Sitting of 3 June 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London, Midland, and Scottish Rail-way (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

Bill committed.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords].

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords].

Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords].

Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lards].

Bills to be read a. Second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
1038
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return ordered, "showing, for the area of every local education authority for elementary education in England and Wales, the number of rooms used for teaching which, on the 21st day of May, 1924, contained two, three, four, or more classes."—[Mr. David Grenfell.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    REPARATION DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. BLACKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the value of reparation dyes received by the Government for each separate year since they commenced what was the gross amount received by the Government for each year's sales of reparation dyes, and what was the amount of commission and all charges incurred in each year in disposing of the dyes?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The answer contains a number of figures, and the hon. Member will, perhaps, permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The value of reparation dyestuffs received by the British Government since

    1039
    the commencement of deliveries is as follows:

    Financial year.

    £

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    549,094

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    86,157

    1922–23

    …

    …

    …

    301,390

    1923–24

    …

    …

    …

    194,042

    The gross amounts received for the sales of dyestuffs were:

    Financial year.

    £

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    330,926

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    370,721

    1922–23

    …

    …

    …

    387,311

    1923–24

    …

    …

    …

    343,661

    The total amounts of commission and all other charges incurred in disposing of the dyes (including freight from Germany and storage) were:

    Financial year.

    £

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    78,170

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    52,449

    1922–23

    …

    …

    …

    47,768

    1923–24

    …

    …

    …

    40,001

    BANKING INSTITUTIONS (AMALGAMATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the names of the members of the Committee which advises his Department on questions of sanctioning further amalgamations of the banking institutions carrying on business in this country how many of these members are bankers, bank directors or bank officials; and what is the policy of the Government concerning the amalgamation of banks?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 22nd May last to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett.

    BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
    5. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further progress has been made in the proposed amalgamation between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and certain German concerns; what are the names of the German companies with which it is proposed to amalgamate, combine or to come to a working agreement; and what will be the liability incurred by the British Dyestuffs Corporation?
    Mr. WEBB: The members of the Interessen-Gemeinschaft who would be parties to the proposed agreement are
    1040
    the Badische-Anilin and Soda-Fabrik, Friedrich Bayer and Company, the Berlin Aniline Company, Cassella and Company, the Griesheim-Elektron Company, Kalle and Company, Meister Lucius and Brüning and Weiler-ter-Meer. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 27th May, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that include the last part of the question about the liability of the British Dyestuffs Corporation?
    Mr. WEBB: It is not possible, within the limits of question and answer, to give particulars of all the information which has been communicated to the Board of Trade. As regards the suggested agreement, the terms have not been settled and I have not seen a copy. I only know in general outline what the terms now under discussion are. It is impossible to expect exact particulars of future agreements.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We ought to be able to discuss this matter before it is settled.

    MOTOR CAR EXPORTS.
    7. Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the number of motor cars exported from this country in March, April and May?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The information asked for is not yet available, but I will forward it to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the export trade of British motor ears has practically stopped, and that imports are being kept in bond?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: When I supply the hon. Gentleman with the information which I have promised, we shall be able to see what substance there is in his statement.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS.
    9. Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Merchandise Marks Bill; and, if so, can he indicate, approximately, upon what date it will be introduced?
    Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that, in view of the pressure of Parliamentary business, it is not possible to contemplate the introduction of any such Measure at present.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the last Departmental Committee reported, has not the right hon. Gentleman now an opportunity of introducing a Measure for the protection of British trade?
    Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that the mere introduction would not protect British trade. There are so many things which have to be discussed that it is very probable that we should not be able to pass a Bill this Session.

    RIGA INTERNATIONAL FAIR.
    10. Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action is being taken by his Department to advise manufacturers and exporters in this country of the International Exhibition and Sample Fair which is to be held in Riga from 20th July to 3rd August; and whether any steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to participate officially in this exhibition?
    Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The attention of British manufacturers and exporters has been drawn to the International Exhibition and Sample Fair, which is to be held at Riga from the 20th July to the 3rd August next through the medium of the "Board of Trade Journal," in which notices regarding the exhibition were inserted on the 3rd January and the 15th May. No steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to participate officially in this exhibition.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the importance of extending the influence of British trade, will not His Majesty's Government do a little more?
    Mr. LUNN: If the hon. Gentleman cares to see me after Question Time I do not mind giving him the information as to why we are not participating.
    Mr. REMERIs the hon. Gentleman aware that trade in this State was, prior to the War, very largely in German hands, and that it is very important that it should be developed?

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    2. Mr. AYLESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent Report on the prices of building materials in Bristol contained in the White Paper (Cmd. 2133), which states that, out of 28 commodities necessary for the building of houses, no Jess than 14 have increased in price during the month reported upon; and what he is prepared to c/o to stop this continuous increase in the cost of house building?
    Mr. WEBB: I think my hon. Friend must have compared the figures for March, 1924, with those for April, 1923, instead of April, 1924. In the particular case of Bristol the Report shows in April, 1924, an increase in the case of only one commodity and decreases in four cases. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Leader of the House on the 29th May.

    FINANCIAL RESOLUTION (SCOTLAND).
    28. Captain ELLIOTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government has decided, in connection with its housing proposals, to submit a separate Financial Resolution for Scotland?
    Mr. STEWART: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. and gallant Member who put the question resisted our appeal for this last year?
    29. Captain ELLIOTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government, in connection with its housing proposals, has decided to submit a separate Bill for Scotland?
    Mr. STEWART: The answer is in the negative.
    Captain ELLIOT: May I take it that in other considerations also the Government will follow the precedent Set by myself and my hon. Friends?
    Mr. STEWART: Sometimes, "Yes," perhaps, and sometimes "No."
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the hon. Gentleman himself changed his mind since last year, when he supported a separate Bill?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a. strong feeling in Scotland, admitted last year by my hon. and gallant Friend who put the question, that Scotland should have a separate Bill?
    Mr. STEWART: I have no knowledge of that.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it the case that the Financial Resolution which is to be moved to-day is to be held to apply to Scotland, although we are not in possession of the distinctive features of the scheme relating to Scotland?
    Mr. STEWART: I think we had better await the explanation which will be made later on by the Minister of Health in regard to this Bill.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the case that the local authorities in Scotland have expressed themselves as favourable to the provisions of this Bill, and in much better terms, than they were of the previous Bill introduced last year?
    Mr. MACPHERSON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put on the Paper.
    30. Captain ELLIOTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the scheme for application in Scotland of the proposals of the National House Building Committee with regard to England (Cmd. 2104) has now been formulated; if so, when it will be presented to Parliament; and whether he can give the House any indication of the minor modifications which have been found necessary in order to adopt the English scheme?
    Mr. STEWART: It is not proposed to formulate a separate scheme for application in Scotland of the proposals of the National House Building Committee. As regards the last part of the question, I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the statement on housing policy that will be made this afternoon.
    Captain ELLIOT: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the report to which he refers there is a serious divergence of opinion between the Committee for Scotland and the Committee for England? The Committee for England, for instance, say that—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Captain ELLIOT: This is very important. The Committee for England say, in reference to railway transport—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. SPEAKER: There should be plenty of opportunity this afternoon to discuss these matters. They cannot be argued at Question Time.

    MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (ENEMY DEBTS).
    4. Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the President of the. Board of Trade if he will state what is the present cost of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts; what is the increased cost for this year over last year; and whether he will now consent to an examination into the staffing and methods of this office and into the delays of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal with a view to the speeding up of the work and the reduction of expenditure?
    Mr. WEBB: The information asked for in the first part of the question will be found on pages 79 to 81 of the Estimates for Civil Services for the current year, from which it will be seen that the administrative expenses of the Clearing Office have been considerably reduced. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in my reply on the 1st April, the staffing and organisation of the Clearing Office are constantly under review by the Establishment Departments of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, and I do not think that any further investigation is required. With regard to the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, I would refer to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford on the 13th May. I am having copies of these previous replies sent to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Sir C. YATE: Is this expenditure to go on indefinitely while nothing is done?
    Mr. HOFFMAN: Is it a fact that a third mixed arbitral tribunal is being set up?
    Mr. WEBB: The whole of this establishment is being constantly reviewed and steadily reduced as the work diminishes. Already as regards the Clearing Office dealing with Germany no less than £65,500,000 has been recovered and paid over to British traders, so that it can hardly be said that nothing has been done. In reply to the second supplementary

    1045
    question, there is only one Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. At first there was only one division. Then there was a second division in order to expedite the work. Discussions are now going on with a view to establishing a third division.
    6. Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Hungarian Clearing Office has notified its acceptance of the recent judgment of the Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal as applicable to British claims in respect of the secured debt; and, if not, will he state what the difficulty is and why the British and Hungarian Clearing Offices have not yet come to an agreement?
    Mr. WEBB: The Hungarian Clearing Office has admitted in full the particular claim which was the subject of the Award of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, and has expressed its intention of admitting other secured debt claims for the period up to Juno, 1919. The objection of the Hungarian Clearing Office to admit the full obligation on these secured bonds is based upon a decision of the Reparation Commission under the Financial Clauses of the Treaty of Peace whereby the secured debt of Hungary was apportioned as from July, 1919, among the various States which succeeded to territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary. This objection does not, however, extend to claims in respect of loans allocated wholly to Hungary by the Commission. The matter is still the subject of communications between the two clearing offices.
    Mr. SAMUEL: As the decision of the Hungarian Government does not refer to matters connected with the Hungarian debt, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to publish a resumé of the correspondence so that the public may see whether there is intentional obstruction or not?
    Mr. WEBB: I am advised that the Board of Trade has no reason to reproach the Hungarian Government in this matter. The Hungarian Government have not failed to honour any award by the tribunal, and it is only a question as to the other cases to which a particular award may be applied. Negotiations are going on between the two clearing houses, and while they are in progress it is not desirable to publish ex parte statements.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
    8. Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in respect of discipline and to the difficulties which experience has disclosed in working the provisions of the Act; and whether he will give consideration to these provisions with a view to bringing them up to date and consolidating them in the light of experience gained?
    Mr. WEBB: I am aware that there has been some criticism of the provisions as to discipline contained in the Merchant Shipping Act and in the Regulations made under that Act. It is not certain whether the mere alteration of the law and of the Regulations would remove the ground for this criticism, but I will consider carefully any definite proposals which the Noble Lord may place before me.

    INTERNATIONAL, LABOUR CONVENTIONS BILL.
    45. Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister what facilities the Government are prepared to give for the consideration and the rapid passing into law of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): This Bill will be put down for Second Reading at the first convenient opportunity.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WAR CLAIMS.
    11. Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of outstanding War claims on all Government Departments submitted within the prescribed time limits?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The information asked far by the hon. and gallant Member is being collected, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is available.
    Sir F. HALL: If I put down a question after Whitsuntide, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me the information?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that that is too soon, because this will require time.

    WAR OFFICE (MESSENGERS' SICK PAY).
    18 Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached upon the question of sick-pay for messengers; and, if not, can he say when a final decision will be taken upon this matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. Agreement has now been reached on the question of sick pay for messengers and the necessary instructions will shortly be issued.

    CIVIL SERVICE (COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION).
    58. Sir GEOFFREY BUTLERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the minute of Sir Cyril Jackson and Professor Coupland to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India (Cmd. 2128), he will undertake that there shall be no alteration in the present Regulations for the open competitive examination for the Civil Service (Home and Indian) before the various universities, British and Overseas, have been given an opportunity to express their views?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The present scheme of examination for the Indian Civil Service and the administrative class of the Home Civil Service, which is also used for concurrent competitions for the Diplomatic and Consular Services and certain Colonial Services, was framed on lines recommended in the Report of a Committee of very high authority (Command Paper 8657 of 1917), and after detailed consultation with the various university authorities. The Civil Service Commission would not propose any alteration of the scheme without very full and careful consideration.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    UNIFORMS (COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS).
    13. Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the Regulation adopted by some of the county associations which forbids the
    1048
    issuing of uniforms to recruits when the battalion is up to strength on paper until those due for discharge have actually left; whether he is aware that in one case, where 170 men are due for discharge on 2nd July and 70 men are waiting to enlist, no uniforms can be issued, and that this seriously interferes with the recruiting, progress and general efficiency of the Territorial Army; and whether he will take steps to remove these difficulties?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): The practice referred to is in accordance with paragraph 751A of the Territorial Army Regulations, and I am not aware that it has been found open to the objections suggested. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases which he has in mind, I will look further into the matter.

    COUNTY ASSOCIATION'S (SECRETARIES' PENSIONS).
    15. Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the grave injustice done to secretaries of County Territorial Army Associations by the decision of the Army Council that the service given by them during the War cannot be counted as military service or rank for a pension; that as a result of this decision many of these men who have held commissioned rank up to that of lieutenant-colonel are only receiving pensions now of less than £1 per week; what is the sum required to meet this claim; and whether, in view of the hardship involved and the comparatively small cost of redress, the matter can be reconsidered?
    Mr. WALSH: I am not aware that the secretaries of County Associations are suffering from injustice in this matter, which I would point out has been decided against them by an arbitrator, Lord Desart, appointed with the consent of the secretaries themselves. In these circumstances, I cannot consent to reopen the case. The cost of admitting the claim would depend on the volume of consequential claims to which it would give rise. I cannot give an estimate of these, but they would be considerable.
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Was not the point at issue whether the service of these officers should be counted as civil

    1049
    or military service; and is it not included in the Army List under the heading "War service of officers of the Army"?
    Mr. WALSH: All these matters were most carefully gone into and have been under consideration for a very long time. I have, myself, gone very carefully into the merits of the principle upon which the claim is based. I am in full agreement with the decision of the arbitrator, and as the arbitrator has reached that decision I cannot consent to reopen it.

    DEPUTY-LIEUTENANTS (QUALIFICATION).
    14. Mr. MIDDLETONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a necessary qualification for the post of deputy-lieutenant of a county is that worthy service shall have been rendered ac a member of, or in a civil capacity in connection with, His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces; that these qualifications rule out of consideration for such appointments many otherwise well-qualified persons; and whether he will recommend a revision of the qualifications now regarded as necessary for appointments to the posts of deputy-lieutenant?
    Mr. WALSH: I am aware that the Deputy-Lieutenants Act, 1918, abolished the qualifications of birth and property which had hitherto obtained, and instituted instead the qualification of worthy service of the nature indicated. The policy thus adopted in 1918 has proved a very satisfactory one, and I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to recommend further legislation in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS.
    16. Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, instead of the proposed reduction of 5½ per cent. on the whole pay and pension of officers, he will leave out of the calculation the basic rate of 80 per cent., and have the reduction calculated solely on the 20 per cent., which is the only amount liable to reduction?
    Mr. WALSH: I regret if my previous answers have not made this matter clear. The improved rates of pay authorised by the Royal Warrant of 1919 consist of a basic element of 80 per cent. and a variable element of 20 per cent., the variable 20 per cent. being alone liable to fluctuate according as the extra cost of living, compared with before the War, is more or less than what it was in 1919. The present extra cost of living is over 27½ per cent. less than what it was in 1919, and, therefore, under the terms of the original Royal Warrant granting the new rates, the variable 20 per cent. element is subject to be reduced by 27½ per cent. The basic 80 per cent. is not affected, but the reduction of the variable element of the pay by 27½ per cent, is equivalent, as a matter of arithmetic, to a reduction of the whole of the pay by 5½ per cent.
    Sir C. YATE: In order to remove the doubts which exist in the minds of many officers, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly publish the fact that the reduction will be 27½ per cent. of the variable 20 per cent. and not, 5½ per cent. of the whole?
    Viscount CURZON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer amount to this, that if the cost of living falls a little more, the whole of the 20 per cent. will go, which will mean 101 per cent. of the increase?
    Mr. WALSH: If the cost of living really falls to such a degree as would warrant the whole of the 20 per cent. coming off, then it will have that effect. Nobody can anticipate what the future may hold, but that would be the effect.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS WORKS, SHOEBURYNESS (WAGES).
    17. Mr. HOFFMANasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the-rates of pay of Government employés at Shoeburyness are: on Royal Engineer works, labourers 41s. per week, top-rate stokers 41s. 6d. per week, engine drivers. 51s 6d. per week, and craftsmen 63s. per week; in the experimental department 41s, per week for labourers; in the barrack department, orderlies 39s. 8d. per week, and cooks 27s. 7d. per week with rations; if he has received a deputation from the men concerned in respect to.

    1051
    advances upon these rates; if so, if he has yet given consideration to their claims; and with what result?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): I have recently received a deputation regarding the rates of pay of some of the classes of employés referred to by the hon. Member, but I am not yet in a position to give a decision upon the subject.

    CAMPS, CROWBOROUGH AND MARESFIELD.
    20. Sir HENRY COWANasked the Secretary of State for War how long the military camps at Crowborough and Maresfield will be retained; whether the Government have already disposed of the Maresfield Park estate without making any public offer of this property; and, if so, who are the buyers and what is the price to be paid?
    12. Sir HENRY CAUTLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the camp at Maresfield, Sussex, is shortly to be closed and the estate sold; if so, can he state the approximate date; and whether, before selling or offering the estate for sale by auction, he will offer the various farms to the occupiers and give them the opportunity of becoming the owners of their own holdings?
    Mr. WALSH: I will answer this question and No. 12 at the same time. As regards the camp at Maresfield, the land in question is the property, not of the Department, but of the Public Trustee as successor of a German subject who owned it before the War. I am therefore not in a position to adopt the suggestion contained in question No. 12. The areas at Maresfield and Crowborough at present occupied by the Department will, I hope, be vacated early in 1925.
    Sir H. COWAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of fact—has the camp been sold, and what is the price obtained for it?
    Mr. WALSH: Is the hon. Member speaking of the camp at Maresfield, Sussex?
    Sir H. COWAN: I am speaking of the camp referred to on the Paper.
    Mr. WALSH: I say the areas at Maresfield and Crowborough will be vacated early in 1925. The camp in question is
    1052
    situated on land not in the possession of the Department but in the possession of the Public Trustee, and has nothing to do for the time being with our Department.

