS' NYSTAGMUS.
      Mr. BLUNDELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a committee of mine-owners and miners has yet been appointed to arrive at an adequate definition of miners' nystagmus in order that this disease may be included in the Workmen's Compensation Act?
      Mr. DAVIES: The disease is already scheduled under the Act. The hon. Member is perhaps referring to the recommendations made by the Committee of the Medical Research Council on Miners' Nystagmus for altering the description of the disease in the Schedule. The recommendations have been receiving careful consideration, and I propose to invite the mineowners and miners to appoint representatives to discuss the whole question with my Department in conjunction with the Mines Department.

    POLLING STATIONS, COUNTY CONSTITUENCIES.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that large numbers of electors in the county constituencies are unable to vote owing to the distance of polling stations from their homes; and whether he would consider the advisability of introducing legislation providing for mobile polling stations by transport where necessary?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am aware that many electors in county constituencies live a considerable distance from their polling places, but I doubt whether it is practicable to introduce legislation such as is suggested. Under the existing law, the county council appoint the polling districts and places, and the Secretary of State, if a representation is made to him by a local authority, or not less than 30 electors of a constituency, that the

    1977
    polling facilities are inadequate, has power to direct any necessary amendment to be made.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends at as early a date as possible to introduce a Bill having for its object the codification of the law of compensation for injury to workmen, in accordance with the promise of his predecessor, in view of the confusion existing owing to several Acts of Parliament dealing with this question?
    Mr. DAVIES: I appreciate the importance of securing the consolidation of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and the promise given by the late Home Secretary will be carried out as soon as practicable. I cannot, however, say at present when it will be possible to introduce the necessary Bill.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Can the hon. Member say whether he will be able to introduce a Bill this Session?

    TAXI-CAB FARES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way now to reduce the price of taxicab fares in London, or whether, as has already been successfully done in Paris, he will authorise a smaller type of taxicab to be put on at cheaper rates?
    Mr. DAVIES: I regret that the Home Secretary cannot see his way to reduce taxi-cab fares at present. The Commissioner has no information about the smaller type of cabs referred to, unless the reference is to motor-cycles with side cars, which it is not considered desirable to license in London. If taxi-cabs of a smaller type than that existing are presented for licensing, the question of their fitness for the purpose will be considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same prices are charged to-day with petrol at under 2s. a gallon as were charged when petrol was 4s. 6d. a gallon, and would
    1978
    not there be far fewer taxis lying idle if lower prices were charged?
    Viscount EDNAM: Why does the hon. Gentleman propose to refuse licences for motor-cycles and side-cars? Is he aware that this type of vehicle is in great use in Birmingham and is of great convenience here and other centres?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Ford taxis are now plying in the streets of Paris, while they are not allowed in England?
    Mr. DAVIES: I must ask for notice of these supplementary questions.

    GUARDSMAN JOHN CARPENTER.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with regard to the letter received from the private secretary to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 14th February, 1924, with reference to the case of Guardsman John Carpenter, stating that the Secretary of State was in communication with the military authorities in case they might be able to throw further light on the matter, he will state whether there have been any such communications with the military authorities; and, if so, with what authorities and on what dates and what was the nature of such communications?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, before this question is put that the name of a civil servant is mentioned. Is it in order to interpolate a Minister concerning an action done by a civil servant and, instead of referring to the Department, to refer to the individual?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it only means that the letter was received from the Secretary of State through his private Secretary. The question may be asked.
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, Sir, a letter in regard to this matter was addressed to the War Office on Tuesday. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided, after very careful consideration of the representations made to him, that they

    1979
    did not afford any ground for interference with the sentence passed by the Court, but inasmuch as the position of the prisoner as a member of His Majesty's Forces is involved, he thought it right to communicate those, representations to the military authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no communication was made, according to his own statement, at the time I was informed that a communication had been made to the military authorities. It was only when I went five days later that any action whatever was taken; meantime His Majesty's guardsman was serving in prison?
    Mr. DAVIES: I could not be aware of these facts when this reply was drafted, but I will go into the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    DEATH SENTENCES (REPRIEVE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether reasons for the reprieve of death sentences are ever published; and whether any statement has been made, or can be made, as to the reprieve of Corporal Dearnley, of Hull, after the petitioners for his reprieve on special grounds had been told that no reprieve could be considered?
    Mr. DAVIES: It is not the practice to publish the reasons for the reprieve of prisoners tinder sentence of death, and in many cases it would be impossible to do so. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Right Hon. Edward Shortt, when filling the office of Home Secretary, did give reasons on one occasion for the advice given to the Crown. That was in the case of True. Would it not be possible in this case to give some reason for the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the Under-Secretary replies, I should like to ask if it is not the case that, before you can be Home Secretary, you must be in favour of capital punishment?

    BRITISH EMIGRANTS (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. WARDLAW MILNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of immigrants admitted into the United States from the British Isles last year; how many of these went from Scotland; and how many were trained artisans and skilled workers?
    Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. According to statistics copiled by the United States Bureau of immigration and published in the United States "Monthly Labour Review," the number of immigrants into the United States of America during the first 10 months of the year 1923, whose last permanent residence was in the British Isles, was 89,062, including 39,591 whose last permanent residence was in Scotland. The tables do not show separately the occupation of immigrants from the British Isles, and the figures relating to November and December are not yet available.

    POLITICAL MEETINGS (POLICE ATTENDANCE).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any instructions have been issued to the Metropolitan Police Force instructing them to attend all political meetings, whether held in halls or in the open air; and, if such instructions hive been issued, will he lay copies upon the Table?
    Mr. DAVIES: No such instructions have been issued.
    Sir LEONARD LYLE: In view of the disgraceful proceedings of the Communists at the last Election—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow supplementary questions containing general allegations.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Metropolitan Police officers attended a political meeting held in the London County Council school, Colombia Road, Bethnal Green, on Monday, 11th February,

    1981
    addressed by the hon. Members for North-East Bethnal Green and Bow and Bromley, and at the close of the speeches the police officers demanded the names and addresses of the speakers; and whether this action of the police was taken on his authority or in obedience to any instructions issued by his predecessor in office?
    Mr. DAVIES: According to the usual practice a constable was detailed to patrol in the vicinity of the school while the meeting was in progress. Police officers so employed report particulars of such meetings as a matter of ordinary duty. I am informed that when a speaker, who was unknown to the officer, was leaving the building, the constable asked him for his name and address with a view to including the information in his report. So far as I am aware, no instructions were issued by my predecessor in office on the subject.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What instructions are issued to the police as to the information they are to obtain when attending public meetings? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the uniformed police attended, not outside this meeting, but inside, and demanded the names and addresses of the speakers as they left the building?
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is it not the fact that where any disturbance is feared those responsible for a meeting have the right to apply to the police authorities to have somebody in attendance?
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is not the point. May I ask the Under-Secretary whether he is aware that there was no question of the police being invited to preserve order. They attended of their own volition
    Mr. HAYES: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we must hear the answer to some of the suppiementary questions.
    Mr. PRINGLE: One at a time!
    Mr. DAVIES: I have been asked several supplementary questions. I think, in effect, they answer each other. [HON MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: What is your answer?
    Mr. DAVIES: Replying to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I am definitely informed that the duty of the police in connection with meetings is the ordinary duty of patrolling to be there in the event of anything transpiring which will break the peace.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of the original answer, and in view of the statement that these constables had to report, can the hon. Gentleman say if there were no instructions, as obviously, in the absence of instructions, they would not require to report?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any reason why any loyal and law-abiding subject should object to the presence of the police?
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not a fact that the police regulations distinctly lay down that police officers are not to enter a meeting held inside private premises, that any information that they may ascertain merely for the purpose of submitting a report can be obtained without entering the building for that purpose, and that there is no necessity for any officer entering a political meeting for the purpose of obtaining information?
    Mr. DAVIES: I think the original reply I gave meets that point. I can add nothing at all to the replies I have given.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The allegation was quite definite. The police officer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—Is the Under-Secretary aware that the police officers attended inside the meeting and as the speakers left demanded their names and also demanded their addresses? I want to know by what authority they did so?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions on this matter had better be put on the Paper.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What I have done was to—[interruption.] I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night, or on Tuesday next.

    POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
    Sir J. REMNANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home

    1983
    Department whether the widow of a constable who retired on a medical certificate before the 1st September, 1918, and who subsequently rejoined the force, would be entitled to a widow's pension should her husband die within five years of his rejoining the force, or would his first period of service entitle her to the pension?
    Mr. DAVIES: I should not like to commit myself to an opinion on such a point without further information as to the precise circumstances. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will furnish me with details I shall be glad to look into the case.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is that the hon. Member's interpretation of the Act of Parliament or has he taken the trouble to consult the Law Officers on this matter?
    64. The hon. Baronet further asked the Under-Secretary whether, in view of the fact that all officers who rejoined the Metropolitan Police during the War were paid at a flat rate of 50s. a week, the widow of an ex-inspector who was serving on 1st September, 1918, would be entitled to a pension based on her husband's rank before retirement or on the temporary rank he was given when he rejoined the force?
    Mr. DAVIES: The widow of an ex-inspector who was serving temporarily as an inspector on 1st September, 1918, would be entitled to the pension appropriate to an inspector's widow, notwithstanding the adoption of the flat rate of pay referred to. If, however, the ex-officer was serving in some lower rank at the termination of his temporary service the widow's pension would be that appropriate to the rank which he then held.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fund out of which this pension is paid has been contributed to by this officer in the former higher rank which he held before he was permanently pensioned, and consequently this subsequent pension ought to be on the higher rank?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am prepared to look into the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Will the hon. Member discuss this question with me afterwards?
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, with pleasure.

    WOMEN POLICE.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can see his way to consider increasing the number of women police in the Metropolitan area to the original strength?
    Mr. DAVIES: As I said in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on the 14th instant, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject, but the matter has not been overlooked.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Has this matter been seriously considered by the Government?

    MUNITION FACTORY EXPLOSION (SLADES GREEN).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the explosion and fire at Erith on Monday, 18th February, in which 11 girls and one man, engaged in breaking down Verey cartridges, were trapped in a wooden and galvanised iron shed and were burned to death; whether this workshop complied with all the regulations of the Factory and Workshop Act; when it had been last inspected; and whether, in view of the somewhat similar explosion at Dudley in March of last year, he will institute an increased inspection of such highly dangerous works?
    Mr. DAVIES: There are no Regulations under the Factory and Workshop Acts which deal with explosives. The workshop was last inspected by the factory inspector in August, 1923, but at that time the processes referred to were not being carried on, nor was the shed where the explosion occurred in use as a workshop. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Dartford yesterday, the factory, being under the control of a Government Department, does not come within the jurisdiction of the Explosives Act.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this very dangerous work had been carried on under the Explosives Act Regulations not more than three people would have been employed in any one shed, and why was this dangerous work exempted from the operation of the Explosives Acts?
    Mr. DAVIES: As this is rather a technical question, I would like to have notice.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say that this work in the future will be carried on under proper regulations, or else that the 10,000 cartridges that still remain will be tipped into the sea?
    Mr. MILLS: In view of what has happened, will the Home Office make exhaustive inquiries into the conditions under which contracts such as these are given to firms with no previous experience?
    Mr. DAVIES: I ought to say that, as soon as the report on the inquest is received, we are going to consider the question of a proper inquiry into the whole matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In this promised inquiry will the Under-Secretary consider the advisability of bringing the system of factory inspection in touch with the local sanitary administration?

    MONEYLENDERS (CHARGES).
    Mr. WILLIAM MARTINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many moneylenders make, upon those applying for loans, charges in respect of investigations out of all proportion to the outlays incurred or time occupied in making such investigations, and that such charges are most often made by those who advertise themselves as moneylenders, but who seldom or never lend money, but live purely upon the excessive investigation charges made; and is he prepared to introduce legislation to restrict the fees payable for investigations and to make it unlawful for such fees being charged by other than genuine lenders of money?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply.
    1986
    I have no information as to the amount of investigation charges made by moneylenders, but perhaps my hon. Friend will furnish particulars of any cases which he has in mind.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every now and again Members of Parliament are pestered with moneylenders' circulars, and that one moneylender offered to lend me £10,000 without any security?

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
    Mr. HARDIE: Should I be in order now, Mr. Speaker, in asking what has gone wrong with the screens which should wash the air before it enters this chamber?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should give notice of this question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: Could the Prime Minister tell us what will be the business for next week?
Mr. CLYNES: The business will be as follows:
Monday: Diseases of Animals Bill, Committee; Supplementary Estimates.
Tuesday: The Motion on the Poplar Order standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) and other hon. Members.
Wednesday: Diseases of Animals Bill, Third Reading; Trade Facilities Bill, Second Reading; and, if time permits, War Charges (Validity) Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday: Supplementary Estimates.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it intended to take the Committee Stage of the Trades Facilities Bill on the floor of the House?
Mr. CLYNES: Yes.
Colonel GRETTON: What are the Supplementary Estimates to he taken on Monday next?
Mr. CLYNES: The Estimates as set out for Monday.
Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Is it intended on Tuesday, when the Poplar Motion is to be put down, to take the whole time of the House, because at 8.15 there is a private Member's Motion.
Mr. CLYNES: I am uncertain whether the Government would have the power to cancel the right of private Members, but we are hopeful that the House may find the time before 8.15 sufficient.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will suspend the 11 o'clock Rule.
Mr. CLYNES: We should, of course, prefer to avoid having to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule.
Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible to take the time of the House by putting a Motion down on Monday?
Mr. CLYNES: That which it is possible to do may not always he desirable to do.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that more time is given for the Poplar Motion than would otherwise be available on Tuesday, if it should be the desire of the House that more time should be given in view of the magnitude of the question?
Mr. CLYNES: If the general sense of the house be in favour of continuing the Debate until 11 o'clock, it might be arranged through the usual channels.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MOVEABLE DWELLINGS BILL,
  "to provide for the regulation of Moveable Dwellings," presented by Major WHELER; supported by Brigadier-General Cockerill, Sir Henry Cautley, Captain Terrell, and Mr. Forestier-Walker; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Unemployment Insurance Bill,
  Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill,
  Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding, £730,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending On the 31st day of March, 1924, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including Grants-in-Aid.''
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I make no apology for raising one or two points on this particular Vote. We have been told by the Government and by the Independent Labour party from Scotland that one of their great desires is to get rid of unemployment by doing useful work. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that my colleagues from Scotland thoroughly agree with that point of view, and would do anything that they could to urge the Government to bring it into practical effect. We have been told recently almost every day in this House that so many schemes are under consideration. We have heard of a certain place which is said to be paved with good intentions, and I hope that, so far as Scotland is concerned, Whitehall is not going to be paved with good intentions only. I am going to refer to one or two schemes which have been before successive Governments. I refer particularly to light railway schemes in the Highlands of Scotland. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech when he accepted office, said that he and his colleagues were very anxious to develop the country. I believe that they are anxious, and I am going to put that anxiety to the test. My right hon. Friend also went on to say that one of the chief matters which he had under consideration was the development of the agricultural or rural side of the community by the institution of light railways. Personally, I believe that there is no better thing for the
    2050
    development of the rural side of our communities than the development of light railways.
    It so happens that in my constituency I have two light railways which have been acknowleged by successive Governments to be of great value to the community as a whole and particularly to the agricultural industry. I refer particularly to the Dingwall and Cromarty light railway. I should have liked any hon. Friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Gosling) to have been here this afternoon. He was in his place a few moments ago, and I wish he were here now. I told my hon. friend that I would raise this matter on the first available opportunity, and this is the first Vote upon which I can raise this important question. I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Adamson) here. I welcome him on that bench. I believe that he has every anxiety to do whatever is possible in the best interests of Scotland, and I will put a test case to him.
    His predecessors have each and all acknowledged that this light railway from Dingwall to Cromarty was one which was in the best interests of the whole of the community. Not only is that the case, but the Government in 1912 and 1914 actually gave money to the promoters of this railway to construct it. In 1914 no less than 4½ miles of this railway were actually laid. The rails were produced, the cuttings were made, and the whole scheme was in active operation when suddenly the War broke out, and, because of the breaking out of the War, the railway had to be discontinued. The men employed upon that railway were mostly young fellows who belonged to the Territorials, and I am proud to think that 99 per cent. of this particular Territorial battalion, the 4th Battalion of the Sea-forth Highlanders, when they were asked if they would go on foreign service volunteered to do so. These young fellows left that particular work and went to France. What was the result?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: They were left in the lurch.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They were left in the lurch. The railway was left in the lurch. Everything that went for the betterment of the agricultural community in that part of the world was left in the

    2051
    lurch. I have been pleading for a reconsideration of this scheme ever since the end of the War. I say, quite frankly, that the Government of which I was a member is equally responsible. My hon. Friends do not need to tell me these things. When I was in office I begged and implored my colleagues to consider this, as they did consider it, a most vital scheme for the industry of the country and for the development of the Highlands. The Highlands to-day are suffering very great distress, and we hear of sympathy from every quarter of the House. When millions of pounds are to be spent in names which are harly household words all over the world, no protest is made—and I do not disagree, because we ought to develop the Empire—but what I have always said to my colleagues, and what I say now, is that the first consideration of this House is to develop the heart of the Empire within our own shores. I am putting forward to-day, without a blush of shame, the claim of the Highlands of Scotland to be considered in this matter. My hon. Friends say that they agree with me. I am glad that they do, and I honestly believe that my colleagues from Scotland do agree with me. I am asking my right hon. Friend to consult with his colleagues about this scheme.
    What are the facts? I have already stated that 4½ miles of this railway were actually constructed. I have already told the Committee that a previous Government, on mature consideration of this scheme, actually gave a grant towards it, and volunteered to give a loan of money in order to support it. Now, because we are told the finances of the country cannot bear the burden of advancing another small sum or another loan, this railway cannot be proceeded with. Not only have past Governments accepted the view that this is a good scheme, but a Commission appointed by the Coalition Government went through the rural districts of Scotland, and, after mature consideration, also came to the conclusion that it was a scheme which ought to be supported by the Government. Am I to be told, when unemployment is rife all over the country, when a great many gallant men are unemployed in this particular part, when a great many schemes are mooted all over the place, when I hear, as I did yesterday, of advances of money to great
    2052
    public companies which could themselves procure money in the public market if their companies are good, that I am to be refused a grant for this particular railway which is admitted on all hands to be of great benefit to the people of the community? May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to attend to this matter for a moment? I believe that my right hon. Friend is sincere in his desire to benefit the people of the country. I believe that this Government is anxious to benefit the people of the country, and, holding these views as I do, I want them not to tell me that this is going to be considered; I want them to tell me now that it is going to be done.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is the way to talk to them.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gent leman is in order. We are dealing with a Vote for relief arising out of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman will find on Page 8 the Vote for the Office of the Secretary for Scotland in relation to relief schemes.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am dealing with the Vote for the relief of unemployment, Sundry Services, which appears on Page 24 among the Unclassified Services and, if I may say so, I am clearly within my rights in raising this matter on this Vote, because it says:
    "For the employment of labour on land improvement and drainage, railways, etc., for the training of women in domestic work, and for the maintenance of juvenile unemployment centres—"
    The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary for Scotland will be the appropriate Minister to reply on the other Vote.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite agree, but I was looking for the biggest pundit on that bench, and I mentioned him because I had no doubt that he will be appealed to when this case comes to be considered by the Government. Therefore, as a Scottish Member, I thought I should appeal to my right hon. Friend who is sitting now on the bench. I am sure I am pushing an open door. I am going to rely on my right hon. Friend to consult with his colleagues to see that this scheme is put forward. It is a tragedy to see a derelict scheme of great national importance existing in Scotland when we are asked to vote millions of money for other

    2053
    schemes all over the world. We are most anxious that the people of the North of Scotland should be employed. They are people who are anxious not to be on the unemployed roll. They are anxious to get decent, legitimate work, and when decent, legitimate work is available for them in their own country, no Government, particularly a Labour Government with the aspirations it has, can sit still and see work of this kind not being proceeded with under a Vote of this kind. Not only has the Scottish Office considered this Vote, not only has it had the support of the Scottish Office in the past, but it has also had a certificate from the Labour Ministry to say there was unemployment in that part, and that this was a necessitous area. These are the two qualifications which I submit ought to be considered under this Vote, first of all the value of this improvement to the community, and the value has been admitted by all Scottish members and by every Government in power. The second point is this. Does unemployment exist in this locality? The only proof of that can be the certificate of the Ministry of Labour, which has been forthcoming. In view of these two facts I submit that no scheme could be better fitted to come under this Vote than a scheme of that kind, particularly in view of the fact that four and a half miles of the railway have already been constructed, and every Government since its initiation has agreed to the value of that work, and now that we are pressing the claims of unemployed ex-service men, and those men are available to construct that work, I submit that this Vote ought to be considered by the whole Government and particularly by the Secretary for Scotland, and my appeal should be regarded with every confidence by those concerned in the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: The case for the light railways has been admirably made out by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I should like to say a few words on behalf of another means of communication, namely, roads. I think I shall be in order in referring to this, as I see the Vote deals with loans to local authorities for the purpose of enabling them to carry out approved works for the, relief of unem-
    2054
    ployment. The particular case I wish to bring before the Committee has been approved, but up to the present it has been held up, and a commencement on the work has been delayed, entirely through lack of funds. This is a road which ought to be constructed to improve the transport facilities between Hull and the West of England. The importance of Hull lies more directly in its sea service and its water transport, and up to the present the other means of transit, namely, those by road, and to a certain extent by rail, have been very largely neglected. To travel to Hull from the West of England by road at present is almost a case of going back to the middle ages. As long as one keeps on the main road from London to the North we have a fine, wide road running direct from North to South, but when at Selby one turns off to go to Hull from that moment one might almost imagine one was back in Elizabethan times. The road is narrow. Between Selby and Hull there are no fewer than 47 right-angle turns. There are two toll bridges of antiquated design, both of which are entirely unsuitable for modern heavy traffic, and up to the present practically nothing has been done to accommodate this road to the necessities of modern transport. A large trade has recently sprung up between Hull and the West Biding of Yorkshire, particularly in regard to wool, and it is of the utmost importance, not only from the point of view of the city of Hull, but also from the point of view of the city of Bradford that direct means of rapid communication should be established between those two cities.
    One of the most important links in this road would be the construction of a bridge at a place called Booth Ferry. A bridge across there would not only improve the communication with the city of Hull almost out of all recognition, but it would facilitate transport from Doncaster and Goole to the North and the East Riding of Yorkshire in an extraordinary way. The plans for that bridge have already been approved and the funds have almost entirely been subscribed. Thanks to the generosity of the authorities of the West Riding, of the city of Hull, and of the East Riding generally, practically half the money has already been subscribed and the other half has been promised on behalf of the Ministry of Transport. But the fact remains that the scheme has up

    2055
    till quite recently been held up for the paltry sum of £5,000 which it was unable to find. This is only a beginning of the improved transport facilities between Hull and the West of England. The bridge is at present not commenced merely owing to the fact that we have been unable to raise that £5,000. Is it too much to ask that out of this service that sum should be advanced to enable work to be commenced? There are thousands of unemployed in that neighbourhood, and if work were to commence on the road it would find work for thousands of men who are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the many men in the Highland, ex-service men who had given good service to their country, who were at present walking the streets in search of work. The Highlands of Scotland are not the only place where there are ex-service men out of work seeking employment. Hull sent 85,000 men to the War. Many of then are on the unemployed list, and by getting a grant from this fund towards the commencement of this bridge and this road you would go far towards finding work for these ex-service men who are walking the streets in search of work.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I go back to the first item of the Vote. I asked yesterday if we could have the details of the revised Estimate under the several headings which have been provided for, namely, land improvement and drainage, light railways, women's training and juvenile unemployment centres, and then the two series of grants which the Minister himself controlled, grants to Poor Law and local authorities. I asked whether there was any money in this Vote for the purposes with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who just sat down is dealing. I thought there was, because the summary at the bottom of the Vote says that part of the money is to meet loans to local authorities for the purpose of enabling them to carry out approved works for the relief of unemployment. I was told subsequently that enough money had been provided, and there is no money additional here for the Unemployment Grants Committee. Therefore there is no need to press the point except that the footnote is misleading. There is no money in the Supplementary Estimate, lumped together as it is—£730,100. The footnote suggests that part of that money is to
    2056
    help local authorities in their schemes It is not. In this case there is no money under that item. I asked, in order to be quite clear, as to how much was being spent on each of these items, if the Minister would consider setting out the footnote in detail, and I press that upon him now. The mistake to which I have referred would not have occurred if it had been set out in detail. I have to express my indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has set out how this item of £680,000 is made up in detail. First of all, there is £265,100 for land improvement and drainage. Obviously a good deal of that has been spent in advance of the Estimate. We are not going to spend over a quarter of a million between now and 31st March. I make no point of that. I am very glad the money was there, and the Government has to come now, as the previous Government would have had to do, to get sanction for it. But I wish to ask the Minister in charge of the Agriculture Vote to give us some particulars about how this work is proceeding, because the agricultural districts are rather badly hit and, as has been pointed out by him on at least one occasion this Session of Parliament, the agricultural labourer is not under the Insurance Act. Therefore, all we can do for him in this direction will be very desirable.
    There is down for light railways a sum of £20,500. I should be glad if the Minister of Transport would tell us how this part of it is being spent. That, by the way, is England and Wales only, and would not cover the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which, I imagine, will come up on some other Vote. I should have been glad of some particulars as to women's training. The revised Vote for women's training is 214,000, in addition to £35,000 in the original Estimate. That is not a new Vote at all. Nothing was voted this year for women's training. I must press that point. It is a re-vote of the year before, 1922–23 when I got £50,000 from the Treasury, of which £15,000 was spent and £35,000 is re-voted. That is the original Estimate for this year, and to that now is to he added, and gladly added, as far as I am concerned, £14,000. I should be glad to have some particulars as to how that £14,000 is to be spent between now and. 31st March. The Sup-

    2057
    plemntary Estimate for Juvenile Unemployment Centres is £45,000, the original Estimate being £25,000. Again, I do not press the point. The Minister of Labour has been very busy, and successfully busy, recently. An opportunity will arise when we can hear what he proposes to do in regard to juvenile unemployment centres. Loans to Poor Law authorities as set down in the footnote, that is to say distressed local authorities with exceptional eases for their financial purposes and to Poor Law authorities in necessitous areas in Great Britain, lumped together amount to £335,400. That is half the total. I wish to express my indebtedness to the Minister of Health for having furnished me with details of this £680,000, and again to ask him whether it would not be worth while to alter the common form and let the footnote be in detail so that hon. Members can know precisely how much money has been spent for each purpose and can be satisfied whether, in their opinion, it is enough. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether that can be done. This is not his common form. It is the common form of Treasury submission, I dare say from time immemorial, but these figures having got so large as the result of the long-continued slump, it becomes desirable to have them in detail, and I hope we may have an assurance that that shall he done.
    Sir LEONARD LYLE: I should like to ask whether the Government are prepared to give us a clear definition of their policy with regard to unemployment relief schemes, and particularly with regard to ex-service men. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has spoken of the necessity for giving relief to ex-service men in the Highlands, and from other quarters of the House we have heard of the necessity for finding relief in other centres of this country. Can the Minister of Health say definitely what is the policy of the Government generally in regard to ex-service men? What conditions are they going to lay down with regard to local authorities to whom loans are granted for the purpose of enabling them to carry on approved work? Are they going to lay down definite terms to these local authorities? What percentage of such employment is to be compulsory under these schemes and what proportion of
    2058
    the labour employed is to consist of ex-service men, provided that such labour is available? Do the Government recognise any preferential treatment for ex-service men? In my opinion, a preference should be given to ex-service men in all these relief works and schemes, and I think the Committee and the public generally would like to know the policy of the Government in that respect. It is not always possible to find ex-service men available.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, it is.
    Sir L. LYLE: It is in many cases, but not always in a definite percentage. I respectfully suggest that at least 75 per cent. of ex-service men should be employed on every job. I suggest that seriously for consideration by the Government, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give me a reply. Are the Government co-operating with the British Legion in order to obtain full information of the whereabouts of ex-service men who need work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I will reply to the questions put by the right hon. Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnarnara,). I do not quarrel with him in the emphasis he lays upon the question of land improvement and drainage, because there is no section of the community to whom work is of more importance than the rural workers, and that very largely because they are onside the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In so far as the figure of £1,700,000 is concerned, £250,000 has been provided for schemes of land drainage and water supply. That applies to 352 land drainage schemes and 85 schemes of water supply. In examining this question I discovered that there were 140 schemes for which no provision had been made and, therefore, unless that position could be met, those schemes could not be carried out in the current period. Representations were at once made for a grant of a further sum of £60,000 in order that the schemes might at once be put in hand. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that every scheme that has been submitted to the Ministry will now be taken up, and we hope completed by the middle of the year. In order to give the fullest scope in this

    2059
    direction we have been able to extend the period of time during which these schemes are to operate. They will be extended to June. The right hon. Gentleman will see that so far as this particular Vote is concerned, and especially in regard to land drainage, the Ministry have gone forward. If more has not been provided so tar as rural employment is concerned, it is because the Ministry have not had submitted to them at, the moment any more schemes than are covered by the Vote. I hope this explanation will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will feel assured that everything possible has been done.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Are we to understand that you expect to spend £265,000 by 31st March, or had it already been spent before the Estimates were presented?
    Mr. SMITH: I ought to have explained that some of these schemes are already in hand and some of them possibly are nearing completion, and some may have been completed. It is the complete programme that is covered by this Vote.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Minister of Transport give me a reply?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I am informed that the last time there was a meeting with the local people and the Department they had not been able to make an arrangement with the main line company for making the railway, nor had they been able to raise any more local money, but if any further fresh facts come to the Department we will look into them.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can I have a guarantee that the Minister will look into the matter personally, and will consider this scheme a valid scheme for consideration under this particular Vote.
    Mr. GOSLING: I will look into it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The sum of £20,500 in this Supplementary Estimate has nothing to do with Dingwall. The £20,500 to which I have referred relates to England and Wales. Dingwall is in Scotland, and there is another Vote for that. For what purpose is this £20,500 to be voted?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am sorry that I cannot answer, for two reasons; one is that
    2060
    I do not know, and the other that I am engaged in a Committee.
    Mr. CLIMIE: I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising on this Vote money required by local authorities to carry on their work. The local authority at Kilmarnock put up a scheme to the Unemployment Grants Committee, and that scheme would have meant an expenditure of £120,000, and would have given a considerable amount of work to the unemployed.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise that matter on this Vote.
    Mr. CLIMIE: I thought that I might have been able to raise the point, but as no money is being asked under this Vote for the particular scheme I have in mind I will not pursue my remarks.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Various claims have been put forward from different parts of the House on behalf of certain necessitous areas, and I should like to address a question to the Minister of Health in regard to the general question of necessitous areas and the assistance given under this Vote by way of loans to local authorities and Poor Law guardians in order to assist them where their burdens are unduly heavy owing to abnormal unemployment. Can the Minister see his way to improve on the policy of his predecessor, and not merely explain the amount of money that is lent, but also the conditions under which that money was put forward. It must be obvious to the Committee that where you have districts already heavily overburdened, where their rates are up to 20s. and more in the £, it is very little relief to them to say, "You may increase the amount of your indebtedness in order to get out of your immediate difficulties." You are only adding to the burden and you are only piling up the agony. It is no real assistance from the Government merely to allow these districts to increase their borrowing powers. I appeal to the Minister of Health to say whether he can give more generous assistance to the large number of necessitous areas scattered about the country, more particularly in the heavy iron and steel districts, where their rate of unemployment is double and treble that of the average amount of unemployment throughout the country, and

    2061
    whether the nation as a whole is not prepared to take on to its shoulders its proper share of that which is a national rather than a local burden. I know that the Minister is seized of the fact and that he has kindly offered to receive a deputation on Monday. I hope that when the deputation from the various authorities meet him he will be encouraged by what may happen here this afternoon to lend a sympathetic ear to their request.
    I should like to ask a question as to the conditions under which grants are made to local authorities. One hon. Member made reference to the ex-service men. I would like to put a question with regard to the Circular which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the 15th May of last year requiring that where relief work was undertaken the materials required for that particular purpose should be bought entirely within these islands. Is it his intention to continue the policy of his predecessor? Yesterday we were told that he had inherited many of the difficulties and many problems that confront us, but I submit that this particular point as to the conditions laid down in the Circular of 15th May last comes under an Order of the Minister which the present Minister, if he so wills it, can reverse and repeal. His hands are not tied, so far as future administration is concerned, by the action of his predecessor in this matter, but he can strike out a line of his own. That praticular condition has worked very adversely with regard to many local authorities, who are required to pay for the materials, which they are using in their relief work, much higher prices than they would have paid if they had bought the material abroad. The particular instance which I have in mind is that of cement, which was referred to the other day by the Minister in the case of the Middlesbrough Corporation.
    Mr. CLIMIE: On a point of Order. I was not allowed to discuss the questions of loans to local authorities, but the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is discussing a question arising out of loans to local authorities.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member (Mr. Climie) was dealing with Scotland.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is Scotland ruled out?
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Vote deals with grants to local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out that this particular Vote, which is under "unclassified services," refers to the Unemployed Grants Committee, which has jurisdiction both in Scotland and in England.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Having regard to the misleading character of the discussion on this Vote, I must press this point. Some of the money is to go, by way of loans, to local authorities for the purposes of enabling them to carry out the good work of the relief of unemployment, and surely, in a matter of this kind, a little indulgence must be allowed, having regard to the fact that the Vote is described as it is.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The actual words are:
    "necessitous Poor Law authorities in Great Britain."
    Mr. HARDIE: The heading is: "Schemes for the employment of labour on land improvement and drainage, railways, etc."
    Could not cement or anything else come in under etc?
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thomson.
    Mr. HARDIE: I want to know if when we are discussing railways, it will be open to me to argue that these railways are to be made for industrial purposes so as to facilitate the manufacture of pig iron?
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not travel outside the Vote.
    Mr. THOMSON: The point which I want to make comes within the province of this Vote. It refers to the administration of the Minister of Health with regard to the expenditure of money by local authorities on unemployment work, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his considered policy to carry out a protective system by imposing on local authorities the obligation to restrict their purchases to materials of British manufacture.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Hear, hear!
    Mr. THOMSON: That, no doubt, meets with the approval of the late President of the Board of Trade, whose policy met with such disaster at the recent General Election. But I am sure that those who were returned on a Free Trade vote will not continue for one day longer than is necessary the policy which is adding to the burden of local authorities by compelling them to narrow their market, and also bolstering up combines and trusts, by putting the price of materials for unemployment work up to a higher figure. The Middlesbrough Corporation, of which I have the honour to be a member, has been engaged on unemployed relief work, making and reconditioning roads under these grants, for the last 12 months. We found that the price which we had to pay for British cement was so high that it was reducing the amount of work which we could undertake, and therefore reducing the number of men who would be employed under the grants which are made to us under this particular Vote. Therefore we found it necessary to break the ring by going outside and trying to get these materials at a more reasonable price.
    When we started this work we were charged by the combine 68s. 6d. per ton for cement, whereas we could buy in the foreign markets at something like 53s. 6d. Even the late Government, with all its Protectionist leanings, sanctioned the purchase of Belgian and French cement to provide work for the unemployed, and they did this in every case, except one case in which they said, "You must buy the British-made article." Even as late as November last year the last Act of the late Government was to sanction the purchase by the Middlesborough Corporation of Belgian cement at 43s. 6d. per ton, as compared by the 54s. charged by the British combine, in order that we might employ more men on relief works within our borough. The first act of the right hon. Gentleman, who was returned as a champion of Free Trade at the last Election, is to reverse the decision of a Protectionist Government, and to refuse to allow the Middlesborough Corporation to buy foreign cement for their road-making, though there is a difference of 11s. per ton in the price asked. The quality of the cement was exactly the same in each case. They were subject to the same tests and the same specification.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, what is the economic factor that enables Belgium to sell cement at 11s. a ton cheaper?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot go into these economic matters.
    Mr. THOMSON: You are able to employ fewer men on road making, and consequently there is less work, if you have to pay these high prices for the materials that are required. You are bolstering up trusts and combines by refusing to allow the local authorities to use foreign material for their roads. I am glad to say that the Middlesbrough Corporation, at their meeting this week, refused to comply with the request of the Minister of Health, and they have re-affirmed their decision to buy the cement from abroad at 43s. per ton, instead of paying 54s. to the combine.
    Sir FRANCIS WATSON: Is not Belgian cement admitted by experts to be inferior to British.
    Mr. THOMSON: In the opinion of our surveyor, who has used this material for over a year, it serves as well as British cement. The tests and specification were exactly the same, whether it was for British or foreign cement, and the actual working experience of the Middlesbrough Corporation was that it was as satisfactory for road making as the cement made by the combine, while the price was very much less.
    I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be harder upon the local authorities than were his predecessors in office. They allowed us, even on a margin of 5s. a ton difference, to import French and Belgian cement. Now that there is a difference of 10s. or 11s., it is in the interest of the relief of unemployment, and those who are engaged in road making, to allow the local authority to do what it wishes in this matter, and there is no loss to the country in importing the foreign cement, for we send out other goods in exchange for it, and the manufacture of those other goods, as the electorate showed they believed at the last election, gives more work for the unemployed. I need not press that point on the right hon. Gentleman, who knows as much about it as anybody else, but I do stress the fact that a local authority, whose rates are 20s. in the £, cannot afford to pay £200 or £300 a