    MILITIA DEPOT, ALNWICK.
    21. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Militia Depot at Alnwick has been standing empty for some years and, although the question of allowing these premises to be utilised by the local authority for housing purposes has been under the consideration of his Department for over 12 months, they are still withheld from occupation; and, in view of the urgent need of additional civilian housing accommodation in that district, will he expedite the release of these premises for that purpose?
    Mr. LAWSON: These barracks are no longer required for military purposes, and I am already in negotiation with the landlord, the Northumberland County Council, with a view to the termination of the lease on which the property is at present held. Pending such termination, I regret that the covenants of the lease preclude me from handing over the property to the local authority without the consent of the landlord. Everything possible will be done to expedite release of the premises.

    SOUTH AFRICAN FIELD FORCE CANTEENS.
    23. Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether surplus funds belonging to the South African Field Force Canteens were held by the War Office at the beginning of the Great War; whether any and, if so, how much of that money was lent to the promoters of the Expeditionary Force Canteens; whether such loans were repaid; what is the present total surplus profits of the South African Field Force Canteens; and in what manner have they been utilised?
    Mr. LAWSON: As regards the first part of the question, £50,000 was sent to the War Office in August, 1914, from the funds of the South African Garrison Institutes. Of this sum, £2,500 was expended on the purchase of books and papers for troops at the front, and £47,500 was lent to the Expeditionary Force Canteens. The Army Council decided to allow this loan

    1053
    to remain as part of the surplus assets of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, and it was therefore included in the sum which was divided among the overseas contingents and the United Services Fund, in accordance with the provisions of the War Service Canteen (Disposal of Surplus) Act, 1922. As regards the latter part of the question, at the date of the withdrawal of the British garrison from South Africa the unexpended balance of the South African Garrison Institutes Fund amounted to £9,601, which has been invested, the income being devoted to the provision of social and recreational facilities for the troops now serving.
    Sir F. HALL: With regard to the £47,500, has that amount actually been repaid?
    Mr. LAWSON: The £47,500 has not been repaid. Perhaps it would Suit my hon. and gallant Friend if I read that part of the answer again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"!] In any case, I ought to explain that the £47,500 was simply merged into the amount divided between the United Services Fund and the Overseas Contingents after all necessary payments had been made under the Act of 1922.

  SCOTLAND.

    SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES.
    24. Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the attempts being made to further bureaucratise the administration of education in Scotland by curtailing the powers, privileges and duties of the local management committees; whether he has had protests from the school management committees in New Kilpatrick and Kirkintilloch upon the most recent encroachment upon their powers by the education authority for the county of Dumbarton; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure a continuance of local interest in the administration of education?
    Mr. JAMES STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland)As regards the first part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act. 1918, the powers and duties of school management committees are subject, with certain specified exceptions, to any regulations and restrictions made by
    1054
    the education authority concerned. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend has received the communications referred to, and will consider them carefully, although, as at present advised, he does not see that it would be open to him to intervene. As regards the third part, the Department will do all in their power to ensure the observance of the conditions which Parliament has laid down.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it clearly not the intention of the Department to alter the powers of the school management committees at present?
    Mr. STEWART: No, that is not the intention at the moment.

    FISH SHOALS (LOCATION BY AIRCRAFT).
    25. Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland if any arrangements have been made with the Air Ministry for making experimental flights with aeroplanes with the object of locating shoals of fish in northern waters?
    Mr. STEWART: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that it is proposed to make arrangements for experiments of the nature indicated in the question to be carried out by seaplanes or flying boats next month.

    WHALING LICENCES, SHETLAND.
    26. Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce his decision with regard to the cancellation of whaling licences in Shetland?
    Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend has now received information from the parties interested, and is at present considering it with a view to reaching a decision.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (RESUMPTION).
    27. Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland when he proposes to introduce his Bill dealing with the resumption of small holdings?
    Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make a statement as to the introduction of a. Bill dealing with the resumption of small holdings.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the hon. Member say when his right hon. Friend is likely to be in a position to make the necessary statement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not the hon. Member aware that the right hon. Gentleman last week said that his Bill was in draft?
    Mr. STEWART: I think I had better refer that to my right hon. Friend to explain.

    WAR MEMORIALS.
    31. Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, since he is advised that the War Memorials (Local Authorities Powers) Act, 1923, does not apply to Scotland, he is prepared to introduce a single Clause Bill making it so applicable?
    Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that there is any desire or need for the application to Scotland of the provisions of the Act referred to, which would justify the addition of a Bill on this subject to the Government's existing legislative programme.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has not the hon. Gentleman received applications of this sort, such as have reached me—urgent applications?
    Mr. STEWART: Not one single application has been received from any authority in Scotland. Might I say that the Board have considered this matter and agreed that the parish councils have power to undertake the care of these memorials, and also those burghs which have a Common Good Fund can employ it to make provision for the maintenance of such memorials.

    COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE.
    32. Mr. MacGREGOR MITCHELLasked the Secretary for Scotland how many times the Scottish Council of Agriculture and its Advisory Committee met in 1923; and what was the cost of these meetings?
    Mr. STEWART: One meeting of the Scottish Council of Agriculture and two meetings of its Advisory Committee were held in 1923. Information as to the cost of these meetings has not yet reached my right hon. Friend, but he will communicate it to the hon. and learned Member when he receives it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will there be any possibility of the Council being summoned together more frequently during 1924?
    Mr. STEWART: I would hope so.
    Mr. MAXTON: So would I.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    33. Mr. B. SMITHasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the delay in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act proceedings in Scotland, and that, in spite of there being four sheriffs sitting in Edinburgh, no arrangement is made by which one of them is set apart to deal with such cases in the same way as is done in the Sheriff's Court at Hamilton; and will he take the steps necessary to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. STEWART: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Two of the three Sheriffs-Substitute who sit in Edinburgh are available for Workmen's Compensation cases. The Sheriff does not consider it possible that one Sheriff-Substitute should devote hit, whole time to such cases. No complaints, as to the existing arrangements have been made to the Sheriff.

    LEVEN COLLIERY, FIFESHIRE (ALLEGED ASSAULT).
    34. Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that information was lodged with the police of an alleged assault by a colliery official on an engineer employed at the Leven colliery, Fifeshire, some months ago; that reliable witnesses have supplied statements of evidence in writing to the authorities and that the local burgh prosecutor has refused to prosecute; and if he is satisfied that, in the case in question, the complaint should not have been heard in Court in the usual way?
    Mr. STEWART: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is, however, not one in which the Secretary for Scotland has any power to intervene, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, to whose notice the case was recently brought, was satisfied, after inquiry and consideration, that he would not have been justified in ordering a prosecution.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand that if a colliery official assaults an employé and the burgh prosecutor refuses to prosecute, there is no remedy so far as that assaulted person is concerned?
    Mr. STEWART: No. We are not to understand that that is so, but the authority lies with the Lord Advocate, and he does not consider, as I have said already, that the evidence that was submitted to him warranted a prosecution.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that, owing to the Lord Advocate's absence from this House, we are to have no control over the actions of the Lord Advocate?
    Mr. STEWART: No, you are not so to understand.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PRICES.
    35. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines whether ho has decided what legislative and/or administrative action he can take to mitigate the grievances of the domestic consumer of coal with regard to the price, quality, etc., of coal supplied by the trade for household use.?
    36. Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOXasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now able to state the comparative prices at which coal is distributed to the community by the co-operative societies and private companies; and whether the Government propose to take any action to regulate or restrict the profits upon such distribution?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have asked for certain further information from the co-operative societies, which will, I hope, enable me to give figures on a comparable basis with those of private companies and to collate the results of my inquiries, which I hope to present to the House. Meanwhile, I cannot add anything to the replies that I have already given on this subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make any further statement if I repeat this question on the 17th of this month?
    Mr. SHINWELL: That will altogether depend on whether I have the requisite information
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then I will give my hon. Friend the opportunity.
    Mr. REMER: Would it not be more advisable to have a Departmental inquiry into this subject., where witnesses can be examined and cross-examined by all parties?
    Mr. SHINWELL: We have examined the coal merchants on this subject, and we have received certain information from them, but we want more. Meanwhile, we are unable to get it, but we are pursuing our inquiries.
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Does the hon. Gentleman find it is impossible to take any immediate action to check what he himself has characterised as discreditable profiteering?
    Mr. SHINWELL: At the moment it is not advisable to take any steps. I am anxious to obtain all the information that is available, and when I have received sufficient information, I shall be in the best position to judge whether any action is desirable.
    Mr. HARDIE: Since we know the price of a ton of coal at the pit, and all the charges for carriage, buying and distribution, why should there be any delay in taking action upon a matter of this kind?

    SUBSIDENCES.
    37. Mr. DUNNICOasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the hardships incurred by workers whose property has been damaged by mining subsidences, he will ascertain if the Commission of Inquire now sitting is likely to present its Report in. time to enable legislation being introduced upon this matter in the near future?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that it is not likely that the Commission will he able to present a Report for several months. The subject is a difficult and important one; and a large mass of evidence has to be taken. In addition, the Commission are paying a series of visits to places where the problem is acute and taking evidence on the spot.

    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS.
    46. Mr. LUMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that when changes are made by Ministers by administrative Orders, varying in a

    1059
    material degree existing administrative Orders, this House shall be informed of the same either by laying a copy of such Order or by other means?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not clear what Orders the hon. Member has particularly in mind. Provision is made by Statute for the due publication of all Orders made under statutory powers, including in many cases the laying of the Orders before Parliament.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Would it be correct to say that the present Government have already got through a good deal of work by means of administrative Orders of which this House does not know?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is true to say that the Government have got through a great deal of work by administrative action.
    Mr. LUMLEY:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. at Hull a statement was made that the Government had got through a good deal of work without the House of Commons being consulted, and are we to understand that the gentleman who made that statement, the secretary of the Trades Union Congress, was talking about matters of which he did not know?
    Mr. CLYNES: The House of Commons has shown an unusual alertness during the course of this Session to secure all necessary information on our actions.
    Sir F. HALL: Is not that owing to the assistance given by hon. Members on this side?

    FOREIGN RELATIONS (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL).
    47. Mr. MORELasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Government will grant a day, after the Whitsuntide Recess, for the discussion of the Motion standing in. the name of the hon. Member for Dundee and other hon. Members—["That, in the opinion of this House, no diplomatic arrangement or understanding with a foreign State involving, directly or indirectly, national obligations shall be concluded without the consent, of Parliament, and no preparations fey co-operation in, war between the naval, military, or air staffs and the
    1060
    naval, military, or air staffs of a foreign State shall be lawful unless consequent upon such arrangement or understanding; and this Resolution shall be communicated to all States with which we are in diplomatic relations and to the League of Nations,"]
    Mr. CLYNES: I regret that the exigencies of Parliamentary business make it impossible for the Government to grant a day for such a discussion, without sacrificing time urgently required for the consideration of their programme of social legislation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could not the Government grant one extra day for this very vital question?

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORISTS AND CYCLISTS (ACCIDENTS).
    38. Mr. BARCLAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he can supply to the House particulars as to the number of recorded accidents during the past year arising through collision between motorists and cyclists; and the number of such accidents which occurred after sundown?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I must refer the hon. Member to the. Return for the year ended 31st December, 1923, made by the Home Office, of street accidents caused by road vehicles. In this return the figures are given under the heading of the vehicle which is believed to have caused the accident. The figures for the Metropolitan Police District are also included in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police, and are sub-divided to show "day" and "night" figures for each class of vehicle. The Annual Report for 1923 is not yet published. I am afraid these are the only returns available. To obtain more detailed information would involve a large amount of work which, I think, would hardly be justified by the results to be attained.
    Mr. BARCLAY: Will the hon. Gentleman further consider the suggestion that has been made in regard to Regulations that cyclists should carry reflectors in order to obviate the danger that is likely to arise at night time to themselves and others?

    MAIN ARTERIAL ROADS (TREE PLANTING).
    39. Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the planting of trees along the new main arterial roads?
    Mr. GOSLING: Local authorities possessing powers in this behalf are planting trees along many new arterial roads. Neither the Minister of Transport nor county councils have at present tree-planting powers, but as I explained on the 13th May, in reply to a question by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch Division, I hope that this may be remedied before long.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Would the hon. Gentleman state whether this Session we may expect a Bill to enable the Road Fund to be used for this purpose; in view of the fact that such a Bill, I am sure, would be quite uncontroversial and be supported by all sides of the House?
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Would not the hon. Gentleman suggest the planting of fruit trees—apple trees and walnut trees? [HON. MEMBERS: "And chestnuts!"]

    RIVER THAMES STEAMBOAT SERVICE).
    40. Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view of alleviating the congested state of traffic in the streets of London, he can give any encouragement to the establishment of a fast and regular steamboat service on the Thames?
    Mr. GOSLING: I do not consider that this is a traffic problem, and am not aware of any assistance which I can give. I have always considered that the Thames is the best of all the open spaces in London, and should be so regarded. A passenger steamer service is an amenity which, in my opinion, Londoners ought to be able to enjoy, especially in the year of the Empire Exhibition.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to help out this matter in the question of tolls or in any other direction so as to encourage private enterprise to develop that which he himself admits is very necessary?
    Mr. MILLS: Would the Minister of Transport consult the authorities responsible for the transport of the Thames,
    1062
    and also ask for the co-operation of the London County Council in view of the fact that the lower reaches of the Thames are practically unexplored?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Hear, hear!
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that when the county council ran steamboats up and down the Thames it resulted in an enormous loss to the ratepayers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
    Mr. GOSLING: This is, of course, a London County Council matter. The last steamboat service was ruined by political effort—
    Sir F. HALL: That is an unfair statement. Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself in the form of a supplementary question put an argument of a debatable kind, and brought upon himself the retort. I must stop both hon. Members.

    RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
    41. Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOXasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, though the Road Fund has given considerable relief to the maintenance of rural roads, the increase of traffic on these roads has been proportionately very much greater; and whether he is prepared to recommend a very largely increased grant for the relief of highway expenditure in rural areas upon all classes of roads?
    Mr. GOSLING: The question of the provision of further assistance during the current financial year for the improvement of important roads in rural areas is under consideration. As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 27th May to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Might I press the hon. Gentleman to come to a decision very soon, as the district councils want to know what money they will have available?
    Mr. LOVERSEED: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the district councils this year are totally unable to deal with the roads because of the insufficiency of the grants?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am looking into the matter and will give an answer to these questions shortly.
    42. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Transport what further allocation of funds will be made to rural district councils during the current financial year to assist them in the improvement of the roads in their areas?
    Mr. GOSLING: The matter is still under consideration, but if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question after the Whitsuntide Recess, I hope then to be in a position to say definitely whether any further assistance can be given during the current financial year to the improvement of important roads in rural areas.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (LAND FRONTAGES).
    62 and 63. Lieut. - Commander KEN-WORTHYasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to enable the Government to acquire the land frontages on the new large arterial roads to be built from central funds; if so, on what valuation is it proposed to acquire this land: and whether steps are being taken to check land speculation in the neighbourhood of these roads;
    (2) which, large arterial roads to be built wholly from central funds have been commenced, and which are about to be commenced; and what arrangements are being made to secure the enhanced value of the land through which these roads will pass for the nation?
    Mr. GOSLING: I hope very shortly to be in a position to explain in detail the new proposals of the Government to which the Prime Minister referred in his recent speech. These will relate to the reconstruction of sections of certain of the main trunk roads of the country and with regard to these proposals the important question of land values raised by the hon. and gallant Member does not arise. In the case of new roads on fresh alignment such as those being built with the assistance of local authorities or under negotiation with them, powers to acquire the land on either side already exist under the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act, 1909, and will certainly be used wherever I am advised that it is financially advantageous so to do. Where possible I am also taking steps in co-operation
    1064
    with the local authorities concerned for the acquisition in advance of land on the line of the proposed new arterial roads.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing these proposals on his Vote, or will a. Bill be brought in on which we can discuss this matter?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not quite sure, but I shall be very pleased to have an opportunity of explaining this matter to the House either way.
    Mr. PERRING: Will all these particular works be done in this financial year?
    Mr. GOSLING: The hon. Member had better await my statement.

    BIRMINGHAM-BRISTOL WATERWAY.
    64. Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations regarding the desirability of improving the inland waterway between Bristol and Birmingham; whether he will state the approximate cost of the improvement proposed; whether other schemes for improving this waterway have been prepared, including that for the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, that for the Ministry of Transport Waterways Committee, and that which has recently been placed before him; whether these schemes differ in their engineering details and cost; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the merits of each scheme in respect to engineering design, cost, and feasibility before recommending financial assistance from State funds to wards any scheme in accordance with the usual practice in such cases?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have received representations on this subject from the Birmingham Corporation and several other local bodies. The cost of their scheme which is, I understand, based on the previous proposals to which the hon. Member refers, is estimated at about £2,500,000 exclusive of engineering and legal expenses, and the cost of purchasing the undertakings of the existing waterway authorities, which it is proposed to transfer to a public trust. I have not yet received detailed particulars of the present proposals, which would certainly have to be thoroughly examined before any pledge of Government financial assistance could be given.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does the Minister of Transport propose to institute an inquiry ii the Corporation of Birmingham supplies him with the details?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am going fully into the matter, and I may be able to say more about it later on.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman not got all the particulars necessary to form a decision?
    Mr. GOSLING: Not yet.

    LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    65. Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether any action has so far been taken to do away with level crossings over main arterial roads; whether he is aware that this would provide a large amount of work scattered all over the country, both for skilled and unskilled labour; and whether it is his intention to do anything in this matter?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am afraid I have little to add to the answer which I gave to the Noble Lord on 26th May. A number of schemes for the replacement of level crossings by bridges have been assisted from the Road Fund, and I am ready to consider favourably applications from highway authorities for assistance to any practical proposals of a similar nature on important roads.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Minister of Transport is merely waiting for proposals from the local authorities rather than taking the initiative in the matter himself?
    Mr. GOSLING: They certainly should be initiated in that way.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman press the railway companies to contribute towards the cost of these undertakings in view of the fact that every level crossing that is done away with relieves the railway company of an expenditure of £700 or £800 a year?

    ACCIDENTS (HORSED VEHICLES AND BICYCLES).
    66. Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether he is able to give the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, caused by horse-drawn vehicles and bicycles during the last 12 months?
    Mr. GOSLING: The returns for the year ended 31st December, 1923, are as follow:

    —

    Fatal Accidents.

    Non-fatal Accidents.

    Horse-drawn vehicles

    Pedal Cycles

    Horse-Drawn Vehicles.

    Pedal Cycles.

    England and Wales.

    209

    192

    5,640

    14,809

    Scotland

    28

    17

    558

    907

    Mr. MILLS: Surely the Minister will not accept the suggestion in the question that these accidents are directly caused by cyclists or horse-drawn vehicles as such? The purport of the question is that they are responsible.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask why not?

  FINANCE BILL.

    MOTOR VEHICLE DUTIES.
    43. Mr. J. HARRISasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made by the Departmental Committee of the Ministry with the preparation of the long-awaited Report on the subject of motor taxation; and by what date in June will the Report be available to Members of this House?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am informed that the Committee has made considerable progress in the preparation of the Report, and everything possible is being clone to expedite its completion. I am assured of receiving it before the end of the present month.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee is in its second or third year?
    60. Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the yield of revenue from motor vehicle duties for the period 1st January to the 24th May, 1924, together with the receipts for the corresponding period for 1921?
    Mr. GOSLING: The latest figures available are those up to 7th May, 1924. The corresponding amounts for 1921 and 1924 are as follow:

    £

    1st January, 1921, to 7th May, 1921

    8,279,180

    1st January, 1924, to 7th May, 1924

    12,144,892

    The figures given above are the gross collections, as represented by payments into the Motor Tax Account, prior to any statutory deductions being made.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the increase of £4,000,000 in these duties, does the hon. Gentleman not think that motorists should have some relief?
    Mr. GOSLING: It is not for me to say.

    STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
    54. Mr. FREEMAN DUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the revenue derived from the stamps on cheques for the year 1923–24?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The net receipt of Stamp Duty from cheques in the year 1923–24 was approximately £3,050,000.

    ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.
    49. Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether there will 'be consultation with the French Government before any decisions are arrived at arising out of the negotiations now proceeding with the Soviet delegation?
    Mr. CLYNES: The negotations referred to in the question, being exclusively concerned with Anglo-Soviet relations, do not call for any consultation with third Governments.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the Government have not been in consultation with the French Government on this subject, and whether the French Government have not intimated that they are not prepared to go to the length which the British Government have gone in this matter?

    PERPETUAL PENSION (DUKE OF SCHOMBERG).
    51. Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed commutation at 21 years' purchase of the remaining portion of the pension originally granted to the first Duke of Schomberg is subject to the confirmation of the Courts
    1068
    of Law; and whether this House will be given the opportunity of discussing the terms of the commutation?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The assent of the Court is not necessary, as the recipient of this annuity is not a limited owner. I fear that it would not be possible to give special time for discussion.
    Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an undertaking was given many years ago that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the terms of the commutation, and whether he thinks that undertaking is complied with merely by a Paper being placed upon the Table and no time being given to discuss it?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot help but be aware of the fact stated by my hon. Friend, because he has reminded me of it. It is quite impossible, in the present congested state of business, to give special time for a discussion of this subject. I can only advise my hon. Friend to keep on the lookout for an opportunity.
    Mr. FOOT: I should be quite satisfied if I got ordinary time and not special time.
    52. Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the deductions from the perpetual pension of £500 now being paid to Major W. S. Gosling by which the gross pension of £500 is reduced to £360 net?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The deductions represent the sum of various former taxes and charges on the pension. The payment has been made in the present form since 1834, under an Act of that year.
    53. Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated saving to the Treasury in the proposed commutation, at 21 years' purchase, of the pension now being paid to Major W. S. Gosling, being the remaining portion of the pension originally granted to the first Duke of Schomberg?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I anticipate that a saving will be effected, but as I explained on a previous occasion the amount depends on the rate at which the Treasury can raise the commutation money as provided by the Act of 1873. Until the transaction is completed I cannot say what this rate will be.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (SPECIAL CONSTABULARY).
    55. Mr. HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the peaceful character of the country for the past two years, he still intends introducing a Supplementary Estimate for the Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No decision has yet been reached on the question of a Grant-in-Aid of Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland in the current year.
    Mr. MOLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is not a fact that the reason why peace is being maintained is due to the existence of this force?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of that.

  POST OFFICE.

    TOTTENHAM ACCOMMODATION.
    70. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Postmaster-General how long his Department has been looking for a suitable site for improved Post Office accommodation for Tottenham; whether any sites are at present under consideration; and when he expects to be able to make a definite announcement on the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): A search for premises which could be adapted for use as a Post Office was commenced in July last. As no suitable premises were forthcoming, it became necessary to obtain a site for building a new office; and at the present moment two possible sites are under consideration. I hope that it will be possible to settle the matter in the course of this month.

    TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    72. Mr. J. HARRISasked the Postmaster-General whether he accepts any responsibility for the advertisements of Graham, Marsh and Company, Limited, in official telephone directories, including the cloth-bound edition of the London Telephone Directory and the West and East Yorkshire Telephone Directory; and whether, before accepting these advertisements, any inquiry was made as to the character of the business done by this firm?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The advertisements referred to do not appear in the current issue of the London Telephone Directory, and it has already been arranged with the advertising contractors that they shall not appear in the reprints of the directories for the other districts. It is not the practice of the Post Office to make a detailed inquiry as to the business activities of any advertiser; and, as indicated in the preface to these directories, no responsibility is accepted for the statements contained in the trade advertisements.
    Mr. HARRIS: In order to prevent a repetition of this, will the right hon. Gentleman in future submit a list of his advertisement contracts to Scotland Yard?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to certain articles, dealing with the operations of this firm, which have recently appeared in a periodical called "Truth"?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: If the hon. Member will read the reply I have already given, I think it will be obvious to him that certain information has been brought to the notice of the Department.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION STAMPS.
    74. Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability, fur the purposes of advertisement, of arranging that British Empire Exhibition stamps should be on sale at all post offices, and that such stamps of the value of 1d. shall he issued, in order that they may be used with the 1½d. stamps now in circulation for postage abroad?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave on the 27th May to the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain). As regards the second part. British Empire Exhibition stamps of the id, denomination have been on sale since the opening day.

    TELEPHONE NUMBERS.
    75. Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General by whose authority the variation in telephone calls insisting on the reiteration and prohibiting the duplication of the numeral has been made; and whether any other changes in this direction are anticipated?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The variation in the method of passing telephone calls, which is technically known as the "Stile Strip" method, was introduced under my authority and on the recommendation of my technical advisers. The discontinuance of duplication applies only to numerals representing the hundreds and tens, and is for the purpose of assisting the telephonists in the selection of the correct number on the switchboard. Experience shows that this method is effective in reducing the percentage of wrong numbers. At the moment no other changes in this direction are contemplated.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that several members of his own staff find that the change has not been useful? Is it not easier to say "One, double O, one. Hop," than "One, O, O, one, Hop"?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I call only say I have been advised that it would tend to greater efficiency and reduction of errors if this method were adopted, and I am assured that that is the result. However, if my hon. Friend can point to any cause for doubt in the matter, I shall be pleased to inquire into it.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    78. Mr. DODDSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the amount of compensation paid for dairy cattle slaughtered in Cheshire during the earlier months of the foot-and-mouth disease has fallen short of the cost of replacement; that owing to the rise in values consequent upon the reduction in the number of cattle in the country, as recognised by the Ministry in their later valuation, the farmers whose cattle were first affected by the disease have been placed at a serious disadvantage; and whether he will take steps at an early date to remedy such inequality?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The amount of compensation paid in the cases to which the hon. Member refers was settled in accordance with the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to entertain any claim for further compensation on the grounds suggested.
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: is my hon. Friend aware that these unfortunate men who lost their stock early got much less compensation, and also lost their profits for a much longer time?
    Mr. WHITE: Is the Minister fully seized of the very serious situation in which many of these dairy farmers find themselves, owing to the fact that they have been deprived of business turnover, and have had to use the compensation money in some cases for other purposes?
    Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties which have been associated with this disease in Cheshire, but the Ministry is governed by the terms of the Act, and the compensation is paid on the valuation made at the time of the slaughter. The award which fixes the valuation is signed by the farmer, and he declares himself satisfied to accept the price so fixed. It is impossible to review these claims months afterwards.
    Mr. DODDS: Is the Minister of Agriculture aware that, although the valuation price at the time was paid, yet these farmers were unable to stock until some months later, when the valuation price was utterly inadequate to enable them to start business again?
    Mr. SMITH: We are fully aware of the time that will have to elapse before they can re-stock their farms, but I may say, in reply to the last question, that we have information that they are re-stocking at a price within that for which they were compensated.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE SORTERS).
    71. Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Postmaster-General if he will give the number of temporary Post Office sorters now engaged by his Department, and state how many of these are ex-service men and how many disabled men; what were the numbers who have been discharged since the beginning of the year; and how many of these were ex-service men and disabled?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Eighty-nine full-time temporary sorters and 39 part-time temporary sorters are employed at present, all of whom are ex-

    1073
    service men. Twenty-three of the full-time and 36 of the part-time men are disabled. One able-bodied ex-service temporary full-time sorter and one disabled temporary part-time sorter have been discharged since the beginning of the year. Both discharges were on disciplinary grounds.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (ADMISSION OF VISITORS).
    Mr. MILLS: I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the continual and increasing volume of visitors from all parts of Great Britain who desire to view the Houses of Parliament, it would be possible to open the Houses of Parliament at an earlier hour than at present? Last Saturday morning at 9 o'clock there were no fewer than 1,000 people awaiting admission, and many hundreds went away disappointed before 11 a.m. I should also like to ask whether it would not be possible to put up a notice to assist the policemen at the Westminster Hall entrance, advising visitors that the order of route is through the Victoria Tower? At certain periods of the day last Saturday there were many thousands of people who went away, having been unable to get in and unwilling to wait in the queues.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not, a matter that lies with me. The Regulations for the admission of visitors are made by the Lord Great Chamberlain. I suggest that the hon. Member should make his representation to the Lord Great Chamberlain.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask whether there is any alteration of the business for to-day?
Mr. CLYNES: Representations have been made through the usual channels that there is a desire to carry over the discussion on the housing proposals to tomorrow, and, therefore, instead of taking a vote at 11 o'clock this evening, the Government propose to report Progress, on the understanding that the vote is taken on the Resolution to-morrow, not later than 8.15. To ensure Shat this shall be done, and to secure the passage of the Report stage of the three Supplementary
1074
Estimates which are urgently required, we propose to move to-morrow the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. With respect to the Amendments on the Paper to the Money Resolution, that is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, but there is, I believe, a general desire that Amendments should not be taken until to-morrow.
Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on which day he proposes to deal with the Lords Amendments to the Prevention of Eviction Bill?
Mr. CLYNES: I cannot at this moment.
Captain BENN: Will it be before Whitsuntide?
Mr. HOPE: Is it a contributory cause of the alteration of business that during the early part of to-morrow afternoon the Government cannot count upon the attendance of their supporters?
Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to take the Report stage of the Resolution? Is it proposed to take it as the first Order on Thursday?
Mr. CLYNES: I should not, without notice, like to be pressed to answer that question at this moment.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he cannot introduce the Bill if he has not got the Report stage of the Resolution?
Mr. CLYNES: Certainly.
Mr. AYLES: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, if a question is put down on Thursday, he is prepared to give an answer as to when the Prevention of Eviction Bill, which has been returned from another place, will be taken?
Mr. CLYNES: I hope to make an announcement on Thursday.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will my right hon. Friend also consider doing away with the Whitsun holidays, in view of the congestion of business and the fact that the Bills which are coming before Parliament are of so much importance to millions of people in the country?
Mr. CLYNES: The Government cannot adjourn over the Whitsun holidays

1075
against the will of the House. It is a minority Government and the majority must have its way.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Government consider the advisability of not putting down a Motion for the Adjournment, but leaving it to someone else to put it down?
Captain BENN: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Thursday will be too late for him to decide about the Prevention of Eviction Bill, because it will probably be necessary to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule by notice on Wednesday if he intends to take it on Thursday? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the urgency of passing this Bill, will he give a general assurance that he will take all necessary steps that the Lords Amendments shall be considered before the Whitsun Recess?
Mr. CLYNES Mr. CLYNES: I thought it was implied in the answer I gave a moment ago that we would, if possible.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (EXPENSES) BILL,
  "to permit, if they so desire, county councils to pay travelling expenses incurred by the members of such councils and committees thereof in connection with the performance of their official duties, and also the travelling expenses of delegates to conferences." presented by Mr. TURTON; supported by Colonel Weston, Mr. Geoffrey Howard, Mr. Acland, Mr. Robert Richardson, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
  DOGS' PROTECTION BILL,
  "to prohibit the vivisection of dogs," presented by Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY supported by Mr. Thurtle, Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Mr. Foot; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  OFFICES REGULATION BILL,
  "to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. ROMERIL; supported by Mr.
  1076
  Hoffman, Major Church, and Mr. Middleton; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th June, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT.
Dr. SPERO: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act, 1908, in respect of punishments for second or subsequent convictions."
No doubt many hon. Members are aware of the inadequate sentences recently imposed upon callous brutes for inhuman cruelty to children. As an example I will quote two cases. In March, 1924, a young mother was convicted for cruelty to her three-year-old son. She admitted to the 'Court that in a fit of temper she placed the child on the top bar of a fire, causing a burn a quarter of an inch wide across the lower part of the baby's body. She was fined £5 and costs. In May, 1924, at Newton Abbot, a father, who had been convicted a year previously for ill-treating his son aged one and a half years, was prosecuted for ill-treating the same child, then two and a half years of age. The prosecution stated that the child was made to stand naked outside a tent for a quarter of an hour and the father hit him with a stick and burned him with a lighted cigarette. His body bore a mass of bruises. The man was fined £6 and given a month in which to pay. I make no comment on the justice of these sentences except to suggest the passing of the Bill. It seeks to add to Section 12B of the Children Act the following words:
"In the case of a second or subsequent conviction there shall be no option of a fine."
The other two Clauses are the usual Clauses. I believe if the Bill was placed upon the Statute Book it would greatly reduce the number of cruelty cases, because a person who unmercifully tortures a child almost within an inch of its life is nothing more or less than the lowest type of coward conceivable, and it is an established fact that the coward only fears physical punishment. Therefore the coward's fear is the antidote for cowardice. This Bill will provide that fear by giving these monsters the physical punishment of imprisonment.
Mr. FOOT rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Mr. FOOT: I do. I should be the last to express any difference from the views expressed by my hon. Friend as to the necessity of punishing any ill-treatment of children. But I submit that the Bill is not conceived to deal with that difficulty. He gave two cases which he desired to meet. One was of a young mother who had caused cruelty to her child, where a nominal fine was imposed, and the other was of a man at Newton Abbot who was brought before a magistrate, and for a second offence only a fine was imposed. But my hon. Friend did not point out that already there is provision under the existing Act, which, indeed, he seeks to amend, which in both those cases enabled the magistrates, if they had thought fit, to impose not merely a fine, but imprisonment. Under the Act of 1908, which received very considerable attention from the House, it would have been open to proceed against either of these persons by indictment, in which case a punishment could have been inflicted of two years' imprisonment for either offence. On indictment the person could have been punished with a fine of £100, or, in default of payment of such fine, or in addition thereto, imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years. Further, if they had proceeded before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction only, it was then open to the magistrate, in either case, to impose a fine of £25 or imprisonment of six months, or both together. The complaint we have is, I think, that the magistrates in many cases do not use the powers they have. I think those who passed the Act of 1908 provided substantial penalties, and those penalties ought to be brought more frequently into operation to check this cruelty. The mischief that arises throughout the country in that very often merely nominal punishment is given where there are offences against the person as against the heavier penalties that are given where there are offences against property, and, while appreciating the desire of the hon. Member, I submit that his Bill is misconceived for its purpose. If magistrates will not use the powers which they have now it is a very poor remedy simply to increase the penalties, which even then they need not put into operation. The danger will be that if
1078
for a second offence nothing but imprisonment can be imposed, then in cases upon the border line, or where a conviction might be secured, it is quite likely that the prosecuting authorities will think twice before bringing the case into Court; and perhaps the magistrates will be influenced by the fact that they can only impose imprisonment and will acquit the person charged altogether. This house ought to give its attention to bringing public opinion to bear to see that the penalties that do exist in our law are imposed more generally than they are, and, further, to quickening public opinion so that punishment is given more frequently to those guilty of crimes of cruelty than those who have offended against the laws of property. I certainly wish to help the hon. Member as far as I can in checking cruelty, but I submit that the Bill is misconceived, that it will not achieve its purpose, and that it will deflect public opinion from the course which it ought to take in pressing for the heavier penalties which the law already provides.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act, nos. in respect of punishments for second or subsequent convictions."
Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought that the "Noes" lied it. On decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. He, accordingly, called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and he declared that the "Noes" had it.