    2065
    month to bolster up the fads of Protectionists here. It is essential that we should be able to buy our materials as cheaply as possible, and be able to employ as many men as we can.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have listened to a most amazing and deplorable speech. I am not going to argue the question of Free Trade and Protection with the hon. Gentleman on this Vote, but he has put forward an astounding proposition. Whenever any Minister, in the administration of unemployment relief, has come to the House of 'Commons with these different schemes, which have had the support of successive Governments, whether the Trade Facilities Act, the Export Credits scheme, or Lord St. David's Committee, in all of which cases the credit of the. State is used, and actual grants are given out of the public Exchequer for the relief of unemployment, it has been laid down consistently in every one of these schemes that if you were using the credit of the British taxpayer for the relief of unemployment, that money was to be spent on British labour. I should have thought that the most hard-shelled Free Trader would have admitted that that was a necessary corollary to obtaining money for the relief of unemployment out of the pockets of the taxpayer, but the hon. Gentleman says. "Let us not do that, let us buy the cheapest market with this money which is voted by the House of Commons to relieve unemployment, and if we can get the cement at 6d. or 1s. cheaper—"
    Mr. THOMSON: It was 10s. cheaper.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not mind what it is. If the hon. Gentleman's case is a sound case, in the way in which he puts it, he should buy the foreign goods, even if they were only 6d. cheaper. Therefore we are asked to forego the whole principle on which succesive Governments, Liberal or Conservative, or even Labour have based the relief of unemployment.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Government allowed local authorities to buy foreign cement when the price came within 5s. of the British price?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am perfectly aware of everything done by my
    2066
    own Government in this matter, but I am dealing with the principle which was enunciated by the hon. Gentleman that it was contrary to the principles of Free Trade to lay down the condition that the money voted by the British taxpayer for the relief of unemployment should find its way into the pockets of British working people. I would make a very firm appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has to administer this, to carry on the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and successive Governments followed in this matter, and to stick to the principle incorporated in the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Act, laid down by the last Government and the Government before that and the Government before that again, that money for the relief of unemployment should find its way to the pockets of the British workmen. Otherwise the schemes would be a farce, and it would be better that we should vote money to support the Free Trade Union. I do hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman who administers this will not give way at all. I can assure him that, if he stands firm on this matter, he will not be transgressing any Free Trade or any other principle, but he will only be doing what any common-sense man placed in his position would do.
    5.0 P.M.
    You will very often find that you are able to buy material abroad cheaper. Where you have wages which are half the cost of British wages, of course, you get cheaper production. I am not going to argue the merits of Free Trade and Protection on this point, but I would say that, when you are dealing with unemployment, you are dealing with a specific problem and you are not called upon to buy the very cheapest stuff for this purpose. Otherwise we ought not to be engaged in this form of relief at all. We ought to encourage everyone to import into the country, as if that would be a sufficient remedy for the evils from which we are suffering and a sufficient consolation to the unemployed. It is interesting to observe—though I feel sure that this could not have any connection with the motive which has prompted the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough in making his speech—it is interesting that Middlesbrough, which

    2067
    is interested in the free importation of cement from Belgium, is, I believe, the port to which cement comes in very large quantities from the Continent. I do not want to support the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the expense of the taxpayers and against the interests of the cement makers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman gives way on this, he must give way all along the line. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough would like to see the Trade Facilities Act used to guarantee public bodies in buying foreign goods. The Minister will have the support of the House and for once the support of the Members behind him in resisting this. A point was made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough in regard to the price of cement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) and myself set up a Committee, which I imagine is still sitting, to watch the prices of building material and make regular reports in regard to them. As far as I have been able to see from the reports of that Committee, there has been no rise at all in the price of cement. That Committee is far more qualified to speak on this subject than the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, and I have not seen any sign in their report that they have found any profiteering of the kind alleged.
    In regard to what the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell has said, I agree with him entirely as to the desirability of setting out this Vote in a form that he who runs may read. I would point out the remarkable contrast between the paucity of the information given on page 24, in Item (a), which deals with the money we are asked to vote and the objects for which we are asked to vote it, and the extraordinarily specific information given on page 26, where in the utmost detail are set out the items of the last Government's programme on which we are not asked to vote money. It would have been more useful if page 26 had been an omnibus Clause and paragraph (a) on page 24 had set out in detail what the items are. I observe that £100,000 have been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund for the local authorities, and I would like the Minister to describe to the House what is the financial process and the financial authority under which that
    2068
    is taken from that fund. I see that this is to be given to distressed local authorities under exceptional circumstances, and the Minister will not think I am making a personal point on this when I say I would like a firm assurance from the hon. Gentleman that no part of these grants issued by Lord St. Davids Committee or by his Ministry to specially necessitous local authorities will be issued to the Poplar Board of Guardians. This is a very important question of principle. I want this instance of maladministration to remain singular and not to be encouraged to become plural. The ether point I wish to make is this. In regard to Item (c), I would like to ask the Minister how the negotiations with the Menai Bridge authorities stand, and when he anticipates this work can be put in hand. I would like to ask him whether any other negotiations have been entered into with other local authorities who submitted bridge schemes, either of construction or re-construction, which would lead to the placing of large engineering orders. I come back to the vital point, which I would not have raised but for the astounding appeal made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I do hope that when we have a so-called Labour Government in power they will see that the moneys voted for the relief of unemployment goes to British labour.
    Mr. B. SMITH: What is the economic factor that permits the Belgians to sell cement to this country at, 11s. a ton less than the price at which we are able to buy it in this country? Is it the fact that agreements are made on the basis of 35 francs to the £ in Belgium, which is a low labour cost, or is it the disparity in exchange? Would we not be right in this country in purchasing the home produce instead of sending our money abroad?
    Mr. L. JONES: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) in his disquisition on Free Trade and Protection. But if the Minister of Health wants information as to the real implications of Free Trade and its hearing on this Middlesbrough question, he should consult Free Traders rather than right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, we are better judges of what is Free Trade than are hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you want information about a thing it is bettor to

    2069
    go to those who believe in it rather than to those who reject it. During my life I have very seldom found opponents who are able to put with absolute fairness the case of their opponents. That is a tu quoque argument, I know. I rose to reinforce the opinion of the right hon. Member for Hendon about the form in which this Vote is presented. Ministers would get their Supplementary Estimates through the Committee with far greater ease if, in the first instance, they would give to the Committee the information which they have in their possession. We have an instance here.
    We were asked for a jump sum of £680,000 for various purposes, some purposes being included for which there is no money in the Vote. And all the while full information is in the possession of the different Departments. That information has been given to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) on account of a speech which he made last night, and I have now in my hand a full statement, lent by him, of the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, and of the provision under the different headings in connection with which money is to be spent. There is not the smallest reason why a Supplementary Estimate should not give the information fully. I would press upon Ministers that in future they should give to us all the information that is in their possession. No Minister likes coming to the House with Supplementary Estimates; it is always unpleasant to be catechised for spending more money than has been voted. I am glad to see upon the Treasury Bench the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I wish to put questions to her on the Supplementary Estimates relating to women's training and juvenile unemployment centres. I see that there is an increase of £14,000 for women's training, and of £45,000 for juvenile unemployment centres—almost double the original provision. Has this money already been spent, or it is to be spent before the end of March?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I would like to deal with four points which have been raised, and with the last first. With regard to juvenile a standard percentage, and those unemployment centres, £50,000 is the amount which it is estimated will be spent
    2070
    up to the end of the financial year, but it covers the period from June last to the end of the financial year. With regard to the women's branch, that again is a case in which hon. Members will remember that a further third £50,000 was promised at the end of last year. This £14,000 is part of that £50,000 which it was estimated would be spent. These Estimates are inheritances.
    Mr. L. JONES: Has this money already been largely spent before the House has voted it?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No. The £14,000 is part of the £50,000 promised by the previous Government, and it will be spent by 31st March. It is not, in fact, spent, because the classes are concurrently running for 13 weeks, and much of the expenditure is at the end of the Session, of the classes. A certain amount is spent week by week.
    Mr. L. JONES: What would happen to these centres in the case of women's training if the House declined to vote the money to-day? Is it not clear that the money has been already promised without the authority of the House, and that we are now asked to confirm what is done?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is the exact position. But I submit that if we had come to you and had said that, in view of the fact that the Government had promised this £50,000, and that because of an Election which no one could foresee we had been unable to get the Vote passed and we had held these women up in mid-air, the censure would have been very much greater. Another point raised related to ex-service men. The Cabinet decision is that no change should be made in the arrangement by which 75 per cent of those employed on relief works should be ex-service men.
    Mr. MILLS: What would be the attitude of the Ministry to areas such as Portsmouth, Devonport or Woolwich, where vast numbers of skilled mechanics who volunteered for the War were sent back into the workshops? What is to happen in such cases, where the percentage of ex-service men is very small? It is a great problem.
    Miss BONDFIELD: The percentage is a standard percentage, and those points are and will be specifically taken into account. A fourth point

    2071
    related to co-operation with the British Legion. The Departments are cooperating with the King's Roll Council in the matter of taking another census, and there is no doubt that the matter will be proceeded with. The Ministry received only last week a deputation from the executive of the Legion, and I think I may say that we completely satisfied them with regard to co-operation.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I wish to refer to the questions of juvenile employment and assistance of training for women. In the last Parliament we had a guarantee that there would be considerable extension of the opportunities for the training of young people. One of the tragedies that is most marked during this tremendous trade depression and unemployment is the enormous number of young people who have been turned into the streets at 16 years of age. When they leave school at 14 the percentage of unemployment amongst them is very small; they are taken on in various capacities and do unskilled work. When they reach 16 years of age, unfortunately, they are dismissed from their employment and hang about the street corners, learning bad ways and not acquiring skill in any industry. I agree that the masters are very much to blame, but far the moment I wish to deal with the Vote before the Committee. We began with a very sketchy scheme. If these training centres are to be a success there must be some security, some permanence. If you are to get the right man and the right woman to take up this work, if it is to be organised on the right lines, and if those concerned are to get the right training, and if the young people are to be attracted to them, these centres must be organised on a permanent basis and on sound lines. I am not criticising the amount of the expenditure; I should like to see it very much larger. I wish the training centres were very much more general, and that the matter had been left entirely to the education authorities, for I think they would have been more efficient. But looking right ahead, I plead with the Government give all the moral support possible to a development of the training of young people between 16 and 18.
    Miss BONDFIELD: I can assure the hon. Member that that matter is definitely under consideration, and we
    2072
    hope to get a co-ordinated scheme with the Board of Education, which will bridge the terrible gap that now exists between unemployment schemes and education.
    Mr. HARRIS: That is very encouraging, and with the sympathetic guidance of the first lady Minister we ought to have very good results. On the question of the training of women one of the tragedies of the time is the enormous number of women who have to earn their own living—widows and young women who have to rely on their own strong right hands to keep themselves. Nearly all the schemes brought before this Committee and before Parliament are to help able-bodied men by means of road work, drainage schemes, and such things. Unfortunately women, being the weaker sex, cannot do such work. When a great trade depression comes along, there are very few opportunities for women to get work. A good deal has been done in training for domestic service, and now that we have a lady Minister, she might use her ingenuity to see that there is much wider scope for the training of women. Domestic service is very useful, and I am not depreciating it. Nothing is more useful or necessary. But some people have not the aptitude or taste for it, and they should have opportunities of learning other trades, arts or industries.
    Before resuming my seat, I would like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Hendon, who was President of the Board of Trade in the last Government. Many of us never understood why we were all plunged into a General Election. We had a great opinion of the cool judgment of the late Prime Minister. Now we understand. It was the wiles and theories of the ex-President of the Board of Trade. He is unrepentant, and still sticks to his fallacious doctrines. The right hon. Gentleman had much to say in reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on cement. Does he realise that these imports of cement have to be paid for somehow? We have no gold mines in this country. The Belgian people are not benefactors, who merely wish to present us with cement in order to help our unemployed. Somehow or other the imports have to he paid for, and the cement will be paid for sooner or later by manufactured goods

    2073
    made by British labour in British workshops. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that when imports are large, exports are large, and that when imports are large, the percentage of unemployment is small.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling rather wide of the question before the Committee.
    Mr. HARRIS: I put to the Minister on this question of cement one important point. There is undoubtedly a combine of cement manufacturers in this country. Practically the whole of the cement manufacturing industry is in the hands of a ring and no cement manufacturer would have a chance who did not belong to the ring. Even if I were a Protectionist, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, this is a case where I should consider there is not a free market and where it is most necessary to permit and even to encourage the importation of foreign goods. The London County Council, which at present has Protectionist leanings, was forced to buy foreign light castings because of the high price of English material. This is a question of securing cheap materials. The problem we have to face is the high cost of building material, and if we bring the high costs down, it, will be of advantage in the construction of factories and the building of houses and will indirectly benefit all trades. One of the great troubles in connection with relief works is the heavy cost. When deputations appear before Ministers to propose new roads, the stereotyped reply is, that the cost is too heavy. Surely, if we are to employ as many men as possible of the unskilled trades on road construction, the local authorities should be able to draw their raw material from as many markets as possible. To add to the cost of raw material is to discourage the construction of roads and, therefore, to discourage the employment of unskilled labour. I say to the Minister that he should not allow himself to be bound too much by the actions of his predecessors. Many of us on this side of the House voted to turn out the late. Government because it was a bad Government, and we hope this Government is going to prove that our action was right.
    Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member dealing with the Vote before the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is travelling wide of the subject.
    Mr. HARRIS: I conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Minister to show himself independent of the actions of his predecessors. If they have done unwise things, let him show his independence of character and give a new lead and a new spirit to the work of the Ministry of Health.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I rise to draw attention to one item in the Vote, namely, that relating to the Menai Bridge. The late President of the I3oard of Trade referred to this type of work as being particularly useful in that it gave, work to people on the spot as well as to workers in the steel and other industries. I wish to direct attention to, the fact that in respect of the Menai Bridge an exceptional state of affairs exists, inasmuch as an Exchequer grant—money not from the Road Fund but the Exchequer—enters into this particular case. The Committee will remember that in the cases of bridge schemes, the negotiations are usually between the local authorities and the Ministry of Transport and deal with money collected in respect of the Road Fund. This is the only case in which the position is different. I know from my own experience there are many cases of negotiations which might he brought to a successful conclusion by a very small contribution from the Exchequer rather than by leaving it entirely on the Road Fund. I know myself, from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, that one is often urged to grant a bigger percentage than 50 per cent, on the basis that much more work could be undertaken, but that one has to bear in mind that there is only a certain amount of money available and if one can distribute that money on a 50 per cent. basis it is the best way of getting the most work. In such cases one has only a definite amount of money out of the Road Fund to deal with, but this particular case is an exception. It is the only bridge being built to-day in connection with which a grant, outside the Road Fund, is given. It is

    2075
    that grant which is included in this particular Vote. I notice only £100 is asked this year, but it will go up, in future years, to £50,000. It has always been the policy of the Ministry of Transport to see that, if money is taken out of the Road Fund to help to rebuild a bridge, that bridge must from that moment be free from tolls. It has always been held that if you take money from the taxpayer to rebuild a bridge you cannot take the money from him by the process of taxation and at the same time compel him to pay to go over the bridge which his money has built. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know if, in the many negotiations which go on from day to day between the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities, in which arrangements just fail to be arrived at because of the last £10,000 or £5,000, he could not persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant, not from the Road Fund but from the Exchequer Fund, just that small amount of money which would change so many of these schemes from visions into realities affording actual employment.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): Many points have been raised since I addressed the Committee yesterday afternoon. On rising to reply to these points, I appeal to the Committee, in view of the many Votes we have to take, some of them very contentious, and providing opportunities for any number of speeches, to allow me to get this particular Vote through so that we may take up the other important Votes awaiting consideration. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) asked that this statement. should be submitted to the Committee in a more detailed form in the future, and both he and the late President of the Board of Trade expressed the view that this Government might be expected to do things much better than they were done in the past. I have much pleasure in assuring them that that will be done. In regard to the question of the necessitous areas into which the question of cement has been imported, I am glad the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) does not expect me to deal with it to any considerable extent, in view of the fact that I have promised to receive a deputation on the question early next week, and I wish to keep an open
    2076
    mind, so that I will not prejudice my decision on the representations which I presume that deputation will make to me. I simply wish to correct the hon. Member on one point. He stated that I was returned as a Free Trader and, therefore, should enter with great sympathy into the case he made for the importation of foreign cement into Middlesbrough. I am in a more fortunate position. I was not returned as a Free Trader; neither was I returned as a Protectionist; so that I am eminently suited to act as judge between the two parties who have addressed the Committee on this subject. The Unemployment Grants Committee laid down a Regulation, as pointed out by the late President of the Board of Trade, that only British material is to be subsidised. That is the policy and the view of the late Government. On that also I have an open mind, and I promise to have it brought before the Committee and to have the matter reconsidered, so that the policy of the future may be the policy of the present Government, whatever that policy may be.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to alter the policy which has hitherto been followed by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the instructions to that Committee, that British material only is to be used unless in very exceptional circumstances, will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before he changes that policy?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Will there be any representative of the British cement industry on the deputation which the right hon. Gentleman is to receive?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This deputation is going to put its case before me, and I have no doubt if time permits and other interested parties want to be heard by the Minister, an opportunity may be found for them to follow.
    Mr. THOMSON: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping an open mind? Will he continue the practice of the late Government in sanctioning the importation of foreign cement where the price is more than 5s. less than the British price?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Obviously, until this Government has an opportunity of framing its policy on this question and every other question, it must pursue the policy it has inherited.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a matter of great importance. He says he is going to reconsider the principle that it should be a rule to subsidise British materials only. Will he give an undertaking that, before that policy is altered, the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had risen in his place the second time, to ask me a fresh question, and I am surprised that, having put the question to me, he should not give me an opportunity for replying. The position of the Government in the House is such that any decision it comes to can be, I am sorry to say, controlled by this House, and I do not think that I, on behalf of the Government, need give a pledge that I will not give away the privileges of the House in any decision at which I or my Department arrive. I am very sorry to learn from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the council of which he is a distinguished member is, in this case, in revolt against the Ministry of Health. I hope Poplar has not spread to Middlesbrough; and I hope on a future occasion, when bodies of that kind have their conduct under review in this House, the hon. Member's spirit of revolt will express itself in sympathy for other people who are in the same category. Much as I should like to do so, I shall not enter into the discussion between the Free Trade principle and the Protectionist principle as laid down here this evening, further than, as a judge, to say this. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) says that if we import cement from Belgium to Middlesbrough we must pay for it with goods from Great Britain. Obviously, the Belgians do not give the cement for nothing, but I should like the hon. Member to turn over in his mind whether, when we get cement from an English firm, we get it for nothing, or whether it also has not to be paid for, and whether there is, ultimately, any other method of paying for it except with other goods.
    On the general question of the necessitous areas. I should like to say without
    2078
    prejudice to my decision that the Government have made a very good beginning by abolishing the gap. Anyone who knows the burden that has been placed on local authorities by the policy of the late Government will recognise the relief that has been granted to those authorities by the present Government during its four weeks in office. The right hon. Member for Hendon, the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), asked me to give a guarantee to this House—and he repeated it—that none of this money would be advanced to Poplar, or other guardians, I suppose, controlled by the same views. What I admire most in this House is the inconsistency of its prominent Members. This is not a proposal to advance money to local authorities that is put before the House for the first time. Already, under previous Governments, £2,775,138 has been advanced by the Government of the right hon. Member and by a Government of which he was a supporter, and of that money no less than £506,500 has been advanced to the Poplar Board of Guardians. Yet the right hon. Member comes to this House, and he says to me, after I have been four weeks in office: "Before we vote this money we want you to give us a solemn pledge that you will not do what we did when we occupied your position."
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that our action with regard to the Poplar Guardians was very different from his own. I do not want to debate it now, as we shall have an opportunity on Tuesday.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not want to anticipate that Debate either, but I think it is necessary, when I am asked for a pledge to the House, that I should state the policy adopted by the right hon. Member who asks the pledge during the time when he was not merely in office, but also in power.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Was not the policy of the late Government a policy of in-action?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to make it quite clear—and I hope I am not anticipating the Debate—that the credit of the Board of Guardians at Poplar stood very high with the late Government. There is one other thing that I want to refer to. It should be answered by the Min-

    2079
    ister of Transport, who, I am sorry, is not present, but I am sure he would have been here had he known the point was to be raised. I cannot give a great deal of information regarding the Menai Bridge proposal, further than what the hon. Member himself expressed. The sum of £100 asked for in the Vote is part of a sum of £50,000, and the balance will appear in future Votes. The difference in the cost between what is contributed by the Exchequer and the total will be found by the local authorities concerned and by the Road Fund. I am asked if I could not persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow those for whom I am asking the money in certain emergencies to finance a further £5,000 or £10,000 in order to expedite certain schemes that would deal with unemployment. I would be very, very sorry, much as I sympathise with the spirit that prompts the suggestion, to begin my period in office by saying that I would spend any money until I had the authority of this House to do so. I think it is a good sound policy that in anything of that kind we should have the authority of the House of Commons before we do it. Might I appeal now to the Committee to allow us to get this Vote through and to proceed with the next business?
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point that I raised with regard to the Booth Ferry Bridge and connecting road, and whether money from this Vote will be forthcoming to make up the small amount which has not been raised by the combined local authorities to make up the other half, the first half having been promised by the Minister of Transport.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: On page 25 of the White Paper there is an item:
    "Forestry Fund (2). The expenditure out of the grant made under Sub-head B will be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on 31st March, 1924, will not be liable to surrender by the payee.''
    What is the meaning of that? If that money is carried over, does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a right policy to do so, and what happens to it if it is carried over? The First Commissioner of Works will remember that the Public Accounts Committee, on which I had the
    2080
    honour of serving, objected to this very thing, and I should like to know the policy of the Minister with regard to this money.
    Mr. ACLAND: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), as to the Forestry Fund, I think I can give the answer, as I happen to represent the Forestry Commission in the House, and am at present acting as Chairman of that Commission. It is not like an Estimate of an ordinary Department, which is voted every year, and of which unexpended balances go back to the Treasury and are used, as we know to reduce the National Debt. When the Forestry Act was passed, the Forestry Commissioners were given a special Forestry Fund of £3,500,000, and unexpended balances for a particular year go back into that Fund. It is earmarked for forestry work alone, and is, therefore, in rather a different position from that of the ordinary Estimates.
    Sir F. WISE: What is happening to the Fund now?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is being administered by the Forestry Commission. If there is money left over at the end of the year, it makes it necessary for us to ask for less money out of the Fund in the next year.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: There is one point that has been raised in the Debate, on which I should be glad for further information, and that is the question of the juvenile unemployment centres mentioned in this Vote.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Maenamara) must be satisfied that the Minister in charge of that Department will carry out the policy that he advocates, and in a very expeditious and sympathetic manner. I would like to say to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) that this is really a point for the Ministry of Transport, but if he will favour me by giving me particulars of the case to which he refers, I will consult the Minister of Labour and see what I can do to meet him.
    Mr. MILLS: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) raised the question of Belgian cement as against British cement. I am a Member

    2081
    of this Parliament elected on a Free Trade vote, but I want to put this position to him and to the Minister concerned. Is it not a fact that the Profiteering Tribunal reported to this House gross profiteering in materials for the building industry, and, if that be so, what is there to prevent two things being achieved, namely, first, the utilisation of wasting human energy in Britain, and at the same time a searching inquiry into and limitation of profits in any work utilised for the relief of unemployment? The immediate purpose of my rising is this fact, that over and over again this House, and particularly the mad motorist section of the House, who are only concerned about the manufacture of roads, have failed to see or to take any cognisance of the fact that we have in this country the deterioration, mentally, morally, and physically, of some of the finest craftsmen in Great Britain. Let me give an illustration in regard to this road business. Last week I had the opportunity of putting a skilled mechanic in the way of getting employment. During the War this man was selected always for the most skilled experiments in breach gun mechanism, but since the demobilisation of industry in the engineering trade, since 1920, he has done only three months' work.
    The solution for unemployment provided by hon. Members opposite has given skilled workmen the opportunity of going on to the roadways of our country, there to give of their skill. These men are only craftsmen because of a sense of touch. That sense of touch, developed after years of handling really delicate mechanism, has been ruined, bruised, and destroyed by work upon the roads. When this particular man had an opportunity of getting a job, the process was reversed. In a period of War, when there are more jobs than men, the employers are very solicitous as to what they should do for their men, and welfare committees and every other kind of committee are set up, but in 1924 there are more men than jobs, and so they say: "You must do a test job." Here is a man who on the records of His Majesty's mechanics stands highest in any one of the shops in Woolwich Arsenal, yet he fails to pass a test job, for no other reason than the fact that the crude idea of the solution of unemployment held by hon. Members opposite is to rob a man of his skill by making him do the kind
    2082
    of work that they want. In this Vote there is no mention whatever, except in that beautifully vague word, "etcetera," of the utilisation of the wasting skilled energy now floating about in Great Britain, and the Chairman of Committees of this House, who was formerly the general secretary of this particular union, is as well aware as I am of a problem which in itself constitutes the degradation of the engineering industry to the position of a sweated industry.
    Hon. Members can go from this House, and, mounting a, London General omnibus, can have their fares taken by men who are now holding the ticket of membership of the Engineering Union, and drawing as omnibus conductors 7s. a week more than if they had a job at their own trade. Recently in Newcastle, a tram conductor who took my ticket was a skilled workman, giving up all hope of ever getting a job at his own trade, and glad to take any kind of job that came along. They are in your police forces and in other forces, but in the economy of a nation what kind of madness is it that has possessed those who presume to possess a monopoly of genius? I am hoping that this team of common sense that has occupied the Front Bench for the last four weeks will approach this problem with a new idea and that if the Supplementary Estimate makes no provision immediately for dealing with this problem of wasting human skill, they will nevertheless do so in relation to the skilled trades of Great Britain. There is a possibility of utilising skilled energy, but meanwhile tragedies are taking place. One took place only this week, where skilled men are walking the streets, and unskilled labour is brought in, without supervision or training, to do skilled work, leading to tragedy because of the lack of the elementary knowledge required to carry on the job.
    I feel that this protest ought to be made. The engineering industry was used during the War. It never struck once for an increase of wages during the whole of the War, and when once it did withhold its labour, on the ground of principle, the hon. Members below the Gangway and opposite can testify that the principle upon which they withheld their labour was to prevent the dilution of skilled labour on commercial work, for no other reason than that at that time, when there was not enough war material available for

    2083
    those engaged in munition making, the employers would have had raw material badly needed for munitions to be used on ordinary commercial work. Dr. Addison, when Minister of Munitions, was confronted with that problem. As soon as he saw that point of view, he agreed to meet the engineering executive, and, directly that was done, the dispute was settled, and since that time the men who served this country as well as any other section of the community, some of whom enlisted and were brought back to the workshops because they were deemed more useful there, have, since 1919, gone through a period of travail that, in my judgment, ought to come to an end. I do hope the sympathy of this House will be enlisted on behalf of a body of men who, in themselves, constitute an asset to the country, but constitute a menace to this country if they are allowed to emigrate to other countries, because of the rate of wages, when we shall probably need them in the immediate future.
    Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I should like to know how much of this £50,000, which is a small sum, is to be spent in Scotland and, in partcular, in the Highlands. In the year which has just passed the crops in the Western Highlands have entirely failed, and a very large number of people are out of employment, much beyond those on the ordinary lists of unemployed. It would, therefore, be a most beneficial thing if a much larger sum could be devoted for the purposes of forestry. Although the amount of distress this year is extreme, it is not unusual in a milder form. Agriculture in the West part of Scotland is not of such a nature that crops can be guaranteed every year, as in other parts of the country, and, as a consequence, a subsidiary crop is necessary if the people are really to be kept in the country. Such a subsidiary crop could be provided by timber, which is badly required in this country, and in future years will be required in very much greater quantity, because the supply of foreign timber is undoubtedly not equal to the demand even to-day. Moreover, forestry in itself would be for the Government a paying concern, because it would not only relieve unemployment at the present moment, but would store up
    2084
    abundance for years to come, while providing useful employment for people who otherwise would have to emigrate.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) to pass without some comment. It is simply canting humbug to say that to employ a skilled engineer on road work appreciably deteriorates his skill. It is nonsense. It is the sort of cant to which we have got accustomed in this country. There is not the least doubt that in a fortnight an engineer, fitter or turner, who is really skilled will recover totally from the effect on his skill of years of road work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. Member for Dartford had to earn his living honestly again, he would find—
    Dr. HADEN GUEST: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that another hon. Member is not earning his living honestly?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it out of order to suggest that an hon. Member when he was earning his living as an engineer was earning it honestly?
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope points of Order of that kind will not be put.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Let us say "earning his living." Supposing the hon. Member for Dartford had to earn his living again as an engineer, would his skill have deteriorated? In a week or a fortnight his hands would be hard again, and he would be just as skilful as before. We ought to protest against the assumption that relief work on roads deteriorates the skill of an engineer. Probably if some great pianist or fiddler were put on road work, he would take some weeks to get back his touch, but, so far as the engineering trade is concerned, it is humbug to say so. Let me turn to one other point in the Debate, namely, the question of foreign cement, about which the heart of Middlesbrough is beating so high at the present time. I think the hon. Member will find that that difficulty will solve itself. As soon as I heard the other night from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that it was possible to get this foreign cement at a price so many shillings below the English, I at once communicated to him the name and address of person, and took steps to purchase what I could for

    2085
    him. I have not the least doubt that the publicity given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to the supply of foreign cement will be such that, by the effect of the law of demand and supply, the price will quickly be brought up to the level of English prices.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald). I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) speaks for forestry in this House, and I should like to hear from him more explicitly for what this amount of £50,000 is to be voted. I agree with my hon. Friend that forestry is one of the most important industries this country can undertake. I am speaking particularly from the point of view of Scotland. It is all very well to establish people on the land, but, after very serious consideration, we have come to the conclusion, almost unanimously, that you cannot have a happy and contented people settled on the land, particularly in the North of Scotland, without some subsidiary occupation, and no subsidiary occupation is as good as that of forestry. I understand, from the few remarks my right hon. Friend has submitted to the Committee, that part of this grant is for payment to land-owners. I have had several letters from Scotland, and I believe some of these payments have not been made. I think when the State encourages a land-owner to undertake occupation of this kind which is so beneficial to the State, the State's first duty is to see that that land-owner is recompensed, and I hope such sums as are outstanding will be paid to any owner who has provided forestry work for the unemployed in the district. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain to the House what this grant is for, and how much more money is to be expended on this very important occupation. We are all interested in afforestation, because we remember that, during the War, we were entirely dependent upon outside supplies of timber for this country. Not only from the national point of view, but from the point of view of particular localities, we ought to encourage this industry, and I am sure the Committee would like to hear from the representative of the Forestry Commission what this amount is for, and what further amounts are to be expended.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I hope all the money is not going to Scotland, but that there will be a liberal grant for England. I appreciate the point as to the scarcity of pit-props during the War. There are enormous tracts of land in this country in the form of pit in mounds lying derelict at the present moment which are perfectly suitable for afforestation. I know of one case in which the pits were supplied with props during the War from their own mounds, which had been planted beforehand, and of some mounds that have been planted since the War as an economic proposition. I hope, therefore, this question will be taken up by the Government, and an endeavour will be made to plant timber on the large areas of pit mounds available throughout the country.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am very glad to be asked questions, and do my best to answer them. I rather sympathise with the Minister in charge in desiring that the Committee may pass on soon to another subject. Therefore, I will confine myself, as well as I can, to the particular questions that have been asked. But I am sure there is enough interest in forestry in the House to justify our having, later in the Session, say, a half-day given to the Estimates of the Forestry Commission, so as to enable a discussion in regard to what forestry can do, both in respect of unemployment and settling people on the land in the districts of Scotland, where, as has been truly said, a man cannot make a holding really economic unless he has other work to do during the winter, such as forestry, or fishing, or something of that kind, of which the best is forestry, because it fits in so well with other agricultural work. The Forestry Commission were asked by the late Government to consider schemes to help employment, and a sum of about £120,000 was asked. We were only granted £50,000, which appears in the Supplementary Estimates to-day. It was much less than we hoped for, and we allotted it as to £35,000 to schemes put up by corporations and landowners for emergency planting by people who would otherwise have no employment at all, and as to the remaining £15,000 to works of land drainage, road-making and so on, on the Forestry Commission's own estates. I think it fell to me to allot the

    2087
    proportions between England and Scotland, and, as a matter of fact, each part of the United Kingdom has had half of the money available. Officials in the two countries are quite content with that allocation.
    With reference to what my right hon. Friend said, that some landowners and, I think, too, corporations in the burghs and cities of Scotland, who were expecting to be helped in this work, and were disappointed in the grants, I should like to say that since the new Government have come in they have sanctioned a further £30,000 to be spent on this particular unemployed work. Therefore, the schemes provisionally sanctioned in Scotland will go through, instead of having to be broken off, and employment will take the place of unemployment. I should like, on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners, to say how grateful we are to the new Government for having raised that amount, so that these schemes could be undertaken.
    In regard to matters in general, I am hoping there will be, on an application we have sent to the Treasury, a gradual expansion of forestry work throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not a thing which can be expanded suddenly. It depends upon trained officers, the supply of plants, the purchase or the leasing of land. We have had, I am glad to say, no difficulty about the purchasing or the leasing of land, which very often costs more to clear and fence than it costs to buy the freehold of; and which shows that the freehold price cannot be so very high. If the House or the parties responsible in the house will be kind enough, later on in a Session, to ask for a few hours' discussion of forestry work in general, I hope to be able to give, at any rate, an interesting account of our stewardship and of the work that has been done.
    Mr. DARBISHIRE: I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he has received, and if so, what he has done with an application of the County Councils Association asking for legislation to enable additional powers to be afforded to county authorities to carry out drainage schemes? In the county with which I am associated there are a number of voluntary drainage schemes in which the landowner, the farmer and other interests are co-operating
    2088
    and these—or some—have been held up owing to a minority of landowners, or riparian owners, refusing to come into the scheme. There is, at any rate in Wiltshire—I do not know about other counties—a great demand for more statutory powers, and further legislation which will compel a minority of less than 20 per cent. to come into a scheme, and so enable the work to be carried on. A great deal of very excellent, productive and profitable work has been done in this direction in Wiltshire in the drainage of land. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any prospect of the Government assisting in the direction desired by the County Councils?
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II.