GOVERNMENT TENANTS (PREVENTION OF EVICTION).
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for further protection of Government tenants."
The Bill, which I venture to bring before the House this afternoon, is designed to provide further protection for Government tenants. The House may be aware that at the present time the tenants on any estate which is administered by the Government and is technically in the possession of the Crown do not have the benefit of the various

1079
Rent Restrictions Acts, and this Bill is designed to give those tenants the same protection as every other tenant who takes his tenancy from a private landlord. I may say that the Bill is in no sense a political measure. It is backed by Members of all parties, and I hope that the House will accord it a First reading to-day. It is simply designed to allow a tenant when, for instance, proceedings are taken against him for eviction by a Member of the Government or a Government Department, to have the same opportunity of pleading in the Court exactly the same set of circumstances that he could plead if he were a tenant of a private landlord, and I do not think anyone will say that is an unreasoable suggestion to make.
There is a certain amount of urgency about this Bill, because during the last few months, as the House knows, and as I know particularly, very many actions have been taken, and I think it is time that these tenants had the opportunity of pleading their case in exactly the same way as other tenants. For instance, the First Commissioner of Works, since the time he assumed office, has issued 80 notices to quit. He has proceeded in 40 cases in the County Courts, and he has obtained actual orders for possession and the delivery up of the dwelling houses against 33 heads of families. Not one of those tenants has been able to raise in the Courts the question, for instance, of alternative accommodation. I may say that this is still going on, because during the last three weeks the First Commissioner of Works, through the process of the registered post, has served 15 additional notices to quit in my own constituency. It is perfectly true, and I do not want to shirk the issue, that the First Commissioner of Works has stated, quite properly—and I do not complain of his action—that a large amount of rent has been owing in these cases. But the tenant ought to have his opportunity of pleading in the same way as any other tenant.
I would remind the House that in these particular places where these notices to quit have been served there is, perhaps, more unemployment prevalent than anywhere else, because, as the Secretary of State for War knows, he himself—I am sure it must be against his own personal inclination—has had to dismiss over 500
1080
men from Woolwich Arsenal. The House, therefore, can understand the peculiar difficulties of a neighbourhood of that kind. In addition to the action that the First Commissioner of Works has taken, there is the action which the Secretary of State for War has taken—perfectly properly, as he thinks, I have no doubt—since he took office. He has caused 25 actions to be taken for possession against 25 ex-soldiers. I questioned him in the House the other day as to whether he took into account the size of their families, and he said that he did not know that the number of the family was very material, because, he said, quite properly from his point of view, that he had to get these premises for serving soldiers.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): May I just correct my hon. Friend. He knows perfectly well that I said that the size of the family was eight. Ho said it was 10, and it was the mere difference of two in the number that I said was not material.
Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I will show him in the OFFICIAL REPORT exactly the passage which I am quoting, and I think he will find that there is some little mistake. I do not press that, but I do say that whatever the case may be—and I hope my right hon. Friend will not oppose this Bill—at any rate the tenant against whom he is proceeding ought to have the opportunity just the same as any other tenant of raising the question of alternative accommodation, and the object of this Bill is to place all these people, against whom the Secretary of State or the First Commissioner of Works is proceeding, in exactly the same position as any private tenant. An hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but these orders are not being put into force." The answer is that in the ordinary way it can only be done by order of the County Court Judge, but in the case of these tenants, to whom I am referring, he has to wait upon the views of the particular plaintiff, and I say again that the County Court Judge ought to be the person who ought to be able to do it. That is one of the objects of the Bill. I need only remind hon. Members, in conclusion, exactly what the Minister of Health himself said in dealing with cases where summonses were issued, but were not put into effect. He said:
"The dread of eviction going on from day to day, wondering whether the children and they were to be put out in the street in the morning, was a very dreadful predicament indeed."
Mr. STEPHEN: And all you people disagreed.
Mr. J. JONES: You threw out the Bill.
Sir K. WOOD: That is exactly the position of many of these tenants to-day. Therefore, with the object of putting these people in exactly the same position as tenants of a private landlord, not any higher or any lower, but giving them their full rights and opportunities before the. Court, I beg to ask the House to give this Bill a First Reading.
Mr. SULLIVAN rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes. I want to congratulate the hon. Member on his inconsistency in putting forward a Bill of this kind after opposing every attempt made to make evictions impossible. I would not have interfered in the Debate only I noticed that he was getting a fair amount of support from hon. Members on the opposite side. I want to remind him that in the case that he quoted he is wrong in law. A workman occupying a house because he is employed by a firm has no protection under the law so far as alternative accommodation is concerned, and I take it that a soldier or ex-soldier is in much the same position. I think it is wrong, because I think a miner or ironworker, or any other workman, inhabiting a house owned by the company for whom he works should have the same protection as any other tenant. But, unfortunately, hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), have always been hostile to that proposal. I wonder when the people of this country will see through politicians who simply talk for party ends in this way, and simply play the game of politics as they have seen it for years.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman opposing this Bill, and, if not, has he, under the Ten minutes rule, any right to speak?
Mr. SPEAKER: I asked the hon. Member that question, and he said he was.
Mr. SULLIVAN: I was saying that the political game had been played for a long time, but the people of the country are now beginning to see through it. In a very short time they will be able, I hope, to clear out some of the men who are so stupid as to continue a game of that kind. I, therefore, oppose leave be given to introduce the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Kingsley Wood, Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Masterman, Sir Fredric Wise, Mr. Keens, Major Moulton, Mr. Snell, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. D. G. Somerville.

GOVERNMENT TENANTS (PREVENTION OF EVICTION) BILL,
"to provide for further protection of Government tenants," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the-Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Greenock Improvement." [Greenock Improvement (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London County Council to rebuild Lambeth Bridge, and to make street improvements and other works in connection therewith." [London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill [Lords.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the expenses incurred in connection with the provision of houses of the type and size mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, which are completed before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, not exceeding in the case of any house which is subject to special conditions, whether as regards rent or lettings or disposal or otherwise, a sum of nine pounds, or (if the house is situated in an agricultural parish in England or Wales, or in a rural area in Scotland) a sum of twelve pounds ten shillings, payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years, and in the case of any house which is not subject to such special conditions a sum of six pounds payable annually for a period not exceeding twenty years; and

  (b) to make provision as to such special conditions and, in the case of houses which are subject to special conditions, to provide for the reduction or variation of the contributions in the event of any of the special conditions not being complied with; and

  (c) to make provision for the withholding of contributions or the reduction or variation of contributions except in the case of houses completed before certain dates; and

  (d) to make provision for the amendment of the financial provisions of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, and for other purposes incidental thereto or connected therewith."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): After the exhibition of inconsistency with which the House was treated just before going into Committee, I am not quite sure whether I would have more to gain by the adoption of the Resolution I now move than I would from its refusal by the Committee. It
  1100
  seems to be part of the policy of certain Members on the other side, having exhausted the time and patience of this House in opposing the policy promoted by the Government, to proceed then to-mop up the remnants of our time in a mock presentation of a similar kind. I hope a good deal of latitude will be allowed in the discussion about to take place. The Committee will expect me to present, as far as one can in general terms, the Government proposals on housing, and the reasons which led to the adoption of those proposals by the Government. Perhaps the first point to which I ought to address myself is whether the Act of 1923, as it now stands, is not sufficient for the solution of the housing problem. I take it that Members in all parts of the House will agree that it is not. I count, at any rate, on the acquiescence of the party opposite to that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: NO !"] Then I wish to quote a statement made by the author of the Act when he was introducing his Bill in this House, and, if the view of the party opposite is not what it was a few months ago, perhaps the right hon. Member will explain the reason for the change when he addresses the Committee. In introducing this Bill the right hon. Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) said:
  "I am going to ask the House to regard this Bill from that point of view (growth and development) not as a solution of the housing problem but as the beginning of a solution, not as the engine itself but as the starting apparatus which will put the engine in motion. I think the House will see it will be altogether unreasonable to suppose that these arrears which have been accumulated for a period of 30 years can possibly be wiped out in the short period which is covered by this Bill. Indeed neither this Bill nor any Bill which operates only for a short period could possibly in itself provide a solution of the housing problem."
  Therefore I am going to assume that, as the 1923 Act is due to expire in 1925, it is still the view of the Front Opposition Bench that the future policy of the country on housing should be determined in the interests of all concerned.
  Perhaps the next point on which we ought to be clear is as to what is the real ultimate problem. If I were to state it in my own words, possibly the statement would be suspect, as coming from a Socialist source, but no such suspicion will attach to anything coming from

  1101
  Birmingham. The housing committee of the city of Birmingham is one of the few authorities—indeed the only authority of which I know—that has actually opposed my housing proposals. I am not objecting; I am not complaining. I never regard their opposition as anything but an expression of appreciation and affection for their political representative. So anxious was that committee to get en with my execution that it could not have the patience to wait until the proposals were drafted, but it condemned them in advance. Therefore, I will take their statement as one with which every Member, particularly the most moderate Members of the House, can agree. They have issued a report in criticism of my proposals as they stand, and their real views upon housing, as apart from the political affection to which I have referred, overflow from the report. They say:—
  "The real problem is the provision of houses, not to sell but to let, and to let at rents which the working classes can afford to pay. Subsidies to private enterprise for houses to sell are good to the extent that they do get houses, but they do not touch the real problem and even larger subsidies would not get working men's houses built to be let. Let there be no mistake about that; no one will build these houses on any terms."
  They mean that no one in private enterprise will build houses to let to-day or at any time. Taking the 1923 Act and subjecting it to this test of "houses to let," I have no difficulty in proving that it has been a complete failure On the 1st May of this year I find that in England, Scotland and Wales, under this Act which came into operation on the 31st July last, 4,645 houses have been completed and there were under construction 12,738 houses, making a total of 17,383 houses either completed or under construction by the local authorities for the purpose of letting. In comparing that with what we might have expected, it is well to consider for a moment what the annual requirements of these millions of families who depend for housing accommodation on houses to let amount to in this country. I do not want to lay down any dogmatic figures. There are no reliable data with which one can defend any figure that is controverted, but I think that those who understand the problem will be inclined to agree that, taking into account the loss arising from the depreciation of property
  1102
  and the growth of population, something like 100,000 new houses would be required annually to prevent the housing shortage from increasing. If we require anything like 100,000 new houses per annum and we are only getting for that section of the community 17,383, one can see how rapidly the housing conditions of this country are worsening. I am giving to the operation and the success of the Act in this department of its operations all that I think its dearest friends could fairly claim. I am admitting that all the houses under construction at the beginning of this month will be completed in the course of the present year, that is, not in the twelve months of the Act but within the present building year, ending on the 30th September. I do not think that anyone who understands the state of the building industry would on any terms support the idea that that admission was capable of realisation. Even admitting that all the houses—only 4,000 of them are actually completed and 12,000 of them are still incomplete—were completed by the 1st of October, the fact is that the housing conditions of the people who live under the worst conditions in this country are considerably worse now than when the present Act was introduced about twelve months ago.
  I go further, and say that the party opposite never expected the working classes to get the houses during the period of the operation of the Act. I think I can prove that by the speeches of the author of the Bill. On the same occasion to which I have referred, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am bound to recognise that this process which I have described, whereby private enterprise is gradually extending its operations from the more expensive to the less expensive house, is bound to be a very slow and gradual one, and that there still remains a considerable margin which for some years to come it will be impossible for private enterprise to touch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1923; col.307, Vol.163.]
  Would it be unreasonable on my part to interpret that speech in this way? The right hon. Gentleman contemplated a situation in which there was a limited supply of labour and materials and a shortage of housing among all sections of the population. It was greatest among the poorest, it was smallest among the richest and it was considerable among the middle class. Having contemplated that situation, he said to himself, "Let me

  1103
  frame a policy that will begin with the more expensive houses, that will take into account, first, the requirements of the richest. Having dealt with these, we will then come to the condition of the people below the richest who can afford to buy houses, and if there be any crumbs of material and labour remaining, those crumbs may be used for the production of working-class houses." [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] If that was not the intention of the 1923 Act, then that was the result of the 1923 Act. I have no doubt at all from the questions that have been put to me by leading Members of the Opposition, that when they rise to reply they will quote figures showing how many houses are being erected for the rich. They will talk about the larger houses outside the scope of the Act of 1923. They will say as they have said—whether they will do it to-day or not I am not sure—that beyond the type of houses covered by the 1923 Act there are tens of thousands of houses which have been erected in this country. They will tell the Committee that there are about 70,000 houses, not subsidised houses but the larger houses, the more expensive houses—
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What you call "rabbit hutches."
  Mr. WHEATLEY: There are these houses to be provided before you can deal with the housing conditions of the working classes. There have been a large number of these houses provided, and hon. Members opposite will quote these houses and try to deceive the Committee into believing that in some way or another these are the houses that are contemplated in the Government's proposals now being submitted to the Committee. When they get down below that—[An HON. MEMBER: "You want worse houses!"] I am not talking about the houses being too good, but I am talking about the class for whom the houses are built. If you suggest to me or to Members of this House—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You would make everyone live in the slums. That is your Socialism.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Perhaps if hon. Members on the other side lived for a week in a slum, we should soon get the problem solved. Having dealt with the
  1104
  requirements of the richer people and the more expensive houses, the policy of the 1923 Act was to provide more houses for that fringe of the working class who can afford to buy houses rather than for that mass of the working classes who must have houses to let. So we find that under the 1923 Act there have been completed for sale 5,963 houses and that there are under construction 26,027 houses. All these houses are for sale. Not a single one, as far as I can ascertain at the Ministry of Health, of the 32,000 houses being erected by what is called private enterprise, are for the purpose of letting to the people who are so much in need of houses.
  It is unnecessary to emphasise the fact that, if the great toiling multitude of this country are getting down to a condition of greater and greater slumdom, it is an alarming situation. I remember that on a former occasion when I was addressing the House, and I was moved to refer sympathetically and pathetically to the conditions of these people, my speech was referred to as "sob stuff." Therefore, to-day I will not indulge in "sob stuff." I will not be guilty of what evidently was an offence then of assuming that Conservatives have souls as well as pockets.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Where are your "Hears, hears!" now?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: This afternoon I am going to talk to them pocket politics. I am going to remind them as the representatives in this House of the great industrialists of the country, dependent for their supply, in the main, on the people who live under these poor housing conditions, that they have entered upon the keenest industrial struggle in the history of this country, and that their success in the competitive markets of the world depends to a large extent on the maintenance of an efficient British working class, and to urge them, for the sake of their pockets, to recognise that it is impossible to produce in the housing conditions of to-day workers who can successfully compete in the world's markets of to-morrow.
  That was the situation with which I, as representing the Government, had to deal. I had to choose whether in approaching industry I was to do so in a spirit of force or a spirit of good will. A spirit of force would, of course, have