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending, on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 10, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides, and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): This Vote is a token estimate for £10 relating to the unemployment scheme. It corresponds to the Supplementary Estimate put forward by the Ministry of Health. This Supplementary Estimate is presented because of the modifications which have been made in the conditions of the grants since the original Estimate was presented last year. Under the original conditions, approved schemes in connection with revenue-producing undertakings could receive a grant of 50 per cent. of interest charges for a period of five years. In order to increase the number of schemes submitted for the relief of unemployment the period has been increased from five years to a period not exceeding 15 years. For the same purpose public utility companies were added to the class of bodies eligible to submit schemes to the Unemployment Grants Committee. In the case of such companies the grants are not made for a uniform period of 15 years, but only

    2089
    for the period or limit during which the Unemployed Grants Committee are satisfied that the expenditure will be un-remunerative. These payments of interest are made from the Vote of the Ministry of Health in England and Wales, and from the Vote of the Scottish Office in Scotland. A certain sum only will be required to meet the charges under these modified terms in the current financial year. The Estimate is presented to obtain the authority of the House to make these changes in altering the conditions of the original Estimate. The stun for which I am asking n presenting my first Estimate to the House on behalf of my Department is of such a modest character that I hope the Members in every part of the House will be prepared to give it me without very much discussion.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sure that we are all delighted to see my right hon. Friend sitting on that Front Bench as Secretary for Scotland. We are all willing to help to forward this particular Motion, but Scottish Members are very anxious to know to what this amount of £120,000 is to be devoted. Is it to be devoted to the improvement of the roads, or the harbours, or the jetties, or any of those things which are so useful and necessary around the coasts of Scotland? We are, I think, entitled to some further explanation. My right hon. Friend ought to tell the House what is his own view in regard to the utilisation of a sum of this kind. There is a good deal of unemployment in Scotland. The various localities have put forward schemes of varied merit which might surely he considered by the Scottish Office. The House is entitled to know what the Scottish Office is proposing to do, and what it actually has done.
    I, for one, and I am sure I am speaking for every Member who represents, particularly, the rural districts in Scotland, have a great many schemes. I do not like to press my schemes to the disadvantage of every other Member in the House, but the schemes which I have got from my own constituency would very soon swallow up this £120,000. I am not, however, going to be too greedy, but I wish to point out to the Secretary for Scotland, that we are not satisfied with this Supplementary Estimate of £10, when I see what has been allotted to
    2090
    England and even to Ireland. When the Secretary for Scotland stands in his place and tells Members for Scotland that this is an additional estimate of £10, when there were thousands of pounds going in estimates for the other countries, we have a reason to disagree with his complacency. I should like to ask him to tell us if he is satisfied with this amount of £120,000, and if he is really going to carry on good remedial work, such as the making of roads in the various districts, jetties, harbours, or what he is going to do? Until he gives the House a more explicit statement of the way in which his office proposes to disburse this amount I am not prepared to give him the Vote.
    Mr. F. C. THOMSON: May I also, as a Scottish Member, compliment my right hon. Friend on presenting his first Estimate to the House. It is not certainly much of a sum to ask for, but I would point out that what he asks for is only a token sum, but its relation to the item in the Ministry of Health Vote, was not, I think, explained yesterday to the House. The Minister of Health was busy explaining, and by some inadvertence the House went on to the next Vote. The Debate collapsed on a point of Order, and so the House had really not the advantage of any information which the Government on the corresponding Vote for England gave. We had an explanation on the Item G.8 (page 22). We are now, therefore, taking similarly the Scottish Vote, and we are entitled to the fullest possible explanation. As I understand the matter, in the revenue-producing schemes, where the annual grant amounted to 50 per cent. of the interest charges for five years, it is now proposed to make the period 15 years. That is an admirable provision, because previously non-revenue producing schemes got as much as the others. This Vote deals entirely with revenue-producing schemes, and provides that the interest should be payable over 15 years, where before it was payable over five years. Non - revenue producing schemes had rather more favourable terms. This is redressing the balance and giving authority for better terms to revenue-producing schemes.
    The whole scheme, after all, is worked out by the St. David's Committee of the Unemployment Grants Committee, and has admirable features. Reference was made earlier in the afternoon to the un-

    2091
    fortunate results of the War on the Scottish people, who have been unable to get employment at their own skilled work, and have had to be turned into relief work such as road work. I think most people in the House will agree that that is a national misfortune. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson) took a sanguine view when he said that a man did not lose his skill greatly by lack of practice, and also that a short time after he recovered when he got back to his own work. That is an optimistic view, I think. There were the schemes worked by the late Government, and through the St. David's Committee, and then you had the local authorities with schemes such as the extension of the electric light, and so on, which were able to give work to certain of the unskilled people, and also, of course, to the skilled people, where it was required. For instance, the development of some of these schemes in the South of England would be a benefit in cases where unemployment was at its worst. Some of these industrial areas in which iron and steel workers were out of employment would benefit by such schemes as tramways, for they would be a double benefit by adding to the wealth and development of a town and by creating a demand for finished manufactured goods in the iron and steel trades. In that way you would help to meet the difficulties which are being experienced in industrial areas. Therefore, I think these schemes which the late Government adopted have been of great benefit in helping us through an exceedingly difficult and trying period.
    Of course, you make a distinction between revenue and non-revenue-producing schemes. Theoretically this may be all right, but it is not so simple, because some schemes of local authorities may be of a very valuable kind. Some form of electric lighting or tramway extension might not be a revenue-producing scheme for a considerable number of years, and yet it might ultimately become of the greatest value as a revenue-producer. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland must be congratulated upon his proposal, which gives better terms for the 15 years, and he may in this way come to the aid of schemes which, though not immediately remunerative, may in the end become highly remunerative and of value to the ameni-
    2092
    ties of a, particular town, and that is all to the good.
    Passing to the second point, the extension of these advantages to public utility companies, I think that is a great advantage because tramway, electric lighting or gas companies perform services of public utility. I also gather that this grant applies to statutory bodies such as docks and so on. I am not quite sure whether the original scheme applied only to local authorities and not to statutory bodies, but I understand these grants are available for local authorities, statutory bodies and also public utility companies. They carry out public services, and it is well that they should receive this help, though of course the conditions are very carefully safeguarded by the Committee, and under Treasury supervision, which is absolutely essential. It is all for the good in this Estimate that the advantage, of the 50 per cent. of loan charges for schemes promoted by public utility companies should now be available. I think my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon that part of his scheme.
    I would like the right hon. Gentleman to inform us as to the number of schemes that have been approved under this provision, and can he also give us some estimate of the number of people who are now or are likely to be employed under such schemes? I should like to have what information is available showing the extent to which these loans have helped the country through the distressing times through which we have been passing. It is true that only a nominal sum is required for these charges during the year ending 31st March, but of course there will be more next year. In asking for these details, which I hope my right hon. Friend will give, I think we are entitled to be satisfied with this proposal now as being really one of benefit. There has been a substantial advance for a scheme which has been working for several winters through Lord St. Davids Committee and has done a great deal to mitigate the severity of the period through which we have just passed. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us full particulars on these points before the Debate closes.
    Mr. HARDIE: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one subject which is very often discussed, but upon which very little has been done, and that

    2093
    is the generation of electrical power from water. In Scotland we have tremendous opportunities in this direction, but not on the lines of setting up a huge central electricity generating station. If you take the streams on the mountain side in Scotland, they have got their fall for something like a quarter of a mile, and if you take the ordinary 10-inch turbine which is the average for a mountain stream and arrange the fall you could work ten of them in every district. In this way you could generate sufficient power either to light up the dangerous parts of the road at night, transmit it to local mills or use it on nearly every big farm where machinery requires to be driven.
    This would be of real service, and I think it ought to have been part of the schemes so far as Scotland is concerned. Take the case of the Caledonian Canal in Scotland, and take the fall from the higher point in that canal. Every pound of water that passes through the lock ought to be utilised for the generating of electrical power. This scheme utilised in conjunction with the mountain rills would give art immense advantage so far as the distribution of electrical power is concerned, and it would be produced much more cheaply, because you have not got the expense of laying your main from the generating station.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morgan Jones): I am wondering how the hon. Member is going to connect his remarks with this Vote.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am dealing with questions which at least have some relation to utility. Hon. Members who have spoken have been allowed to deal with other things. One hon. Member was allowed to reply to an argument used by the lion. Member for Mossley without being out of order, and that was an argument that after a man had been absent from his trade for two years it was not difficult for him to go back and work efficiently at that trade. Whenever I get back to something which is practical hon. Members generally find some way of showing that I am out of order. Take the question of the subsidy for the steamer service to the Hebrides. Here we have something allied to the lineal descendants of royalty, because unless you happen to be, horn in the house of MacBrayne you are not supposed to he of any use so far as this service is concerned.
    2094
    I would like the Secretary for Scotland to break up this monopoly, because I have had occasion to travel on this line where you pay a first-class fare and get a fourth-class service. Under this Estimate we have been discussing the improvement of agriculture. I was only trying to discuss the value of electricity generation for the development of agriculture, but apparently it is not in order to say that you can develop agriculture and give better facilities to get to the markets more quickly, and I was out of order when I was trying to show how you could improve all this by electrical development.
    Take the question of the railways. There are more things to be considered in connection with the development of railways than agriculture. You do not construct a direct line to a particular place in order to carry on one industry. You only get a system of anarchy when you construct one railway for one particular place instead of one railway to serve a good many districts. In Scotland we have more intelligence than in any other part of the world, and when we are going to lay down railways in the future, when the Government has to say where the railways must lead to, we are not going to have them laid on to one district only, but we are going to have co-ordination. If you had your railways in conjunction with the waterways cutting right through Scotland, what would happen? To-day, when we set out to manufacture in Scotland, we have to take pig iron across the country, make it into steel, and bring it back across the same railway. The ore comes from another point at the water's edge, and you are traversing the waterway all the time, whereas the sanity of science would at once dictate that., having made the railway, and having the waterway cut right, through the country, the ore would be brought in at the nearest point, that it would then be put into the smelting furnace, and that, as you get it out, instead of using the cooling system—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I must again draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we are discussing a sum in relation to two loans.
    Mr. HARDIE: The loan which would be necessary to carry out my schemes is greater than the £10 for which we are asking to-day. If we are going to use loans intelligently, to spend money in

    2095
    order to leave things better than they were when we started, I agree, but if you are going on simply putting the money down the same old shaft, you might as well fill it up with water. I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to say something in regard to the points I have raised as to getting cheap power to help the industries in Scotland.
    Sir M. MACDONALD: I see that this Vote includes, as the last speaker said, a subsidy for steamer services to the Hebrides, and, with regard to that, I should like to put forward one specific point. I understand that the services to the Western Isles have been reorganised, and that generally a six-day weekly service has now been provided, but I believe that no arrangements have yet been made, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able t, say that arrangements will be made to include a grant, for one particular case, namely, the Island of Soay. It is close to the Island of Skye and within sight of the terminus of the railway on the mainland, but nevertheless it only has a postal service once in 10 days. Attempts have been made many times to get this corrected, and I myself have appealed to the Postmaster-General to give a better service.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but the hon. Member is discussing a matter with which this Vote is not at all concerned. We are discussing a grant in respect of unemployment schemes at the moment, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to that.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise the same question in a different way.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must await his turn.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) had finished his remarks.
    Sir M. MACDONALD: No, I was merely interrupted. The words on the Supplementary Estimate are:
    "A Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides"—
    and, after that, comes:
    "and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."
    2096
    I submit that I have been keeping within the terms of that statement, namely, "A Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides."
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate, not the main Estimate.
    Sir M. MACDONALD: Then I shall have to reserve my remarks for a more appropriate occasion.
    Mr. L. JONES: It is with very great diffidence that I venture to intervene in a Debate on Scottish Estimates, but, as a representative of English taxpayers, I think that some voice should be heard on their behalf as regards the desirability of spending this money in Scotland. My right hon. Friend appealed to the Committee to give him this Vote because it is only £10, but what does the £10 mean? That amount is to be spent up to the 31st March, but one cannot see from this Estimate that there is any limit at all in regard to further expenditure. I should like to be informed as to that to-night, before the Committee sanctions this £10, which may he the beginning of unlimited schemes. In the Civil, Service Estimate for last year £120,000 was taken for this Vote for unemployment schemes, and the right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee no hint at all as to whether £120,000, or £1,000,000, or £10,000,000 is going to be the limit of the schemes which may be sanctioned to next year's Estimates. I think that, before the Committee gives the right hon. Gentleman the right to sanction unlimited schemes, we ought to know what are the schemes that he has in mind on which this money is going to he spent. I have only risen for the purpose of asking for this information, which the Scottish Members who have taken part in the Debate seem not to desire. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did ask for some details, but apparently there is no desire on the part of the Scottish Members to put any limit whatsoever on the expenditure that is contemplated. Therefore, I do think that the right hon. Gentleman should give to us poor English Members, who have some concern in this matter, some idea of what is to be the magnitude of the expenditure which is to be incurred in Scotland next year under this Vote. I would again press upon the Government Bench the view which I put on the preceding Vote, that, if Ministers bringing forward Sup-

    2097
    plementary Estimates would give fuller information to the House as to the purposes for which the money is to be spent, instead of giving merely the general subheads—which are appropriate enough at the beginning of the year, when we have the full details in the main Estimates—they would very much facilitate the process of getting their Estimates passed by the House, as well as giving to the House information that it is entitled to receive.
    Mr. G. A. SPENCER: I know it is almost an offence for an English Member to interpose on Scottish affairs, but there is one item which several of those on these benches, including myself, cannot really understand, and upon which we should like a little more information. I understand that this Vote is a token Vote dealing only with the question of grants for unemployment, but the point that we should like to have further elucidated is with regard to certain expenditure under the Inebriates Acts. Are we to understand that the inebriates of Scotland are unemployed? It has been suggested to me that that may be due to the fact that fewer Englishmen are going into Scotland, and that that is the real reason why there are fewer inebriates in Scotland at the present time. At any rate, we should like to know what port ion of this £10, or whatever the sum may be in future, is being expended on this question of the Inebriates Acts, whether there is really a decline in drunkenness or an increase, and whether, as the result of any increase, there is going to be further expenditure. One would like to know that for various reasons, because we have been led to believe that on the whole there is a decline in drunkenness in Scotland, and, therefore, we should expect a decline in expenses.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry that I must again direct attention to the fact that we are discussing the Vote on page 8, Class II, Vote 34, J—Grants in Respect of Unemployment Schemes.
    Mr. SPENCER: May I ask one question? The title of the Estimate is
    "Supplementary Estimate of the Amount Required in the year ending 31st March, 1924, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for
    2098
    Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts—"
    Is that included?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is merely the title of the Vote. We are discussing the Sub-head
    "Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."
    Mr. SPENCER: May I put a further question? Is there going to be some employment in connection with the inebriates of Scotland? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then why is it there?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that this Vote is for grants in respect of unemployment schemes, and I want to ask if it includes grants for unemployment schemes at present being carried on, say, by the Glasgow Corporation? I think it is a pity that we have to grant Votes without knowing, as public representatives, what schemes they cover. I want to raise the question, for instance, of the conditions under which the men are employed on these schemes. I am asked to grant money for them, and I think I am entitled to know, on this Vote, under what conditions the money is to be spent and how those who receive it are to be employed. That is a perfectly reasonable point. We are asked by the Secretary for Scotland to grant him this money, and he refuses to put on paper where the money is to he spent and under what conditions it is to he received. I should like to know if any of the Glasgow and Edinburgh schemes are included, and, if so, I am going to claim a Division to-night on the Vote. I am deeply concerned about the ratepayers' money in Scotland—English and Scottish ratepayers' money—being expended on conditions of labour that are a disgrace to any part of the country. Men are working there, I venture to submit to this Committee, under such conditions that they are earning less than they would receive had they remained receivers of Poor Law relief. Are we to understand that this kind of thing is to be tolerated by the Scottish Office in the future? For my part, I want a guarantee from the Secretary for Scotland, before this Vote is passed, that the contractors who carry out work of this kind shall be compelled to carry out the Fair Wages Clause, which applies to every other kind of public work. At this

    2099
    moment the men are not being treated in that way, and I feel that this is an occasion on which to raise this question, as it comes under a grant of that kind.
    I also want to raise another point, namely, who are to receive the grants and under what conditions are they to get them? The Govan Parish Council, for instance, agrees to go on with a scheme providing men with work in its locality. Is it to be eligible for a grant under this Vote? We have had flung at us by the Scottish Office a White Paper containing very little, if any, information as to who are to receive this money and under what conditions they are to receive it. I feel that we have been treated in not the best fashion on this Vote. I understand that Govan Parish have been refused a grant for work that they are carrying out, and, as a representative of Govan Parish, I want to ask the Secretary for Scotland what right had he to refuse a grant to the Govan Parish Council for work done when he was making grants to the Glasgow Corporation to hand over to private contractors? Some time ago a Commission sat in Scotland to investigate how far it was possible to develop the supply of electricity in Scotland, and whether the water resources of Scotland can he made available to a larger extent for that purpose. Will any sum under this Vote be made available for that, or does the Secretary for Scotland intend on a future Vote to ask for money for the development of the Highlands of Scotland in that direction? Surely, these are reasonable questions to put in a Debate of this character. I feel sure that I the Secretary for Scotland, having Scottish interests at heart, will apply himself to them, and that if he is in office next time, he will give us more information than he has supplied to us to-day. I hope that he will be able now to give us a sufficient reply.
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for HEALTH (Mr. J. Stewart): This has been a very interesting and discoursive Debate, but it is something like "the flowers that bloom in the spring"—it has absolutely nothing to do with the case. What we are dealing with at the moment are grants in respect of unemployment schemes amounting to £120,000, and this
    2100
    is a token Vote for £10. These are revenue producing schemes. What we have to deal with to-night is merely the making of provision of 50 per cent. of the interest charged on loans already approved. We have nothing whatever to do with the conditions of employment at this particular moment. We cannot under this Vote reply to the charges which have been made dealing with the Glasgow Corporation. We cannot tell you the exact amount that has been raised. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Just a moment. We cannot tell you at the moment the exact amount. All we can say is that several sums of money are being expended by local authorities part of which is being met by the Unemployment Grants Committee.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is there no limit whatever to the scheme of the local authorities?
    Mr. STEWART: So far as we are concerned, this House will be enabled to deal fully with all the proposals that will be submitted. When these proposals are submitted, hon. Members will get full information. We are dealing now with the past and the present, and not with the future. I would appeal to hon. Members to allow us to get this Vote passed, and the Secretary for Scotland will be willing to meet and answer all charges when the proper time comes along.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VII.

    SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts. 1911 to 1922, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."
    Mr. ADAMSON: This Supplementary Estimate is required in order to enable us to get money in respect of houses to be erected under the provision of the Housing Act of 1923, which may be completed before 31st March, 1924. By Section I of that Act the Board are empowered to contribute towards the ex-

    2101
    pense of local authorities in the building of houses by private enterprise. The second Section prescribes the amount of the contribution of £6 per annum for each house, except that where the expenses are incurred by the local authority are less than the value of the amount in assisting private enterprise, the contribution is reduced accordingly. It is not anticipated that the number of houses, which will be completed before the 31st March, 1924, and in respect of which contributions will be payable, will exceed 100. This will necessitate an expenditure by the Board of a sum of £600. There will, however, be a saving of at least. £590 on the Vote for the current year in respect of capital grants under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. The amount in the Supplementary Estimate is only £10—the difference between £600 and £590. This Supplementary Estimate corresponds to one item in the Ministry of Health Vote. As regards the progress made on the 31st January, 1924, the local authorities have provided loans for the erection by private enterprise of 941 houses, of which 641 were under construction and 18 have been completed. Of the houses to be erected by local authorities tenders have been approved for 1,501 houses and 349 were under construction. This supplementary sum of £10, which I am asking, will provide the necessary sum to enable the Board of Health to meet the contribution for the houses that will be required by the 31st March, 1924. As regards the first Estimate, it is one, for an equally modest sum and I hope that we will not have as much discussion from hon. Members as we have had on the last one. Some of the discussion on the last Vote was irrelevant, as was pointed out.
    Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

  1. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924.

  2102

  2. Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Act, 1924.

  3. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act. 1924.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of. payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1922, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."
  Mr. ADAMSON: I was saying I hoped we, should get this Supplementary Estimate with less discussion than we had on the last. I do not grumble at it, but there was a considerable amount of irrelevant discussion. Irrelevant discussion provides a temptation for a reply, but I am going to refrain as I am too anxious to get my Estimate through.
  Sir GEORGE McCRAE: The Secretary for Scotland has made a very short statement and I do not think he has made it quite clear that this is the first occasion on which we are asked to vote Supply for the housing scheme of 1923. I am very much disappointed at the small sum the right hon. Gentleman is asking. It means that although housing conditions in Scotland are very much worse than in England, there is less being done in Scotland to remedy the evil. I listened yesterday to the speech of the Minister of Health for England with feelings of envy because be stated that they had to-day under this Act 22,600 houses under construction and 4,600 houses completed. What does the Secretary for Scotland tell us the progress has been in that country? He says there are 641 houses under construction and 18 houses completed.
  Mr, ADAMSON: I hope the hon. Member will remember who is responsible.
  Sir G. McCRAE: It is a confession that the Act of 1923 has been a complete failure in Scotland. My right hon. Friend, I think, ought to tell us what

  2103
  is the reason for this failure of the Act in Scotland, even compared with what is being done in England. I should like him to tell us whether it is due to the inadequate financial provisions of the Act or to the shortage of labour. I believe the financial provisions are quite inadequate, so far, at least, as Scotland is concerned. The reason for that is that it is an Act dealing with England, Wales and Scotland, and that Scotland was treated merely as an English province without any regard to the merits of the case or to her needs, so much so that this grant of £6 per house was pointed out at the time to be quite inadequate, and the then Secretary for Scotland pressed for a larger sum for Scotland because of the higher cost of building. The Cabinet threw over the Secretary for Scotland, and there is no doubt that, with the present grant of £6 per house, building in Scotland cannot proceed, and it is very disappointing when we are told that we only require £600 for expenditure on housing under this Act which was passed in June last. The Royal Commission for Housing, in its Report, stated that 235,000 houses were required for Scotland if the standard was raised, and that the minimum required was 114,000. When the local authorities were asked to state the needs of their several localities in 1917, they gave the need as 115,000. Here we are told that under the Act, since June, 1923, only 18 houses have been built, and 641 are under construction. It is a travesty of housing policy, and I ask the Secretary for Scotland to consider whether, pending the submission of the Government's scheme for housing, which we have been promised, something cannot be done to accelerate the building of houses in Scotland. Under the Act of 1919, which was a Scottish Act, we provided for one-fourth of the needs as stated by the local authorities, and we would have done more had it not been for the financial provisions of that Act, which broke down under the strain. Notwithstanding that, we provided for one-fourth of the houses stated to be needed. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can get a supplementary grant from the Exchequer to make good the difference between the cost of building in Scotland as compared with England. Unless he
  2104
  can do that, we are at a deadlock in Scotland in regard to house building, as he must realise.
  I would like him also to tell us how far the failure of this Act in Scotland is due to the shortage of labour. I received a return at Question Time to-day, showing the number of men in the building trade employed in Scotland at the present time. In 1913 there were 120,000 men in the building trades employed in Scotland; to-day there are 65,000. In 1913, when money was cheap, labour abundant and materials cheap, the largest number of houses of this class that were built in Scotland in any one year was 12,000 odd, when we had that great reservoir of building labour, and to-day we have employed under the local authority housing schemes of the Act of 1923, only 345 men, and 34 apprentices. That is the figure given in the official return which I have obtained from the Scottish Office. What is the Secretary for Scotland going to do in this matter? In January, 1922, there were employed on local authority housing schemes in Scotland 11,000 men and apprentices. For the month of January this year, according to the returns supplied by the Scottish Office, including the houses still being built under the Act of 1919, the total number of workmen employed on housing schemes in Scotland was 4,000 odd. Therefore. 7,000 fewer men are engaged in house building in Scotland today than in January, 1922 I commend that fact to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him what provision is being made by his Department to accelerate house building by getting a larger number of the 65,000 men on to his housing schemes. There are only 4,000 of the 65,000 at present employed on the housing schemes of the Government.
  When my right hon. Friend considers the housing schemes of the Government, I would ask him to insist that Scotland should have a separate Housing Act of its own, conforming to the conditions obtaining in that country, financial and otherwise. I would also like to assure him that this is not a party question. The three parties, I think. are equally sincere in desiring to do everything they can to get rid of this great scandal, and I can assure him that as far as Scottish Members are concerned he will find them supporting him on every possible occasion. I want to utter one word of warning, and

  2105
  that is, that nothing is to be gained by making speeches in the country and holding up impossible millions of money and impossible millions of houses before the eyes of those people who are suffering all the horrors of overcrowding. We must have a practical scheme and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will bring forward a scheme on reasonable lines, however bold, they will have the support of the House.
  DUCHESS of ATHOLL: I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, that, at first sight, this Estimate appears rather disappointing, though from another point of view I admit that, coming here as a new Member weighed down with the sense of responsibility in having to vote on Estimates that may amount to millions of public money, it is something of a relief to be asked to pass an Estimate that does not exceed a sum of £10. Otherwise, it is a little disappointing, at first sight, to find that the sum that has been spent under this Act is not greater than the amount mentioned in the Estimate. But I believe that local authorities in Scotland did not receive notice of their powers under the provisions of the Act until the autumn of last year was well advanced. I do not think the circular reached the local authority in my county until just before the recent General Election. We have had a winter of considerable severity, and, knowing the weather that has prevailed in Scotland during the last few months, I am pleased that any houses have been completed, or may be regarded as likely to be completed, by the 31st March of this year. I look upon this only as an instalment of what I feel sure will come.
  One hundred houses completed is a very small number, but one satisfactory feature is that they have been built by private enterprise. I have heard it stated in debate here, that the houses built by private enterprise are not very much use in solving the problem of working-class houses, because they are houses that are meant to be sold. However, I know that there are many people in addition to the people who may be described as wage earners, who are very much in need of houses, and who are doing important public service, such as educational work. Many of these people can be helped by the houses provided by private enterprise. I know of
  2106
  cases of headmasters, for instance, who, where there has been housing shortage, have been prepared to buy houses, and have done so, and I hope that other people will be prepared to take advantage of the houses that are built by private enterprise. The last speaker mentioned that the grants were inadequate under the Act. If there be any complaint on that score as to the inadequacy of the grants, I think it must be more on account of the grants for houses built by private enterprise, than in regard to the grants to local authorities. Therefore, I consider it is satisfactory that, in a short space of time, and in spite of unfavourable weather conditions, 100 houses have been built by private enterprise, and one can only regard this as a very small instalment of what one hopes is going to come.
  I wish to make it clear that, though I have not the first hand knowledge of urban housing that is possessed by hon. Members who sit for urban constituencies, I know from my own experience in the rural districts what need there is there for more houses. Though I know that houses are needed by all sections of the community. I specially realise the shortage of suitable houses in rural districts for district nurses and teachers. In the last few years I have felt sometimes rather desperate on account of the scarcity of suitable houses for these valuable classes of persons. Very often it seemed as if it was hopeless to start a district nursing association, because no suitable house could be found for the district nurse, or even suitable lodgings. Very frequently I have felt as though education in the rural districts of Scotland was mainly dependent on the question whether suitable lodgings could be found, not for the head teacher, because usually a house is provided for the head teacher, but for the young assistant teacher. Therefore, I hope that the provision we are asked to make to-day is but a very small instalment of what the House will be asked to pass later on under the Act of 1923.
  This housing question is fundamental and vital, and affects all classes in the community. I recognise that in Scotland we labour under rather special difficulties, because prices appear to be many parts of Scotland than in districts further South. My mouth has often been made to water by what I have read as

  2107
  to the prices at which houses can be erected in England, or even in the Lowlands or more central parts of Scotland. In the county with which I am connected we do not seem to be able to compete with the prices which are recognised as standard prices by the Board of Health. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that there is a great shortage of labour. I believe that everywhere there has been a great decrease in the number of persons admitted into the building trades. I believe that that has been the case in provincial towns, and no doubt it is the case of most of the Scottish towns. I hope that the Secretary of Scotland will be able to remedy this defect and arrive at an agreement with the building trades by which boys can be apprenticed to these trades, which are so essential to the well-being of the community.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to congratulate the Noble Lady on her eloquent speech. I would also suggest that the hardship which she has described as existing among the teaching profession is in the hands of the education authorities themselves, and if they wish to do so they can remove it. The Noble Lady stated that headmasters could get a house, but that there was difficulty in the case of an assistant teacher.
  DUCHESS of ATHOLL: I said that a house was usually provided for the headmaster but was not provided for assistant teachers.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I accept that statement, but the education authority can make provision if they so desire; but I wish to agree with the Noble Lady and the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Sir G. McCrae) that the 1923 Act, about which we heard so much from the last Government, has been a failure. The Conservative mountain in labour has brought forth a mouse. Prior to the dissolution, both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, I think, boasted about 100,000 houses that had been provided last year. Now we have complaint from hon. Members on the other side about the work of this Government. My hon. Friends have been in office about a month, and are finishing up the inheritance left them by the Conservative Government. We expect something more in the way of housing from them than a paltry £10 to assist our programme.
  2108
  The remarks which I am going to make relate mainly to the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs. I remember that under the Addison scheme we had a big programme of houses, and we tried to get through with it as well as we could in Scotland. It is true, as the hon. Member says, that we were 135,000 houses short, according to the Royal Commission. Schemes were put forward for a large number of houses. I think we got 14,000 houses out of the total put forward. Ultimately it will be about 24,000. If there is one man in Scotland mainly responsible for our failure, it is the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs. He was Chairman of the Scottish Board of Health, and he put all possible difficulties in the way of us who were anxious to get on with building. In one case they objected to a site because we were paying too little for it. In another case they objected to a building site because we were paying too much for it. In another case we sent up the plans, and they lay there for a month, and the Board then sent back word that the height of the houses exceeded the standard. We sent the plans back again, and after another delay they discovered that the door was not in the right place. For deliberate obstruction there is nothing to compare with this Scottish Board of Health under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs.
  Then the hon. Member has referred to the scarcity of material and labour. We have that scarcity. Scotland is a stone country, and the buildings are mainly of stone, but the Government insisted that we should build with brick, and we had to get the brick from England. If we in Scotland had been treated under the last Government is a province of England, we should have been much better off than during the hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. Then, because we could not get the bricks, some public authorities wanted brickworks. I was a member of the Lanark County Council at the time, and I know the difficulties which we had when we wanted to buy brickworks, and how we were obstructed by this Scottish Board of Health. The same thing applied to the City of Glasgow. There were two public authorities, really anxious to do something, who were held back. Hon. Members on the other side know that, when you apply the Education grant, Scotland gets eleven-

  2109
  eightieths of the total, and this principle should be equally good with regard to housing.
  Our needs for houses are greater than England and Wales. Through the action of the Scottish Board of Health, Scotland is in a worse condition as regards houses than any other part of the Empire. We lost £1,100,000 of our proportion as compared with England and Wales mainly because of the action of the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, and then when he comes to the House of Commons he wants to find fault with the Labour Government which is taking over the heritage left them by the Government Supported by Her Grace of Atholl. We have heard the statement that every section of the community has a housing problem. There is one section which has no housing problem. Its problem is to know which houses to live in. Its members have more houses and more rooms than they have children. Then there is another section, the middle classes, who are to be provided for by private enterprise. We do not object to that, but private enterprise will only produce what they complain about, a hundred houses under last year's scheme. I have a great amount of sympathy with the long-suffering middle classes. They have been too respectable to become attached to labour, and I hope that they will add to that sympathy and support which we are getting from Her Grace of Atholl. Then we have the great working classes. Her Grace referred to—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that it is the habit of hon. Members to use the expression, "the Noble Lady," or "the hon. Member for Kinross."
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I am sure, that the Noble Lady will agree that I had no intention of slighting her, because I have much hope of lady Members who come to this House. I think that they will be more helpful on these important questions than the men have proved to be in the past, even supposing that they sit on that side of the House. I think that they deal with those questions in a different way. But our great community that produce the wealth anti build the houses have a housing problem. You have them herded together, sometimes having three families in one house. I have heard of one ease of a house
  2110
  occupied by three families, and the only division was a chalk mark on the floor. That sort of thing still exists in Mid-Lanark, and when we tried to remedy it as a public authority we were kept back by the Scottish Board of Health. Unless we can get an improved body—and I wish to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Adamson) on being in charge —then I as a Scottish Member will ask this House to abolish that body altogether, for we should have got on much better by coming here to the English House of Commons, and pleading our wants than we got on with the men who managed the Scottish Board of Health. I. hope that the House will pass this Vote and live in hope that when the Labour party put forward their policy there will be no complaint, at any rate, as to the amount of money which we want to provide houses for the people.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down said truly that it would be unfair to judge the Government from its term of office which amounts to no more than a few days, but it cannot be described as fair to judge an Act of Parliament which has not had time to fructify and become effective. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs expressed the view that the Act of 1923 had been a failure, but he knows as well as I do that the building resources of Scotland are still engaged in carrying out the 1919 programme.
  Sir G. McCRAE: And in England also.
  Mr. THOMSON: If that be so it is idle to call an Act which passed so recently in these conditions a failure. I agree thoroughly wit h what has been said that this is not a party question. All three parties are united in the desire to do what they can to remedy the existing situation. We admit the evil, but it is no good when you are up against hard concrete facts, as to the difficulties of labour and material, to brush them aside and to demand the impossible. Though conditions are very bad, Scotland, according to my information, has a larger amount of work proceeding than in England under the slum clearing provisions of the 1923 Act. As my hon. Friend knows, most of the large local authorities in Scotland are full up with Addison schemes, and I can only point out that an extension of a year was granted for the completion of the Addi-

  2111
  son scheme, and this too helped to keep the 1923 applications low.
  The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs gave us some figures as to what was the available labour in the building trade in Scotland in 1913 and what it is to-day. It is to-day about half of what it was then. That is a difficulty which up to the present has not been swept away. He also pointed out that, at that time when labour was abundant and materials were cheap and abundant, what was provided was some 12,000 houses in one year. We are now faced with a situation in which we have only half the labour available, and we have great difficulty with material, as the hon. Member knows from practical experience in filling a very difficult post. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Sullivan) criticised the Scottish Board of Health, but the Board of Health had to deal with a very difficult situation. Criticism is always easier than constructive action. That is noticeably so when you are up against a great popular demand like this. No one can deny that everybody is anxious to do what they can to improve housing conditions in Scotland. Anyone who has any patriotic feeling must strongly hold to that view, and do what he can to help towards that end, but the criticism that neglects difficulties and fails to face them is not helpful. My hon. Friend (Sir G. McCrae) had experience of the difficulties of the years after 1919. He was then one of the permanent officials at the Board of Health, and he knows very well what the difficulties are that have to be faced. No one can say that up to date a large number of houses have been constructed under the Act, but I think, giving the House the best information, that I, as a private Member, can obtain, there are very good reasons for the small number that have been forthcoming up to date. We hope there will be a great acceleration in the future, and I earnestly trust that means may be found of solving the labour difficulty and getting into the building trades in Scotland a number of people adequate to deal with the problem. Though the number of houses built is small it is quite unfair to describe the Act as a failure. I think one could have expected a more charitable criticism on questions of housing difficulties from one who was
  2112
  so closely associated with this problem during critical years.
  8.0 P.M.
  It often appears to the public that a Department is slow in moving, and sometimes it may be so. But he knows that there are sometimes very good grounds for the Department's action. I would have expected more charitable criticism of an Act which has been such a short time on the Statute Book and which is helping so considerably to the solution of this problem. Any Government that attempts to solve this problem will always be sure of the support of all parties in this House. This is a problem that besets both towns and rural districts. It is peculiarly acute and has most distressing results in the larger cities of Scotland. There is also a problem in the rural districts, to which the Noble Lady the Member of West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) has just alluded. I only rose to speak in this Debate because I think the Act of the Government of which I was a member has been attacked on insufficient information and without any very great knowledge of the circumstances, and I think, if the facts are looked at, it will be found that such criticism of this Act after it has been such a short time in existence is very futile and not very helpful.
  Mr. FALCONER: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him what is being done at the present time and what is going to be done until we have a new housing Act coming into operation? That is what we are really most concerned about. When we come to deal with the Housing Act, we will have a great deal to say of its failures in the past, and as to its bearing on the future. I agree that it is a very poor Act, and I and others said so throughout the whole of the discussion on the Bill. I would like to know what is the programme in regard to houses that are to be built and contracted for. Do you mean to lose the summer season which is of vital consequence for building purposes?
  Mr. STEWART: In answer to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), as to what the Government is doing. I will point out that the Government has not had an opportunity of doing very much yet. I would say to him that under the 1923 Act 941 houses have had their plans approved, 641 are in course of erection, and 18 have been erected and are finished at the moment. We

  2113
  anticipate that by the end of March, 100 will have been dealt with under private enterprise, but under the 1923 Act 1,500 houses have had their plans approved and are to be carried out by public authorities. We cannot at the moment accelerate them more than we are doing. So far as the Board of Health is concerned, we will consider and deal with schemes as rapidly as that can be done. While I consider that in the past the Government have been criminally responsible for the small number of houses built, it is not the Scottish Board of Health that is to blame. The greater men behind them sheltered themselves behind the Board of Health and put it forward as an excuse for themselves, while protesting that they were carrying on to the best of their ability. Of course, we knew these men were telling what is not true. My hon. Friend the Member for the Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Sullivan) has made that quite apparent. May I say, in reply to the Noble Lady (Duchess of Atholl), that I am rather surprised to learn that the Act of 1923, which became law in July, was not brought to the notice of any local authority in the rural districts until the later part of the autumn. Surely there is someone to blame for that.
  DUCHESS of ATHOLL: May I suggest that the authorities do not hold meetings in the early autumn.
  Mr. STEWART: That explains it, and therefore it was not the fault of the Board of Health, but the slackness of the local authorities. But all this is a matter of the past. We are proceeding with housing under this Act as rapidly and as well as we can. There is dissatisfaction all over the country with the Act. It has not stimulated the local authorities to go on with schemes. It has not provided houses for the working classes or members of the lower grade professions, such as school teachers. The houses built by private enterprise under this Act are built by the speculative builder, not to let, but to sell. As this Vote that we are asking is for a very small amount, I am sure the House will willingly agree to it. I can promise that when we come along with our scheme of houses, we shall make proposals which will commend themselves to every Member of the House, proposals which will solve the question, and which will redound to the credit of this country, in dealing
  2114
  with one of the greatest problems it has ever had to deal with.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS I.

    ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): This Supplementary Vote is so uncontentious that, if there were but one or two minutes more available, one might expect to get it through without further trouble. But as the business of the House has to be interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournrnent —
    it being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to Move the Adjournment of the House under STANDING ORDER No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
      NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

        MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
        Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move,
        "That this House do now adjourn."
        Commander BELLAIRS: Before the discussion starts, may we have some indication as to the field over which the Debate may roam? I understand that this token Vote will come before the House very shortly, and that not one penny of expenditure or liability will be incurred meantime. Therefore, I am somewhat at a loss to know on what grounds the Adjournment has been granted.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be confined to the terms on which he claimed leave to move the Adjournment.
        Mr. PRINGLE: I think there will be agreement in all quarters of the House that rarely have Members been taken more by surprise than they were by the reply given this afternoon to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to a private notice question for which he had

        2115
        made arrangements. The answer he then gave—I regret that I can give it only from memory—was that, with a view to making some provision for unemployment, the Government had decided to take the necessary steps for laying down five new cruisers immediately, and in the course of further cross-examination the hon. Gentleman indicated that the Government intended to take these steps, committing the Government and the country to further expenditure, without securing in the first place the assent of this House.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Perhaps I can clear up this matter right away. In the first place, it was not stated that we would proceed immediately, and it was definitely stated, in the reply that I gave to the question, that tenders will be invited at once from contractors so that it will be possible to proceed with the work as soon as the necessary Parliamentary sanction has been given.
        Mr. PRINGLE: That was not the impression left on the House. I can quite conceive how misunderstandings may arise, because there was a considerable cross-fire of questions at the time, and I am merely giving the impression which was conveyed to my mind. It was as a result of that impression that I thought it necessary that the opportunity should be taken of obtaining the views of the House by the formal method of moving the Adjournment. As the Adjournment has been granted, a very useful purpose will be achieved by ascertaining exactly what the Government intend to do, and what exactly it is that they are committed to, because, apparently, there is some doubt now as to whether the commitment is as great and as definite as was indicated by the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. This, of course, is not the first time that the suggestion of building cruisers for the purpose of relieving unemployment has been made. It was first mooted in a famous, if ill-fated, speech at Plymouth by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he said that for the purpose of relieving unemployment in the shipbuilding industry the Government of that day had decided to lay down several cruisers. He then explained that the laying down of these cruisers was overdue, and he indicated,
        2116
        in a way which, seems rather inconsistent with that statement, that this was merely an anticipatory measure, and that this was work which would be taken in hand in two or three years' time. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been returned to power everybody would have expected that programme to have been carried out. But the situation was very different when a Labour Government took office, in view of the commitments of that Government, and it was in view of the commitments of that Government—
        Mr. HAYDAY: On a point of Order. The matter upon which the Adjournment was obtained does not hold good now, in view of the statement which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I understand that the Adjournment was obtained on the ground that there was a suggestion of expenditure without first consulting the House.
        Captain Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the Motion for the Adjournment was ever handed to Mr. Speaker in writing? I understand that that has to be done.
        Mr. SPEAKER: Sometimes, if it is a complicated Motion, I have it in writing, so as to be quite sure. But this was plain and simple, and, therefore, I accepted it. On the point raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), the Adjournment has been given, and it is not in my power to withdraw it at present. But there appears to have been some misunderstanding in the House at the time as to whether the words "necessary Parliamentary sanction" were understood by the House. We must proceed with the Debate now.
        Mr. HAYDAY: I humbly submit that the point upon which the Adjournment was secured was a very definite one and on the ground of urgent. public importance. Now that the question has been cleared up by the Parliamentary Secretary's statement surely that ground no longer holds?
        Mr. SPEAKER: I can make this quite clear. Those words certainly did not reach my ear, or they might have affected my view about the Motion when it was tendered. That does not make any difference now, the Adjournment having been given, but the misunderstanding is a reason for a shorter Debate.
        Mr. W. THORNE: The reason why you did not catch the words read out was the row in the House at the time.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The noise was not in one quarter alone.
        Mr. LAMBERT: May I submit very respectfully that the Parliamentary Secretary read out that tenders were at once to be invited. There is no question, therefore, of Parliamentary approval, because, if my memory serves me aright after a considerable acquaintance with the methods of the Admiralty, tenders are never invited by the Admiralty until Parliamentary sanction has been obtained.
        Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of the merits of the Motion. The Debate must proceed.
        Mr. PRINGLE: May I say that the terms of my Motion contain no reference to the question whether there was to be Parliamentary sanction or not. The Motion was in the perfectly general term, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision of the Government to lay down five new cruisers. It is on that topic I intend to speak, and when I was interrupted by the solicitous gentlemen who have raised these points of Order, I was pointing out the position of His Majesty's Government in this matter, particularly in reference to their former declarations. These I am not going to quote at length, but I will point out that, at the General Election, they specifically stated in their manifesto that their policy was one of disarmament and reduction of naval and military expenditure. Further, I draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12th March, 1923, placed a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and it was in these terms:
        "That this House regrets that the sum proposed to be spent on the Naval Services during the coming financial year is not consistent with the pledges of retrenchment given by His Majesty's Government"—
        that is the Government of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—
        "and makes no approach to a redemption of the war-time promises of a great reduction in expenditure on armaments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1923; col. 1107, Vol. 161.]
        Again, on 23rd July, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, then
        2118
        Leader of the Opposition, secured a day expressly for the purpose of condemning the growing expenditure on the Naval and Air Services and for military purposes. In these circumstances, we are entitled to ask from His Majesty's Government what has happened? What change has taken place to bring about this new declaration of policy? There was certainly not the slightest indication during the Election or since, that they adopted the views of the late Government as to the necessity for laying down light cruisers, either for the purpose of naval defence or with the object of relieving unemployment. Now that the decision has been taken, I propose, very briefly, to put the case as it appears to me on both grounds —in relation to the needs of Imperial defence and in relation to the relief of unemployment. The question arises in the first place, whether, having regard to the naval needs of the Empire, there is any case for these new commitments? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sparkbrook Division of Birmingham (Mr. Amery) when he last presented the Navy Estimates, with his usual lucidity stated the position. He said there was no immediate prospect of war. I think on a former occasion he said the Admiralty were working on the basis that there could be no great war for 10 years; that the policy of the Admiralty was to work on a one-Power standard and that for that purpose, the United States was selected as the strongest naval power but with no suggestion whatever of any rivalry with or any hostility towards the United States. If we examine the position as then stated by the right hon. Gentleman we had a largo superiority in light cruisers over the United States, though the right hon. Gentleman's statement then, may not represent the facts to-day. He said:
        "Of cruisers and light cruisers we have 45 completed, or 50 if we include the Dominion Navies, as against 20 on the part of the United States; and four building as against nine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1923; col. 1088, Vol. 161.]
        Viscount CURZON: What year was that?
        Mr. PRINGLE: Last year. The quotation is taken from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on 12th March, 1923, in presenting the Estimates, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself quarrels with my quotation. I

        2119
        am not. suggesting that it represents the position now or that the figures the right hon. Gentleman then mentioned give a true account of the number of effective modern cruisers which are at the disposal of the Admiralty, but I am told by a friend who has examined the Navy List that we have at the present moment 37, and I do not understand that the figures for the United States have changed. If we look to Japan, I am told Japan has 22, so if we consider either of the two great naval Powers, we find that this country has a large superiority which is not likely to be overtaken for some time to come. What has happened in the interval? Has there been any change? Remember it was on this basis that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged the expenditure of the late Ministry 12 months ago. He then made a very admirable speech. I believe he adheres to the sentiments of that speech, but it is interesting to discover that in the opening sentences of that speech he called to mind the fact that the late Lord Randolph Churchill resigned rather than give his assent to swollen military and naval Estimates.
        The change that has taken place in the interval has been such as to make it less rather than more necessary to embark on further naval expenditure. Japan, as a result of the disastrous earthquake, has been put into a position in which she is likely to be a less effective competitor. Further, in the Japanese Estimates which have just been presented to the Japanese Parliament, and of which an account appeared in the "Times" a fortnight ago, we find there is a reduction of expenditure on the part of Japan of £4,500,000. If there is any other consideration which should be taken into account I think it is that only during the last few days this country has shown its friendship for Japan by lending her a large sum of money. Under these condition's, if we consider the effectiveness of Japanese competition and the risks that are likely to arise in that quarter, or the atmosphere of the relations between the two countries, we have every ground for reducing rather than increasing our naval expenditure. These are the facts as they have been disclosed to the House up to the present time. We have then the problem of unemployment. It was on
        2120
        that ground this proposal was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister and, apparently, from the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty this afternoon, it is on that ground the new expenditure is to be undertaken by His Majesty's present Government. What are the facts regarding unemployment? Unemployment was worse a year ago, a great deal worse.
        Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Not in Barrow!
        Mr. PRINGLE: Take the figures for shipbuilding. It will be found that there has been an improvement in employment in the shipbuilding trade, and there are indications also of a slight revival in mercantile shipbuilding. Many orders have been given during recent months.
        Sir G. DOYLE: Not in Newcastle!
        Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is not familiar with what is going on in his own constituency. I was in Newcastle on Saturday last, and I spoke with several people who are closely associated with shipping and with shipbuilding, who told me that at Blyth, and Wallsend, and Shields, and Sunderland, new orders have been given by shipowners, even although they anticipated very little profit accruing from building under present conditions: and shipowners are following that practice in other parts of the country. If you look at the guarantees that have been given under the Trade Facilities Act, you will find the same thing going on, so that there is actually an improvement in employment in the shipbuilding industry.
        Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Member give any figures to support his argument?
        Mr. PRINGLE: I have given facts as to orders being given, but I did not expect that on such an elementary matter as that. I should be challenged. The orders have, in fact, been given, and I think any hon. Member associated either with merchant shipping or with merchant shipbuilding will bear out what I say. I am making this point, that there was a stronger case for laying down cruisers, on the ground of unemployment, a year ago than there is to-day.
        Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Member give the figures of a single fresh order that has been placed?
        Mr. PRINGLE: I have given examples of what has happened in Newcastle.
        Sir G. DOYLE rose.
        Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members should wait their turn.
        Mr. PRINGLE: I am giving to the House what I ascertained by personal investigation only a few days ago, and what is common knowledge, I say also, among people who are associated with merchant shipping and merchant shipbuilding. The next question is, What is going to be the effect of building the five light cruisers? It may have a, slight immediate effect on employment at the favoured ports, whose representatives were so much in evidence at question time to-day, but what will be its general effect upon shipbuilding? The owners who to-day are giving orders for ships are doing it with little prospect of profit. [Laughter.] Hon. Members above the Gangway may regard that as altruistic on the part of anybody connected with the capitalist system, but it has happened, and if the Government, at such a time, is going to enter upon a policy of construction—and we do not know whether the five is the limit or not—you are going to make it more difficult for the owners who are now contemplating orders. On the present basis of prices, there is a very slender encouragement to anybody to lay down ships, but if the Government is going to take this action, it will discourage any further development of mercantile shipbuilding, which would be far more profitable than employing men on unproductive work of this kind. These considerations may not commend themselves to hon. Members opposite, but they at least, I think, should awaken some favourable response, both from hon. Members on the back benches above the Gangway, and from hon. and right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. I have not sought to delay the House by making any unnecessary quotations from their speeches. There is only one which I would inflict upon the House, as I think it fairly represents their general attitude. It is as follows:
        "I am uncompromising on this matter."
        2122
        That is, expenditure of a naval and military character—
        "I came into political life on this question of disarmament and peace, and I feel very deeply on this matter, because I see the same thing beginning again to-day. The curtain was rung down on one great tragedy, and it is being rung up upon another."
        That was said by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby), the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I quote that, not as against the hon. Gentleman, but because it fairly represented the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I have quoted their two Resolutions. Nearly every hon. and right hon. Gentleman on that Front Bench voted for these Resolutions, as I voted for them myself, and as many of my hon. Friends voted likewise. I submit that, apart from their declarations, we have established this, at least, that the Government up to the present have disclosed no case for undertaking these new commitments, that there is no case so far published that such construction is necessary in the interests of naval defence, and that, if you take the ground of unemployment, while certain immediate advantages will be conferred in favoured areas, the general effect on mercantile shipbuilding and mercantile shipping cannot be other than injurious. It is on these grounds that I beg to move.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would ask the Government to reconsider this whole question. I have been examining the figures of our naval strength in light cruisers and other craft, and I think the case against building light cruisers to-day is overwhelming. I am going to trouble the House with a very few figures. These quotations are from a recognised work of reference, "Brassey's Annual" for 1920–21. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will deal with the most recent figures, in this month's Navy List, as well. "Brassey's Annual" of four years ago, dealing with the question of the most modern fighting craft, gave the following figures for light cruisers built and building: Great Britain, 69; United States of America, 13; France, 11; and Japan, 13. Looking myself in the various works of reference of a later date, including the Navy List, I find these figures—and I am quite prepared to be corrected by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty or the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty with their official 'figures—

        2123
        but this is what I make it, and I do not think I am very far out:
        In light cruisers we have to-day—not counting ships like the Encounter and obsolete ships kept on for special services, and not counting the Chatham and Weymouth class, although they are very fine sea-going cruisers, and very useful for cruiser work on trade routes—I make it 37 light cruisers of the most modern excellent type. There are, in addition to them, 11 Chathams and Weymouths, which I did not count in that figure, but which are nevertheless of very great value in trade protection. And we cannot leave out the fact that we are very strong in flotilla leaders, which do for fleet work, and are as good as cruisers for certain kinds of work. We have 16 flotilla leaders. We have five aircraft carriers, and there is a growing school of opinion in the Navy that would rather have this money spent on air scouting vessels of various types, including aircraft carriers, and we cannot leave those five aircraft-carriers out of our calculation. We have already building four light cruisers, including two of the Hawkins class, magnificent vessels, as fine as anything building in any foreign country.
        What are the latest figures I can find of our possible enemies? It is very undesirable to talk of countries with whom you are on terms of the greatest friendship in this way, but, unfortunately, it is the fashion. I suppose it will be used to justify this building programme, and it is necessary, therefore, to deal with this matter. Japan, I take it, has 20 modern light cruisers—some people say 22—and most of them are armed with 5·5-inch guns, in comparison with 6-inch and 7·5-inch guns which most of our vessels carry. France has, really speaking, only four modern light cruisers. They are of the ex-German Town Class—the Metz, Strasburg, Thionville, and Mulhouse—and France has two or three cruisers building with 6·1-inch guns. The United States of America is notoriously weak in light cruisers, and, according to my figures—perhaps the Admiralty Intelligence Staff have better information—the United States has only 10 cruisers which can be described as modern, armed with 6·inch guns. On these figures,
        2124
        I declare most emphatically that these five cruisers are not necessary at all. I am borne out by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sparkbrook Division of Birmingham (Mr. Amery), who was First Lord of the Admiralty when he spoke on the Debate that led to the defeat of the last Government. Speaking then, he used these words—he admitted, in fact, that the programme was being anticipated—
        "We considered whether it would not be possible to anticipate to some extent our normal, and, in any case, necessary programme of naval replacement."
        I think that shows that even the Admiralty War Staff admits these new vessels are being speeded-up simply for the purpose of relieving unemployment, and are not required this year, or next year, or the year afterwards on the comparative tables of strength.
        Mr. AMERY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the next sentence?
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
        or this, I rather think, will be the more correct way of putting it—to restore the normal programme which, under the pressure of the calls for economy, we have been prepared to some extent to postpone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1924; col. 607, Vol. 169.]
        I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman in any way, but he did use the words "to some extent anticipating the programme." He went on to speak of an average building programme of five cruisers a year. If we like so to read it, the Washington Conference left the door open to a fresh race of naval armaments in regard to light cruisers. It was laid down there that the limit of light cruisers should be 10,000 tons, and the heaviest gun 8 inch, but surely that did not mean all cruisers of less than 10,000 tons and armed with lesser guns were obsolete, because, if so, it meant that we must wipe out many vessels of our possible rivals. It is fashionable, unfortunately, nowadays, to compare our strength with France. She is the strongest air Power, and we have to build aeroplanes against her. I suppose Japan is the strongest Power in light cruisers, and we have to build light cruisers against Japan. But France, today, is engaged in a large building programme of ocean-going submarine cruisers, and I agree that such craft are a possible

        2125
        menace to the trade routes of this country. But against submarine cruisers, cruisers armed with 8-inch guns are useless, and you must have aircraft or anti-submarine vessels. Certainly these light cruisers do not meet the menace—which, I agree, is a menace, unless something is done—of the French submarine cruiser programme. I noticed last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Debate on the pensions for poor widowed mothers, said:
        "I am beset, on the other hand, by clamant demands of all kinds for an increased expenditure. We, as a Government, are committed—and we are glad to be committed—to an increase of expenditure upon certain schemes of social reform and amelioration."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1924; col. 1891, Vol. 169.]
        If the right hon. Gentleman has got money to spare for armaments for preparation for war, we shall be told by France that this is a case of perfidious Albion talking about unemployment with tears in her eyes, and building cruisers against them, and it will be used as an argument for armaments on their side. If we have money to spare, I ask the Cabinet to consider whether it ought not to be spent in a different form of defensive and offensive weapons. If we have this money to spend on armaments, why are we not building aeroplanes? If it is a question of finding work, aeroplanes can be built at Barrow, on the Clyde, at Plymouth and other shipbuilding centres.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems now to be opening up the full width of the discussion which we usually have on Vote A of the Estimates for the year. That must not take place to-night. The hon. Member will please keep to the question of light cruisers.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg pardon. I intended only to mention that in passing, but I was led away by my indignation. Already our naval distribution and our naval forces are giving alarm to some of our good friends on the Continent. There is a movement of alarm to-day in Italy because we have concentrated on the Mediterranean Fleet, and the Italians are approaching France, according to the Press, with invitations to join them in meeting this threat from England. This building programme, I am afraid, must be interpreted as a threat by people with whom we are at present on very good terms, and, since my right hon. Friend took office, on
        2126
        better terms, I am glad to say. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think it is admitted that we are on better terms with France. We are certainly on better terms with Russia.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is too easily led away.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not offend again. I must however trouble the House with one more figure. On the 20th July last, I asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Evesham (Commander Eyres-Monsell), who was then speaking for the Admiralty, how many light cruisers were in commission by the various Powers, and the figures he gave were astonishing. Japan had 11, France four, and the British Empire 34. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then why are these extra cruisers necessary? I come to the most potent argument, namely, that the building of these cruisers will relieve unemployment. In that case why are we building only five? There are four Royal dockyards—Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham and Pembroke—and all the private yards—Barrow of course—and five cruisers will not go round. If it is such a splendid thing for unemployment, why not build 20? Why not 25? What is the limit? I must confess that I think this is a very dangerous argument. Followed to a logical conclusion we might as well relieve unemployment by embarking upon a first-class war! These cruisers will have to be kept up. They will have to be manned, equipped and maintained. They will lead to great expenditure. The whole of that money must come out of the money needed for social reform, housing, etc.
        It is said to be necessary to employ men to build ships that are not required. Why not build something more useful? Could not we build locomotives and railway wagons, with long credit, for those European countries which need them? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Russia."] There are other countries besides Russia. There are many other more useful engineering projects that could be put in hand for the benefit of the unemployed instead of these cruisers. The advent of my right hon. Friend and his Government, which, personally, I was delighted to see, sent a wave of hope across Europe, and to all people of progressive and democratic minds, to all the peoples who want to see an era of peace in the world, to these

        2127
        people who look for better international relationships! This is not a good start in that pacification of Europe, in the resettlement of the world, and in bringing more closely together mankind into what I hope will eventually be an organisation that will finally prevent war. This, I say, is a bad start, and does, I think, justify my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) in his Motion. I hope it will give the Government pause, and that this matter will be reconsidered.
        The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I confess to a good deal of amazement at the speeches which have just been delivered. First one and then another assumed that this was an increase in Admiralty expenditure. They never asked; they do not know; they had simply reached the assumption that this was an increase in armaments, and they did not inquire. I am bound to confess that I think it is a very good example of apparent haste to criticise on any pretext whatever.
        9.0 P.M.
        Mr. PRINGLE: I should just like to observe in relation to the apparent haste that, until it became known that the Prime Minister was going to make a reassuring statement, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. J. H. Hudson) intended to second my Motion.
        Mr. WESTWOOD: That, Mr. Speaker, is just one of the hon. Member for Penistone's dirty tricks.
        The PRIME MINISTER: Far be it from me to claim that every hon. Member who sits behind me is above falling into mistakes. The hon. Member who moved the Motion himself admitted that he had done so by mistake. He informed the House that he did so under the impression that the Government was to begin building these cruisers without asking the sanction of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, in excusing himself for that mistake, said he did not hear what the Parliamentary Secretary said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Speaker did not hear!"] I have a document in my hand from which the Parliamentary Secretary read his answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was the supplementaries!"] This is not
        2128
        the supplementary. I am now reading from the original document—
        "Tenders will be invited at once from the contractors so that it will be possible to proceed with the work as soon as the necessary Parliamentary sanction has been given."
        Then there was a supplementary question. My hon. Friend said it might not be necessary to put down a token Vote. My hon. Friend assumed—and I am not sure he assumed wrongly—that, in the ordinary course of affairs, the matter had been discussed in the Estimates, or would be discussed in the Estimates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I hope hon. Members on all sides of the House will be good enough to remember—perhaps they may need it when they come into office some day—that it may take them a week or two to understand all the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure But whether a token Vote is, or is not, necessary, that statement made by the Government stands—and nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). No keel can be laid down; no preparation can be made for laying a keel down, until this House sanctions it—that is if the House does sanction these cruisers. That is the first point.
        I would submit now with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that that point having been disposed of, the conditions under which the Adjournment Motion can be granted have been removed. Since that point has been proved to be false, the Debate has been deprived of reality. I advise, my hon. Friend to read the Estimates before he begins to make speeches in a matter like this on the subject of the Admiralty. I would take this opportunity, however, of explaining exactly how the matter stands. The building of these five cruisers is no increase of Naval expenditure.
        Sir JOHN SIMON: We are not quite certain as to exactly how far the reply of the right hon. Gentleman carries us. He used the expression, "No keel will be laid down." I suppose the critical question is whether any tender will be accepted? No doubt that is the primary point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not think my right hon. Friend objects to me asking him if he means that no tender will be accepted?
        The PRIME MINISTER: Does my right hon. and learned Friend imagine

        2129
        that the Government is so foolish as to accept tenders, with all the consequences, if they are not to be carried into effect? Of course not. I answer, if a tender he accepted responsibility follows. And does my right hon. and learned Friend suggest that the Government is merely quibbling with the House of Commons? I may explain why this unusual procedure has been taken. The question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) was perfectly sound, and there is no equivocation on this matter. I am not saying this for the purpose of misleading anybody. The lenders will be put out, will be received, and will await the decision of this House. There is no increase in our naval strength if we begin to build those five cruisers this year, because they are purely for the purpose of replacing a certain type of cruiser, with a wide range, which is wanted. We want five of them now, in order to keep up what is practically the existing standard.
        Among the cruisers in commission 10 are now over 15 years old, and I am informed that 15 years is the life of a cruiser. Ten of them are practically dead, and 17 more will be over 15 years old within the next five years. I want the House to understand what is the position. Are we going to be told—and I would like a straight answer on this point—that the method of bringing about disarmament and of carrying out pledges —I am very glad the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has referred to the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself—are we going, to be told that the way we are going to carry out those pledges is to allow the Navy to disappear by wastage from the bottom? I withdraw nothing of what I said about disarmament—that the nation which trusts to armaments is bound to be deceived. But what a magnificent conception of pacifist principles are held by hon. Members who think the best way to do that is to allow your ships to fall to pieces! That is not my view, and it never will be my view.
        The second point is this: There is no question of policy involved in the building of these five cruisers. The question of how many cruisers we want, the type of cruiser required, the question what is to be the standard we are to build up against are questions not involved in anything the
        2130
        Government has declared to-day it proposes to do. The whole of those questions are at the present moment under exploration, and until that has been finished no decision will be come to. Whatever the policy is, we must work upon a scheme. There is nothing more wasteful and less efficient than to build a number of ships one year and a number of ships another year, because we must know exactly what we are driving at, and how our policy is going to be co-ordinated into national relationships. And the League of Nations, and the Government, is not going to be hurried into making up its mind as to how that is going to be begun. But we want to replace, and no foreign nation—whether France, Japan or America—can ever protest with the least effectiveness if our building simply means replacement.
        Now as to the other point. It is perfectly true that we did have unemployment in our minds. Again I am amazed at some of the arguments. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asks what is the use of building five ships, because they will not go round. Has my hon. and gallant Friend become so idealistic that he does nothing but what is perfect? I have already explained that five is the replacement number, and that is all.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What class of cruisers are they replacing?
        The PRIME MINISTER: The "County" class.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They have been scrapped long ago.
        The PRIME MINISTER: That is perfectly true, and they were always going to be replaced. The County class is a type of the large radius, and the time and place to discuss that matter is on Vote A. Hon. Members know very well that in the mass of cruisers now in commission there was an over-preparation built for North Sea purposes during the War. The light cruiser only is fit for very short distances, because the base of supply of North Sea operations was always quite close, and those cruisers were built in order to accommodate themselves to these circumstances. My hon. and gallant Friend knows perfectly well that that type of cruiser is of no use for trade rout e purposes. Therefore, a part of the County class must be replaced,

        2131
        and that replacement will simply fit into a general scheme of wastage which has to be taken in hand year by year as the Estimates come up. I know we cannot put a ship in every yard, and I have explained why we took five.
        In what position do we find ourselves—and here I deal with the innovation which I confess the Government have made? For the last three months, until towards the end of January, there has been practically no Government in this country. We had the election. We all knew that an election was coming, and no Government was in a position to commit itself to any large or important scheme. The election came; then there was the vacation, then we met, still in a great uncertainty; and only at the end of January did we come into office. We found ourselves thus faced: We were informed —I can only give the information that was placed before us—that, on the 22nd of next month, 2,250 men would have to be discharged from our dockyards, and that, if no fresh construction were to be put in hand, those 2,250 men would have to be supplemented by 2,500 up to March of next year. Suppose that we wished to close our dockyards. Would any Government choose that way of closing them, at a time like this, when about 1,200,000 people are unemployed, and a large part of those unemployed people are connected with engineering and with the iron and shipbuilding industries? Assuming for argument's sake that we were going to close the dockyards, is the way that would be adopted by any responsible Government to take 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 men within 12 months, and throw them out on to the streets at a time of very severe unemployment? At any rate, no Labour Government would ever do anything of the kind. Now we have to meet that, and we are informed that, by putting this replacement programme in hand at once, we can save that situation, and tide over that difficulty. Why should we wish to increase armaments, to begin that very fatal race which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had in mind when he was making the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Penistone? If we were to do that, then there is no justification whatever—
        Captain BERKELEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on that
        2132
        point? Have the Government considered the prejudicial effect which this announcement may have upon the Conference on the Limitation of Naval Armaments in Europe, which is now sitting at Rome?
        The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly the point I took before. We never can protect ourselves, and if the hon. and gallant Member sat on this Front Bench and produced his policy, he never could protect himself, against misunderstanding and foolish conclusions. We have been subject to that since we came here. If this matter were to influence the able men at Rome, we are in a position to explain the misunderstanding away. But I do not believe for a single moment that a Convention such as that which is sitting at Rome would consider that we are violating anything, or that we are menacing anybody, by rebuilding to fill up—not to complete, but to fill up a substantial part of—the wastage which we have allowed to go on during the last few years. I must assume that those gallant Gentlemen have sound common sense, and are able to put two and two together.
        Suppose that there were 2,250 men next month on the streets. I can imagine the criticism that would come upon us from below and above the Gangway, and from the other side of the House; I can imagine the telegrams if, in three weeks from now, we were discharging 1,000 men at Chatham, 1,200 at Devonport, and so on. I can imagine the questions; I can imagine the supplementaries; I can imagine the attempts to get the Adjournment Motion. But that would not have mattered. We have to face, quite apart from what hon. Members of this House may do, this simple fact. We are struggling hard to do something to alleviate unemployment. Could we take upon ourselves the responsibility of hardening our hearts and setting our faces against the building of ships which, I repeat, do not increase our fighting force? Could we harden our hearts against the building of those ships, and allow these men, with their wives and families dependent upon them, to be turned out on the streets? It might have been done in ordinary times, but, provided that the military policy is sane, then I maintain that the thought which ought to dominate the minds of the Cabinet is