  1105
  been more picturesque. That is the policy, if I may judge by speeches from the other side, of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, with regard to the building industry of this country. Again, if I may quote from Birmingham, where all sound anti-Socialist doctrine germinates, I might tell the Committee what appears to be the Conservative policy in approaching a situation like this:
  "What is wanted is dilution"—
  This quotation is from the Report of the Birmingham Housing Committee—
  "Longer working hours. The building trade hours are less than in any other trade. Greater output, and normal competition throughout the trade. If the unions refuse to co-operate in the dilution process, the municipalities could easily train young labourers with the countenance and support of the Government and the decision to face whatever consequences ensue."
  It seems all so very simple. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has only to don the garb of Mussolini and to strut forth and say to these trade unionists, "Unconditional dilution, or the life of trade unionism!" Does anyone believe that until you have exhausted all the resources of reason, that a policy of that kind will be tolerated in this country? Immediately you began it with the building industry, what would be the views of the other industrial organisations? Would not they feel that it was a war on trade unionism, that it was a class war, and that when you had smashed the building trade union you would take union after union, particularly in what you are now pleased to call the sheltered trades, and that you would smash trade unionism? Rightly or wrongly, would not they take the view that what you were after was not houses, but slaves? Before the struggle was over bon. Members on the other side would learn that the people of this country value liberty far more highly than they value the Conservative party.
  Before coming to a decision as to how far dilution should go, perhaps I may be permitted to submit to the Committee an analysis of the rent of a working-class house, in order to see where relief may be obtained. Taking the case of a house at £500, I find that the amount which the land on which the house sits adds to the weekly rent of the house is only 1½d. The
  1106
  land costs us about £200 an acre. It is well that the Committee should know the facts., For ail the land purchased for housing in England and Wales, the average price was only £206 per acre. Taking the whole period during which we have been building after 1919, and taking £200 an acre, and 10 houses to the acre—although we usually put more—it means that there is a burden on each house of £20. But that £20 has to be distributed over 60 years, which is the reasonable expectation of life of the house. That brings the burden on the house to 6s. 8d. a year, or only 1½d. a week. So that if we could get the land free, we should reduce the rent by 1½d. a week. Taking the next item in the expenditure, the cost of materials and profits amounts to £280, and I find that that puts a weekly burden on the house of 1s. 10½d. Coming next to the cost of the people who build the house, that is, all the tradesmen—apart from the cost of building material—the bricklayer, mason, plumber, joiner, slater, and labourer, the whole burden of the cost of building a house only adds 1s. 3d. a week to the rent. In other words, if you got the house built free of labour charges, if the workers worked for nothing, you could reduce the rent by 1s. 3d. a week. That is the wages cost of building a working-class house, and, distributing it over the 60 years, it works out at 1s. 3d.
  I want to know whether relief can be got in the housing problem. I find that, of the 1s. 3d., the bricklayer takes 2½d. So that if we have the ideal method, the bricklayer—this would cheer the hearts of the Opposition—who would lay bricks for nothing, we could reduce rents by 2½d. a week. Now I may be asked, how is it we require a subsidy, seeing that the labour costs, the costs of the landlord, the manufacturer, the builder and the tradesmen and labourers engaged in producing a house only amount to a weekly rent of 3s. 3d.? It is when I come to the finance of it that I find where the burden comes in. Taking the rate of interest at 5 per cent. for the loan periods, it requires 6s. 6d. a week from the house to meet the burden of finance. In other words, if all the people who, by hand or brain, give service to the production of the house, take 3s. 3d., that section of the community who lend, not their labour but their credit, their surplus wealth—usually, not their savings but their makings—take

  1107
  twice as much out of the rent of the house as all the useful contributors to the erection of the house.
  A great deal is being said about the total to be contributed in subsidy by the State and local authorities for the erection of these houses, and the impression is left upon the public mind that, somehow or other, the working class are the recipients of charity from the people who pay these subsidies. I find that the total subsidies are only equal to half the interest charged. In other words, if you gave double the subsidy, you would not have met the demand of the interest of the people who lend their credit for the erection of these houses. Since 1900, the price of money has gone up by 1¾ per cent., which means an increase of £400 on every working-class house erected in this country. For a period of 60 years 1¾per cent. on £500 is at least £400. I notice that the right hon. Member for Twickenham, in criticising my proposals the other day, said, "This is real Socialism!" I can compliment my right hon. Friend on many things, but I cannot say that he is a good judge of Socialism. I can assure him, if this were real Socialism, I would begin dilution on that 6s. 6d., and I would end the dilution on the last penny of the 6d. The proposals which I am submitting are real capitalism—an attempt to patch up, in the interests of humanity, a capitalist ordered society.
  With that knowledge of the situation, I have approached the building industry in a friendly manner, in a spirit of good will, and I asked for their views in a national emergency as to the best manner of producing the necessary houses. Why had we such a shortage of skilled labour in the building industry? I have been told it was due to the hostility of the trade unions, but I was informed by the employers that it was due to nothing of the kind, and that within the rules of the trade unions 34,000 apprentices more than actually were at work could have been at work in the industry to-day. I asked why apprentices were not there, and I was told it was because of the insecurity of employment in the industry. First of all, parents would not send their boys into a trade that might be busy to- day and offered only emigration next year, that employers were in exactly the
  1108
  same position, and unless they had a guarantee of work for their apprentices for the period of their apprenticeship, it was unprofitable to take on more than the minimum of apprentices. I found that the explanation was that the industry was subject to violent fluctuations, and that sometimes, when money was comparatively cheap, the building industry would have a boom, would go on for a year or two, and then something would happen to disturb it, and there would be a slump extending over art almost corresponding period. During the slump period, the skilled men trained in the busy period were the vcitims of unemployment, and had to find relief in emigration.
  Only last year over 900 joiners were transferred form the trade unions on the Clyde to the trade unions of New York. In 1924 there are 62,090 fewer skilled men in the industry than were in it in 1913, although the demands of the nation are considerably greater to-day. People ask me why we are not proposing to build as many houses as was the case two or three years ago. I find that we have 25,470 fewer skilled men in the industry to-day than we had in October, 1921. I mentioned the skilled labourers to the employers—the skilled labourers who could be promoted in such abundance, according to the theories of politicians—and the employers asked me if I could tell them where they were. They told me that these skilled labourers had been for years gradually absorbed into the industry, and that they did not exist, except in the imagination of Members of Parliament. I asked them about the trainees, about which I have heard so much in this House, the ex-service men who have served their country well, and come home and been trained by a grateful Government in the art of building houses, and whose services have been rejected by wicked trade unions. They told me, as the leaders of the operatives told Members of the House of Commons who met them upstairs, that the trade unions did not refuse to accept those trainees, that the union operatives had taken in a large number of them, that, after they had taken them in, the poor fellows could not find employment in the industry, because employers would not accept them, as they were not capable of competing with the better trained men, and that, as a result, the Joiners' and Carpenters' Union had

  1109
  been mulcted in a considerable sum in the way of unemployment benefit to those men, as a reward for their generosity in accepting them in their union.
  Notwithstanding that, we have had the story floated all over this country that the wicked trade unions are the enemies of the ex-service men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite true!"] I put it to this Committee that it is not good national service, that it is anything but patriotic to be setting up in opposition the ex-service men who fought for the country, and the industrial workers who maintain the country in its wealth. That is not good, sound patriotism, even when it comes from the Conservative party. In order to get the essential labour for the production of houses, it was necessary to stabilise the industry by the adoption of a long-term programme, and when the representatives of the men and the employers put to me a proposal for a long-term building programme, I said, "There is no use going to Parliament and asking it for a one-sided guarantee. Parliament will expect from you, in return for any guarantee it gives to you, a reciprocal undertaking by the industry itself." And the question they asked me was, "Can you, in return for a guarantee from the State, undertake to deliver the houses for the people?" I think the Committee will agree that it is impossible to give an absolute answer. To bring this 2½ million houses which I want built and put them on the Table, and to ask them to accept that, can be the only guarantee, and, of course, that is an impossible guarantee. I had then to face the basis of a guarantee that was possible.
  5.0 P.M.
  There seemed to be only two methods. One method was a guarantee based on teaching the industry how to run its own business—to tell them how many apprentices they required, how many bricklayers the industry should take in, and how many bricks each man should lay per day. In general, this method would be to teach them how to do that which they had been trained to do, and of which we had only the most remote theoretical knowledge. I felt that that would be no basis at all. I said to them: "I am not going to talk to you in terms of labourers, in terms of apprentices, or in terms of dilution. I want to talk to you in terms of houses. How many
  1110
  houses can you give the nation in a year? It is for you to decide how you can produce the houses. If you are prepared to accept from the State a 15-years' building programme on condition that you deliver a certain number of houses every year, then I am prepared to consider entering into such an agreement." They went into the matter very carefully, and ultimately we fixed and made an agreement on that basis. It is not a basis fixed on the number of apprentices; it is not a basis fixed on how the industry is to be run. It is a basis fixed on the annual output of houses of this kind, by the industry, as the 15 years go on.
  The scheme, as far as the industry is concerned, works automatically. We go on building for three years. At the end of the three years we take stock and, if the average output of houses agreed on between the State and the industry is not maintained, then the agreement automatically terminates. On the other hand, if the output of houses is maintained, the agreement proceeds for a further period, at the end of which we take stock again. In that further period, through the augmented labour, we get an ever-increasing number of houses, as stated in the Schedule, and if that increased number is again maintained, then automatically the scheme goes on over a further period; and so on to the end of the 15 years, when we have produced 2½ million houses.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to us what is the quid pro quo with the building industry? I understand what they agree to give him, but I do riot understand the form of guarantee he has to give to them in the way of employment.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: In the written guarantee we have given to them you will notice that they are to maintain two-thirds of the output stated in our Schedule. I wish to state that that addition was put in at my request. The output, for instance, for the first two years, is to be, I think, 190,000 houses. I said: "You are taking a considerable risk. You have to deal with all the disadvantages of a disorganised industry. If you fail during these three years to maintain the output, you will be faced with all the additional labour and all the additional capital you have put into it. I suggest to you that you make the

  1111
  irreducible minimum two-thirds of the number that you say you will he able to produce." I want to emphasise here something I said at the beginning, for the clearer understanding of this problem of housing. The houses we are proposing to produce are not like the larger type which are being produced outside of the subsidy limits to-day. The houses we are proposing to produce are houses of the subsidy type. They are additional houses; not alternative houses.
  Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: Alternative to the houses of 1923?
  Mr. WHEATLE.Y: Assuming that the Act of 1923 provided for 40,000 houses, and that the output by the industry next year is 90,000 houses, then that would mean that there would be 50,000 additional houses next year, and so on. Before passing from this, may I revert again to the basic condition and give an illustration of the difference it makes? In the course of the negotiations the bricklayers raised the question of part payment for loss of time due to wet weather, and they approached me about attaching that payment to the erection of these houses. It was a claim, I think personally, that would give me more houses by bringing more people into the industry, but notwithstanding that, I said to these bricklayers: "All these questions under my agreement have to be regarded as the internal affairs of the industry. I am not going to dictate to you as an industry what wages you are to give; I am not going to dictate to you how many bricks you are to lay; I am not going to talk to you in any terms except in terms of the number of houses."
  Then we came to another important point in the negotiations. I had to negotiate with the manufacturers, and they are unpopular on many of these benches. There is an impression—I think largely justified—that building materials in this country mile controlled by building rings. During my negotiations with the employers I said: "There is no good in talking about a given number of houses; unless we can have some assurance that the price—the cost of housing—will not be increased when we set out to build more. In other words, I want you to suspend the law of supply and demand in regard to housebuilding. I want each section of you to pledge yourselves that you will not
  1112
  take advantage of the launching of this scheme to gain anything that you would not have gained had I not launched it." That is the basis on which we began. I continued: "And although we may be building 50,000 more houses next year, and in the following year 70,000 additional houses, this fact is not to be taken as a justification for an increase in the cost price of the houses." They were perfectly agreeable to enter into an arrangement of that kind, but they said: "We must have full protection against the manufacturers and merchants of building materials. We obviously cannot continue to give you houses at present prices unless the cost of materials are maintained at the present prices." That seemed so perfectly reasonable that I agreed with them. I went to the building materials people and explained again the national difficulty, pointing out to them that they did not stand to gain by this policy of boosting prices every time we increased our building operations, because the result was to throttle the building industry and bring about ruin even to the manufacturers themselves, and that they would be much more profitably employed in keeping down prices, arranging for a larger output, and relying on an increased income on an increased output.
  I have to acknowledge that they met me in what I regard as a very generous manner, and I want to state here, particularly in regard to the brick manufacturers, that I have been driven to the conclusion during the past few weeks that, in a period where the nation has problems of this kind, it would be much easier to deal with a ring than to deal with unfettered private enterprise. It is just the same condition as employers of experience recognise in dealing with their workers; it is easier to deal with a trade union than to deal with a body of disorganised men. My experience of the past few weeks was this. I started that period with a pledge from the associated brick manufacturers that they would keep to their prices. They have kept their word in the letter and in the spirit. Large manufacturers assure me, and I have no reason to doubt it, that they have passed by orders which offered them 10s. to 20s. a thousand more for bricks than the price at which they are selling bricks to-day. But what has happened all over the country? The orders refused by the combine members,

  1113
  out of loyalty to the nation, have been taken by other manufacturers outside the combine, and the result is that there is a temptation for the members of the combine to get into that state of greater freedom, where there is greater profit to be made.
  I had an interview with these people this week, after I had drafted a Bill on building materials, in which I ask Parliament, when it is produced—I hope, in a few days—to give me drastic powers to deal with profiteers. The Government, having made up their mind, I had further negotiations with the brick manufacturers, and they made me what I regard as a fairly generous offer. They are prepared to take the prices of January, 1924, as the basis of prices for future building under the housing scheme. They are prepared to sea it inserted in an Act of Parliament that it will be regarded as the basis of an investigation of an offence when the price charged by any manufacturer is higher than that which he charged on 1st January this year, unless he can prove that the increase was justified by circumstances out of his control, such as an increase of wages, or an increase in the cost of living, or a similar increase in the cost of production. You cannot stereotype the cost of living. Apart from these, an increase in the price of bricks would be regarded as a serious offence. I do not think the nation could get a more generous offer from any section of people. All around me people will say: "But that closes the door against an investigation for the period prior to 1st January, and there was probably profiteering going on then." I am not submitting to the House proposals for changing the capitalist order of society. I am merely submitting proposals of a limited character with the object of protecting my building scheme against being exploited by the manufacturers of building materials, and as my building scheme was not in existence in January of this year, as the Government were not in office and I never expected to be Minister of Health, much less to propose this scheme, no one could reasonably say that the prices prevailing in January this year were raised in expectation of the Government's present proposals.
  The manufacturers insisted on the importance of a long-term building programme, because they said,
  "Look all over the country and you will find dere-
  1114
  lict brickworks everywhere, which are the result of the fluctuations of the industry. People put their capital into them during the busy period, and then trade fell away and they lost their capital and will not renew it." Above all, in the output of building material, the supply must tend to approximate to the amount of labour that exists for handling the material. Anyone with business experience would know that that would be a first consideration. The objection made to a long-term programme is, that no other industry is given such protection. I have seen that stated again and again. I wish to state, in reply to that, that the building industry is distinct from any other industry in the country. In building houses you, build for 60 years, so you can afford to build five years ahead of requirements this year and then stop building for five years, but you cannot stop building and retain your builders and the means of manufacturing building material. If you allow those to go to wreck, then when you require to begin building again you would have no means of carrying on the work. That does not apply to the baker, the miner, the railwayman or any other industry.
  There again I notice that another criticism about a long-term building programme is that in so far as we are trying to help the industry we are to-day sanctioning more than we would otherwise sanction. I submit again that that is not so. We are not sanctioning more than we would otherwise sanction. All that we are doing is ordering ahead, so that the people responsible for the output will know what the conditions of the industry are to be over a given period. For instance, if we could: get a quarter of a million houses to-day, we would unanimously accept it. We cannot get it, because the industry years ago did not know that a quarter of a million houses would be wanted. Therefore if we want to get houses we have got to stabilise the industry in the interests of all the people concerned in the industry.
  Then also it is feared that at the end of 15 years we shall have unemployment. Those who put up that argument pay us the flattering testimony that we shall produce the houses. They are agreed that the scheme will succeed because they say that at the end of 15 years we shall have all these workers on our hands. I submit