        2133
        the thought of preventing that very disastrous step having to be taken.
        My final point is this: Since we came into office, we have addressed letters to municipalities, to all sorts of public authorities, and to private people, begging them to put work in hand. We gave instructions that the War Office should explore the possibilities of putting work in hand, and we gave instructions that the Air Ministry should do the same. Are we going to be told that we have deserted our principles, or have done something wrong, because we also addressed that request to the Admiralty? Why? We asked the Admiralty, "Have you any building? Have you any stores that you want replenished; have you anything undone in hand that you can do now, either to replace blanks or to keep up stocks?" And this programme was suggested. I hope that with that explanation—I may be expressing a vain hope—but I hope that the House will allow us to get on with real business It is very often necessary, I know, to have these Motions for Adjournment., but they are a great drain upon time. We have only two full days a week, Monday and Thursday, and taking away one half of to-night to discuss this matter has certainly embarrassed us as far as other business is concerned. We have to get our business through, and, if I may say so, with great respect, I think this Debate might quite well have been postponed until the ordinary occasion for raising such matters. I should like very much, if it were possible, to let this matter go now, so that we may get back to the Estimates, which must be completed, as preliminaries to the equally essential financial business which we want to finish before Easter. I hope I have made my statement in such a way that it will be informative without being too aggressive. If I have said anything beyond that, it is because I think that these opportunities should be taken with a little more care and a little more reason than, I am sorry to say, this one appears to have been.
        Mr. AMERY: I have some hesitation in intervening after the Prime Minister's address, but, hon. Members have clearly shown their intention of continuing this not very necessary Debate, despite the Prime Minister's appeal. We, on this side, little thought when he hauled down our flag a month ago, that we should be
        2134
        called upon so soon to support the Government—[Interruption]—against a treacherous surprise attack on the part of a squadron that the Government had at any rate some reason to regard as entitled to support them. I do not say the Prime Minister, as far as the Debate is concerned, needed our support. He stated the case, as I knew it only a few weeks ago, perfectly clearly and quite concisely. And if I may say so—and I hope it is no presumption on my part—he and his colleagues have in a very few weeks, mastered the facts of many difficult situations, and have had the courage to show that they have mastered these situations. That some of their supporters may have failed to face the same realities may be a perfectly natural circumstance, but it is a circumstance of which, apparently, certain ingenious Members below the Gangway are trying to take the fullest advantage. The hon. Member for Pentstone, for instance, has now day after clay been exercising his skill in endeavouring to make mischief. Like another ago he is continually trying to insinuate into the minds of the single Othellos of the Labour back benches the poison of suspicion against the innocent Desdemonas of the Front Bench.
        I need not attempt to repeat the main points the Prime Minister has made. This Debate is, in this sense, unnecessary. There was never any doubt in my mind when I listened to the answer and supplementary answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, that nothing would be done without Parliamentary sanction, whether on a token vote or on the ordinary Estimates. On the issue of Naval policy again let me say that I think the Prime Minister stated the case quite fairly. The decision is entirely independent, both of the general Naval policy of the future, and Perfectly consistent with such hopes that we, on this side, as well as on the other, entertain as to the possibilities of future limitations of armaments by common agreement. He has also made it clear that, on the basis of our present naval policy, these cruisers are absolutely necessary as mere replacement. When I introduced the Estimates, nearly a year ago, I pointed out that the figures were entirely exceptional; that we had postponed many things which were essential to be carried out, and for which we would have to ask the permission of the

        2135
        House in subsequent Estimates. One of these was the replacing of cruisers. I pointed out at the end of January that in the next 10 years we should have to replace 52 cruisers. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, in addition to 10 more or less obsolete, now in reserve, another 17 will become obsolete in the next five years.
        As it takes fully three years to build cruisers, obviously we have to lay down 17 within the next three years. I have made it clear that, while in deference to a very difficult financial situation, we might have been content with laying down only five cruisers this year, we believed that the unemployment situation justified us in putting forward the programme of eight. If there was any anticipation, it was in respect of three cruisers only, and the present Government cannot be accused in respect of that.
        I think I need not delay long on the question of unemployment. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) put a question which, to my mind, was perfectly absurd. He asked, "If you build five cruisers to remedy unemployment, why not build 25? The answer is perfectly simple. There is no justification in building cruisers or doing anything at the taxpayers' expense which is not wanted. To build unnecessary cruisers is clearly a waste of the nation's money. It is only because these cruisers were wanted that we felt it was justified from our point of view. The programme which we put before the House on the last day of office was one which would have given full employment to some 32,000 men, not only in the shipbuilding yards, but in the great factories where shipbuilding material is made and where there are a hundred and one auxiliary requirements that go to make ships of war. I am very sorry for my part that the Government have not seen fit to carry out the whole of that programme. That programme was one of eight cruisers and a very considerable number of other vessels—submarines, an aircraft carrier, a mine-layer—I need not enumerate them in detail, but it is sufficient for my purpose to say that the programme the Government has put forward is not quite half, from the point of view of employment, of the programme which
        2136
        we put forward, and to that extent I greatly regret it.
        There is the further difficulty to which someone has drawn attention, that if you give three cruisers to the dockyards there is really very little left to meet the requirements of the many private yards. No one can deny the extent of the unemployment and misery in the great shipbuilding centres, and in spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penistone has said, no one can suggest that there is going to be a substantial and speedy recovery in the shipbuilding world. According to the Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping, just published, there are 6,750,000 tons of shipping idle to-day. Sir Norman Hill, in his evidence before the dock strike inquiry, pointed out that 600,000 tons of our shipping are lying idle in British ports and the great majority of the companies carrying cargo are carrying it at a loss. In those conditions you cannot expect an early revival. If in these conditions we can find skilled work, not relief schemes, which may be largely waste, but skilled work, in the very industries which are most in need of that skilled work, tiding them over the time till ordinary shipbuilding gets better, surely it is preposterous that this attack should be made on the Government when they a carrying out, as I consider in regrettably incomplete fashion, a programme which is in no sense inconsistent with any general scheme of world peace which they may have in view, but which is urgently required by the working population of the country.
        Mr. LAMBERT: It is with no desire to make a technical or small point that I ask the attention of the House for a few moments. When I sat on that bench I took precisely the same point that I am going to take to-night. The Prime Minister evidently has a very heavy load on his shoulders. I say with all sincerity that I do not wish to embarrass him, but this to me is a point of principle. I sympathise with the Financial Secretary. I know full well that for a few months he will be at sea at the Admiralty. But the Admiralty is not at sea. They know full well all the procedure of this House. He stated that tenders will be invited at once from contractors. But there they have singularly

        2137
        badly misled the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's argument was, if we do not invite these tenders from the contractors we shall have to discharge 2,250 men from the dockyards. Unless I am greatly mistaken, to give work to the Royal Dockyards does not require any tenders from contractors.
        The PRIME MINISTER: I never suggested anything of the kind. The tenders are to be taken from private contractors. I am afraid I omitted really to finish what I was going to say on account of interjections. Tenders are to be taken because it will take another month, and we want to speed up the beginning of work, not in the Royal Dockyards, but as regards private contractors.
        Mr. LAMBERT: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sorry if I misrepresented him. Knowing the difficulties of sitting on that bench and coming in contact with new business, I will not attempt, to make any petty point, but I must say this is an extraordinary Parliamentary situation. Where did this policy come from? From Plymouth. I happen to be a Devonshire Member, and therefore I read the late Prime Minister's speech at Plymouth with a great deal of attention. This is what he said on 25th October:
        "The Government have decided to lay down several light cruisers."
        That. is the Conservative policy. He said also:
        "It is merely anticipating work which must have been undertaken in a couple of years time."
        Not for immediate defence, but in a couple of years time. Then the right hon. Gentleman said:
        "I am not a clever man. I know nothing of political tactics."
        Mr. ERSKINE: That is nothing to be ashamed of.
        Mr. LAMBERT: Why, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know anything of political tactics, did he go to Plymouth, which is adjacent to Devonport, a great shipbuilding centre, and say he proposed to lay down several light cruisers? That is the policy which the present Government is following. I object to this policy. I objected to it when the Prime Minister made it. In the old days Parliamentarians used to bribe the electorate with their own money. To-day it becomes
        2138
        the fashion to bribe the electorate with the taxpayers' money. I object to this bribe. If hon. Members pay the money out of their own pockets well and good, but it comes out of my constituents' pockets, and why should my constituents be taxed in order to provide bribes for either Government? This is a system of political debauchery. It seems to be imagined that to spend the taxpayers' money will cure all ills. To my mind that is a very great mistake. I put this economic argument to the Government bench. You do not increase employment by these orders. You simply divert it. You give employment to the shipbuilders it may be, but you take away from the taxpayer the power to use his own money in his own way. That is a sound economic argument which my right hon. Friend will have to realise. The money for these cruisers will not come down from Heaven, like manna. It will have to be taken from the taxpayers. I hate taxes, and I do not propose to allow this Government of any Government to put more taxes upon me or upon my constituents when I feel that they are not justified.
        To lay down cruisers from a defensive point of view before they are wanted is waste. I learned the lesson when I was at the Admiralty—[Laughter.] It is very easy to laugh, but those hon. Members who laugh cannot correct me in what I am saying. When I was at the Admiralty I learned the lesson that you should never lay down a ship, especially a battleship, until it is absolutely necessary, because if you do it will be obsolete. These cruisers, I have not the smallest doubt, will be obsolete before they are finished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like the Liberal party!"] My hon. Friends need not bother about the Liberal party. The Liberal party is not obsolete. May I put this point to the Prime Minister, that in considering the naval programme, we do not want these small instalments. We want to consider the naval programme as a whole, when the Naval Estimates are presented. We cannot criticise this to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why are you doing it?"] We cannot criticise this to-day as to whether it is sufficient or insufficient, because we do not know what the Government are going to propose on the whole. Therefore, I say, wait until the Naval Estimates are out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you not wait?"] Will you wait? Will

        2139
        the Government withdraw these tenders? They began this rush.
        In this matter of naval defence, let us remember the Debate we had on Tuesday night. It is not cruisers we want. London can be bombed by French aeroplanes, and cruisers will not keep them away. I say to the Government that I am sorry they have embarked upon this policy. I should be false to my own pledges and to my opinions were I to support them to-night. I shall go into the Lobby against them, for I do not believe, and it is well for the Conservative party to understand it, that spending the taxpayers' money will permanently relieve unemployment. Let that get into their minds. I know there is a good deal.—[Interruption]. If hon. Members provoke me, I shall say a good deal more. I do ask the Government, and I ask the House, to remember that building unnecessary battleships will not be a permanent cure for unemployment.
        Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: It is never easy to follow the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), and it is not easy to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). The hon. Member for Penistone was kind enough to recall a number of election cries. He said that disarmament and the reduction of naval expenditure were election cries. We never heard anything about those subjects at Portsmouth or any of the other Royal Dockyard towns. The hon. Member wanted to know what was the use of cruisers. He seemed to think that they would injure the mercantile marine. What a curious notion. The cruiser is built to protect the mercantile marine. It is its object, and practically its whole object, to keep the path of the mercantile marine open and to see that we get our food from other nations. The work of our cruisers is world wide, while the work of the cruisers of the other nations he mentioned is only in their local waters. He spoke of our possible enemies. I should like to have heard him tell us who are our friends. In my experience, this country has very few friends. Our friends could be counted on the thumbs of both hands.
        I would ask the hon. Member to remember that no social reform is possible unless these shores are safe. What was it that protected these shores and kept them in-
        2140
        violate, not only during the last War but during the past centuries The Royal Navy. What enabled us to win the War? The Royal Navy. The Army could not have fired a shot if the Navy had not conducted them to France and fed them when they were there. I had the honour of serving in the junior service, and I know that perfectly well. Not one soldier would have landed in France, and not one shot would have been fired, if the Navy had not kept the sea for the Army. If it was difficult to follow the hon. Member for Penistone, it was much more difficult to follow the Prime Minister, for he knocked the whole bottom out of the Debate. There was one ominous passage in his speech in which he told the hon. Member for Penistone to wait for the Navy Vote before making his speech on the reductions of the Navy. I trust that no speeches that he may make on the Vote for the Navy will show any further reduction in that grand cause. Wherever we could save money—and I could tell many places where money could be saved—it would be the height of folly to starve the Navy, on which this country entirely depends. I am glad to see from this quotation that he is not one of those who, if they wish for peace, prepare for peace. He had the far wider and far wiser idea, the idea, of the old peoples who were masters of the world, that if you want peace you ought to prepare for its alternative.
        Mr. MAXTON: And you got the alternative.
        Sir B. FALLE: In placing these cruisers it is understood that one cruiser is to be placed in each of the Royal Dockyards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not know why hon. Members opposite seem to think that because a Member represents a dockyard constituency, therefore he should not be fair to other dockyards and other people. It is a mistake to judge other people by themselves, unless their ideas and standards are high. Whatever constituency did me the honour of returning me, I should make the same speech as I am making now. We depend on the Navy and we must keep it up to standard. When the War ended we had a Navy as strong as any two navies in the world. Now we have not a Navy as strong as that of the United States; but if we do not build ships in our Royal

        2141
        Dockyards, remember that, we place ourselves entirely in the hands of the private yards, those yards which hon. Members opposite are never tired of abusing because they say they are part of the ring of armament makers which force this country and other countries into armaments and bring on war, as if armaments ever brought on war. What kept the peace of Europe for the last 40 years was the fact that Germany was so strong that nobody would attack her.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now getting to be a little wide of the subject under Debate. I have reminded the House that this Debate was to be confined to the specific point upon which the Motion for Adjournment was raised.
        Sir B. FALLE: I will try to remain inside your ruling. I believe that the Navy is the greatest necessity in this country. It has kept her free for hundreds of years. It has kept her soil inviolate all through dissentions, and all during the last War, and if we do not keep our Navy up to a proper strength it will be the end, not only of our Empire, but also of this country herself.
        10.0 P.M.
        Major HORE-BELISHA: One fact of great significance emerges from the programme which the Government has put before the House. Two successive Governments, differing in principle and in personnel, and opposed in theory, particularly in the theory of defence, have successively put forward the same policy, one in a less extensive form than the other. To my mind that is the most conclusive of arguments, that these two political parties, being supported and guided by the same advisers, having access to the same information, should lay an identical policy before the House, and I have very much pleasure in associating myself with the Labour party, or that section of it which is prepared to support this policy.
        I had hoped, and I still hope, that when the Labour Government laid before the House this policy, it was some indication that we had at length reached a period when the question of national defence must he removed from the narrow area of party polities. As long as I remain in this House I shall never record a party vote on any question of foreign policy or on any question of the defence of this
        2142
        country. There are issues which transend the narrow considerations which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, making an exception from his usual course, adopted. It is possible to lay down certain principles of defence, as it is to lay down certain principles of insurance, which should commend themselves to all sections of the House. That is not a matter which is appropriate on this occasion. But the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has supported his Motion with the lamest arguments it is possible to advance in support of any Motion. I took the precaution of noting down some of them. Before passing to them let me say that this, programme commends itself to me on grounds of economy. The late First Lord of the Admiralty, in the course of a very admirable and lucid speech—and few knew more about the position than he does—made it clear on the address that this was really a question of economy—and the Prime Minister has reinforced his point to-night, He said:
        "There will moreover be a particularly heavy drop in the next six years, and to prevent a serious deficiency in 1929 in subsequent years we ought to lay down as many above that average"—
        —that is the average of five per year-—
        "as in the immediately preceding three years. Apart from strategical considerations there are also very strong reasons of administration and economy in favour of expediting to some extent our cruiser programme. In 1927–28 and subsequent years we shall have to keep the yards well occupied with considerable replacements of destroyers which by that time will have become obsolete."
        That is an argument which is quite unanswerable. You have the unemployment problem to-day. It may be bettor in years to come. Then why should you subtract men from industries of a productive character to put them on the construction of these vessels? Now is the time to utilise to the full the labour you have at your disposal. I would point out to the hon. Member for Penistone that this does not involve putting men into the shipbuilding industry. It gives employment to men who have always been employed in the shipbuilding industry.
        It is not only a question of economy, it is a question of national safety and unemployment, and unemployment is the main question before us to-day. That divides itself into two categories, the private yards and the national yards,

        2143
        which brings me to the further extraordinary argument of the hon. Member for Penistone, that if you build these ships you stop commercial shipbuilding. Was ever such a. ridiculous argument placed before the House? What are the Royal Dockyards for? What are the men maintained there for? They can never get private tenders, and that is the gravity of the whole question. The commercial yards will be revived when shipbuilding is revived as a consequence of the revival of trade, but the national yards will not be revived when trade is revived I should be the last person in this House to advance arguments in favour of this programme, merely because I think the dockyard towns would be satisfied. That would be a deplorable thing to do, but you have the national consideration. These yards have been built with the taxpayers' money; the capital is the taxpayers. You are allowing the machinery of those yards to go rusty, and you are letting the men go rusty too. You have an obligation towards these men because there is absolutely no alternative employment for them. For generations these men have lived around these yards, and they depend on the policy of the Government for their livelihood. If this Motion goes through it will bring despair to 2,500 families in the Royal Dockyards and to 32,000 in the Royal Dockyards plus the commercial yards. If my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone thinks the national yards should be done away with, then it is up to him to put up some alternative policy, but we cannot simply scrap the men and the yards. You have to find them alternative employment.
        My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said, "Why do you not build railways and something that is useful?" But they cannot build anything but ships. The shipbuilding industry is the most important industry in the whole country. It is absolutely essential for the prosperity of the country that we should maintain skilled men. As a consequence of the reductions made already, our best men have gone to America. Apprentices from the dockyards, trained at tremendous expenditure, selected with tremendous care, the very finest men this country could produce, have gone to America and there they are earning £9
        2144
        a week instead of 30s. You have a responsibility towards those men from the point of view of national safety. The programme for which we are asking your approval is one that I approve wholeheartedly. A reduction of this programme would involve the greatest distress in the country. This programme seeks to give employment not only directly but indirectly by preparing a scheme of insurance without which there would not be any employment at all. In the interests of those employed in those yards, both commercial and national, in the interests of their families, I support this programme with all my heart and I oppose this Motion with all my heart. My hon. Friend has no conception of the anxiety which a speech such as he delivered to-night will cause in the shipbuilding centres of the country. If my hon. Friend proposes to reconsider what he has done, I hope he will take the very earliest opportunity to withdraw his Motion.
        Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I am glad to hear that the Labour Government have decided to adhere, at any rate, in part, to the policy of the late Conservative Government.. I wish to protest strongly against the suggestion of cutting down the number of cruisers from eight to five. I do not propose to touch on the question of defence, which will be dealt with on another occasion. What I am solely and most heartfelt in worrying about is the question of unemployment and the retention in this country of the skilled mechanics who have built up the trade of the country. I wish to refer to the very definite pledges given by the present Prime Minister. In a speech he made in this House on 12th February he said:
        "There is not the slightest doubt about it that whatever Government faces the problem of unemployment ought to face it first of all with the idea of putting the unemployed men back in their own work. Therefore in so far as the Government can influence trade, that should be the first point of attack."
        You will notice that the Prime Minister expressly states that the Government ought to face this problem with the idea of putting the men back to the kind of work to which they have been accustomed. Is this another of the pledges of the Labour party about which there is to be same discussion? Talk about nibbling—an expression which the Prime Minister

        2145
        used. I say it is nibbling to talk about rive cruisers. Three of these cruisers are to be placed in the Royal Dockyards, and I am very glad to hear it. But that leaves only two cruisers to be divided among 11 yards. It almost makes one think that as a sop to the back benches of the Labour party these two odd cruisers are to be sent to the Clyde. Frankly, that is the only assumption to which I can come, as the Labour party have always held that it is their policy to do away with naval armaments altogether. I was very glad to see that when the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) rose to move the Motion a goodly number of Members on the back benches of the Government rose to support the Motion. As for the Liberal party I think that this has driven another nail into their coffin.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: We only need the funeral.
        Mr. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) made one or two extraordinary and rather amusing statements, one being that these cruisers would be obsolete before they were finished. We all know that the Liberal party is finished. It is certainly obsolete. Whatever section of people there may be who believe in disarmament, I am convinced that the main body of opinion in this country is in favour of having a Navy which will be able to look after the interests of the country and protect her trade. One of the subjects in which I am particularly interested in connection with Barrow and other shipbuilding centres, is the great peril of allowing skilled men, who have spent the whole of their lives in mechanics, who can grind down a casting to 100,000th part of an inch, to remain unemployed. What good is road-making or housebuilding to such men? In Barrow, fortunately, there is no want of houses, and we have built there all, and more than all, the roads that we require. None the less, the position is absolutely desperate. We are frankly relying upon Government assistance, and when the last Government was in power, we had a pledge that one of the eight cruisers would be built at Barrow. Barrow has been living on the hope of getting that cruiser.
        There are now two cruisers to be placed in private yards, and I appeal to the
        2146
        Prime Minister to consider most carefully whether one of those cruisers cannot be sent to Barrow. The expense of these cruisers, as stated by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, would be a matter of £5,000,000, which would carry out the whole programme of eight cruisers, gunboats, submarines, minelayers, etc. This £5,000,000 would employ about 32,000 men or on an average 4,000 men per shipbuilding centre. In Barrow it would be an absolute Godsend to take 4,000 men off the streets and out of a position in which they are losing their skill every day; out of a position in which they are becoming miserable, losing heart and giving up hope for the future. The money would be well spent in such a scheme as this. It would be spent for Imperial defence and for the good of the country and, while it might not be devoted to productive articles it would be productive expenditure in this sense, that the men carrying out this skilled work would be available in the event of any call on the country for the materials and the things which they have been used to producing.
        Mr. HUDSON: I understand that one of the questions at issue in this Debate is whether or not we shall retain five cruisers on the shipbuilding programme with a view to providing employment for people who, otherwise, will be cast out on the streets in a short time. According to the statement of the Prime Minister there is a further issue, namely, whether a shipbuilding programme on the basis of five cruisers is any departure from the general and the normal. I speak as a private Member of this House, and I think I should be proud to claim that right, after all that the Prime Minister has said upon the matter, and, as a private Member of the House, I feel myself compelled to take towards the Labour Government's attitude upon this subject a line similar to that which I was compelled to take, quite conscientiously, before the Election, when I was confronted by the programme of the late Prime Minister. I agree that the late Prime Minister spoke of more cruisers than are contemplated by the present Prime Minister. He spoke of that cruiser programme being used in the same way as is now suggested, for the purpose of relieving unemployment. I took the line in my own constituency that expenditure upon war vessels of any kind at this time of

        2147
        day, when we have had a Great War to end War, would in the long run have its reactions abroad; would be an encouragement to other nations whom we want to influence towards the disarmament and would make it difficult for us to accomplish those things which we desire, ultimately, to accomplish.
        I realise that the Opposition Benches make complaint to us—I am rather glad they have—that the programme now contemplated is only about half of that which they on that side contemplated, that instead of being the eternal cry, "We want eight, and we won't wait," they are now content to do some waiting while the programme of five cruisers is proceeded with. [An HON. MEMBER: "A first instalment!"] Yes, I see the danger in that, and it is for that reason that I urge to-night that the Government should take into account the reactions that will follow if this programme should be proceeded with.
        I am not altogether moved by the view that the building of these five new cruisers is actually replacement of a greater number of cruisers. Cruisers that are replaced are old cruisers. Before the War, when hon. Members in this House used to discuss the question of Dreadnoughts, it was the new, not the old, Dreadnoughts of Germany or on our side that were in question during those discussions, and it is because I feel that these five cruisers, if completed, will make in themselves a special menace in the world, and possibly encourage, to take one example, America, the people who are now demanding new naval appropriations for the purpose of getting a cruiser programme in America as well, it is because I fear it may lead to that result, that I hope, before we come finally to settle this issue, that some new statement may be made by the Labour Government in the direction of a further reduction upon the general number of ships proposed to be built.
        I wish to say also a word upon that particular point of the provision of employment. Personally, I feel that it is rather unfair to the community as a whole that, in order to deal with unemployment, you should take special measures which will be of special advantage to dockyard towns, when the unemployed in other industrial centres in the
        2148
        country have to be content, even when the gap is removed and with the other improvements that I am glad to say the Labour Government is determined to effect, with nothing like so effective treatment and help as is accorded to workers in dockyard towns by programmes of this sort.
        I wonder, for example, what might be done in my own constituency of Huddersfield for the assistance of engineers there, if the wealth that it is proposed to spend upon cruisers in Devonport, or Barrow, or elsewhere, might be used, through trade facilities, through credits, to enable the engineers in Huddersfield to get on with the job of making transport machinery and agricultural machinery for export to Russia and other parts of Europe. That would be more likely to carry out the policy that the Labour Government generally has in mind. I suggest that it is a wise policy, a policy less dangerous to the community as a whole, if it could be accepted. Though I had the intention, through a misconception it is true, of seconding the Motion that is before the House, I learnt during the Debate that there is a distinct reduction in the programme as it was originally proposed. I have made my plea that that reduction may go further still. I believe by taking this attitude I shall best assist those pacifist ends that I have in view in all the work I have to do as a Member of this distinguished House. I do not, therefore, propose to vote to-night for the Motion of the hon. Member for Penistone. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has also confessed that he put this Motion under a misconception.
        Mr. PRINGLE: When I began I was commenting on the surprise with which the statement of the Under-Secretary was heard, and I referred to a reply to a supplementary question. I did not, however, make that the ground of the Motion, but the Government's decision.
        Mr. HUDSON: For myself, that did appear to me very strong ground for action, but having misconceived what the Government had in mind, I do not propose to support the hon. Member. During the course of this Debate we have been brought up against the fact that these questions of building new cruisers can no longer be debated on the merits of whether they serve for defence. You have to bring in all sorts of extraneous con-

        2149
        siderations. You have to justify them with pleas about unemployment. I am glad to know that. I believe there is a growing feeling in this House, as there certainly is in the country, that neither by cruisers, nor submarines, nor aeroplanes can you any longer defend the safety of these islands. War has got to such a point that human beings can no longer withstand the forces that have been let loose, and there never will be peace, safety and security for our country, or for the world generally, until we turn our backs definitely and finally upon these methods. I hope the Government will make further reductions, and make them quickly, and that they will also go on quickly with those other steps they have in mind, the development of international understanding by diplomatic processes. Thereby I hope we may come to that day of peace for which we have striven so long.
        Major-General SEELY: I do not intend to detain the House for more than one moment, and it is to say this: This Debate arose, because it appeared to me, and I am sure to most of us here, that the Government proposed to expend public money without the consent of the House. I have not the least idea on what ground you, Mr. Speaker, gave your permission, but I hazard the conjecture it must have been done upon that ground that the decision was given. It also appeared likely, too, that this new expenditure was of a new kind. Therefore, there was a double reason why the Chair should allow this Motion for Adjournment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have been many years in this House and have seen many Adjournments moved and given, and I believe that is the reason, though I have no other reason for saying so except my experience of this House. Both of these reasons—and I think my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in moving—both these reasons have been demolished by the speech of the Prime Minister. First of all, he has definitely said that no expenditure whatever will be incurred on these cruisers without the House has had an, opportunity of giving its consent. Secondly, he has made it plain—at least he made it plain to me—that if we build these cruisers we shall not be exceeding by one single ton the Washington Pact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I know something of the
        2150
        Washington Pact. Cruisers are not included specifically, but battleships: it is also understood, it is an honourable understanding of the Washington Pact, that the general naval strength between the contracting Powers shall not be appreciably disturbed. We do not propose to disturb that. If we were debating Vote A I should have something to say as to the need for aeroplanes rather than battleships or cruisers, but we are not debating Vote A, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend, having gained his point, will be satisfied with it.
        Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Washington Pact says that the general naval strength shall not be disturbed. Is he aware that by 1929 the cruiser strength of Japan will be doubled, the submarine strength of Japan will be doubled, and destroyers will be added to the number of 32?
        Mr. B. SMITH: Then what was the good of the earthquake?
        Major-General SEELY: I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman when I was at the last sentence of my few remarks, and it was to say that if my hon. and learned Friend does, in spite of what I venture to say, go to a Division, I shall unhesitatingly vote against him, and I hope most of my hon. Friends will do so too.
        Viscount CURZON: We have witnessed this evening one of the most amazing episodes that have happened, I think, in the politics of our time. In the first part of the Session the Liberal party put the Socialist party into office but not into power. They have continued their performance tonight, their "Rake's Progress," by endeavouring to raise the wind and to discover another mare's nest in connection with this matter! First of all the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) suggested that the Japanese earthquake had impaired the naval strength of Japan. Of course, he has not read his OFFICIAL REPORT of last Wednesday, when I put a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty asking could he state whether the standard of strength of the Japanese Navy must be considered

        2151
        to have been materially affected by the earthquake, and he said:
        "I am glad to say there has been no very material damage done."
        I would commend hon. Members to column 1720 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the day before yesterday, and there they will see the facts. This Motion was seconded by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who started by giving a lot of figures three years old, and therefore they are not of much value to-day. He also cited the "Navy List," and said that we have 37 light cruisers fit for commerce protection. As a matter of fact, we have four ships of the "Hawkins" Class, including aircraft carriers, and two of the "Emerald" Class which can be used for commerce protection. We have a number of other cruisers of a. smaller type, which are very much worn in consequence of the last War, and the fact is that they can only be used for this purpose with the Fleet while actually manœuvring. The, hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull says that we should use the flotilla leaders as light cruisers. It is astonishing to me to hear a. destroyer officer suggesting that flotilla leaders should be used to do the work of commerce protection on our 80,000 miles of trade routes.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I suggested that the flotilla leaders should work with the Fleet, and leave the other ships free to protect our trade routes.
        Viscount CURZON: Then the suggestion is, that these flotilla leaders should go to sea and meet light cruisers of 10,000 tons, carrying guns of 6-inch, 7·5, and 8-inch calibre. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull is a naval officer, and knows all these facts and, therefore, it is important that the House should also know the facts. He suggested that aircraft carriers should be used instead of cruisers. He knows these facts which I have referred to, but he does not state them. As a matter of fact, the aircraft carrier is the most vulnerable of ships. She has no armament; she is of exceptionally large size, and forms a huge target which could not be missed, and all the aircraft carrier can do in action is to get out of it if she can, and, as a matter of fact, all our aircraft carriers, with the exception of the "Furious,"
        2152
        have not got speed enough to get away from light cruisers.
        With regard to foreign ships building, again the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave figures, but his figures were quite inaccurate. He said that France had only four ex-German light cruisers; the fact is that she has five. He said that she had two, perhaps three, building, but the fact, again, is that she has three building, and, besides that, a programme for six new ones to be completed by 1927. They are ships of 10,000 tons, carrying an armament of 7·6 and 8-inch guns. The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgot to state that. Then he went on to refer to the United States, and said that they had 10 cruisers, but their naval programme authorises six more, up to the very limit entailed by the Washington Conference, which will give them 16. I venture to think that these facts should be borne in mind. We have only six light cruisers, and, with the five proposed to-day added, 11. The French have 14, the United States 16, and the Japanese are to have 22, or, with the Japanese Fleet cruisers added, 25.
        Those are the facts, and I would ask hon. Members opposite to bear them in mind. They may think that the Coalition Government and the Conservative Government were militarist in their policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear! hear!"] Very well. Will they study the facts, which are these, that, since the War, the Governments of the United States and of Japan have completed 46 light cruisers, and we have completed one. Would they also bear in mind that these two countries are completing, or have completed, 120 submarines, and we have completed one. I submit these facts for the consideration of hon. Members, and also this, that we have 80,000 miles of trade routes, and that this country has to import every week, I believe, about 6,000,000 tons of food and about 20,000,000 tons of raw material. That has got to be protected. The friends of to-day may very easily be the enemies of to-morrow, and in this matter a country which is so highly industrialised and centralised as this cannot take chances. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members opposite, who are as keen as any other party in the House upon the poor man's breakfast table, to consider where the food for that breakfast table is coming from. The Government have justified this programme on the score of relief of

        2153
        unemployment, and the late Government fell into the same error. The light cruiser programme is necessitated not alone by unemployment, though that need, God knows, is bad enough; it is necessitated by the facts of the naval situation, and I challenge hon. Members opposite to controvert, if they can, the figures I have placed before the House. I hope most earnestly that the House will support the Government in turning down the Motion of the hon. Member for Penistone, and I hope the country will remember the action of the Liberal party to-night.
        Mr. AMMON: I have deferred my intervention in this Debate until this late hour because, in the main, there is very little left for me to reply to. One felt, immediately after the Prime Minister's statement, that the whole bottom had been knocked out of the attack embodied in this Motion. As has, I think, been admitted in all quarters, the Motion was moved under an entire misapprehension. My answer at Question Time had, apparently, not been clearly caught by some hon. Members, though evidently it was fully appreciated on the benches opposite me. I stated then clearly and distinctly that the whole programme would have to come before this House for approval before any money could be spent. Everyone knows that, as an ordinary business proposition, one gets ready and invites tenders, so that one may put the work in hand with as little delay as possible should final consent be given to the expenditure of the money. That was all that was contained in the reply that I gave, and, further, I would remind the House, if I may with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) himself put a question to me as to whether I would agree to a token Vote, and I replied that I saw no necessity for that, because the Estimates would be before the House very soon. That was what I had in my mind, namely, that the whole matter would come under review and the decision would be ratified by this House. The position laid down by the Prime Minister is the position taken up by the Government at this present moment. We do not propose, by the announcement which was brought before the House this afternoon, to add a single ton to the armaments of this country. It is simply for replacement of old craft, which have
        2154
        long been outworn and should long ago have been scrapped.
        Captain BERKELEY: They have been scrapped.
        Mr. AMMON: No. We have to replace many that are now obsolete and practically useless, which, from sheer old age, as judged by naval requirements, are falling out of use. Those are the facts of the case that we have tried to put before the House this evening, and, over and above that, I want to take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson). We have no reason to think that foreign nations will in any way misinterpret the Government action as it has been misinterpreted by a section of hon. Members of this House. The Government are quite confident that other countries appreciate that we are, in the letter and spirit of the Washington Agreement, carrying out its obligations. I want to state clearly that the position is simply that as stated by the Prime Minister. The Government will endeavour to come before the House with a definite policy and with definite proposals. I submit to hon. Members on both sides of the House that there can be no objection to the fact that the Government is keeping the letter and spirit of all that is embodied in the Washington Agreement. I wish to put to the House the fact that they have had a clear statement from the Government. There was a considerable misapprehension arising out of the answer given this afternoon. We have shown that these fears are entirely without foundation. The Government will not shirk the issue. We have taken the one point that we are not increasing in any way our armaments, that it would be the greatest folly which would be misunderstood by tens of thousands of people at a particular moment like this when you have unparalleled unemployment in the country to increase it by throwing large bodies of working men on the market. Surely that must be taken into consideration. We shall be on surer ground if, when economic circumstances are better than they are now, we can then face, as the Government will if it is in a position to do so, the larger question of disarmament or reduction of armaments. That is a pretty fair statement. I would remind the hon. Member who talks about utilising the machinery in the Govern-

        2155
        ment dockyards and factories for the making of those very necessary articles in connection with our housing programme, that while I agree with him in the main, his argument at present is based or a fallacy, because under the present circumstances you would simply redistribute the work in the engineering trade, having regard to the market, without making any appreciable difference in the amount of unemployment. That is the position. It is an entirely different position when, to use a Biblical phrase, you have turned your swords into ploughshares and your spears into pruning hooks and then use this machinery for
        the promotion of this other work. I have tried to meet the few points there were to meet and I think the Government has the right to claim the support of all parties in the programme they have laid down.
        Commander BELLAIRS Commander BELLAIRS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
        Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.
        Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
        The House divided: Ayes. 73; Noes, 372.

        Division No. 6.]

        AYES.

        [10.58 p.m

        Ackroyd, T. R.

        Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

        Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

        Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

        Hobhouse, A. L.

        Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. G.

        Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

        Hogge, James Myles

        Scrymgeour, E.

        Berkeley, Captain Reginald

        Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

        Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

        Black, J. W.

        Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

        Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

        Bonwick, A. J.

        Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W.Derby)

        Simpson, J. Hope

        Briant, Frank

        Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

        Spencer, H. H (Bradford, S.)

        Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

        Kay, Sir R. Newbald

        Spero, Dr. G. E.

        Brunner, Sir J.

        Keens, T.

        Starmer, Sir Charles

        Chapple, Dr. William A.

        Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

        Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

        Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

        Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

        Stranger, Harold

        Comyns-Carr, A. S.

        Laverack, F. J.

        Sunlight, J.

        Costello, L. W. J.

        Livingstone, A. M.

        Terrington, Lady

        Darbishire, C. W.

        Loverseed, J. F.

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

        Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

        Mansel, Sir Courtenay

        Thornton, Maxwell R.

        Dodds, S. R.

        Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

        Vivian, H.

        Dunnico, H.

        Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

        Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

        Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

        Morris, R. H.

        White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

        Entwistle, C. F.

        Murrell, Frank

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

        Falconer, J.

        Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

        Willison, H.

        Finney, V. H.

        Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

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

        Franklin, L. B.

        Phillipps, Vivian

        Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

        Gorman, William

        Raffety, F. W.

        Gray, Frank (Oxford)

        Rea, W. Russell

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

        Rendall, A.

        Mr. Pringle and Mr. Linfleld.

        Harris, John (Hackney, North)

        NOES.

        Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

        Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

        Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

        Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

        Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

        Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

        Ainsworth, Captain Charles

        Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

        Charleton, H. C

        Alden, Percy

        Birkett, W. N.

        Chilcott, Sir Warden

        Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

        Blundell, F. N.

        Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

        Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

        Bondfield, Margaret

        Clarke, A.

        Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Clayton, G. C.

        Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

        Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

        Climie, R.

        Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

        Brass, Captain W.

        Cluse, W. S.

        Ammon, Charles George

        Brassey, Sir Leonard

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Apsley, Lord

        Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

        Cobb, Sir Cyril

        Aske, Sir Robert William

        Briscoe, Captain Richard George

        Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

        Atholl, Duchess of

        Brittain, Sir Harry

        Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

        Attlee, Major Clement R.

        Broad, F. A.

        Compton, Joseph

        Ayles, W. H.

        Bromfield, William

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

        Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

        Cope, Major William

        Baker, W. J.

        Buchanan, G.

        Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

        Buckingham, Sir H.

        Cove, W. G.

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Buckle, J.

        Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

        Banton, G.

        Bullock, Captain M.

        Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

        Barnes, A.

        Burman, J. B.

        Crittall, V. G.

        Barnett, Major Richard W.

        Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

        Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

        Barnston, Major Sir Harry

        Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

        Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Band)

        Calne, Gordon Hall

        Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

        Batey, Joseph

        Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R

        Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

        Becker, Harry

        Cape, Thomas

        Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)

        Beckett, Sir Gervase

        Cautley, Sir Henry S.

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

        Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

        Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

        Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

        Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

        Ponsonby, Arthur

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

        Potts, John S.

        Dickson, T.

        Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

        Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

        Dixon, Herbert

        Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

        Purcell, A. A.

        Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

        Jephcott, A. R.

        Ralne, W.

        Duckworth, John

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

        Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

        Duffy, T. Gavan

        Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

        Raynes, W. R.

        Dukes, C.

        Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

        Rees, Sir Beddoe

        Duncan, C.

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

        Reid, D. D. (County Down)

        Dunn, J. Freeman

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Rentoul, G. S.

        Eden, Captain Anthony

        Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

        Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

        Edmondson, Major A. J.

        Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W. (Bradford, E.)

        Richards, R.

        Ednam, Viscount

        Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

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

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Ritson, J.

        Egan, W. H.

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

        Elveden, Viscount

        King, Captain Henry Douglas

        Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

        Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

        Kirkwood, D.

        Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

        Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

        Lamb, J. Q.

        Romeril, H. G.

        Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

        Lane-Fox, George R.

        Ropner, Major L.

        FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

        Lansbury, George

        Roundell, Colonel R. F.

        Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

        Law, A.

        Royce, William Stapleton

        Forestier-Walker. L.

        Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

        Royle, C.

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

        Lawson, John James

        Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

        Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

        Leach, W.

        Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

        Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

        Lee, F.

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Gates, Percy

        Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

        Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

        Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

        Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

        Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

        George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

        Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)

        Sandeman, A. Stewart

        Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

        Lowth, T.

        Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

        Gillett, George M.

        Lumley, L. R.

        Savery, S. S.

        Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

        Lunn, William

        Scurr, John

        Gosling, Harry

        Lynn, Sir R. J.

        Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen.J.E.B.(l.ofW.)

        Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

        M'Connell, Thomas E.

        Sexton, James

        Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

        MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

        Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

        Greenall, T.

        Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

        Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

        Greene, W. P. Crawford

        MacDonald, R.

        Shepperson, E. W.

        Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

        M'Entee, V. L.

        Sherwood, George Henry

        Gretton, Colonel John

        Mackinder, W.

        Shinwell, Emanuel

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

        McLean, Major A.

        Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

        Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

        Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

        Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

        Groves, T.

        Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

        Sitch, Charles H.

        Grundy, T. W.

        Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr, T. J.

        Smillie, Robert

        Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

        Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

        Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

        Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

        Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

        Smith, T. (Pontefract)

        Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

        Makins, Brigadier-General E.

        Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

        Gwynne, Rupert S.

        March, S.

        Snell, Harry

        Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

        Marley, James

        Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

        Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

        Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

        Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

        Harland, A.

        Meller, R. J.

        Spence, R.

        Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

        Middleton, G.

        Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

        Hartington, Marquess of

        Mills, J. E.

        Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

        Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

        Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

        Stamford, T. W.

        Harvey,C. M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

        Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

        Stanley, Lord

        Hastings, Sir Patrick

        Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

        Steel. Samuel Strang

        Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

        Moles, Thomas

        Stephen, Campbell

        Hayday, Arthur

        Montague, Frederick

        Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

        Hayes, John Henry

        Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

        Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

        Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

        Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

        Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

        Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

        Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

        Sutcliffe, T.

        Henn, Sir Sydney H

        Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

        Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

        Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

        Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

        Sutton, J. E.

        Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

        Morse, W. E.

        Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

        Hillary, A. E.

        Moulton, Major Fletcher

        Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

        Hindle, F.

        Muir, John W.

        Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

        Hirst, G. H.

        Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

        Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

        Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.

        Murray, Robert

        Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

        Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

        Naylor, T. E.

        Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon.S.)

        Hodges, Frank

        Nesbitt, Robert C.

        Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

        Hogbin, Henry Cairns

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

        Thurtle, E.

        Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

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

        Tillett, Benjamin

        Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

        Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

        Tinker, John Joseph

        Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

        Nixon, H.

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.

        Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

        O'Grady, Captain James

        Toole, J.

        Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

        Oliver, George Harold

        Tout, W. J.

        Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

        O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

        Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

        Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

        Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

        Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

        Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northrn.)

        Paling, W.

        Varley, Frank B.

        Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

        Hudson, J. H.

        Penny, Frederick George

        Viant, S. P.

        Hughes, Collingwood

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

        Wallhead, Richard C.

        Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

        Perkins, Colonel E. K.

        Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston on-Hull)

        Isaacs, G. A.

        Perry, S. F.

        Warne, G. H.

        Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

        Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        2158

        2159

        Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

        Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

        Wise, Sir Frederic

        Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

        Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

        Wolmer, Viscount

        Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

        Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

        Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

        Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

        Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

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

        Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

        Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

        Wright, W.

        Weir, L. M.

        Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

        Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

        Wells, S. R.

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

        Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

        Welsh, J. C.

        Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

        Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

        Westwood, J.

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

        Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

        Windsor, Walter

        TELLERS TOR THE NOES.—

        Whiteley, W.

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

        Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T. Kennedy.

        Wignall, James

        Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

        Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

        SUPPLY.
        Again considered in Committee.
        [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
        CLASS I.

          ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.
          Postponed Proceeding resumed on
          Question,
          "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.''
          Question again proposed.
          It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceedings, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
          Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
          Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
      Ordered,
      "That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members."
      Colonel Sir William Allen, Mr. Baker, Mr. Black, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Gillett, Mr. William Graham, Lieut.-Colonel Guinness, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Leif Jones, Sir George McCrae, Colonel Pownall, Mr. Arnold Williams, Sir Fredric Wise, and Mr. Andrew Young nominated Members of the Committee.
      Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records";
      Ordered, "That Five be the quorum." —[Mr. Griffiths.]

      HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
      Ordered,
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House:
      Ordered,
      That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members."
      Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dunnico, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Major Hennessy, Mr. Geoffrey Howard, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Miss Jewson, Mr. John, Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Sir Herbert Nield, Mrs. Philipson, Mr. Rawlinson, Captain Tudor Rees, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Thornton nominated Members of the Committee.
      Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.'
      Ordered, "That Three be the quorum." —[Mr. Griffiths.]
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      DOCK STRIKE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
      The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): The representatives of the dock workers all over the country have been sitting to-night at Montague House to discuss the proposed settlement of the docks dispute. I regret to say that they have not been able to arrive at a decision, and their sittings are adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

      ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
      Lord APSLEY: It is not my wish to take up hon. Members' time, especially after the very serious statement we have just heard, but I feel it my duty to call

      2161
      attention to a matter that is pressing and urgent, not only to me, not only to a large number of hon. Members, particularly those who sit for seaport constituencies, but also to tens of thousands of men and women who have suffered damage from enemy action during the War and are still waiting to hear whether they are to get the compensation that has been promised them. I refer to the conduct of the Reparation Claims Commission and to their way of dealing with claims, including the belated claims. The Commission has been sitting for nearly five years, and no doubt it has done its work efficiently. It has been conducted by gentlemen who are adepts at the use of the typewriter and the sending of replies. Where I came into contact with it, is in connection with the men and women who are making claims. They are not able to cope with it. In many cases they are seamen who know nothing about office work. When they send in their claims all that happens is that they get a reply stating that the doctor s certificate is not correct, or that a name is not spelt properly, or that they did not send in the claims at the correct time. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will, no doubt, say that this matter is not one for which the present Government can take the whole responsibility, that it was going on under the previous Government, and I have no doubt that the previous Government would have said, quite correctly, that it was going on under their predecessors.
      The question is, is this Government going to seek a solution and do so quickly? I can also imagine the President of the Board of Trade saying that the whole matter has been put into the hands of a Royal Commission, and that until the report of that Commission had been received, no definite answer could be given. I ask the House to support me in this matter which is of the utmost urgency, because we must be able to tell the men and women concerned whether they are going to get their claims or not. I ask the President of the Board of Trade for a reply, "Yes" or "No," to three simple questions: (1) When the Royal Commission's Report comes in, will the Government give the House time to discuss it; (2) if the money in hand proves to be inadequate to deal with the large number of claims—I gather there are 30,000
      2162
      pending—will the Government vote more money, or, at any rate, will the President of the Board of Trade press the Chancellor of the Exchequer for facilities for voting more money; (3) if it is found impossible to find the money, will the Government inform all concerned, straightly and directly, that no more demands can be met? That would be only fair, because these unfortunate men and women are being kept waiting, and some have died in the meantime. I consider we owe a debt of honour to these men who served their country, and if I am unable to obtain satisfaction, I must resort to desperate measures, such as a private Member can adopt. I shall buy a top-hat of the style affected by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). I do not wish to make any personal reference in the hon. Member's absence, and I only allude to his headgear as an outward and visible sign of spiritual grace. I ask a direct answer, otherwise we must go on hammering at the question until we get one.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): There is not much time for me to give the Noble Lord the answers for which he asks. The questions he has put are not such as can be answered merely by Yes or No. Whoever is guilty in this matter, it can hardly be the present Government. As the Noble Lord has said the Government of the time chose, no doubt in their wisdom, to hand this matter over to an independent Royal Commission. I think the Noble Lord hardly did justice to Lord Sumner and his colleagues on the Commission. Seventy thousand claims have been dealt with, and they have produced one Report stating the amounts due to some 26,000 claimants, and those amounts have all been paid with the exception of a few cases where the claimants cannot be found. The second Report which will be the final Report is, I am told, now in the printers' hands. I cannot, state exactly when it will be available because I do not know the ways of printers in dealing with these things. At any rate I think it will be available very promptly. The trouble has been that the Royal Commission thought fit to wait until they had dealt with the whole of the claims, before paying out any of them. It was felt that until the total had been ascertained it was impossible to say how the sum of

      2163
      £5,000,000 could be divided. I can only say that 26,000 people have been paid. As soon as the Report is received I am assured that there will be no appreciable delay in paying out immediately to all the other claimants whose claims have been admitted as having been received in time. There does remain the question of something like 20,000 belated claims made after date which Lord Sumner's Commission has not felt itself able to deal with; and when that Report has been received, and when it is seen how much, if any, money is left of the £5,000,000 voted by the House, then it will be a matter for the Government to consider and to suggest to the House whether anything can be done for these 20,000 belated claims, and, if so, what and in what manner.
      I am sure that the House will excuse me to-night, at this hour, from going further into that, for the very good reason that I am not authorised to decide that question. I can only assure the Noble Lord that, so far as the Department is concerned, there has not been any delay at all in the past, and there shall not be any delay in dealing with the second. Report as soon as it is out. I must not be understood to admit any reflection on the conduct of Lord Sumner's Commission, which I believe has worked with extraordinary diligence and persistency, and we are doubly indebted to Lord Sumner and his colleagues for the amount of work they have put in. But when you have to deal with 70,000 claims, relating in some cases to property said to have been lost or damaged in all parts of the world, in Mesopotamia, Syria, France, in Belgium, and so on, it is impossible to deal with them very expeditiously. The Board of Trade would have dealt with them very much quicker, but I do not say they would have dealt with them with so much real satisfaction to the claimants. I hope the Noble Lord will be satisfied with that.
      Captain. BENN: It is currently reported that the £5,000,000 which has been set aside to meet these claims will prove inadequate. If the Commission does approve of claims in excess of that amount, will the Government be prepared to meet them by an additional grant?
      Mr. WEBB: I can only say that when we have the facts the Government will
      2164
      have to consider the position. Until we know what the facts and figures are, I can only say that no decision has been come to and no consideration has yet been given to it.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: With regard to a large number of these claims, particularly what are called the belated claims that have been sent in, when the individuals are writing to the Board of Trade asking for information, they receive merely a printed form stating that their letter has been received. I have quite a number of cases where I have whole stacks of these replies that have been sent to individuals. Cannot the Board of Trade, when they receive requests from these individuals asking how their cases are going on, send a brief statement pointing out the difficulties that have arisen? That might satisfy the individuals, and they would not be pestering the Members for their constituencies in the manner that they have been, because they really believe they have been fobbed off with a large number of printed forms.
      Colonel GRETTON: There is a very important point arising out of the Report of this Royal Commission. It is admitted by everyone who has any knowledge of the facts that the £5,000,000 will not be adequate to meet all the claims. So far as the first Report went—and it is possible that the second Report will take the same lines—it was devoted to dealing with the most urgent of the smaller claims for personal loss and accidents. There is a whole range of claims which the Commission was not able to deal with at all with the small sum at its command. I believe the £5,000,000 is really an advance by the British Government against the sum which is payable by Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, and any Government which is taking up this case with vigour in order to obtain full satisfaction will have to turn to the German Reparation Fund for satisfaction of all the claims. There are a number of claims admittedly unassessed. Could the fight hon. Gentleman represent to the Commission that they might be assessed, with a view to settling when the funds become available?
      It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

EDUCATION.
  DEFECTIVE SCHOOL, PREMISES.
  DEFECTIVE SCHOOL, PREMISES.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING (ORGANISERS).
  PHYSICAL TRAINING (ORGANISERS).
  CHIEF ART INSPECTOR (APPOINTMENT).
  CHIEF ART INSPECTOR (APPOINTMENT).
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  CHILDREN'S MEALS.
  CHILDREN'S MEALS.
  HEAD TEACHERS (CLASS TEACHING).
  HEAD TEACHERS (CLASS TEACHING).
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  MEDICAL INSPECTION.
  MEDICAL INSPECTION.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLACES.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLACES.
  TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION.
  TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION.
  CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION.
  CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION.
  LEAVING AGE.
  LEAVING AGE.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  SCHOOL JOURNEYS AND CAMPS.
  SCHOOL JOURNEYS AND CAMPS.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT, HASTINGS.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT, HASTINGS.
  UNQUALIFIED TEACHERS, LONDON.
  UNQUALIFIED TEACHERS, LONDON.
  HIGHGATE COUNCIL SCHOOL (ENLARGEMENT).
  HIGHGATE COUNCIL SCHOOL (ENLARGEMENT).
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  PENSIONERS RESIDENT ABROAD.
  PENSIONERS RESIDENT ABROAD.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (A. F. BIRD).
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (A. F. BIRD).
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
  NAVAL DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
  NAVAL DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SOMERSET.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SOMERSET.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT (LIEUTENANT GLENDINNING).
  CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT (LIEUTENANT GLENDINNING).
  TRANSPORT WORKS (HIRING SYSTEM).
  TRANSPORT WORKS (HIRING SYSTEM).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  TANGMERE AERODROME.
  TANGMERE AERODROME.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WARRANT RANK.
  WARRANT RANK.
  PETTY OFFICERS.
  PETTY OFFICERS.
  SEMAPHORE TOWER, PORTSMOUTH.
  SEMAPHORE TOWER, PORTSMOUTH.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERICAL STAFF, NORTHERN REGION).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERICAL STAFF, NORTHERN REGION).
  WAR DEPARTMENT OUT-STATION OFFICES (CLERKS).
  WAR DEPARTMENT OUT-STATION OFFICES (CLERKS).
  PUBLIC SERVICES (ANDERSON COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  PUBLIC SERVICES (ANDERSON COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (REDUCTIONS).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (REDUCTIONS).
  VALUATION OFFICE.
  VALUATION OFFICE.
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYÉS (DISCHARES).
  TEMPORARY EMPLOYÉS (DISCHARES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  DOCK WORKS, LONDON.
  DOCK WORKS, LONDON.
  SMITHFIELD MARKET (YOUTHS).
  SMITHFIELD MARKET (YOUTHS).
  WASHINGTON HOURS' CONVENTION.
  WASHINGTON HOURS' CONVENTION.
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  BREEDING EXPERIMENTS (WOOL).
  BREEDING EXPERIMENTS (WOOL).
  EGG PRODUCTION (EXPERIMENTAL STATION).
  EGG PRODUCTION (EXPERIMENTAL STATION).
HOUSING.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  DERELICT HOUSES.
  DERELICT HOUSES.
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (CONSOLIDATION).
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (CONSOLIDATION).
  POOR LAW TENANTS.
  POOR LAW TENANTS.
  GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
  GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
  OVERCROWDING.
  OVERCROWDING.
  LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE).
  LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE).
  MIDHURST (HOUSE SHORTAGE).
  MIDHURST (HOUSE SHORTAGE).
  TANFIELD AND DISTRICT.
  TANFIELD AND DISTRICT.
  HOUSES ERECTED.
  HOUSES ERECTED.
  GOVERNMENT HOUSES, GRETNA (RENTS).
  GOVERNMENT HOUSES, GRETNA (RENTS).
  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, LEITH.
  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, LEITH.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  CHICKEN-POX.
  CHICKEN-POX.
  CIVIL SERVICE (SICKNESS INCIDENCE).
  CIVIL SERVICE (SICKNESS INCIDENCE).
  BLIND WELFARE.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  SUICIDES.
  SUICIDES.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
POST OFFICE.
  ASSISTANT SURVEYORS.
  ASSISTANT SURVEYORS.
  FACILITIES, FARNBOROUGH.
  FACILITIES, FARNBOROUGH.
  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL SERVICES.
  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL SERVICES.
  INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONVENTION.
  INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONVENTION.
  GERMAN PARCELS.
  GERMAN PARCELS.
  HULL (DELIVERY OF LETTERS).
  HULL (DELIVERY OF LETTERS).
  POST OFFICE CANTEEN, MANCHESTER.
  POST OFFICE CANTEEN, MANCHESTER.
  PACKET SERVICES.
  PACKET SERVICES.
  EXMOOR (DAILY DELIVERY).
  EXMOOR (DAILY DELIVERY).
  PENNY POST.
  PENNY POST.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS (HASHISH).
  DANGEROUS DRUGS (HASHISH).
  BARROW (LICENSED HOURS).
  BARROW (LICENSED HOURS).
  MURDERS UNDETECTED.
  MURDERS UNDETECTED.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FORMS.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FORMS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  BODMIN PRISON.
  BODMIN PRISON.
  SHOPS ACT.
  SHOPS ACT.
  PRISON LIBRARIES.
  PRISON LIBRARIES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COAL EXPORTS.
  COAL EXPORTS.
  PREFERENTIAL DUTIES.
  PREFERENTIAL DUTIES.
  PETROL PRICES.
  PETROL PRICES.
  EXPIRING PATENTS.
  EXPIRING PATENTS.
  WHOLESALE M ILK AND COLD STORAGE TRADES (COMBINATIONS).
  WHOLESALE M ILK AND COLD STORAGE TRADES (COMBINATIONS).
  EGYPTIAN COTTON YARNS (LANCASHIRE EXPORTS).
  EGYPTIAN COTTON YARNS (LANCASHIRE EXPORTS).
  SHIPPING COMPANIES (WAR RISK PAYMENTS).
  SHIPPING COMPANIES (WAR RISK PAYMENTS).
  ENEMY DEBTS (CLEARING HOUSE PROCEDURE.
  ENEMY DEBTS (CLEARING HOUSE PROCEDURE.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (SHIPPING COMPANIES).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (SHIPPING COMPANIES).
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRICES).
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRICES).
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS (APPEALS).
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS (APPEALS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  WAR DEBTS AND RELIEF LOANS.
  WAR DEBTS AND RELIEF LOANS.
  LOCAL STAMPING FACILITIES (BRIGHTON).
  LOCAL STAMPING FACILITIES (BRIGHTON).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GOVERNMENT STAFF).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GOVERNMENT STAFF).
  PERU (BRITISH EMIGRANTS).
  PERU (BRITISH EMIGRANTS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GERMANY AND RUSSIA).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GERMANY AND RUSSIA).
  DOCK STRIKE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  DOCK STRIKE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (HARBOUR, CARRADALE).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (HARBOUR, CARRADALE).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON AND FOLKESTONE ROAD.
  LONDON AND FOLKESTONE ROAD.
  POLICE TRAFFIC DUTY (WHITE GLOVES).
  POLICE TRAFFIC DUTY (WHITE GLOVES).
RUSSIA.
  BRITISH CLAIMS.
  BRITISH CLAIMS.
  SOVIET DELEGATION.
  SOVIET DELEGATION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, one of the interesting features of this Bill, perhaps in some ways the most interesting, is the illustration it affords of continuity in a certain Department of State. At the Foreign Office it has been long the tradition that there should be continuity as far as practicable. That arises from the unwritten character of our Constitution and the need and the necessity of adapting it to the circumstances of the world. In the office of Lord Chancellor there has been a similar continuity. No great legislation is over carried through Parliament without the cooperation of successive Lord Chancellors. The genesis and history of the Law of Property Act, the great Act of my coble and learned friend, Lord Birkenhead, is an illustration. He succeeded in carrying it through, and he had the co-operation of other previous occupants of the office which he held. So it is with this Bill. Many of its ideas were inherited from the administration—I am talking of the administration rather than the legislation—of my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead. Then came my noble and learned friend Lord Cave, who
250
translated these ideas and added others of his own. Ho embodied them in a Bill which came before your Lordships' House.
It is my duty and my privilege to-day to present a Bill which, I think I may say, represents that continuity of which I have spoken with the work of my predecessors. In this Bill there is very little that indicates much change from the policy of the late Government who introduced the Bill and carried it to a considerable stage of progress. First of all, there is one misapprehension about it of which I should like to get rid. In an excellent, though too brief, article in The Times newspaper the Hill was explained and explained very lucidly; but the complaint was made against it that it was drawn in a fashion which made too many references to other Statutes and made it almost impossible for those who were not lawyers to follow it. That was quite true so far as it went. But what I think the writer did not quite appreciate was that the Bill was merely, a Bill to bring the law into such a condition that we could embody it in a consolidating Statute. That consolidating Statute is now in preparation. When it is introduced your Lordships will find that all those references to other Acts will disappear, that you will have before you a single whole which will embody the, law relating to the administration of justice, into which the existing Statutes will be fitted without any alteration of the law being made, and that the provisions of this Bill will be retained along with those of other Statutes. Therefore, it is only temporarily that you have the Bill in its present form before you. A little later on you will have it in a more intelligible form.
As to the substance of the Bill, it is very little that I have to say. The first point is one for which I am indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Cave. During the war trial by jury had virtually to be abolished. Cases were tried by the Judges. This Bill proposes to restore the right of the British subject to be tried by a jury as he possessed it before the war and the only alteration is that almost of necessity a power is given to the Judge to say that the case is one which is of a nature quite unfitted to allow trial by a jury; just such a case, for example, as one depending on intricate accounts being taken. At pre-

251
sent that would be forced to a reference. Our words in the Bill provide for it. The Judge is given a discretion to say whether the case is one which is likely to prove fit for trial by jury. That is not a great alteration of the law as it stood. We thought it well to make that provision in the interests of the litigants, in order to save them the expense of preparing for a trial twice, over.
Two Committees have reported since Lord Cave drafted this Bill. The Reports of these Committees relate mainly, but not entirely, to administrative questions. For instance, if an infant recovers damages in an action it is provided, as recommended by the Committee, that instead of the money being paid to the Public Trustee—an awkward proceeding—it should be paid into a county court, which will deal with it in the way that county courts now deal with money paid in under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Mr. Justice Branson's Committee recommended that that was the proper way to deal with it, and the Government have adopted that view, and made provision for it in the Bill.
The changes in the substance of the law are very small and there is only one part of the Bill which I think I need mention. The administration of the staffs of the High Court has come to be under the control of the Lord Chancellor, who is now provided with a highly competent staff for looking after them. In earlier days, they used to be partly under the Treasury, and at the desire of the Treasury we are now taking these matters over. The clause which relates to these changes lays down certain provisions which will make the conditions of the appointments more akin to those of the Civil Service in regard to old age pensions and other matters. I venture to submit to your Lordships that that is a very great improvement, which Lord Cave proposed and which I have adopted. I think that I have dealt with the main features of the Bill. The questions that will arise are such as can be more properly dealt with in Committee. The principle of the Bill is of course one which your Lordships have had before you, and I venture to submit that it should be read a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, after what has been said by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack I need not say much more than that I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is, in substance, the Bill which your Lordships passed through all its stages last year, with certain alterations which do not detract from, but rather add to, the value of the Bill. I will only make an observation upon one clause—the second clause—which deals with trial by jury, because that clause, I think, hardly received sufficiently careful and friendly consideration in another place last year. The effect of the clause is to restore to a very great extent the right of the subject, which existed before the war, to have his case tried by a jury if he so desires. In all cases where personal character is involved, such as cases of libel, or slander, or false imprisonment, or matters of that kind, the right is absolute. In other cases it is also absolute, unless it is made out to the satisfaction of the Judge that the case is more fit to be tried without a jury than with a jury. The existing Act contains an exception in these words : that if it is made out that the case can more conveniently be tried without a jury that may be done. The expression "conveniently" was the cause of some misapprehension, because it was held—wrongly, I think—to refer to some extent to the convenience of the Court. Of course, that is not a proper consideration. The real consideration is the fitness of the case itself to be tried with or without a jury, and the test is adopted, that it must be "more fit to be tried without a jury." I support the Second Beading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, you may remember that towards the close of the last Parliament a Bill was introduced, and passed through its Second Beading in this House, having for its object the legitimation of illegitimate children. The Committee stage of the Bill was postponed in order that suggestions and appropriate

253
amendments might be made, and by the time those amendments had been considered the political convulsion that upset the late Government overwhelmed this unfortunate measure. It now re-emerges not in the exact literal form in which it was before you on a former occasion, but with one exception—an important exception, to which I will call special attention—it is actually the Bill of which you then approved. That Bill passed through both its Second and Third Readings in the House of Commons without a Division, and received an equally favourable reception at your Lordships' hands.
For myself I am not surprised that it was so favourably regarded. It is to my mind impossible to consider the position of illegitimate children in this country without being at once struck by the unmerited injustice from which they suffer. There is no more pitiable object in the whole of our social life than that of a young girl who is the mother of an illegitimate child. The sanctity of the home life and of married life, the security of the laws that maintain and make the morality of modern life, are outraged by the fact of an illegitimate child being born, but the penalty the woman has to pay is something that seems to me to be far beyond the offence she has committed. She has to bear the shame and disgrace of what another woman regards, and rightly regards, as the crown and pride of her life. From the moment the child is born until it dies there is attached to it the stain and stigma of illegitimacy for which the child itself had no responsibility. No law that we can pass can help to amend the lot of the unhappy mother, but at least it is possible to do something to place the child in a position in which the law of the land does not exclude him from consideration as an ordinary legitimate child ; and this Bill is designed for that purpose.
I will not take long in going through the provisions of the measure, but I must do it in order to point out the difference between this Bill and the Bill which came before your Lordships on a former occasion. The first clause, which is the real enacting clause, provides that the marriage of the parents of an illegitimate child, where the father is domiciled in England or Wales at the date of the marriage, shall legitimate the child. Subsection (2) of this clause has caused some
254
misunderstanding, and I am not surprised. It says :
" This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed."
Subsequent provisions of the Bill, on the other hand, expressly enact that he shall take such interest. The whole difficulty created by the contrast between subsection (2) in Clause 1 and subsequent subsections in the Bill is answered by the fact that this particular subsection begins with the words—"This section." And Clause 1, which legitimates the child, does not in itself remove the difficulties which the remaining clauses of the Bill are designed to sweep away. The rights a legitimated child will enjoy are directly drawn from the subsequent provisions of the Bill.
Then Clause 2 contains something which must have struck some of your Lordships with surprise. It says:
" A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring alter the commencement of this Act, and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, be entitled to take any interest in chattels real and other personal property not devolving on an heir, in like manner as if he had been born legitimate."
The explanation of this clause, which is now entirely out of date, is this. The original Bill, from which it was taken, was intended to come into operation on January 1, 1924, but on January 1, 1925, the Law of Property Act becomes operative, and that measure provides that the descent of real and personal property shall be assimilated. It is therefore necessary to make special provision for this gap of about twelve months, and I shall ask your Lordships to permit me to amend this Bill by omitting this provision.
Subsection (2) of this clause provides that:
" A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, be entitled to take any interest in real or personal property in like manner as if he had been born legitimate, save that a legitimated person shall not be entitled to take by descent as heir of a lunatic or defective, living and of full age at the date aforesaid."
That seems rather a harsh provision, and if any noble Lord thinks proper to move its omission I shall not object. The point

255
is this, that a lunatic or defective person is incapable of making a disposition of his property by will or deed, and consequently has not the right which is enjoyed by other persons.
In Clause 3 it is provided that where property is disposed of by will or settlement the legitimated child shall be entitled to share equally with the legitimate children, and the general words of description include all children of the intended marriage. Your Lordships may probably like to consider subsection (4) of this clause. It provides that:
" Where property real or personal or any interest there in is limited in such a way that, if this Act had not been passed, it would (subject or not to any preceding limitations or charges) have devolved (as nearly as the law permits) along with a dignity or title of honour, then nothing in this Act shall operate to sever the property or any interest therein from such dignity, hut the same shall go and devolve (without prejudice to the preceding limitations or charges aforesaid) in like manner as if this Act had not been passed. This subsection applies, whether or not there is any express reference to the dignity or title of honour and notwithstanding that in some events the property, or some interest therein may become severed therefrom."
Clause 4 needs no special comment from me, and Clause 5 simply provides that a legitimated person shall have the same right to maintenance and support, and shall be entitled to take proceedings for compensation, or make any other claim under any Statute, as if he or she had been born legitimate. That is such an obvious conclusion from the principle of the Bill that I feel certain it will meet with no opposition. It only causes me to comment on the astounding fact that at the present moment the obligations of parents for their illegitimate children are so narrowly restricted. Personally I have never been able to see, and I doubt very much whether debates in this House will enlighten me, why the responsibility of a man for an illegitimate child is any less than for a child born in wedlock. He is directly responsible for the birth of the child, and why he should be allowed by law to escape all obligations simply by paying ten shillings a week I have never yet been able to understand.
Clause 6 provides that nothing in the Bill shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any any such dignity or title. It also provides that
256
nothing in the Bill shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of the Act.
Clause 8, which looks rather a difficult clause, provides that where the parents are married and the father was domiciled at the time of the marriage in any country, other than England or Wales, by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such marriage, then the child shall be recognised as having been legitimated notwithstanding the fact that his father was not at the time of the birth of such child domiciled in a country where such a rule of law prevails. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposal, but I shall be interested to hear if any noble Lord has any comment to make upon it.
The Bill stands before you in the way in which it stood on a former occasion, subject only to this, that the former Bill contained a clause which provided that the benefits of this Bill should not extend to an illegitimate child, one of whose parents was, in fact, married at the date of the birth of the illegitimate child. I have never been able to understand why that was introduced. The object of this Bill is not to reward parents: it is intended to enable them to make some small atonement for a great and almost irreparable wrong, but it is not intended to induce them to commit acts of immorality, nor do I imagine that anyone will suppose that such will be its effect. If the real purpose of the Bill be to help the child, I would ask your Lordships what it is that the child who has been born of a union that is both irregular and adulterous has done to place him in a different category from a child who was merely born out of wedlock by the irregular relations of unmarried people. It is, to my mind, inconceivable that there should be any difference between the two.
I know that whenever these questions are discussed you always get back to an argument, which the imperfection of my intellect has never enabled me properly to apprehend, that acts of immorality are the result of a careful calculation of balance sheets in which are weighed up on the one side and on the other the advantages or disadvantages of the act, and the act is or is not committed according