  1115
  that I should not be expected to deal at length with this. If we could put 15 years between us and unemployment I am sure that that should be taken as a hearty recommendation. I am told that a long-term programme forces up prices. That objection is based on the idea that you can build on the quiet—build houses without the manufacturers getting to know that you are building. In other words, you are only to build the number of houses for which manufacturers will produce materials without wanting to increase the prices. I submit that if we have reached that stage, it is the most damning condemnation possible of private enterprise. If private enterprise in time of national emergency were unable even for the public good to suppress the desire for increased profits, then in modern society there would be no room for such an institution. If that were to happen, I submit that the only alternative would be an alteration in the present method of producing these materials.
  The next point is as to whether we call trust the industry which has promised these houses. I notice that there is an inclination to sneer at the building industry as people whom we cannot trust. I suggest that this is a field in which, as in all others, confidence begets confidence, and in which you are not going to get the best out of them by simply sneering and calling them names. I have listened for years to appeals from the other side for employers and employed to get together in the general interest of the industry in which they are engaged, and when I respond to that appeal and, for the purpose of getting the houses built, bring employers and employés here together in what I regard as a holy combination, I am immediately denounced, and Members in all parts of the House begin to point out the danger of this unholy alliance.
  I submit that if these people were not British workers, but French or Italian people, you would treat them with considerably greater respect. The British workers here are offering you a treaty. If French or Italian workers offered you a treaty you would not treat them in the same way. You would invite their leaders to dine with you. I claim the same respect for British workers, from the leaders of this House, as would be given by them to the representatives of
  1116
  a foreign Power. Whatever be our differences, let us remember that these people for whom these houses are wanted are the basis of the nation's prosperity. After all, they are our best, and, in my opinion, with all their faults they are the world's best. The industry proposes in order to carry out this scheme to set up committees. I do not want to go into the nature of them in detail further than to disabuse the minds of Members of this House of any idea that they are to be permitted to interfere with the work of the State or local authorities or with the competitive system of dealing with houses.
  They propose to have three committees—one composed of the builders and operatives, another of manufacturers and merchants of material and a third, a prices survey committee. These three will be interlocked by three representatives sitting on a super-committee, a National Building Committee, to be set up by the Ministry of Health. The object of the committees is to see that the scheme which is being launched here is a success, and the industry is very interested in seeing that it shall be successfully carried through. They would co-operate in seeing that there was a sufficient supply of labour where building contracts were being placed, and that there was a sufficient supply of material. There will be a central committee and local committees of builders and operatives assisting and advising local authorities.
  Sir PHILIP PILD ITCH: Will there be representatives of the local authorities on the central committee?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: There would be no representation of the local authorities or of the State, because they will have nothing to do with the business of these advisory committees.
  Sir P. PILDITCH: I am not speaking of the local committees, I am speaking of the central committee.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: No, there is no proposal to have public representatives on it. Obviously, if they were going to interfere with public business, we would require public representatives and a majority of public representatives, but as they have only to deal with the business of the industry and with nothing else, their representatives, and no other representatives, will be eligible for membership.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They have to themselves.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: To watch themselves and help themselves and help the nation. Assuming that Manchester wants to build 5,000 houses, it will be the business of these committees to advise the Manchester local authorities as to the labour and materials available in that neighbourhood, and as to how far they can be augmented so as to balance the orders for building placed with the supply of material and labour. One of the great defects of the Addison scheme was that there was no attempt at all to balance supply and demand. A fundamental object here is to relate supply and demand and build houses where most labour is available and most material is available.
  I am afraid that I have wearied the Committee but I want to say a word in reference to the local authorities. I had next to negotiate with the local authorities, because unless I could come to the House with the assurance that the local authorities were prepared to accept this scheme, then the House would not he justified in proceeding further with the scheme. I acknowledge the kindly help which I got from these representatives, and I appreciate it more especially because the great majority of them are my political opponents. They are people who in theory are opposed to the State or the municipality entering on the field formerly occupied by private enterprise, and it is to the credit of these people that they were able to rise superior to their political prejudices in order to hammer out a scheme with which we could approach the House in a spirit and condition of universal consent. In the course of our negotiations one of the first questions to be decided was the amount of the subsidy, and I have now to submit the proposal of a subsidy of £9 for 40 years, as stated in the Resolution, and in agricultural areas of £12 10s. per annum. The amount of the subsidy is to be revised periodically. It is to be reviewed every three years, not in respect of the houses that have been built, but in the light of existing circumstances with respect to the houses of the future.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it to be revised upwards as well as downwards?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: No, the understanding—and I am sorry if I did not make it clear—with the industry is that, unless the Committee to which reference has been made keep dawn prices then the scheme automatically ceases. They are under an obligation to keep down the prices of houses. The rents to be charged for these houses are controlled rents; the rents are to be as nearly as possible—by Regulations laid down by the Ministry of Health, I cannot give you the exact formula, but, roughly, it is this—the rents prevailing now in the area for working-class houses erected before the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The same kind of houses.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: No. Working-class houses, not the same kind of houses. Our object is to produce better houses at the rents which they are now paying for the bad ones. Where these rents can be obtained for less than £13 10s. then any reduction down to £4 10s., which is the contribution of the local authority, will go to the credit of the local authority. The object of that proposal is to stimulate everyone concerned into a united effort to keep prices down. We want to make it in the interest of the locality to get its houses built as cheaply as possible. You have to-day towns where the prices vary considerably, and we want to see that the well-administered local authority which can get houses produced cheaply shall have the benefit of it in local rates. In one respect I am sorry I had to yield to the local authorities, but when one is negotiating one has to be prepared to make concessions. One of the things on which the local authorities insisted was that I should not interfere with the size of the houses laid down under the 1923 Act. I need hardly state I would have liked to have altered those standards. I was particularly anxious to raise the minimum and I would have liked to have added 100 feet to the maximum, but the local authorities said that they had not been building these very small houses, and I found that within their discretion of 550 feet to 950 feet the average size of the houses being built in England and Wales was about 817 feet. The local authorities say, "All we are claiming is our right to determine what the size of the house is to be. We are not going to lay it down that we will build these smaller houses, but we want

  1119
  to be left free to choose what suits the requirements of our neighbourhood." They want to be left with the freedom which they had under the 1923 Act. They wanted me to leave them there, and as I had to come to a general agreement with the local authorities I had, against my will, to give way on this point and it is part of the terms of the agreement.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham, earlier in my speech, asked: "How can you reciprocate the guarantee given to you by the building industry? You have left the local authorities free, they are not to build except when they like, and as they like." I admit that is so, but that part of the freedom of the local authority is part of the general policy of keeping down prices. For instance, prices might be "boosted" in Bristol, and "boosted" is the proper word. It might be in the interests of all concerned —it is in the interests of all concerned—in such a, case to leave Bristol free to slow down and enable us to get on in other parts of the country where no attempt has been made to put up prices. How can I guarantee to the industry? I can guarantee in this way. In the earlier years, at any rate, if even half the local authorities decided to build houses, they would mop up all our available supplies of labour and materials during those earlier years, and it would give us an opportunity of ascertaining who are the defaulting authorities; who are the local authorities who will not build, who are the reactionary local authorities. I wish to say about Birmingham that it is the most progressive local authority in housing in England. At any rate, it is one of them—I will put it as high as that. It has been one of the most active in building houses, though I am not going to say there are not other good ones. During these earlier years, when we could not supply all the demand in any circumstances, we have an opportunity, as I say, of ascertaining the defaulting local authorities, and then, in the case of defaulting local authorities, there is power, under Section 4 of the 1919 Act, for the State to go in and build where the local authorities have defaulted. That enables us, as the State, to make the scheme watertight by giving a guarantee to the building industry.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are you going to include in your guarantee to the building trade an undertaking that you will come in and build State houses, in the event of the local authorities not doing so?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: No. I want to say that no one in the course of the negotiations contemplated such a. situation. Our feeling in the Ministry and I am sure it will be shared in the House, is that the local authorities are enthusiastically in favour of building houses. There is no danger at all of the demand for houses not meeting the supply for many years after the 15 years are over.
  The question is asked, "Assuming your scheme is sound, can we really afford it?" Some people say that, the industry will not give the houses. If they do not give the houses, then they do not take the money. Always remember that point. All these tables of figures, all these sums of money, will only be asked for if the industry does deliver the houses. I am inclined to think that those who talk about the sum being so great really believe the houses will be built. I do not think there is much dread in the minds of certain critics of the houses not coming. First, as to the capital expenditure, I notice that statistical maniacs have been totalling up the sum that will be required to give us two and a half million houses at £50C each, and they say that the nation cannot afford all that money May I remind these financiers that whoever builds the houses it, will take the same amount of capital, and not one penny more, and it may take considerably less, if they are erected under the control system which I am laying down in these proposals.
  As to the annual expenditure, which I believe at the peak will be £34,000,000, State and local authorities combined, it seems when you work it out to be a terrible sum, but it is just 1 per cent. of our national income, and if we cannot afford 1 per cent. of our national income to remove what is really a cancer in the heart of our community, then we are not worthy of the income that the blessing of modern knowledge is putting at our disposal. Again, it may interest some hon. Members to know that the sum, even at its peak, is only equal to 10 per cent. of the national drink bill. If I had the time and the desire and wanted to make out

  1121
  a tempting prospect for my policy, I could prepare very quickly a table on the credit side of this scheme which would more than balance the expenditure. I would show its contribution towards wiping out disease, its contribution towards diverting our youth from the Employment Ex-changes into useful industry, and towards spending our millions in useful employment instead of in the maintenance of an unemployed army. I want to say about unemployment that the proper and scientific method of dealing with it is to put your people, in youth, into occupations in which they have a reasonable prospect of earning an honest livelihood and, if I might say a word to those who have been putting forth the claims of the ex-service men, the movement on foot in connection with my scheme of organising the sons of ex-service men as apprentices for the building industry, is one of the finest contributions you can make to the memory of those who have served you in days gone by. In conclusion, I want to thank the Committee for the tolerance and patience which they have shown. I submit this scheme, firmly believing that if it is adopted it is one in which we can visualise the building industry growing stronger and stronger every year, meeting our annual wants in housing, removing the shortage in housing, and taking the population of this country out of the shadow of the slum.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Committee is indebted to the Minister of Health for the way in which he has outlined his great scheme. I am afraid the Committee will be forced before I have spoken long to realise that he has put me in the very difficult position of having to deal on the spur of the moment with facts and figures which have not previously been put before us. We have not the details in print, and I have had to take such notes as I could of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and therefore I ask hon. Members opposite to afford me every courtesy and kindness in my attempt to deal in a practical manner with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. I propose to deal with it from three points of view—first, the need for these houses second, the finances of the scheme; and, third, the labour conditions of the scheme. If the right hon. Gentle- man succeeds in satisfying the House on
  1122
  the last two points the House will give him his Bill. If, on the other hand, the House is not satisfied by the time these Debates are over that the finance and the arrangements are sound, and that he will be able to get the necessary labour—as to which point I very much fear—then the House will not give that support to the scheme for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. We all admit there is need for building. We admit it on this side of the House just as much as hon. Members on the other side. Despite the Measure which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain) brought in and passed last year for the building of further houses, T am quite prepared to admit there is a need, but I think the Committee should realise that the need is not quite the same as some people imagine.
  I have the advantage of having been a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Health, and there I found a remarkable fact—namely, that to-day the number of people per occupied house is less than it was 10 years ago. It is only 4·67 to-day, and in 1911 it was 4·93. That has arisen from the fact that the half million empty houses which were always available in pre-War days have all been absorbed into occupation. That is one of the principal reasons for the difficulty in housing to-day and for the rise in rents. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—because his own political economy this afternoon did not seem to me to be quite sound—but I put it this way—1,000 houses, 500 applicants, a low rent; 1,000 applicants, 500 houses, a high rent. There you get the whole political economy of supply and demand in one sentence, and the best way of getting rid of the high rent and the privations which undoubtedly occur is to increase the supply of houses by any means in your power—not necessarily by increasing the number built by the housing authorities, but by getting houses built of any type and any description by any person or any body or any authority. The moment you get a surplus of houses over and above the requirements of the people, down go the rents, tumbling down, and until you get that surplus the rents will continue high. The right hon. Gentleman asked permission to suspend the laws of supply and demand. I do not think, able as he undoubtedly is, that be

  1123
  is clever enough to do that. I almost wonder why he does not tackle as well the laws of gravitation.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Does not rent. restriction do so?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These laws may be interfered with temporarily. There may be inroads made upon them, but the whole of the right hon. Gentle man's scheme, as he frankly told us, is a scheme to suspend the laws of supply and demand, and I am going to put it to the House that the existing system, coupled with the laws of supply and demand, the desire of men—if you like, the unholy desire of men—to make profit by business enterprise, which is shared by the working people as well, who desire their share in a rise in wages—I do not object to their doing so; it is part and parcel of human nature, which is common to employer and the employed. The right hon. Gentleman made some rather unfair re marks about the souls of the Conservative party. It was not worthy of his speech. It was a good speech, and those kind of sentiments—I do not think he believes in them himself—do not help us in this very difficult matter. We, on this side, are just as much concerned with matters of slum clearance as he is. He told us that all the great local authorities were politically opposed to him and that nearly all the great local authorities are keen on dealing will the slum question. I have been in the office which the right hon. Gentleman now holds, and to say that we have no souls on this matter is not fair.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: What I said was that evidently the objection to my sob-stuff indicated that I was not to speak here to your souls but to your pockets.
  Viscountess ASTOR: We know all about it you need not tell us.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the Noble Lady is quite right. I was not going to use the term "sob stuff" in regard to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not necessary in this House. We know the difficulties, and we want him to assume that all three parties are just as much concerned and just as eager to deal with the question of housing as he is, though we have different views on political economy. We believe that it should be dealt with in one way, and he believes
  1124
  that it should be dealt with in another way, a way which, unfortunately, we fear will not lead to the success which he anticipates. I am going to deal with the question of finance, because you cannot get rid of the financial difficulties of this scheme by merely saying it is 10 per cent. of this or 1 per cent. of the other. That may be very well for a public meeting, but it will not do for a Committee of this House. I am going to base a good deal of my argument on the success of the Act of 1923, which imposes a capital subsidy of £75 upon the State for every house built under it. The present value of the subsidy of the right hon. Gentleman, £9 for 40 years, is £162, plus £4 10s for 40 years from the rates, or a capital subsidy of somewhere about £240 to £243. Those figures will not be denied by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The burden on the country, as admitted in the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper amounts sooner or later, paid year by year. to something like £1,400,000,000.
  Only last week I heard the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) standing at this Box and making some observations in regard to finance. He will forgive me, as a beginner, in saying that they seemed to be exceedingly apposite, and he warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every Chancellor of the Exchequer should budget with his eye on future Budgets and not merely budget for this year alone. We have here an enormous scheme which budgets for some £270,000 expenditure only this year, a little more the following year, rising in the year 1939–;40 to £23,000,000 a year, standing at £23,000,000 a year for another 22 years, and then gradually going down. The right hon. Gentleman, if his scheme be a success, is fastening on future Chancellors of the Exchequer this enormous burden, without taking the slightest trouble or consulting, I assume, his own Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how that money is to be provided in the years to come. He smiles. He may say, "Thank God, I shall not be Chancellor of the Exchequer then. We shall all be out of office, and we will leave it to our successors, whoever they may be, to find that money." But it is right that the Committee and the country should realise what we are putting on our shoulders. We all talk of the need of economy and of the need for paying off Debt, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer com-

  1125
  plained, I remember, last year, though it was not so apparent in his Budget this year, that we were not paying off Debt sufficiently rapidly. By this scheme we are placing on the shoulders of the country another debt equal to, or greater than, all the amount of debt that has been paid off since the Armistice. To put it in another way, we are putting a debt on the country very nearly equivalent to our total Debt and our total obligation to America at the present time.
  Many are the complaints one hears about our liabilities to America. Many are the complaints I have heard about the annual liability, the cost to trade and commerce, of paying off that debt. It may be right to put this new debt on our shoulders, but there it is, and it is nearly as big in its liability, because it runs to 60 years and to £23,000,000, as our total commitment to America at present. There is a further liability on the cost of the scheme. This subsidy does not pay for the houses. It is only a subsidy to protect the local authority against the loss which it makes in its rent. In addition to this £1,300,000,000, the houses have to be built, and 2,500,000 houses at £500 each will be about another £1,250,000,000, which has to be borrowed by the local authorities, for which interest will have to be paid, for which sinking fund will have to be paid, and ultimately it will have to be paid off, In other words, the total cost of this scheme to the country as a whole—whether it be partly State and partly local authorities really matters little—the obligation entered into by the scheme is £2,500,000,000, or, roughly, about a third of the National Debt at the present time. That is the obligation which, if the scheme be a success, we are placing round our necks at this moment.
  Mr. AYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this huge debt that he is talking about can have set off against it the assets of the houses, which not only are there as houses, but which also add immensely to the rateable value of the country?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is generally rather right, but he has apparently forgotten that these houses work out, and are derelict at the end of 60 years.
  Mr. AYLES: They will not.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the basis on which all houses are built, for 60, 70 or 80 years, at the end of which time they will be scrapped, and the hon. Member's assets will have disappeared. That is the basis of the problem of house building. You may keep your houses in some instances a little longer, but, generally speaking, they go to pieces in 60 or 80 years. I want to consider whether it is really necessary, having arrived at what the figure will be, to turn the country upside down with this enormous expenditure, and here I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the figures he gave us as to the Act of my right hon. Friend who was Minister of Health last year. Under the Act of 1923, there have been 161,000 applications to my right hon. Friend, myself, and my successor, the right hon. Gentleman, for houses built with subsidy. Some 133,556 houses have been authorised, many of them by the right hon. Gentleman himself, up to 1st May last. I was rather in hopes that he would have given us the figures up to 1st June, but I presume we shall get those in a week's time. Out of that number, one-third are being built by local authorities, and no less than two-thirds are being built by private enterprise. These are figures given, not by myself, but by the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to questions generally by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), month by month in this House, and they cannot be gainsaid. Of that number, 10,519 are already completed, and many of them are occupied. There are under construction 36,000 of these houses, of which 14,000 are already roofed in, and there are 85,380 houses included in definite arrangements of which the finance has been settled or contracts entered into. The right hon. Gentleman took the building year to the end of September next. Having regard to the number completed, the number under construction, the number under contract, I say to him—and it is for the Committee to form its opinion—that there will be a very considerably larger number than 40,000 houses built by the end of September this year.
  Mr. WHEATLEY Mr. WHEATLEY indicated dissent.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I say

  1127
  that 10,000 are completed, 14,000 are roofed in, and another 24,000 are already being built.
  Mr. BATEY: How many since 1914?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We all know what took place during the War. It was common ground with all of us that we could not build them during the War, and we all want them built at the present time. The difference is that we want to get the right hon. Gentleman to permit of private enterprise building these houses, to give private enterprise a chance to build them, and not to make them all State-aided or municipally-aided houses. He made another remark, in regard to houses built for what he calls rich people. He said there are houses being built outside the subsidy scheme, and he gave the figure of 70,000 such houses, a much better number than I thought. I should have been quite satisfied if he had told me that 40,000 houses were being built to-day outside the subsidy scheme, but he has given us the figure of 70,000. Nearly all of these are small houses.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: No.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What do you call small houses?
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Many of them are houses which are within the terms of this Act, but which got no subsidy because the very object of my right hon. Friend and myself—and I had many cases before me—was not to waste public money in giving a subsidy unless it was needed. If a proposal was put before me to build houses, say, in a suburb of London or a great city where there was a large demand for this subsidy type of house, I said: "There is no need to give you a subsidy. Go you, and build your houses. You can sell them and get rid of them, and you will make a profit." A very large number of that kind were refused by us, and I dare-say by the right hon. Gentleman too, because there was no need to waste the subsidy where houses were being built by private enterprise. I will give him another case. When I was at the Ministry I tried to find out how many large houses were being built. Last year only 800 houses of more than 12 roams were built
  1128
  in this country. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh!"] Hon. Members will surely allow people to have larger houses if they wish it? The great bulk of these houses are being built without subsidies; and 70,000 small houses are being built for the working-class population.
  Mr. CLIMIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us any district where small houses which would come under the subsidy are being built now and where the subsidy has not been paid?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, certainly, I can tell the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBER: "Go to Wembley!"] Yes, go to Wembley, or to Malden, and you will find case after case. I myself have refused subsidies for houses which came within the limit of the Act of my right hon. Friend. There is no question about that.
  Mr. VIVIAN: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Climie) is quite wrong. We are doing it oursleves.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no doubt about it. If my hon. Friend opposite will put a question to his own colleague, the Minister of Health, he will find any number of cases where houses that would otherwise be liable for the subsidy are getting no subsidy. There is no need to waste public money the demand for houses is so great that when they are built they are easily disposed of. I think we shall succeed in building these houses. The whole case of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health is based not on houses to sell, but on houses to let. I join issue with him completely. Give me 100,000 houses. I do not care what becomes of them. People will go into them, and people will vacate other houses.
  Mr. MARLEY: The workers always get second-class houses, and always have got them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is quite true. They live in second-class houses all their lives.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I remember the house I first lived in. It must be a very second-hand house by now. What we have to try to do is to get private enterprise going. The right hon. Gentleman opposite taunted us on this side with being anxious as to private enterprise; but we have got to get the engine going. What we want is that the right hon.