257
to the balance which is struck. I say emphatically that this is not my experience of life, nor do I believe that it is the experience of any other person. The suggestion that you are going to prevent adultery by saying: "If you do commit adultery, if a child is born and if you marry the mother afterwards, the child will still be illegitimate," is a form of argument which, if it appeals to your Lordships, I would treat with respect, but at the same time I must admit my own complete inability to understand it. This Bill will not divide this House along any Party line. It is intended to remedy a social injustice. It is an attempt by people who are fortunately placed to do something to relieve the burdens of others in less happy conditions. Such a Bill in my experience has never failed to find a favourable reception at your Lordships' hands, and I hope that the same kind consideration will be extended to this measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships in a slightly different form in July last I was unfortunately unable to be present, but I take, both officially and personally, a very deep interest in this subject, and I should Like to say a very few words in respect of the Second Reading. I believe that on the whole the balance is in favour of this Bill, though the matter is not without difficulties. I say so both on the general grounds which have been eloquently urged by the noble and learned Lord to-night, and were eloquently urged by him and others on the previous occasion, and also because the Bill tends to bring into harmony the laws concerning marriage north and south of the Tweed, laws which are at present at variance. I am, of course, aware—and this point might be brought up on more subjects than one—that it is only with discrimination and caution that we can apply the argument sim-pliciter that the law north of the Tweed ought to be the law south of the Tweed, or vice versa. It is perfectly certain that we cannot abolish the difference between the two systems altogether, and I do not propose to urge that we should, but I think that in this particular case the
258
argument is an exceedingly strong one that we should assimilate the law of England to the law which has worked perfectly well in Scotland for centuries past.
The Scottish law, however, in providing legitimation for children born out of wedlock, is governed by a proviso which affords very careful safeguards, and if we are to reap the advantages which are said to have arisen from the existence of this law in Scotland we must take care that in adopting the Scottish rule we adopt the safeguards which accompany it. It is in accordance with that view that I should be prepared to support an Amendment, which I hope will be moved in Committee, to re-introduce into this Bill the important safeguards to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred as having been included in the Bill when it was last before your Lordships, and which have disappeared from it now. Your Lordships will remember the words:—
" Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate any person whose father or mother was married to a third party when (the illegitimate person was born."
I am not going to argue that question now—it would be out of place, I think, to do so on the Second Reading—but I shall be ready to argue it in Committee, and to bring forward considerations which have not been touched upon in the noble and learned Lord's remarks in moving the Second Reading.
I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord that I am entirely in accord with him in all that he says about the futile argument—as I agree it must be called—which has been brought forward as to the encouragement of wrong-doing, immorality, and so on, in this way. I have never used that argument and I do not use it now. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that immorality is not brought about by calculations of this kind, but is due to passion and other things. It is not, therefore, upon that ground that I shall urge the re-introduction of a clause which would really make the measure that is now proposed harmonious with the law of Scotland, and would make it correspond with the Bill as it appeared before your Lordships last July.
I do not, of course, underrate—no one would suppose that I am likely to underrate—the importance of the moral and

259
religious questions which are involved in this whole subject. They are grave to the last possible degree, and I feel their gravity intensely. But it is on other grounds, on the very kind of ground, in fact, upon which the noble Lord has advocated the Bill, that I wish to urge, and shall urge when the time comes, the reinsertion of that clause ; not upon moral and religious grounds, but because I believe, and I think I shall be prepared to show when the time comes, that the happiness of domestic life would in hundreds of cases be gravely imperilled by the Bill in its present form, and that on the ground of general expediency such a proviso is necessary in regard to the legitimation of children born out of wedlock. I shall return to that point when the time comes, but to-night I merely rose to say that while it is my intention to support the reintroduction of the original subsection when the Bill comes before us in Committee, I wish to advocate that your Lordships should give a Second Beading to this Bill to-night.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I wish to raise only one point upon this Bill, but, as this is the first time I have ventured to address your Lordships, I would ask for that kind consideration which your Lordships are wont to extend to any one who is in that position. My point has been already alluded to by the most reverend Primate. As I understand it, this Bill—and I think the noble and learned Lord referred to this point in his speech—would, as at present framed, legitimate the child of a married woman whose husband was alive but was not the father of the child. I cannot help thinking that this is going rather far. I am in favour of the main principle of the Bill, but I hope that when we come to the Committee stage a change may be made in that one particular respect. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to say these few words.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I venture to say that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but in one respect it does not go far enough, and in another respect I think it goes too far. It does not go far enough because it does not legitimate wholly and frankly, and out of hand, the children with which it deals. It makes a second or a third class—
260
legitimate children, illegitimate children, and children legitimated up to a point by this Act. It ought to go quite thoroughly to the end, and say that the child born under certain conditions of parents who afterwards marry, is just as much entitled to a dignity or to real estate, or to succeed by entail, as if he were a lawfully born child. I cannot help feeling that in a very few years that will be the result of this measure being passed People will say it is quite ridiculous that one man should inherit the whole of a ducal estate and another man should be the Duke. Similar cases will arise. After all, it is quite new in the history of the world, and so far as I know quite new in modern civilisation, that there should be this third and intermediate class of child. Therefore I venture to say that this Bill does not go far enough. It has not the courage of its opinions. It prevents, in Clauses 4 and 6, the legitimated child from having the natural rights of a child, and brands him for all time.
Where then does the Bill go too far? It goes too far for the reasons given by the most rev. Primate and for another reason which I shall submit to your Lordships. The old simple rule of Church and State—Church first and State afterwards—everywhere but in England and Ireland, has recognised that if a child is born of parents capable of marrying, and those parents do not marry somebody else in the meanwhile, but end by marrying each other, Church and State should say: "After all, marriage is a matter of consent. You did not solemnise or prove your marriage by the proper forms, but you have proved your marriage now, and for the sake of the children, if not for your own sakes, we shall deem that you have been married from the beginning, and your children shall have all the rights as if you solemnised your marriage at first. But for that purpose you must be free to marry." The point which the most rev. Primate did not notice is that you must not in the meantime have contracted another marriage.
Let me show your Lordships, purely on practical grounds, the objection to the Bill as it stands in that respect. A child is the fruit of an adulterous union, the woman being married. The intrigue is not known. The parties go on and the husband dies in ignorance of the intrigue, and then the guilty couple marry. What

261
is the position of a child procreated by the paramour and the adulterous wife ? Is he then to be the legitimated child of his actual parents ? Is he to be bastardised from being what he has always grown up in the belief that he was? He has always supposed that he was the son of the husband of his mother, he has lived with his brothers and sisters in that belief, and has enjoyed all the comforts of the family. Is he then to find that his real parents are going to say that he was their child, and therefore he is to be legitimated as their child, and necessarily bastardised as regards the position he has always been in before? I do not think anybody has thought that out, and I cannot help thinking that if the noble and learned Lord thinks it out he will consider that some step will have to be taken if the clause which the most rev. Primate proposes is not carried.
Take another case. The old rule of law is that parents should remain unmarried and not enter into another tie. Suppose they enter into another tie. Suppose a man has a mistress who has a child. He then marries in the regular way and has a child by the lawful wife. The wife dies, and then, out of repentance or from a desire to make amends to the mistress, he marries her. He at once brings the mistress's child into equality, at any rate, with, and possibly into superiority over, the child of the marriage. Hard indeed would that be upon the child of the marriage, who has never been aware that there is any such second claimant to his position. I say possible superiority, because I imagine that these provisions making a second class of children will be swept away in a few years, and then the mistress's son will be the elder son, and the son of the legitimate wife will find that his father's bastard child, of whose existence he has been unaware, is entitled to succeed to his father's honours and estate.
Such things have happened as a man quarrelling with his heirs, and the son of a lawful marriage, if he know that his father had an intrigue, might live all his life in the fear that if he offended his father he might be disinherited. For those reasons, and I say nothing about others, I hope not only that the provision referred to by the most rev. Primate will be introduced, but also that those oilier precautions which I have mentioned will be taken. The, noble and
262
learned Lord at the end of his speech delivered an appeal to us all on behalf of illegitimate children. I wonder that he docs not say that in his view all children should be legitimate. That at any rate is the result of his last argument against this clause, and I hope to support the most rev. Primate when the time comes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it only remains for me to state the general attitude of the Government towards this Bill. The Bill consists of a general principle, which is expressed in the first clause, and then of a number of exceptions which are made to guard questions of title. As to the general principle the Government look upon this Bill with favour. We think it is conceived in the interest of the child, and that it ought to be looked upon as embodying propositions which should form part of the law of the land. Then, when I come to the exceptions, I have listened with attention to the criticisms which have been made. There was the criticism made by the most rev. Primate, and criticisms made by Viscount FitzAlan, and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore. All these go to points of detail. I am not saying that they are right or essential. What. I say to Lord Buckmaster is that it would be well if he thoroughly sifted them out, in order to make progress with the Bill, and I suggest to him that he and I should conler about the concessions to be made and about the questions which arise on the clauses of this Bill.
I have read the Bill with some attention. I think it is a Bill which is drafted very competently, but questions which are more than questions of drafting arise on the clauses, which I should like to consider a little more closely, having a sense of the responsibility which any one must feel who is in any way responsible for changes made in the law. Therefore, if my noble friend will confer with me on the provisions of the Bill, I will call in the experts whom I can command, and we shall have the whole matter before us. That entails that the Bill should not be put down for a few days for the Committee stage. We must endeavour to see what light we can get upon it before we come again before your Lordships' House. If my noble friend will take that course then certainly the Government will not offer the slightest opposition to the Bill. Rather

263
the contrary; it regards the Bill with favour, and it may facilitate its progress through your Lordships' House if we have taken the pains to go into the matter before it is further considered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the measure which it is my privilege to lay before your Lordships this evening is the first Bill that has been brought to this House by a Labour Government. Therefore it has, I think, a certain slight historic interest. It is the last of a series of eight measures designed to make the old unemployment Insurance Act of 1911 capable of dealing with the present exceptional circumstances. As your Lordships know, the scheme of the unemployment insurance system was drawn up to deal with normal risks of unemployment when trade was comparatively prosperous. These attempts at transforming the original Act have not, I am afraid, been altogether satisfactory. My right hon. friend the Minister of Labour has undertaken to bring in a really comprehensive measure to deal with the whole matter. In the meantime, however, there is one difficulty that requires immediate attention.
As your Lordships know, there is a gap of three weeks which intervenes between two periods of benefit, and to make this point quite clear I will read to your Lordships the proviso which it is proposed to repeal :—
'' Where benefit so authorised as aforesaid has been received by any person in the first benefit year for periods amounting in the aggregate to twelve weeks, that person shall cease to be qualified for the receipt of benefit in that benefit year until the expiration of three weeks from the date on which the last period in respect of which benefit was payable ended."
It is obvious what this gap was originally intended to do. It was intended to compel the unemployed man to look for work and to discourage the shirker—on the whole, a very desirable object. But I submit to you that it is a mockery to tell an unemployed man to look for work now, when we know that there is no work. The
264
effect of this proviso is not to decrease unemployment, far from it. It is to confront the unemployed man with the cruel alternative of misery, frequently bordering on actual starvation, or of going to the Poor Law authorities, with all the consequent humiliations of pauperism. The object of this measure is to remove this cruel alternative. His Majesty's Ministers propose to do away with the gap, to rescind the proviso that I have read to your Lordships, and to make payments continuous.
The estimated cost was originally £600,000, but, owing to certain delays in introducing the measure, it has since been reduced to £500.000. Surely this is a very paltry sum when speaking of alleviating the misery of so many of our unemployed, especially when you take into consideration the undoubted saving in the rates that must result. The considerations that I have laid before your Lordships have secured unanimous approval for this provision in another place. I venture to hope that your Lordships will show equal sympathy, and that your approval will be granted with all haste, having due regard to consideration of the matter by your Lordships. Even now, day by day, week by week, thousands of men are entering upon this gap period, and I appeal to your Lordships to give practical effect to this Bill immediately, and thus show your undoubted sympathy with the cause of the unemployed, and remove from thousands of your countrymen the fears of pauperism. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl upon the fact that, so early in his career in this House, he has had the responsibility of introducing the first Government Bill, and also upon the manner in which he has discharged that duty, for he has stated clearly and, to the best of my belief, quite accurately, the existing law and the effect which the Bill is intended to have. I look upon this Bill as in the nature of an experiment. It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that the object of the gap was to prevent a man who is unemployed from supposing that he will always be maintained at the expense of the Unemployment Fund, however long he is unemployed, to encourage him to look forward

265
to the gap which is coming, and try to find work before it comes, and, of course, when the gap arrives, to give him a further incentive to finding work in the hope that he may continue to be employed in that work and may not again come back upon the Fund. I think that the gap had a useful intention.
But, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it is said by persons who are good judges that, although there are advantages in the gap, there have also been serious disadvantages—that the expedient has not had quite the effect that was hoped from it, and that many perfectly deserving working men have, owing to this expedient, either suffered distress during the period for which the allowance is discontinued or, what is almost as bad, have gone in some cases upon the rates, and so have had for the first time the experience of being maintained at the public expense. It is said that in some cases the evils greatly outweigh the benefits. That being so, so far as my friends and I are concerned, we are quite prepared, upon the recommendation of His Majesty's Government, to say that, the experiment should be tried, and we do not desire to offer any opposition to it.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Bill in any way. On the contrary, those with whom I act are in favour of it on the ground stated by the noble Earl in his introductory statement. As a matter of fact, this particular proviso was put into the original Act, for which I was personally responsible, with the object, as stated by the noble Earl, of saving money in the first instance so that the benefit should be able to extend for a larger number of weeks in other cases, but especially to give an inducement to the man, as stated by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, to look out in anticipation for work and, when this interval came, of doing his best to obtain it. That Act was passed, of course, in normal times when there was comparatively little unemployment, and when it was possible in many cases for a man to obtain work. I understand that the position of the Government now, in introducing this Bill, is that, though the gap of three weeks may be an inducement to a man to seek work, the chances are that he will not be able to obtain it, that the result of the three weeks will not be to enable him to obtain work and so reduce
266
unemployment, but will mean a very great addition to his discomfort and difficulties in being out of employment and, indeed, may bring him into very difficult circumstances indeed. So far as I am concerned, I think that is a blot on the Act and the sooner it is remedied the better.
I rose really to enter a caveat rather than to discuss the merits of this Bill, upon which, I think, we are all agreed. I should be glad if I might have the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this matter. I read the account of the debate in the other House and I understood from it that the Minister of Labour or his Department is preparing a Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I must confess that I was—I will not say alarmed, but a little disturbed at a remark which fell from the Minister of Labour. Very likely it was not deliberate and I do not wish for any answer in regard to it now, but I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend sitting below me to bear in mind, in regard to that new Bill, that the whole basis of the original Insurance Act, and the Acts which have been passed to amend it from time to time, was a contributory one. The employer contributes, the workman contributes and the State contributes.
The best test that this basis has been a successful one for the Insurance Act and the Acts amending that Act is that, in spite of the very great strain and the very great stress brought on the Acts by the, war, they stood the strain and the stress, and a considerable margin was accumulated for other purposes. That Act has been extended now to something like twelve million persons, whereas the original Act applied only, I think, to about two millons. I hope that the indication to which I have referred in the speech of the Minister of Labour did not mean that the Government will, in any sense, relinquish or depart from a contributory basis. The contributory basis is a stable one. It gives an interest to each of the three parties. I enter this caveat because I am anxious that the Government, in considering this matter, should bear in mind the basis of the original Insurance Act and not depart from it in any material respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reply to the noble Earl may I say that no decision in regard to the contributory

267
basis has been come to. In considering the question I will certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has said on the subject. No suggestion has been made with regard to it this afternoon.
On Question, Rill read 2a : Committee negatived.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords. I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, for the purpose of taking the Third Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

POOR LAW RELIEF IN POPLAR.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to call attention to the administration of Poor Law relief by the Poplar Guardians, and to ask His Majesty's Government if the action of the Board is approved by them ; to call attention to the rescission of the Special Order by the Minister of Health : and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said : My Lords, it will be seen that this Question, of which I have given notice, is really divided into two parts. It may be for the general convenience of your Lordships' House if I say at once that the first part of the Question is that to which I attach the greater importance, and it is that part to which chiefly I shall direct my remarks.
The facts in this matter are admitted. Nobody denies them. The system of Poor Law relief, as administered by the Poplar Guardians, was reported upon by a Special Commissioner appointed by the Ministry of Health, in May. 1922, and the White Paper which was issued contains, in various parts, a series of condemnations of the way in which they carried out their duties. I shall venture to read to your Lordships a few extracts from that Report. On page 18, where the
268
conclusions are summarised, the Commissioner—the very able clerk to the Burnley Guardians—says that there were insufficient deductions in respect of children's earnings in calculating the allowance of relief, resulting in the granting of relief in cases in which no real destitution existed. Again, relief was allowed in excess of the earnings of an independent workman who maintained himself by his labour.
He noted the payment of wages in excess of trade union rates, and he said that
" The administration of the Poor Law in this parish is dictated by a policy adopted by the Guardians which is in many instances foreign to the spirit and intention of the Poor Law Statutes.''
Again, he noted
" The lavish allowances of outdoor relief encouraged persons to apply who would not otherwise do so.… The Guardians' policy has a tendency to demoralise the recipients and is calculated to destroy incentive to thrift, self-reliance and industry."
Finally, he stated :
" I consider that, on the present rate of expenditure, by careful administration, a saving of at least £100,000 per annum would result."
How far it went, indeed, is shown by an interesting letter. I think a genuine letter, written without any intention of irony, which appears on page 10 of this Report. A large firm of employers, Messrs. George Armstrong and Co., wrote, on January 20, 1922, to the Guardians as follows:—
" Our employees who live in Poplar have pointed out to us that they can get more money by being unemployed than working for us, and as we have no wish to prevent them from getting as much as possible, we propose to dismiss them so that they can take advantage of your relief."
Some figures which I quote later tend to the same conclusion. These facts are not denied by the Poplar Board of Guardians.
They issued a pamphlet, which has probably been seen by a good many of your Lordships, that was entitled : "Guilty and Proud of it." It was the statement that they issued in response to the Report of Mr. Cooper, and I shall venture to trouble your Lordships with two extracts. They say :
" We claim it as a virtue that in the main our scales are applied without variation. We are not the people to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving."
Again, on page 22, they say:
" Our work in Poplar will not be finished until we have compelled the Government itself to face the problem of unemployment by providing full and adequate maintenance for those for whom there is no work."
The term "full and adequate maintenance "is obviously capable of a good many interpretations, but a somewhat sinister light is thrown upon the meaning attached to that phrase by the Poplar Board of Guardians in the next sentence in their pamphlet :—
" The unemployment pay doled out by Sir Alfred Mond is foolishly inadequate."
The case, I think, is perfectly clear. The facts are admitted by everybody.
What we want to know is whether these methods of the Poplar Board of Guardians are approved by His Majesty's Government, or not That is, I think, a quite plain and simple issue which I venture to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the "Woolsack. The sequence of events which have really stirred up this trouble afresh are very likely familiar to your Lordships. With the advent of the new Government a deputation called at the Ministry of Health, and received a sympathetic reply. The Special Order was rescinded without very much being said about it, but, owing to the storm which arose after the rescission of the Order an explanation was sent out of an exceedingly mellifluous kind, and I cannot help feeling that I detect in it the master hand of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. It seems to me that it was intended to allay the fears which arose, not only in your Lordships' House but in many parts of the country. The explanation, however is, I think, really insufficient, and what we want to know now is whether the rescission of the. Order is to be interpreted as a victory for Poplarism, or not.
I saw in the New Lender of last week an article from which I shall read to your Lordships two passages. It bears on the letter to which I referred just now in speaking of how people out of work get better pay than those who are at work. It is an article by Mr. Edgar Lansbury in the New Leader, which, I think, is the official organ of His Majesty's Government. In the New Leader of last Saturday there appeared this :
270
" Many members of the Poplar Board work at the docks and on the railways and receive less in wages than the scale of relief which they pay to their unemployed fellow workers."
What an astonishing state of affairs ! The article goes on :
" They know that in Mr. Wheatley they have a Health Minister who will put the health side of his work first; they know that he will understand and sympathise with them in the horrible problem of poverty, misery and distress which faces them."
Mr. Wheatley is not the only person who sympathises with the Poplar Board of Guardians in the difficulties that they have to face, nor in the special difficulties which exist in so poor a district as Poplar. Mr. Lansbury finished his article with another passage which I wish to quote to your Lordships. He says:—
" They will still carry on their work of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked; they will still comfort the aged sick in their affliction ; they will still care for the widows and the fatherless,."
So do nearly all other boards of guardians throughout the country, and without transgressing the law in the way in which it is being broken by the Poplar Board of Guardians.
What we want to know from the noble and learned Viscount is whether the rescission of this Order, which marked them out because of the length to which they had gone in breaking the law, is really to be regarded as a mark of sympathy on the part of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and his colleagues. It is a real hardship upon other boards of guardians, not only those neighbouring on Poplar but all up and down the country, who are trying conscientiously to carry on their work, and now find that the extravagant methods of Poplar are apparently approved by His Majesty's Government. It is so easy to be charitable with other people's money. For my own part, I think we are rather obliged, on such an occasion as this, to express our approval of all those boards of guardians who have resisted the temptation, who have refused to follow the easy path, who, by a method of careful and economical administration, have managed to keep within the law and yet to provide for those poor who are to be found within their districts. A great deal of pressure has been put on some of these

271
boards of guardians, especially upon those boards of guardians which border upon Poplar itself. It seems to me that it is really unfair to those men who are trying to carry out the law that His Majesty's Government should have made their work even more difficult than it is at the present time. We want to know whether the policy of His Majesty's Government is one supporting Poplar, and whether they wish other boards of guardians to follow the example of Poplar and do the same kind of thing as the Poplar Board of Guardians have done.
It is not only Poplar which is involved in this matter. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack realises to the full the fact that this case has awakened a great deal of interest all over the country. Boards of guardians everywhere are watching, and are anxious to know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter. They are pressed over and over again by people with whom they have, as we all have, a great deal of sympathy because of their unemployment, who come to them and say : "We want the Poplar scale." It would be of great assistance to all these boards of guardians if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would say what is the view of His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. Do they, or do they not, think it desirable that the various boards of guardians should follow the example of Poplar? Last week I saw in The Times a letter from Mr. George Lansbury, who said that the more the Government got Poplarised the more popular it would be. The sentiment is as bad as the jingle. What we want to know is whether, that being the opinion of one of the most prominent supporters of His Majesty's Government, it is also the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
Poplarism is used as a vague phrase. What it means is full maintenance—very full maintenance—as the alternative to work. That may be right or it may be wrong. This is not the moment to enter upon the controversy as to whether it be right or wrong. The scale administered by Poplar is not the law of the land, and, therefore, it seems to me that it is very little use indeed to say that in rescinding this Order the Minister of Health was only sweeping away obsolete machinery
272
which could not be used. It was a great deal more than that. It was pressure from Poplar which induced Mr. Wheatley to withdraw this Order. It was a triumph for Poplar. It is regarded by the Poplar Guardians as being a large advance in their direction, and that is why we challenge His Majesty's Government on this matter, and ask them to give us a full statement of their views upon it.
For a few moments I turn to the question of the rescission of the Special Order. It is a difficult matter, and a legal matter, on which I hope my noble and learned friends, the Earl of Birkenhead and Lord Buckmaster, may say something during this discussion. Whatever may be the legal technicalities in this matter, it was an unexampled measure on the part of Mr. Wheatley to rescind this Order. It was rescinded before the report of the auditor was made. I do not know whether the audits of the Ministry of Health are generally made as late as this, but they have not yet, apparently, received the report of the auditor for the early part of last year. Therefore the Minister of Health does not yet know whether there will be a surcharge or not, and before he knew whether there was to be a surcharge or not he withdrew the Order and deprived himself of the power of making a surcharge if he wished.
I confess that I do not think the whole of the blame in this matter is to be attributed to Mr. Wheatley. During the whole of last year another Government was in office and they took no steps whatever. It will be interesting to know why. It has been suggested to me that it is impossible to make a surcharge of this character until the auditor has made his report, and if that is so it is a perfectly valid and obvious defence I shall be interested to know whether that is the case or not. But until now an Order has never been rescinded except on a promise of good behaviour for the future. And there has been no such promise in this case. The rescission has been carried out by the Minister of Health without asking the Poplar Guardians for any pledge as to their conduct in the future. The matter, in itself, is important, but it is still more important with regard to the future, with regard to the whole policy of His Majesty's Government, and with regard

273
to the work of poor law guardians throughout this country. Therefore I return to the first part of my Question and ask the Lord Chancellor if he will be good enough to let us know exactly how far the rescission of the Order means that His Majesty's Government approve of the action of the Poor Law Guardians of Poplar.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies to the Question which the noble Earl has put to him I ask leave to make a very brief observation on the subject. In the greater part of the speech which he has delivered I assume that the noble Earl has been preaching to the converted, but when I find the noble Earl, so recently after a very important decision taken by his Party, coming forward in alarm and impeaching upon deep grounds of political principles the conduct of the Government, which the decision of himself and his companions and leaders alone made possible, I am led to muse a little on the irony and paradox of contemporary politics. You would gather from what the noble Earl said that the Poplar issue was a new one. When did it first engage his reforming zeal? Did he not hear of the Mond Order at the time when the Mond Order was an important contemporary document? The noble Earl has since publicly embraced Sir Alfred Mond, but so far as I can gather he has never taken the slightest trouble to acquaint himself with the responsibility which was then the responsibility of Sir Alfred Mond, and must now, I suppose, be undertaken equally by the Party which welcomes Sir Alfred Mond back as one of its ablest members.
The noble Earl now comes to your Lordships' House full of terror at this new Socialism, which many of us had observed going on for the last four years and which many of us had taken steps to correct. Only a few short weeks ago he expressed his pleasure at the destruction of the Conservative Government and his delight at the substitution for that Government of those who sit upon the Front Bench opposite and upon the corresponding Bench in the House of Commons. The noble Earl, who, once the issue of Protection has ceased to be a real live issue in our internal politics, would find great embarrassment in giving three profound grounds of political difference: between us and himself, now comes, in about a
274
fortnight's time, and pathetically complains in this House of the dangerous courses which those whom he and his friends placed in power are taking. Whoever deserves sympathy, the noble Earl and his friends deserve not the slightest sympathy. They could have known, and they ought to have known, that by every political commitment of this Government it must make some gesture on behalf of the Poplar movement, and for the, noble Earl to affect this surprise and indignation is really to impose on the simplicity of your Lordships.
Now I come to the merits of the question. It is much more difficult and complicated than the careful speech of the noble Karl would suggest. Let this be made perfectly plain in the first place. The noble Earl is right when he says that the Poplar experiment is an attempt to put in practice in the plainest and crudest form the doctrines of doctrinaire Socialism. It is an attempt to give to every man, whether he works or whether ho chooses to avoid work, the same reward that is given to the man who obeys the eternal law of eternal toil. It is the first time that the attempt has been plainly made in this country. This must be added. It has been made by the Poplar Guardians in successive years with the plain knowledge of the illegality of that which they did. The Lord Chancellor, who I understand is to reply and who is an accomplished lawyer, will not dissent from my statement, that over a series of years the conduct of the Poplar Guardians has been marked by recurrent illegality.
But the matter is not exhausted by making this admission, the difficulties are not concluded by placing upon record the successive, and I will say impudent, illegalities of which the Poplar Board of Guardians have been guilty, because there still remains the immensely difficult, and up to the present the unsolved, administrative problem. Let me make a comment on that problem. Year by year the Poplar Guardians disregarded the censures of an auditor and the instructions of a Ministry. What then was the proper course for the Ministry of Health to adopt? And in attempting to reach a conclusion as to the course which they ought to have adopted we may derive some instruction from this fact, that a uniform course was adopted by

275
four successive Health Ministers—Sir Alfred Mond, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Sir William Joynson-Hicks. Whether they were right or wrong, four different Ministers, equipped with the experience and the knowledge of their staffs, applied their minds to this question, and those four Ministers resembled one another alike in that which they did and in that which they omitted to do ; and that which they did and that which they omitted to do each, in its own way, supplies a vivid illustration of the difficulty of the problem which was represented by the illegalities deliberately undertaken by the Poplar Guardians.
From first to last this, as I understand it, was the course of events. In the first place, illegality: in the second place, auditor's inquiry; in the third place, the consequent surcharge. What, in the opinion of the noble Earl, was the duty of the Minister of Health when this surcharge Order had been made and the illegality repeated ? The problem is far more difficult than anything in the speech of the noble Earl would suggest. Shall the Minister of Health refuse to make any advance at all to Poplar because an unpaid surcharge still exists, nominally leviable upon the Guardians, and because continued acts of illegality are notoriously taking place ? Not only was that view not taken by the Ministry of Health for all those years, but, on the contrary, the Ministry of Health continued to make advances of money to the Poplar Guardians, to the very Guardians upon whose head surcharges rested and who were involving themselves each week and each month in repeated acts of illegality.
I think it is correct to say that advances were made after the surcharges, but the date is not material. The material point is that these advances were made at a time when it was known that the Poplar Guardians were involved in acts of illegality, and that, so far from being repentant in relation to those acts, they had ostentatiously made it known that they intended to continue them. Why were those advances made ? They were made because no Government would have taken the responsibility of allowing no relief to be given in Poplar. The fact that they were continued in so many changing circumstances, and under so many different Ministers, will confirm the
276
view, which your Lordships will have already formed, that in the present condition of the population of Poplar the Ministry had no choice except to make these advances continuously, as I think it will be found that he did make them, for a long period of time, and after the surcharges had taken place.
One other point remains to be carefully considered—a point which did not, I think, engage so much of the noble Earl's attention as it might have done. What does he suggest is the policy that ought to have been adopted in relation to these surcharges ? The total amount, I think, at the date when the Minister took a step open to grave objection—not, I think, precisely to the objection put forward by the noble Earl, but an objection which I will attempt to indicate in a moment—the total amount of the surcharges at the time when that Order was cancelled was £100,000. In another year it might, for all I know, have been £150,000. Those surcharges, or a great portion of them, had been in existence for a very considerable time, as the noble Earl pointed out to the House. No one of those Ministers who were at the head of the Ministry of Health at the time when these surcharges existed had made the slightest attempt to collect them. Indeed, it is obvious that it would be quite ludicrous to attempt to collect the £100,000 surcharge from the Poplar Guardians, because, without making any reflection upon the solvency of these gentlemen, they have themselves made it extremely plain, if I may so put it, that it would have exceeded the reasonable limits of convenience for them to make up that sum at the present moment, or at any moment which they could reasonably predict.
To what a situation were we plainly drifting ? We were drifting to a situation in which Minister after Minister was solemnly accumulating the totals of an obligation which he and all his predecessors knew quite plainly never had been paid, never would be paid, and never could be paid. Whether the Minister was right or wrong—and I think, as most of us think, that he was completely wrong—in the course which he adopted, let us attempt to examine the situation fairly and plainly. No Minister could for long have consented to see the accumulation of these nominal and never-to-be-paid surcharges continually going

277
on. I remember that my noble friend Lord Balfour, whom I see upon the Cross Benches once said in a memorable debate upon an Irish topic in the House of Commons : "I do not mind your describing my Government as odious, but you cannot expect me to acquiesce in making it ludicrous.'' In the same spirit I can see the kind of case which can be made out upon its merits, and which has already been obscurely indicated by the Minister who was responsible and by the Prime Minister, That case, as I understand it, is this. You have imposed surcharges. It was a ludicrous device. You knew that they never could be paid, and that those upon whom they were purported to be imposed never intended to pay them, and defiantly informed you that they never intended to pay them ; so that you united every conceivable disadvantage in the course which you adopted, because you imposed a futile penalty which could never be enforced, and the men upon whom you purported to enforce it were openly ridiculing you and defying you.
Such was the situation when the responsibility fell upon the shoulders of the Party many of whose members, though not all, had openly relied for the support of the public upon doctrines which are not in principle distinguishable from what I may call the pure fruit of Poplar, and undoubtedly a dilemma then arose. It is very difficult, if you have preached Poplar upon the platform—as my noble friend Lord Parmoor has done for so many years —it is, no doubt, extremely difficult, when Poplar comes and waits upon you in a deputation, to point out to them that you have been wrong all this time, or else (the only other alternative) that they are wrong now. The latter is, of course, a somewhat difficult admonition to address to gentlemen who are not yet fitting upon the Treasury Bench, though we shall no doubt in due time welcome them there. Accordingly, we find the Minister confronted with this dilemma. He took a decision. It was, I think, as regards both the period of its formation and the methods of its expression, a crude decision. His decision was that he would rescind and wipe out the surcharges.
Give me leave to point out how abundantly this justifies that which I and my friends have ventured to point out both to the country and to the Liberal
278
Party, that the danger of the Socialist. Party did not entirely lie in that which they might do by legislation, but was to be found largely in that which, by a mere administrative order, a stroke of the pen, they could make effective. This was done by the Minister whom the noble Earl and his friends placed in office. That Minister would not be in office had it not been for the noble Earl and the friends of the noble Earl, who come in plaintive and belated appeal to this House, to complain of their creature—of the man whom they placed on the Treasury Bench.
This decision is taken by administrative Order. I object to it, not because of that which it actually effected, because why should one complain of any Order, if carried out with dignity, which merely corrects and banishes an absurdity. I complain of it, not for that reason but because that particular absurdity ought, not to have been corrected by the kind of gesture, at the very moment, which enabled the Poplar Guardians to go home and say: "We have triumphed, our system has triumphed ; and the Government admits that the whole, of the Poplar scheme is well founded, and is capable of application to the whole country ?" What else can be the result? The Minister was dealing with what was a dangerous and illegal scheme, and then the Minister publicly wiped out these surcharges, which, ridiculous as they were, marked the censure of official opinion. In that way he armed the guardians of the country to do that which Poplar did, and. gave them the right to say that this is what the Labour Government approves of.
One must be practical in these matters. The noble Earl invited me to deal with the technical points involved. I could do so, but I do not attempt to do so, for this reason, that it does not seem to me that this is a matter which requires technical or legal contributions from lawyers. The broad outstanding points are too plain to require any technical disquisition. What we have to ask ourselves is: Where are we going? Where does this policy lead us? I shall be asked, or I may be asked, by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack this question: He may say: "You have said that these surcharges could not have been enforced : you say you censure us for having publicly erased the surcharges ;