  1129
  Gentleman shall not interfere -with the engine and stop it. If he will see to that, it will go faster. I want the Committee to consider the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us that he is counting on 100,000 houses per annum. I think that is an entirely fallacious statement. I think 60,000 or 70,000 houses will be considerably nearer the mark, but I am giving his own figures for the moment.
  The real crux of his difficulty is the labour question. Anyone who is going to build more houses has in some way to provide more labour. How is he going to get over that difficulty? The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with it. He has shirked the question. He has handed it over to this statutory or non-statutory committee. He has told the committee that they must find some way to guarantee the number of houses. He has said that he would not be responsible. The House of Commons, which rules this country, is not to be responsible. He has told this committee: "You must do it. I will trust to you to find the labour, and so on." [An HON. MEMBER: "You shirked it."] I did not shirk it. If hon. Members look they will find that I did not shirk this question of dealing with labour. Just consider for a moment. I could have got. double the number of houses of the right hon. Gentleman. Take the case of Birmingham. At the end of last year—and surely this is the very essence of the case—for housing contracts running, there were 899 bricklayers: required, and on other Corporation contracts, 146, or a total of 1,045. There was a deficit in Birmingham of 606 bricklayers. These are statements by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health given in answer to questions. It appears from a question the other day that Birmingham has drained the surrounding district country and town in order to get bricklayers. In spite of that fact Birmingham is prepared to-day to -start building more than double the number of houses they are building, but they cannot get bricklayers to build them. When the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the case he spoke of the carpenters and joiners. We all know that some of these are out of work, because they cannot get to the houses: for you cannot utilise your carpenters and joiners unless you have enough bricklayers to go on building the houses. When T was Minister, Work?
  1130
  ington wanted to build 500 houses. They have there no unemployed bricklayers, one plasterer and one slater. I gave them permission to put up 24. Hull wanted 600. They had two bricklayers unemployed in Hull, no plasterers and no slaters. I gave them permission to put up 200. Norwich applied for 1,000 houses. I made inquiries here and found that in some respects Norwich was a more fortunate city than others. They had 27 bricklayers unemployed, seven plasterers, and no slaters. I gave them permission to build 200 houses.
  What happened after all this? I got the figures from the right hon. Gentleman himself. At Workington up to date there are 50 houses sanctioned and the right hon. Gentleman has sanctioned a few more. Not one has been commenced: there is no labour. At Hull out of 984 houses sanctioned, 341 have been commenced, 64 have been completed, and they have eight bricklayers unemployed which is the only town where there is unemployment in this matter. That is to say temporarily unemployed. Where have the men gone to? The fact is they are not here. We want them here. In Norwich there are 447 houses authorised, 138 begun, two completed, no bricklayers available. In Bristol there are 1,347 authorised, 471 begun, 146 completed and one bricklayer unemployed. In West Bromwich there are 271 approved, 62 begun, 17 completed. In all these places, Birmingham, Workington, Hull, Norwich, Bristol, West Bromwich, there are to-day only 13 bricklayers unemployed; and the local authorities are calling for workmen. They are energetic. They have got their authorisations, but they cannot build their houses because they cannot get the workmen to do it. The same thing applies all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us about the number of bricklayers 20 years ago and now. There are only 53,000 as against 109,000 20 years -ago. There are 13,000 plasterers against 227,000 20 years ago. There are 2,800 slaters against 8,400 20 years ago. To erect 100,000 small houses a year would require 20,000 bricklayers—that is to say, 100,000 next year in addition to those now being built. Really at the moment I am trying to find out whether if we give the right hon. Gentleman the money for which he is asking he will he able to de-liver the goods! He has asked for

  1131
  100,000 small houses of a certain type, and for these there are still required 20,000 more bricklayers, 7,000 more plasterers, and 1,700 slaters, in addition to the other workers concerned. I will not weary the House by reading further.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Go on, you are doing very well.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Anyone who desires to see these figures will find them in the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, on pages 12 and 13. Suggestions have been made by the other side that we should stop all the other work, what is termed luxury building, but the right hon. Gentleman's committee would not have that at any price —and quite rightly—because if you stop building commercial buildings, railway stations, factories, workshops and all that kind of work, because you want to get on to small houses, you break up the commerce of the country and prevent your trade competing with that of other countries. You throw out incalculably a greater number of men than you get in in the other way. These large buildings make a lot of work not only for bricklayers but for those who are engaged in the steel making that is necessary for them, and if you put 10,000 bricklayers off work of that kind and on to the smaller work you would probably throw 40,000 men out of work. Of course that cannot be done, it cannot be thought of for a moment!
  I am now coming to a matter which is rather more debatable, and that is the cause of some of this difficulty. I have not been afraid previously to express my views with reference to this matter. All through, since the close of the War, the Government of the day have tried to come to terms with the building trade unions. My right hon. Friends who were in the Coalition Government tried. Dr. Addison, as he told the House quite frankly when he was dealing with this subject, said:
  "I have got no help from organised labour in this matter."
  He made that statement in this House. In February, 1920, the building trade unions met at Manchester and passed a Resolution:
  "To resist the dilution of building trade labour with the utmost strength of our organisation."
  1132
  At that time there was a great shortage of skilled men in the building trade. The Government in December, 1920, actually offered the Building Trade Union £1,250,000 if it would take 50,000 ex-service men in and train them at £5 per head. The trade union considered this offer and they rejected it by an enormous majority. I think at that time there were 300,000 ex-service men out of employment in the country. These were men who wanted work, who were willing to work, but the trade unions would not allow them. An hon. Member suggests that it was selfishness on their part. Perhaps, but in any case they said: "We are entitled to protect ourselves. We do not recognise any liability to the ex-service men to provide them with work. We want to have nothing to do with these men, and we will not take them in." My right hon. Friend opposite, in dealing with this question of trade unions, mentioned the word "liberty."
  Where is the liberty I want liberty for the unemployed man to work at a decent trade. You have in your unions half the number of men you had twenty years ago as, far as bricklayers are concerned. Why should you keep the trade closed like that? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not closed."] Then why do you pass resolutions stating that you will resist dilution to the utmost extent of your power?
  Mr. B. SMITH: Is the profession to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs open to dilution?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The objection to the dilution proposed is to the way in which it is suggested to augment the building industry. The industry desire to allow a very much larger number of apprentices. The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that, whether you have dilutees or apprentices, you will have to train them and make them economic units, and we suggest that it is better to do this by means of apprenticeship and give them a thorough training rather than a. had training.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is your answer, and it means that no ex-serviceman need apply, because everybody must be under 20 years of age. Here is the report upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based his case. It is apprenticeship for four years, and,

  1133
  therefore, the building trade under those circumstances might just as well go and play skittles.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the report, may I point out that it says:
  "That apprentices entering the trade prior to their twentieth birthday shall serve not Jess than four years. Special consideration shall he given to applicants who have had previous experience of the trade."
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is fair to try and bowl one over by reading these extracts: but may I point out that one Clause begins:
  "The Committee further recommends that these apprentices be accepted up to 20 years of age, and special consideration shall be given to applicants who have had previous experience of the building trade. Apprentices entering the trade prior to their twentieth birthday shall serve not less than four years."
  I want to see the builders' labourers having a chance, because I am sure they could make them skilled labourers in a very few months. There are thousands of able men who are only too keen and eager to join the union and become skilled labourers. At any rate, it is clear that you have not got the men, and I am asking the Minister of Health where he is going to get his men in order to build 100,000 houses. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested a committee composed of masters and men, upon which there will be no local authority or State representative. I do not know whether the expenses of this committee will be paid for by the State or not, but I assume their expenses will be paid by the State. The right hon. Gentleman asks xis to accept his word in regard to this matter, but I think he ought to show us that there is a reasonable chance of carrying out his scheme. He admits that he has no building labour available and no unemployed bricklayers, and there is no kind of guarantee as to whether the labour required will be found or not. Before I close I want to ask some questions which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain on the Second reading. What is the meaning of the last Clause in the Financial Resolution which reads:
  "(d) To make provision for the amendment of the financial provisions of The Housing, &c, Act, 1923, and for other purposes incidental thereto or connected thoie-with.
  1134
  Does that include some other financial expenditure I know there was a demand from the local authorities that in the event of this Act bringing down the rent of the houses built under other Acts the weekly loss should be made good. I could not quite make out from the right hon. Gentleman's statement whether he means -to make that good or not. If he does, and if the loss is to be anything like 2s. 6d. a week, I suppose he expects his scheme will produce a house at less cost than the London County Council is building to-day. I understand that under the Act of 1923 they are building houses to let at something like 11s. 3d., and the computation is that the right hon. Gentleman's houses will cost 11s. 6d. per week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point, because if his scheme if. going to produce; houses at a less rent than the London County Council is now charging there will have to be a diminution of rent in the case of all those houses at Becontree and other places all over the country. Who is going to bear all that loss? That is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has not explained.
  I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) looks as though he is going to speak. I want to call his attention to the very remarkable resolution passed, I think unanimously, by the National Liberal Federation at Brighton. I am trying to discuss this matter without heat, and to find out whether these proposals will work. If they will and do not cast too heavy a burden on the country they will go forward, but if they will not work then they are light and airy schemes not in accordance with the law of gravitation or the law of supply and demand. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme is going to base himself on the resolution passed at Brighton, and which is as follows:
  "The Council of the National Liberal Federation regards the present shortage of houses as a serious and dangerous social evil, and declares that the Government should undertake full responsibility for ensuring that the necessary number of houses is built as soon as possible, making full use both of local authorities and of all suitable forms of private enterprise. The Council considers that an increase both of the number of skilled artisans and of the rate of output in the different sections of the trade is vital to the success of any housing scheme; and while it welcomes the proposal in the recent report of the Building Trades

  1135
  Committee to secure augmentation of labour, it regrets that the report appears to adopt a standard of output which is actually lower than the normal standard of 20 years ago. The Council accepts the necessity for a long period housing programme in order to increase the available supply of labour and material in a businesslike and systematic way. But it recognises the danger of such a guarantee resulting in enhanced prices, and is only prepared to support a Bill which provides the fullest possible safeguards against such a result."
  I do not think the Minister will agree with all that is in that resolution, and I want to know whether the Liberal party is going to stand by that resolution, and, at least, I hope they are, because I am in favour of private enterprise and so are they. If there be one thing that the pro posal we are considering does it kills private enterprise. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is killed already:"] The wish is father to the thought. The desire of the minister is to kill private enterprise. We know that from his speeches. He wishes to make it as dead as the hon. Member opposite thinks it is going to be. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E Simon) moved that resolution, which the Council of the Liberal Federation accepted, and in doing so he said:
  "They always came up against one difficulty. For practically the whole time there has been an inadequate supply of labour, especially of skilled labour.
  The hon. Member went on to deal with this proposal, and he said that
  "if they were going to grant enormous subsidy to housing they should exact something to the effect that it would be illegal to strike against the building of houses."
  He went on to say:
  "not absolutely illegal, because that was impossible, but compulsory arbitration; he hoped it would be possible for the Liberal party to put down Amendments on these lines."
  Then the hon. Member for Withington, amid cheers, proceeded to say:
  "In return for the definite subsidy labour should agree to the employment of a definite number of men."
  On that I agree with the Liberal party, because I want to see a definite number of men employed. He went on to say:
  "They must see that private enterprise which was willing and able to co-operate in building houses was given the fairest possible chance of doing so."
  Where is the fair chance in this Bill? The private enterprise man is left under
  1136
  the Act of 1923 to build houses with a subsidy of £75, in competition with a local authority which is going to build the same kind of houses with a subsidy of 2243. Again—
  "They must see"—
  and here also I agree with the Liberal party—
  "that the thrifty workman who had saved some money and was prepared to buy a house received generous terms. Surely the owner-occupier was the man they wanted to encourage."
  There is no sign of it in this Bill. It is wiped out In the schemes that are just now in progress, and there is one going on in my own constituency, working man after working man is building his house, or getting it built for him, potting down his £50 which he has saved, and very often bringing that £50 to the local authority in 50 £1 notes which he has put by week after week in order to make provision for building his house. They are building those houses on a loan made by the local authority under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, and they pay over 30 years, less than the amount of the rent of those houses. In 30 years a man becomes the owner of his house. That is what we want to encourage; that is what the Liberal party want in encourage; and that will be absolutely smashed under the provisions of this Bill. I want the right hon. Gentleman, before this proposal comes before us in the form of a Bill for Second Reading, to consider These things.
  I have not made a bitter speech this afternoon. I recognise the great effort which the right hon. Gentleman has made is producing this scheme. I have grave doubts as to whether it will really work, and those doubts are founded, firstly, on the enormous outgoings, and, secondly, on the grave difficulty in regard to labour. The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me that he has got the labour. I will not deal, because I am sure other Members will deal, with the question the cost of materials. That is one of the most difficult problems. The right hon. Gentleman is going to try and stop the rise in the cost of materials. That was tried during the War, and everyone knows how it failed. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he recognises that there may be a rise in the cost of wages, there may be a rise in the cost of materials, and there may be a rise in the cost

  1137
  of living, which acts and reacts; and he is going to try and prevent a rise in the profits of the man who builds, or who makes bricks, or whatever it may be. T only hope that he may be able to do it. I do not object, hut I believe it to be impossible. I believe he will get into greater trouble than he is in to-day. I believe he will stop the production of these things, which can only be produced by the free interplay of the laws of supply and demand.
  Mr. BLACK: Foreign imports!
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Wait one moment. I did not mean to do it, but, if the Committee will forgive me, part of the proposal of the building trade material people in this remarkable Report is that foreign imports should be prevented, and I will read it—
  "In the opinion of the Committee, it is extremely desirable, in the national interests, that no foreign manufactured goods should be used on houses built under Government subsidy."
  Mr. VIVIAN: May I point out that the builders' side repudiates that absolutely?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree, but I am dealing with the makers, with the origin of the materials, and you cannot suppose that they will put in Capital, make new brickfields, build new factories for the production of materials which the right hon. Gentleman must have, unless they are given this, not protection, not a tariff, bat complete blocking out of all foreign materials. That is a nut which the right hon. Gentleman has to crack at some time or other. He has not told us anything about it; he (lid not read that part of the Report; but he will have to deal with it before the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish him luck in trying to solve all these difficulties. He is a great man. He has very quickly raised himself by his abilitiy to a high position in the House of Commons, but if he can solve all these difficulties which I have put before him this afternoon, he will be one of the greatest men that have ever sat on those benches.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) on two things—firstly, on his good-tempered and interesting speech, and, secondly, on the nature of his studies day
  1138
  by day, and especially the authorities to which he goes in order to obtain sound information concerning the housing question. I can commend to him and his friends no better subject than discussions such as those which were held in the National Liberal Federation. If he is in complete agreement with them, if the ideas of my hon. Friends behind me meet with his approval, I can assure him that, with the excellent knowledge and skill he possesses, there will always be found a small corner for him on this bench when he chooses to leave a dying party and join ours. Considering the hour, and the number of other Members who will want to speak, it is obvious that it would be monstrous of me to occupy very much of the time of the Committee, and I shall, therefore, leave to my hon. Friends, both of whom are present, any justification they choose to make concerning the challenge which has been made. I shall only say that, so far as I know myself, every statement made by them is a statement to which the bulk of our party would adhere, and every statement made by them can be comprised within the, four corners of the Government Bill. If the Minister will be willing to accept with an open mind certain Amendments which are to be put upon the Paper, and will deal with the whole subject, not as the product of one party but of the House as a whole, there is not the slightest reason why this scheme of building necessary houses should not be combined also with a scheme by which men who want to own their own houses should have the fullest facilities for doing so. There is no divergence between the two, there is no opposition between the two, and there is no reason why the two should not be combined.
  I speak under the same difficulty as my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. Despite the extraordinary lucidity and excellence of the speech of the Minister of Health, we do not even know what the Bill is going to be, and, if I were to ask him all that is to he done, I should spend the remainder of my speech in showering questions upon him. All that we know is that we are provided now with a general Money Resolution. I have no criticism to make of that Resolution, certainly not on account of its wideness, because a Bill can always limit a Money Resolution. If I had any criticism to make, it would he that it is not sufficiently wide, and