279
what would you have done ? "That is a question which he and your Lordship are fully entitled to put to me, and I will attempt to reply to it. Only two courses were open to any Government, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, determined to enforce the law. Unless we are to see the whole Poor Law system dissolved in anarchy, only two courses were open—one ineffective, and the other, in my judgment, effective, although administratively inconvenient.
The first and ineffective coarse would be to disqualify immediately the members of any board of guardians which had involved itself in illegality of this kind. I have said that in my opinion this remedy would not be completely effective, because, if you take a district like Poplar, those who are familiar with the workings of democratic government, and the kind of appeal which sounds pleasantly in the car of democratic voters, will know that it is not unpopular, even in these days, to say in a very poor neighbourhood that a man, whether he works or not, is entitled to be paid the full trade union rate of wages. It is not unpopular, and until its economic possibilities, and the social ruin which it involves, have been made plain upon a large stage, it will continue to be popular. It follows that if you dislodge the personnel of one board of guardians you will possibly find that substitution will be made of other boards of guardians who share the same views upon economic matters. Therefore I do not look to this remedy as a promising one.
There is a remedy which I am sure would be effective to achieve this purpose, although administratively inconvenient. In my judgment, if similar cases are to be dealt with and corrected in the future, if a board of guardians will not do its duty, and if reasonable judgment and observation teach you that the substitution of others following upon disqualification will not give you a different policy, there is only one course, drastic as it is, and that is the supersession, for the time being, in that area, of that body, and the substitution of a Committee of the Ministry of Health. If a public body will not discharge its functions within the law, the only course that can be adopted by society, still strong enough to protect itself, is to substitute in that area, and for that moment, until sanity and obedience to
280
the law returns, an authority constituted by the Ministry of Health. I have heard that some such scheme was in the minds of the late Government. I am sure that upon those lines, and upon those lines alone, will a sufficient method of correction be found for the illegalities in Poplar.
I do associate myself so far with the speech made by the noble Earl that I think the House is entitled to invite the noble and learned Viscount to make it perfectly plain whether the cancellation of these surcharges is to be construed as an indication on the part of the Government that they do not intend to permit such surcharges to be imposed in the future, or, if they are imposed, intend to cancel them. We are entitled, in the second place, to ask him quite plainly whether he concurs in the description which I have given of the illegalities committed by the Poplar Board of Guardians. We are also entitled, and this is a far more important question, to ask him what is the policy of the Government in case these illegalities should be repeated, because we know that the Board of Guardians intends to repeat them. They have said that they have gained the victory ; that they are guilty, but not ashamed ; and therefore similar courses will be practised by them in the future, and it is by no means improbable that other boards, seeing how pleasant is the primrose path under the present administration, wall themselves adopt similar courses.
Therefore the last question that I put is one which is fundamental, and here the noble Earl rendered a service by raising this Question. What is the policy of the Government if these cases of illegality are continued ? In what I have said I have made it plain that I do not think the task committed to the present Government by its predecessors was an easy one. I think that in judging that which has been done, and if we are given satisfactory reassurances as to the future, we should make allowances for the difficulties in which not only this Government but its predecessors had found themselves involved. But one thing is vital for all of us, wherever we sit, and I greatly doubt whether many of those who sit opposite to me and whether many of its recent recruits will dispute this one great truth, that once you make it known to the work-

281
ing classes that the same emolument and the same standard of comfort that attends zealous toil attends a studied and resolute determination not to work at all, from that moment the industrial and the commercial existence of this nation is destroyed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beauchamp began his speech by asking me certain questions. My noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead, in what I would venture to call a more judicial speech, proceeded to examine the whole situation, and he put some questions which were not substantially different. It will, therefore, be convenient that I should answer the questions put together, before entering, in the brief compass in which I hope to deal with it, into the details of the topic of controversy.
The first question put by Lord Beauchamp was this: Do the Government approve of all that the Poplar Guardians have said? The answer to that question is: No. The second question was : Was the rescission of the Order of 1922 a mark of sympathy for a breach of the law ? To that the answer is also: No. The third question was: Do we want other boards of guardians in the country to follow the example of Poplar? That question is somewhat ambiguous. If my noble friend means that other boards of guardians have been giving relief on a scale not in excess of Poplar, then I can tell him that I have got a list of boards of guardians, particularly in the East End of London, who are giving relief on a scale which is in excess of that being given in Poplar. Your Lordships may ask how that is to be accounted for. Undoubtedly, the scale of relief has been high. The answer is that the scale of distress in the East End, arising from unemployment, has been something almost without precedent. The situation has been very difficult, and, if some of the guardians have done their work quietly, and in such a fashion that they have not; come under the censure of the auditor, that is due to their superior skill, but it is not duo to the fact that they have in all eases given less than Poplar. On the contrary, in a series of instances, which I have here, they have given more.
282
The Poplar Guardians were people who expressed the emotions of a class in Poplar who were very much distressed. They not only expressed these emotions vividly, but they also transgressed the law, and it is those transgressions of the law with which we are concerned, because it was with those transgressions that my right hon. friend Mr. Wheatley has been thought in some quarters to be associated. It is not true that Mr. Wheatley broke the law in anything he did; Mr. Wheatley has acted strictly within the powers confided to him. Had he been a more experienced Minister he might perhaps have given to the public fuller explanations of the exact ground on which he was proceeding in each case. And I think, if he had done so, he would have impressed upon the public mind that in no sense and in no way was he exceeding his legal powers. He said nothing to the Poplar Guardians to encourage them to exceed their legal powers.
What he did was this. It is easy to talk of a surcharge. The surcharge is the decision of an auditor, who is not a Ministry of Health official at all, but has his authority by appointment ab extra The auditor gives his decision, and then it remains for the responsible Minister to say whether he will enforce that decision—enforce it by making the guardians who have exceeded what they ought to have spent pay, or else go to prison. That is a very responsible business for the Minister. Of course, you can take a short cut and make martyrs of the offending guardians, but what good do you do then ? As my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead pointed out in his speech, probably the locality, moved by enthusiasm and perhaps by passion, will just elect another guardian of the same kind, perhaps a whole board of guardians of the same kind, and you are no better off than you were before. What are you to do ? Lord Birkenhead suggested that you should appoint officials of the Ministry of Health to come and carry on local government in that region. I should be very sorry to be one of the officials of the Ministry of Health on such an errand, as I can conceive nothing more impossible and impracticable than to suspend local government under the established system in an area like that, and hope that you will get smooth working of the municipal institutions. You will not, and it is not

283
in that way that the law can be enforced. When I come to the point I will say what is in the mind of the Government about the reform of the law as regards the future. These were the questions that were put to me—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No. The noble and learned Viscount will pardon my interrupting, but there was a very important question I asked—much the most important question I asked—and it was this. Assuming, as I pointed out that we are entitled to assume, that these illegalities continue, what is the policy of the Government ? That is a very important question, which has been left quite unanswered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said it was a question of policy that I was coming to. I cannot deal with it until I have dealt with one or two intermediate things, but I will deal with it, and I said I would deal with it. What is the situation just now ?—because before we can talk of policy we must know what the situation really has been. Under the general law it is the obligation of the rich to come to the assistance of the poor in their necessity. That has been so since the days of Queen Elizabeth, under the Statute passed at that time. Then, in 1834, to check the extravagance of guardians, the power to make an audit was conferred, or at any rate strengthened. Since 1834 it has always been in the power of the responsible Minister—not the Minister of Health; it used to be other Ministers—to make a scale and say what the scale should be.
Then there is another factor. The richer boroughs in London come to the assistance of the poorer boroughs, by providing assistance through a Common Fund which equalises rates. If your Lordships want to know the reason of that you have only to look at the variations of poverty in such places as the City and Westminster, compared with Poplar and Bethnal Green. There is an enormous difference, and it is right that the rich should come to the assistance of the poor in the case of those London boroughs. Well, that was the law, and the rates in Poplar have been assisted from the Common Fund. In 1921 an Act was passed which, by the second subsection of Section (1), enabled the authorities to
284
make a scale which should regulate the assistance to be given out of the Common Fund for the benefit of the rates, including Poplar. Then there followed upon that the famous Poplar Order of 1922, which made the scale and applied it. Well, it did not work, and within a few months the Government of that day—I have no doubt very properly—not only got rid of the part of the Act which contained the power to make that scale, but appeared to have taken cognisance of the scale. The scale was a thing which was past. I do not say that it remains. At any rate, as the result of the power that had been exercised, part of the scale was alive and to that extent operated.
But for the rest, an Act was passed in 1923 which by its first section repealed the whole arrangement which was contained in the Act of 1921, and said that for the future there was to be a flat rate, a maximum of 9d., which is the extent to which the Common Fund is to be drawn on for the assistance of the rates in such places as Poplar. When that was done it created a new situation, but it left the Minister of the day with the remnant of the old situation upon his hands. He had the Poplar Order, with its effects, to deal with. In 1922, before the Statute under which it was done had been repealed, and again in 1923 the auditors proceeded to see whether the Guardians had observed that scale or not. Your Lordships will observe that it was not the old system. It was the passing from the old one to one under which there was a contribution of 9d. from the Common Fund. But the old one was alive to this extent, that things had been done under it, and the auditor proceeded to look into those things. After he had looked into them he did not surcharge, but he notified that he probably would surcharge.
That was the situation with which an unfortunate succession of Health Ministers found themselves confronted. They were faced with the question of what was to be done with Mr. Lansbury and other members of the Poplar Board of Guardians who had transgressed the law. The first thing that these Ministers, one after the other, considered was with whom they were to deal. Certain of the members were very well known people who were receiving great sympathy from a large number of their constituents in

285
Poplar for having done what they did—which was to pay out more money than was authorised by the State. It was wrong to pay out more money than was authorised by the State, but I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the distress that there was in Poplar, the intensity of popular feeling there, and the strong temptation to these people, holding the views they did, to do everything they could to assist those who were in such dire straits.
Undoubtedly, they did pay out, and illegally paid out, more money than was authorised by the State. But one Minister after another—Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Sir William Joynson-Hicks—thought that it was no use to put those people in prison. It was perfectly obvious that nothing could be recovered from them it they wore made bankrupt. The only alternative was to put them m prison, and they had them in prison for a time, not on this question but in regard to a totally different matter. For contempt of a mandamus they had to go to gaol, and very quickly the Government had to get them out. Successive Ministers did not try to enforce the surcharge, and speaking for myself I have no doubt that they were right. Then the surcharges stood. Mr. Wheatley became Minister and these people came to him and said : "Do you mean to enforce the surcharges?" And he said. "No." He did not say that he would disregard the law in not doing it. On the contrary, whether he enforced the surcharges or not was plainly within his discretion. He only said that he was not going to exercise his discretion by enforcing the surcharges.
How could he enforce the surcharges? It was no good putting the guardians in prison or making them bankrupt. It would only be incurring charges without getting the money. It was said that Mr. Wheatley gave general encouragement to these people to disregard the law. I have looked into the matter, and I find that all he said was what I have told your Lordships, that he would not enforce the surcharges, which actually had not been made but which had been notified. Two years had passed since the first of them had been notified and nobody had shown the slightest sign of taking any action to enforce them. As regards the rest, he said no word which
286
indicated any advice or suggestion on his part to the Poplar Guardians that they should not obey the law. On the contrary, the law was kept before their eyes.
The law on the subject is contained in the famous decision in the Merthyr Tydfil case which was decided in 1900. Any of your Lordships who are interested in it will find the report in the Library. There the duty of the guardians is laid down as clearly as it can be laid down. It has been complained that the law is obscure. It is not obscure. The law can do no more than lay down general principles, and these were laid down by the late Lord Lindley in a memorable judgment which has been the authority on the subject ever since. He made perfectly plain what the duty of the guardians was.
Long before Mr. Wheatley came on the scene it was decided that you could not take any steps against them, and the question now is how we stand to-day. We stand to-day in this position, that the law is in full force with the power of the auditor to surcharge. The auditor will investigate the accounts and may surcharge as he has done before. What trouble we may have then with the guardians I do not know. When the matter comes up, if it does come up, which Heaven forbid, we will do our best to deal with it. I only remind your Lordships that it is impossible for any Government to do more than lay down the law plainly and then to deal with cases as they get them in a concrete fashion. It is a difficult thing in every respect.
That brings me at once to the question of whether the law is in a satisfactory condition. That is what my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead referred to. Certainly I am dead against the suggestion of appointing a Receiver or of asking an Official Receiver to take on the business of local government in any district where the guardians have done this sort of thing. That would be disastrous to local government in London and to broader aspects of local government in the country generally. In 1909 the Poor Law Commission reported. In 1919 a Reconstruction Committee, presided over by Sir Donald Maclean, also reported upon this question and they agreed in drawing attention to the fact that many

287
of the evils with which we are confronted and much of the difficulty of enforcing the Poor Law result from this, that under the Poor Law you mix up and commingle a vast number of things which are wholly different.
Your Lordships would not wish to interfere with the guardians in the exercise of a discretion within the law in relieving freely cases arising out of unemployment. Then there are the cases of people who are paupers and those who are suffering from mental infirmity. That is an evil of a different kind from that presented by the case of the man who cannot get work, not through any fault of his own but simply because there is no work for him to do. I could multiply instances, but one will suffice for my purpose. The unemployed man obviously ought to be dealt with under unemployment insurance, while the lunatic ought to be dealt with under a system of institutional treatment. The sick pauper ought to come under the Ministry of Health. Then there are the cases of children. These have to be dealt with in their own way. The result of the present system is that all these things are lumped together, and come under the jurisdiction of the guardians who have to administer a complicated kind of relief. But if you break up the bundle and take the sticks separately it is much easier to deal with them. You will then know whether the guardians are relieving strikers who could get work. That is illegal. But you would have to deal with a very different position if you had a law that was broken up. You would then have a distinction between the different classes of people who have to be dealt with. You would be able to distinguish between the wives and children who were destitute and who must be kept in health, and the case of the man himself.
The plan of the Government is to deal with the matter. Of course it is a very big question, and one that will take time. Then there is the other question which we may be able to deal with more rapidly, but that is also a very complicated one, and I do not propose to go into details in regard to it now, but will merely say that it is a matter which is receiving consideration. I wish to say, in conclusion, that only in the way that I have indicated will you solve this problem. It
288
is no use resorting to violent measures. Even if they succeed in one case they will not succeed in many cases. The Poplar Guardians were stirred by the number of people who presented a spectacle of the misery under which they were living. They acted rashly, and I hope they will not so act again, but at any rate it would have been the height of unwisdom on the part of Mr. Wheatley to have followed a course which was not adopted by his predecessors of enforcing the surcharge. It was wiser to follow the course adopted by his predecessors of not enforcing the consequences of the surcharge.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it does not seem to me that in this debate it is a profitable matter either to speculate on the reasons why the present Government are in Office, or to consider in detail whether former Ministers of Health have or have not discharged the responsible duties attaching to their Office. The debate as it progressed appeared to me to assume a more and more depressing complexion. The speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has, I admit, left me in a state of profound gloom. What has happened? We have been told that, urged and stimulated by distress, the gravity and the extent of which I have no desire whatever to minimise, the Poplar Guardians have deliberately and systematically broken the law, and that everybody appeared to be impotent to prevent the law from being broken. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack does not suggest now that there is any method that they can adopt, or that they propose to adopt, for the purpose of preventing a repetition of this illegality. It is no use the noble and learned Viscount saying surcharge, because his Minister said, "No, I will not do it, other people may, but it is no use speaking to me about surcharge." I cannot help thinking everyone must agree that in effect when the Minister of Health said : "It is not my intention to surcharge you," he meant thereby "I do not mean to do what my predecessors in office have done, but I intend you to have some special consideration at my hands," and it is that which has caused a considerable alarm among all people who realise that it is impossible to enforce the Jaw with regard to the spending of public funds.

289
We are in face of a very grave danger, the extent and magnitude of which it is quite impossible to measure.
So far as I can gather from what the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack said, our attitude towards the Poplar Guardians and the others who have broken the law ought to be this : "We marvel at your moderation ; if you had spent twice as much we should have been equally impotent. We should have been quite unable to check you ; and all we can say is that you will be in due course surcharged, and a benevolent Minister of Health may tell you he does not intend the surcharge to be enforced."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not intend to convey that impression. I addressed myself solely to what was done under the Order of 1922, and I only said that it would not be enforced.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I must admit that I find myself in some difficulty. It may be that we have all been misunderstanding what has taken place. I certainly understood that the Minister of Health had said in plain language to the Poplar Guardians that he did not intend that the surcharge should be made, and everybody seems to have agreed that if the surcharge had been made there was no means by which it could be enforced. And that is, indeed, the justification that has been put forward for the action he took. Be it so. Then it makes no difference whether the surcharge was £100,000, or £200,000, or £250,000 ; you would be equally impotent ; and I say that if there be no means whatever by which people who have charge of public money can be properly limited and restrained in their functions in applying that money for the purposes for which it is entrusted to their charge, then there is a danger the magnitude of which, I repeat, it is impossible to over-estimate.
The noble and learned Viscount was asked by more than one speaker what it was that the Government did propose to do. He answered by telling us what, I have no doubt, was right that the question is a very complicated one, and that there was a necessity of registering different grades and degrees of poverty and distress, and having an amendment: of the Poor Law. All that is no doubt very good, but what is the amendment that
290
you are going to propose ? What are the steps that are going to be taken ? Is anything going to be done ? Are the other boards of guardians to be told: "Well, you may spend whatever the kindness of your heart dictates and you think the necessity of the case may require, without the least regard to restrictions by Orders, or by the supervision of the auditors, because, provided everybody who is a member of your board of guardians has no means, there is no opportunity whatever by which the Orders of the Minister can be enforced." That appears to me to be the conclusion of this matter.
I hope your Lordships will not think that I exaggerate little things when I say that conclusion left me in a state of profound gloom. There surely ought to be some other opportunity, and it seems to me that there are means that might be taken. I agree with the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that imprisonment is nearly always a futile thing for violations of Orders of this kind, because it undoubtedly docs excite popular feeling, but is it not possible that the funds which are to be administered for this purpose should be earmarked, that there should be only a limited amount upon which drafts can be made, that there should be some means of checking the weekly payments ? There is no power, no legal authority, to overdraw at the bank. Overdrafts at the bank are outside the powers of boards of guardians ; borrowing at the bank is outside their powers unless it has been altered by recent law ; and the consequence is that banks will not permit overdrafts. Therefore if some control were effected by earmarking funds that are at the disposal of boards of guardians for specific purposes, and some control exercised over the scale upon which that money was being used, it should be possible to prevent the repetition of a matter which, if it is not a public scandal, certainly approaches to what is a public danger.
I hope no one will think that I, or any other members of your Lordships' House, do not appreciate all that is meant by the appeal of want and poverty and suffering made to a board of guardians like Poplar who are in daily contact with eases which they seek to relieve. But I do think that there is no worse form of charity than that of relieving distress

291
at other people's expense. It is the most demoralising thing that can happen. It demoralises those who receive and those who have to pay, and it destroys all sense of responsibility. If the case of Poplar is as grave as represented, then the proper course is for the scale of payments to be large and opportunities given for the relief of this exceptional distress. The one thing that can never be justified is to have laws and allow them to be broken, and take no steps to see that they are effectively enforced. The whole basis of democratic government lies in this—that laws must be obeyed, and they must be obeyed for the simple reason that every person enjoys equally with every other person the right to take the necessary steps, by constitutional means, to effect their change.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, before the debate closes I hope I may be allowed to say a few words on the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Let me say a word or two first about what has been done and then as to what ought to be done in the future. We have it admitted at last, although it was denied by the Lord President of the Council a few days ago, that an Order was made in June, 1922, which prescribed a scale above which the Poplar Guardians were not to grant relief. That is common ground to-day. It is also admitted that that Order has now been rescinded and that the Minister of Health has expressed his intention of remitting any surcharge which might be made in respect of moneys paid in contravention of that Order.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment? I thought I made that limitation the other day.
VISCOUNT CAVE: The statement the noble and learned Lord made referred to the Order, and if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he was in error. It has not been said by anyone to-day that the Order of June, 1922 was obsolete when it was repealed. It was not obsolete, and it did not derive its power from the Acts to which the Lord Chancellor has referred. The Order of June, 1922, was made under the old Act of 1834 and under that Act alone. It is true it
292
incorporated the scale which had been fixed under the Act of 1921 and forbade the Poplar Guardians to go beyond that scale, but it did not depend on the Act of 1921 and was not affected by the Act of 1923. It stood, until the moment it was repealed, as an effective Order restraining the Poplar Guardians. There is one other point upon which I must comment in order to get rid of a good deal of confusion. I want to note that the former Ministers of Health had no power to enforce any surcharge against the Poplar Guardians in respect of moneys paid in contravention of the Order for the simple reason that no surcharge has been made. That to-day is common ground, and the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, was somewhat mistaken when he assumed that there had been a surcharge which had not been enforced. There was no surcharge. The auditor had not concluded his audit, and therefore the time for a surcharge had not arisen and no notification of any surcharge had been or could be given. That is a sufficient answer to the suggestion that the former Minister of Health ought to have taken action. But I do not care a rap about these personal things ; I want to clear the misapprehension out of the way.
What is the position to-day ? First, there is no check at all upon the Poplar Guardians except the old check under the Act of 1834, to which they have paid no attention whatever for years past. Secondly, it has been notified to them, and to other boards of guardians throughout the country, that whatever restrictions are put upon them by the Ministry of Health or by Parliament, they need not obey them, and if a surcharge is made it will be remitted. They have been given full authority to break the law as much as they please without fear of the consequences. Those are two things which I hope the country and this House will insist on being remedied. There ought to be an effective check on people of this kind, and if they break the law they ought to know that they will suffer. I hope His Majesty's Government will not be allowed to ride off upon the ground of a suggestion that they are going to look into the general law and have it altered. They do not tell us how. The very consideration will take a long time ; it will mean a good deal of discussion and opposition. And

293
if the remedy is to be put oft until the law has been altered in this way, then long before that time an enormous amount of public money will have been thrown away and ratepayers will have suffered severely.
We do not know what are the proposals in the minds of His Majesty's Ministers. We have not been told. Is it this, that the poor rates for Poplar and Shoreditch shall be thrown upon the whole of London ? Does it mean that the Poplar Guardians may fix their expenditure, but that the whole of London will have to pay for it? If so, it will be merely a fraction of the Poplar expenditure which Poplar will bear, and there will be every encouragement to them to spend sums without limit. I hope we shall not be asked to wait, at any rate that we shall not consent to wait, until these general inquiries have been concluded. I am putting my points very shortly, because I do not want to detain the House too long.
Just consider. The Poplar Guardians have not only relieved too many able-bodied people but they have relieved them upon too high a scale. The Report of Mr. Cooper shows that whereas neighbouring places, equally poor, I think, Stepney, Bermondsey, and so on, relieve on a comparatively moderate scale—Stepney relieves one person in fourteen of its population, Bermondsey one in thirteen, and Shoreditch one in twelve—Poplar relieves one in five. Then take the scale of relief. Under the Poplar scale the maximum relief for a household was fixed at £2 14 s. The Poplar Guardians have given £4, £5, £6 and, in some cases, £7, going many pounds beyond the amount which the law allowed. The result is, as was to be expected, an enormous burden upon the rates of Poplar. I think the. Poplar rates exceed 20 s. in the £, but I forget the exact amount. You may say, "Why do not the Poplar ratepayers turn out the guardians?" The answer is very simple. The rateable value of Poplar consists, as to two-thirds, of property belonging to corporations and other bodies who have no vote at all in the election of guardians. One-third of the rateable value of property elects the guardians, and therefore it is quite natural that we have not in that place the kind of check by the ratepayers which you have elsewhere.
294
That is a crying evil, and I think we really ought to ask for a clear and an early remedy.
What ought to be done ? First, I suggest that it should be laid down that when a surcharge is made it shall be enforced. I do not mean, of course, that where a guardian, or a member of some public body, has made a bona fide mistake and has laid himself open to a surcharge, it must be enforced against him. I mean only that people who wilfully, deliberately and consistently break the law ought to know that there is a real risk that the surcharge, when it comes, will be enforced. So only can the law be enforced. The Ministry ought to make an example of some body or some person to show others that they cannot go on breaking the law with impunity. But I agree with those who have said that a surcharge alone is a weapon which is apt to break in your hand, because you have people surcharged who have not a penny with which to pay, and the whole thing becomes a mere farce. One must find some other way.
I am permitted to say that the late Government had prepared a Bill, which they were just about to introduce, dealing with this matter. It went upon lines somewhat similar to those which the noble and learned Earl behind me has outlined to-day. It was proposed, in cases of persistent breach of the law on the part of a public authority, to give to some other public authority which might have been willing to undertake the task the right to take over and administer its powers. It was ascertained that in the case of the Poplar Guardians a great London authority, an elected body, was ready and willing to lake over the powers, if so desired, by an Order made under Act of Parliament. There, at all events, a remedy would have been found. You would have obtained honest, patriotic men ready to obey the law and prepared to administer these powers, and you would have had some kind of remedy for the evils which are going on.
Another remedy was suggested by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, and will, I think, deserve consideration, but any Government which is in power in this country ought to find, and to find promptly, some way by which, in the case

295
of constant and deliberate breach of the law, a remedy may be supplied. I have said all that I wish to say at this late period of the afternoon. It is the fact that the Poplar Guardians have adopted deliberately a policy of breaking down our Poor Law which was set up in 1834. They want to go back to the pre-1834 conditions, which caused so much trouble and so much distress in this country. They want to set up the principle of work or maintenance at the same rate as if a man were doing work. That is a fatal policy deliberately adopted. I am sure that it ought to be stopped, and that some early steps ought to be taken by the Government to prevent its being carried out.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, speaking on behalf of the Government upon what is admitted on all hands to be a very difficult problem, I wish to say most emphatically that I believe the Government are as much in earnest as any one in any part of the House to make obedience to the law a fundamental condition of the manner in which they are carrying on government, and ought to carry on government, in this country. I wish presently to deal at close quarters with some of the suggestions that have been made. The action of the Government—it is open to criticism and it has to be explained—has certainly never been based on the proposition that laws which ought to be enforced should be disobeyed. I want to make that quite clear at the outset, and I think I can make it still clearer when I come to the difficulties which have been suggested.
As regards the speech made by the noble Viscount opposite, he was, of course, perfectly accurate in what he stated. It is true that our modern Poor Law dates from 1834, and it is true that the Poor Law, as re-settled after long inquiry in 1834, was so re-settled because prior to that date the custom had arisen of supplementing wages out of the Poor Fund. I know of a country district in Buckinghamshire where, prior to 1834, the rates had risen under these conditions to 30 s. in the £, with the result that a whole village became derelict. It was in reference, no doubt, to such conditions that the Act of 1834 was passed, and it is under the Act of 1834 that the Mond scale
296
was established. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt regarding the law upon that point.
Let me, therefore, go one step further. So far as the auditor is concerned, he is outside official or Government control of any sort and is in an entirely independent position. Certainly, whatever has been done in this case, the auditor's position has not been interfered with in any way. Before I go on to describe what happened in this case let me make this further statement. I have not the statistics before me (though I had them yesterday in reference to a Question which was not asked owing to the unfortunate illness of Lord Banbury); but a very important point will be observed in this connection—that in the last published account from the Ministry of Health it will be found that in 90 per cent. of the cases of surcharge the surcharges were paid without question, and that, I am told, is roughly the proportion in previous years in which the surcharge has been found an effective system of control.
That is very important, because it has been suggested, and was suggested, I think, by the noble Viscount, that something had been done in this case to weaken the control which the auditor exercised by the pressure of a surcharge. In 90 per cent. of the cases the matter does not come before the Minister at all, and my statistics show—I do not want to quote them too certainly, because figures are difficult to retain in one's head—that the only amount which was left in that year to be paid as surcharge, and which was brought up for review before the Minister (it was not Mr. Wheatley at the time) was £10. This shows two things : first of all, that the action of the auditor, in a great majority of eases, is effective ; and secondly, that in cases where the surcharge of the auditor is questioned it has, as a matter of practice, been remitted in a very large number of eases. I do not wish to give these facts as an excuse for the present case, but merely to illustrate the system of administration.
I think there has been one other mistake upon this point. The Minister has to consider two things. I think it is under the Act of 1848, in which Act there were Commissioners in the first instance, where there is now the Minister of

297
Health, that the Minister has to consider, first of all, whether the auditor has acted legally in making the surcharge. If he finds the answer is in the negative, and it is so found, no doubt, in some cases, there the matter is. In other cases he may find that the auditor's surcharge is in itself legal, as has been found in many cases. I am not quite sure as to the stage of the Poplar case. It is only then that the Minister's discretion arises as regards remitting the surcharge, whatever it may be, and that is in a comparatively small number of cases. I may speak with some personal knowledge, because in days when I was dealing a good deal with local government I had to act as chairman of our county education authority, after what was called the "whisky money "was paid to us. I spent the whole of a vacation upon it, and I recollect that subsequently I was addressing your Lordships in this House when a telegram was put into my hands, informing me that I had been surcharged £10,000. That was because there had been raised the question whether we were entitled to use the money for buildings, or only for lectures, and we had used it for buildings. I was asked to go down to my county at once, but I could not go at once, because I was working in this House, but after a great deal of anxiety and trouble—because certainly the payment of such a sum in those days would have bankrupted me—the surcharge was remitted in my case. It was a point on which there might be reasonable difference of opinion with regard to the legality of our action, and subsequently the view which I took of the Act was established.
Now all that Mr. Wheatley did and it has been done in hundreds of cases, although perhaps his discretion was not exercised as some of your Lordships would have exercised it, was to notify the guardians that he remitted the surcharge. That was wholly a matter within his discretion. I have often thought that a discretion of this kind should not be left in the hands of a Minister, because it leaves the matter open to a political aspect, and from the point of view of the local authority it is extremely hard that a man who has voluntarily done his duty in public work should be surcharged a sum which may ruin him. I have often thought that there should be some judicial decision by an outside authority. In this case no
298
general principle arises, but it is only a particular decision given in a particular case, which, whether right or wrong, applies to that case alone.
Now I come to the other part of the case which has been discussed in this House. What was the proper thing to have done ? What was the best thing to have done ? We have had a considerable number of suggestions, and I should like to deal with four, which appear to me to be well worthy of consideration. The first suggestion came from Lord Birkenhead. As I understood it, he suggested that the Ministry of Health might retain advances of money due from the Treasury to the boards of guardians. I think that was the first view he put forward, but he forgot that the surcharge is on individuals. You do not surcharge the guardians as a body at all. You surcharge individuals for having taken illegal action. If is rather difficult to keep in mind all the details of Poor Law administration, but so far as I know the Ministry of Health cannot withhold funds for the relief of the poor generally because certain guardians are held by the auditors to have been acting illegally. I do not think any such power could have been exercised, because the payment is to the board for Poor Law purposes, and the surcharge is on the individual for having acted illegally. The second suggestion of the noble Karl I think destroyed itself. It was to disqualify any members of the board, so that they could not be re-elected. I think the noble Earl said, quite rightly, that this would be purely ineffective, because it is clear that in places such as Poplar you would have a new body elected on similar grounds and to carry out a similar policy—in fact, probably an exaggerated policy—because nothing so much excites local feeling as action of that sort.
Then the noble Earl made a suggestion with which the noble Viscount on the Woolsack dealt. It is wholly impossible, at any rate without legislation. Whether legislation should be introduced or not I am not giving an opinion. I know of no means by which you can supersede an elected representative body by bureaucratic action.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not in this country.
LORD PARMOOR: You can do it in other countries, no doubt. Perhaps I have had more experience of local government than of central government, and speaking on behalf of our local system of government, and being a firm believer, in the long run, in the representative system, I would do everything in my power to prevent representative bodies being superseded by bureaucratic bodies. Those were the suggestions made by the noble Earl. Do they help the Government ? Is there one of those suggestions which could be used effectively in this very difficult problem, which is rendered not less difficult because charges are made against the Government that they are really upsetting the social system ? That did not come into the mind of the Minister who had to deal with a particular difficulty, such as Mr. Wheatley dealt with in this case.
There was a suggestion by the noble and learned Viscount with which I am thoroughly in favour, and which is really in accordance with the suggestion of the Poor Law Commission of 1909, and the more recent Committee which sat under the Chairmanship of Sir Donald Maclean, and which comprised among its members Lord George Hamilton, who, as Chairman, signed the Report in 1909, and Mr. Sidney Webb, the sponsor for the Minority Report. The main lines suggested were exactly in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, and I hope that these difficulties having been brought to notice, everyone who cares for local government will fully consider them. Instead of the guardians being a detached body you bring them into your general local government system. For instance, in London, to take an illustration, you would administer the Poor Law practically through the boroughs as part of your local government, and in that way you segregate, and you can deal by segregation with a lot of complex conditions which now come under the Poor Law authority, and which are a constant source, of difficulty.
Then you ought to have an over-riding authority. You get it in all our county councils, and you could not have a finer body than the County Council in London, because the London County Council has always attracted a very high
300
type of ability to its ranks. What would you have? You would have the higher local authority in a position to enforce what the lower local authority ought to have enforced, but neglected to enforce. That is exactly right. It is in accordance with all the principles of representative and local government. It cannot be done at the present moment. The noble Viscount knows that as well as I do. Rut, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out, these Reports are under the consideration of the Government. I cannot go further than that. I believe that salvation in this difficulty is to be found in that way, without any of those exotic suggestions which are wholly inconsistent with our local liberties under our representative system.
And all I plead in the meantime is this—certainly for myself and, I believe, for all members of the Government—that nothing is further from our minds than to encourage disobedience in these matters of local government. Nothing, to my mind, is so important as that these provisions of the law should be obeyed and enforced. There has been no disobedience at the present time, so far as Mr. Wheatley is concerned, although it may be said that he has exercised his discretion in one way when your Lordships might have exercised it in another way. And it is an extravagant suggestion—one of those suggestions which cause the very difficulty that we want to get rid of—to make that, because in one instance possibly, in your Lordships' view, a mistake in discretion has been made, there is the slightest ground for saying that the Government encourage disobedience. I admit that, if such an inference could be drawn, it would undoubtedly be a great reason for accusing the Government for the action which has been taken. But I do not believe there is any foundation for that suggestion. You have an extraordinarily difficult position, which was met within the legal powers of the Ministry of Health. I hope that I have made clear what I believe the position to be, and that some way may be found by which the present difficulties may be overcome in accordance with the great principles of local government.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills :
Unemployment Insurance.
Kirkealdy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation.
[From Minutes of February 20.]

SPENCER SETTLED CHATTELS.
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.

ABERDARE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST THURROCK WHARF AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2aon Tuesday, March 4 next—(Lord Newton.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.