  1139
  especially on one point. I cannot quite understand why the Minister should consider it necessary to draw his Resolution so tight that no houses can be built under any conditions by any local authority with the subsidy it provides, except within the very strict limits as to dimensions which the Minister denounced more than anyone else in the House, and with greater eloquence, less than a year ago. If he says he has come to an agreement with the local authorities, surely that agreement does not prevent him from putting the widest possible arrangements of a permissive character in the Bill. No local authority need build larger Houses if they do not want to do so, but, if they do, if they are moved by the very eloquent speech which the Minister made a year ago, when he stated that houses of these dimensions were not fit for working people to live in, I suggest that he should be good enough to accept an Amendment which is being proposed from these benches, and allow the fullest possible terms in the Resolution, however much he may consider it necessary to, or persuade the Committee to, limit the conditions when the Bill is brought in.
  The second point that I should like to make is this: The Minister has told us this afternoon, and I have followed the Debates on these questions for some months, of a number of agreements and conditions, some of them signed, some the result of consultation, some of which have been published, and some of which, I believe, have not hitherto been issued. I am speaking, not only for myself, but for a number of hon. Gentlemen in the House, including my right hon. Friends on these benches, when I ask if the Minister could see his way, before the Second Reading of the Bill takes place, to issue a White Paper giving us in a concise form all these various agreements? Although the right hon. Gentleman has the right, as Minister of Health and as representing the Government, to enter into tentative agreements with various authorities, I am sure he will agree that we have the right to know what those agreements are, and to say whether the House of Commons is prepared as a whole to implement the tentative arrangements he has made. I think he will probably be willing to do that. There is another point that I want to
  1140
  make at the beginning. I am not one of those who wish the right hon. Gentleman's scheme not to go through. I know so much intimately of the terrible conditions of the people at the present time, and of the result on future generations of a, continuance of those conditions, that I wish all these doubts to be removed, and all vested interests of any sort broken down, in order that this number of houses may be erected, for you are leaving a worse legacy to a subsequent generation by letting people grow up under the conditions in which they are living than any financial legacy which may be established by this Bill or by the encouragement of private enterprise.
  Let me, on the other hand, make clear what it is exactly that we are doing. With commendable fortitude and composure we are building for ourselves houses for which our children's children will pay. This is a course which is sometimes described as courageous, and is sometimes described as heroic. Whether they will use those adjectives in connection with it remains conjectural. From 1940, after the last of these houses have been built, until 1963, more than £35,000,000 of public money will have to be raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the clay in order to pay for these houses, quite apart from further houses which will be required in that generation, and all the other apparatus of slum clearance and the particular needs of future times. Therefore, although it is, easy to throw these things on posterity, we must, as the High Court of Parliament, consider what the verdict will he in the future, as to whether we do well or ill in this matter and I think it will be determined by two considerations, which I will submit with humility to the Committee. The first will be, "Is the building that you have done good enough for us, looking back on it now and considering it at this time "—in 1960, or at some other time—" or have you rather done things in your building which are not of the kind that we should have expected you to do when we have to pay for the building in our time? "The second question is," Have you had sufficient intelligence and courage"—not as a Member of a Government, but as a United Parliament, all of whom are called upon to take responsibility, and with a Government which has the right to claim that it is in a minority—"Have you had

  1141
  sufficient intelligence and courage to defy all prejudices, to break down all vested interests, not to be led away by false arguments, in order that you shall make as light as possible the burden that you are laying upon future generations, and shall not lay upon them a burden which might not have been what it was if you had adopted other possible and conceivable courses?"
  As to the general question of subsidised houses, of course, it has nothing whatever to do with Socialism at all. Socialism ought not to have been introduced into the matter. Socialism is a vague word, and very few people in the House or outside have the slightest idea what it means. If it be Socialism for a local authority to build houses, that was first started by the party opposite in 1890. If it be Socialism to subsidise houses built by local authorities, that has been done by every Government since 19L9, every one of which has made a hopeless failure of the housing question. What I should be doubtful about is this. Is the best way of subsidising what are, roughly, called the working classes, the subsidising of the houses of a certain limited number, and is not there a possible danger that you will find yourselves getting back to the same condition as when you subsidised wages—to the pre-1834 Poor Law? I offer that for consideration. I do not say that should prevent us giving a subsidy, but I say it should make us very anxious to cut that subsidy to the lowest possible dimensions, and, if possible, get to a condition when we can build without it, and to leave no stone unturned to build cheaply and quickly for the present needs which we are encountering to-day.
  Our sole test is net the price of the houses. It is the question whether by the present scheme the Minister of Health will obtain more houses and obtain them more quickly. There is only a limited number of people in the country after all, and the bulding of any houses except the houses of the rich must lighten the pressure of those who now demand houses. So it is idle to say that if you built and could let 200,000 or 300,000 houses to the middle classes, or what are sometimes unfortunately called the lower middle classes, you would riot to that extent relieve the pressure on the working people and enable large numbers of them to obtain accommodation which they cannot
  1142
  obtain at present. That makes me rather doubtful whether you ought to have such a strict limit of conditions as to the houses to which you will give a subsidy.
  Therefore you come back entirely to what is the real heart and kernel of the whole matter, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite very rightly asserted, and that is how are you going to obtain the supply of those who are going to build those houses as quickly as you can? I do not know how much the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to the Building Committee Report. I thought he had thrown it over in substantial particulars. I hoped that he had. I am certain a scheme carried out under the conditions of that Report will not receive the approval of the majority of Members of the House. He has apparently abandoned the idea of a statutory Committee to deal with labour. They demanded control over that labour. They demanded the power of disciplining those who would not come into their building trust—a rather ominous and rather unfortunate word. They demanded the power of rationing local authorities with labour. How you are going to ration local authorities with labour without raising the price at which houses are built I cannot understand.
  They demanded that there should be no migration from one place to another —fixing the workmen to one particular area. It seems to me a retrograde proposition. They demanded that there should be one labour rate for all work. They refused to accept any training of skilled labour in other trades or any training for ex-service men, except a tiny reservation that they might under certain circumstances permit some of those who are now builders labourers to come into the building trade. Their sole contribution in order to increase the supply was that they should extend the apprenticeship system which, however, should be limited to those under 20 years of age, and that only a limited number should he admitted into the building trade unless they have served four years.
  I do not know whether the right non. Gentleman has abandoned the system which one of the leaders of the building material combine said he demanded, what he called a reasonable amount of protection—and Heaven only knows what a reasonable amount of protection is—for English manufacturers of material on

  1143
  which alone a ring or combine can live, which I am glad to see the Noble Lord opposite, whose Tariff Reform sentiments are, I think, unimpeachable, denounces in a great London newspaper in the interests of the great majority of people, who demand the freest possible play and the freest possible encouragement for the cheapest possible material to be brought in untaxed from every corner of the world. This is the heart of the whole matter.
  It is nonsense for anyone on these benches—I have not the impertinence to speak of hon. Members opposite—to say that, by asking for a larger supply of labour in this great emergency, we either want to war against or destroy trade unions, or that we want to bring down the wages of those who are in the building industry. The thing is grotesque. What are we faced with? Every trade unionist, every builder, every skilled craftsman in the building trade is fully occupied at present. You are now going to give a guarantee of continuous employment to the building trade, and you are going enormously to increase the output through the building of your 2,500,000 horses, in addition to the houses you may build through private enterprise.
  Have we not the right to demand this one thing in return from the building trade? If we give you a 15 years' guarantee and you have not got the men in the trade to do this work, ought not you to come to the help of the nation, not to build cinemas and houses for the wealthy but houses for the very poorest of the community, by either allowing the Minister to train or yourself undertaking the training of the large numbers of skilled men in other trades who are now out of employment and receiving nothing but a miserable dole on which to live and of the men who were fighting in the War and could not go into any system of apprenticeship just because they were saving this nation in a dark hour. Unless you do that, your scheme will fail. If you do not do it it will be denounced as a fraud and sham, and it will be rightly denounced. If you will undertake, either in friendly negotiation with the building trade or by Government training of these men, not only to produce the necessary rearrangement in industry, but to give to an industry which is demanding these
  1144
  thousands of skilled men an opportunity of getting them in the public interest, your Bill will go through with general acclamation, and we shall be the first to congratulate you when it is passed.
  Let me now speak honestly to hon. Members above the Gangway. There is not one single member of any great trade union here to-day who does not realise in what chaos and disorganisation the building trade has been. I do not want to attack the employer or the employed. The building trade is a protected trade, and has every vicious element of a protected trade. I do not want to go any further than the testimony of the Prime Minister himself. Last February, when outlining the Labour scheme, he said:
  "Ca'canny has become the policy of both sides."
  There is not one of our great export trades which, if it was carried on as the building trade has been carried on up to DOW, would not be bankrupt and unable to maintain the export trade of the country. We do not seek to destroy the union, but to strengthen it. Take men who have been their comrades in other unions. Take the skilled engineers. They responded in the time of the War to the vast demand for engineers for the making of munitions, and under no circumstances which I can realise will those engineers be able to be re-absorbed in the engineering trade. They have to go to other trades. They are the largest trade that is unemployed. Here is a trade which wants 20 or 3o thousand more men at once, as soon as those men can be trained. No one will make me believe that a man who is a skilled engineer cannot be trained as a bricklayer or a plasterer. We ask for new methods. We ask for a reduction of cost in so far as it can be obtained by free competition. We ask for building quickly. We ask for new materials and methods of building houses in any way in which those houses can be built efficiently and cheaply. We ask, as far as possible, that this, great burden may he removed from posterity and that these houses may be let at economic rents, without those who are in them feeling that they are pensioners on the service of the State. I believe that in stating that I am carrying with me the overwhelming majority of the party above the Gangway.
  My last appeal is this. I have gone back and have read with interest a great and

  1145
  eloquent speech, with no unnecessary sob-stuff, a very moving account of his own childhood which the Minister of Health made something like a year ago in this House. He was then moving the rejection on the Second Reading of the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain). He moved it for various reasons. One was that there was nothing in it for obtaining the acquisition of the land necessary for building. I hope that will be in his Bill. Another was that there was nothing in it which would control rings and combines, which I regret to say he has now unfortunately fallen a victim to in amorous relations. He said there was only one way of undertaking the manufacture of building materials required for the housing problem, and that was some national undertaking. But, above all—this is what specially appealed to me—speaking for the future as well as the present, he appealed against the dimensions and the nature of the houses the right hon. Gentleman was going to build. It is true the dimensions were slightly enlarged in Committee, but I do not think in substance he would disagree with these words to-day:
  "The houses are too small—they are miserably small. Those houses will never be homes. They will very soon be slums.….He is here laying clown the standard of housing in this country, not merely for to-day, but for 30 years to come—that he is stereotyping poverty. Why do you propose these boxes for our people? Are they inferior people to you? Are they less useful to the community than you? All these proposals emanate from men who believe in their souls that Britain is a spent force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April. 1943: col.335; Vol.163.]
  He does not believe Britain is a spent force. Let him give us an opportunity not of providing boxes, but satisfactory homes, for which his name will be honoured 30 years hence and not merely to-day, in the attempt to solve a difficult Question. One last general remark. We hive had two schemes during this last week dealing with the future, and here I want to appeal to the Committee without the slightest question of party at all. The one is to provide continuous benefit apart from contribution perhaps to a million men for an indefinite number of years. The other is to provide for those men and for others subsidised houses, in which the community in future will be both contributing to the cost of those
  1146
  men who are living in idleness under the unemployment scheme, and who will be living, not rent free, but at subsidised rents under the housing scheme. I say in all seriousness, to quote a historical statement,
  "that is a condition to dizzy and appal."
  7.0 P.M.
  It is not a civilisation; it is the negation of a civilisation. It is not a condition that we ought to contemplate for a moment as the condition of England in the twentieth century. I believe the continuous idleness and unemployment may be solved on the lines for which we pressed last Thursday. I believe these great subsidies may be removed if the right hon. Gentleman will take the decision, for which he is pressed from all questions, to build cheaply and quickly
  by breaking through all those regulations, and getting the men who are willing to work in the building of houses to contribute to the general nature of the scheme. I will guarantee that if he does that, though the scheme may have sonic opposition, he will be a bigger man and break down that opposition. In relations with the building industry, he will have the whole spirit of the House behind him, and he may get rid of these subsidies and the parasitic life into which we may turn large numbers of our work people if we are not careful, and which may lie as a nightmare on the generations to come.
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This afternoon we have heard from the Minister of Health the outline of a scheme which may do much to set on foot a rather more definite scheme of house building than we have had since the War. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches when I say with what satisfaction we have heard the statement of the Minister of Health. He has been in his office some appreciable time in working out the details of his scheme. He has discussed the principles upon which he would work with the employers and the workpeople in the building industry and with representatives of the local authorities. I think it must be admitted, having heard the scheme which he has put before the House, that the time that he has spent in securing sound foundations for his scheme has been time well spent, and is going to be productive and secure a degree of permanence for his

  1147
  scheme much greater and much more real than the schemes of his predecessors Those who have been engaged in the work of local authorities since the War have been appalled by the way in which, after housing schemes come along and have had their period of popularity and prosperity, prices have soared and reactionary in fluences have got to work and the speed of house building has gone down to zero once again. There was the scheme of Dr. Addison. There have been schemes since. I remember, on the London County Council, Lord Downham, a very enthusiastic Conservative for development, to whose efforts in this direction London owes a good deal, persuading the council to engage in a large housing scheme, and in a year or so a recommendation came forward to revert to the formal slow pace of building. I feel that there is a degree of permanence about this scheme which the Minister has brought forward, and its fundamental characteristic of endeavouring to get a scheme operating for fifteen years is the right spirit in which the housing problem should be faced.
  The House has been discussing, and it will be discussing, on the initiative of hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway, the question of labour supply in the industry. The two biggest problems about the future of house building are the question of the supply of materials at reasonable prices and the adequate supply of labour. It would be foolish in the extreme if one denied that the problem of the labour supply, as well as the problem of the material supply, has been a real problem in the housing situation in recent years. It is a problem which statesmen and Members of Parliament have got to face, but I would beg the House, both the Conservative party and the Liberal party, not only to face the actuality of the labour shortage, but to face the psychological conditions which have produced that shortage in the building industry. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever read a book entitled "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. I would heartily recommend them to read it. There is a good deal of bad language in it, but it is none the worse for that and it describes in the most understanding and sympathetic way the psychology of the building trades workman. What was the trouble of the building trades
  1148
  workmen before the War! I want hon. Members to realise that if there has been a monopolistic instinct about the building trade unions it is not the fault of the workmen so much, it is not because of any anti-social instinct on the part of the workmen; it is a product of a social order which incites the workman from the cradle to the grave to look out for himself and let the general interests of society take second place.
  The conditions of building trade labour before the War were these: The workman had it impressed upon him when he started the building of a house, that the sooner the job was finished the sooner was the likelihood of him becoming unemployed and thrown on the industrial scrap heap. That is a real psychological factor, which Members must take into account when dealing with the question of building trade labour. The whole incentive to the workman, whether he be labourer or skilled m. chanic in the industry before the War, was to make the job last in order to 1.ut off the evil day of unemployment. I here was an extraordinary degree of unemployment in the industry. There ware seasonal fluctuations. Members must know that it was the practice of the painter to get exceedingly busy on Good Friday morning in painting the local butcher's shop and getting slack at other times. There was a whole social incentive for the workman, first of all, to make, the job last, and to prevent other workmen coming into the industry. If we are going to deal with the problem of labour shortage, we have to give the workmen in the industry a sense of security, confidence, and of conviction that, if they will lo their duty by the State, the State will play the square game by the workmen in the building industry. I think the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) will admit that the building industry did not have a square deal from the State and society before the War It was neglected. The workmen had long periods of unemployment. Society was indifferent to their sufferings, and I am perfectly sure that if society will give a square deal to the workmen, the workmen on their part will give a square deal to society.
  The basis and principle upon which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has proceeded is that there shall be reasonable security of employment during

  1149
  the next 15 years. When we give the workmen that security we are entitled to say to them, "There must be reasonable recruitment of labour into the industry and particularly into the skilled occupations in the industry." That is conceded by the trade unions. It is really absurd to think you can within a fortnight make a skilled bricklayer. Bricklaying is an exceedingly skilled occupation. There was a great deal of discussion after the War as to the ability of bricklayers to lay bricks, as to the number of bricks they were laying, and, apart from the incentive to lay few bricks in order to make the job last, I was assured by an architect, who certainly was not a Labour man or a Socialist, that what we were suffering from largely was that the bricklayer had been out of his job for many years and had lost part of his skill. Therefore, it should be appreciated that the skill in these occupations is not rapidly secured and that we have to make due allowance.
  The National Building Committee and the employers and workpeople have put forward two proposals. I confess I want to be satisfied that there is going to be adequate recruitment into the industry. It is stated in the Report that the existing labour in the industry can be almost wholly occupied in commercial work. It has to be recognised that commercial work requires a different character of skill from house building. I think Members might give sufficient credit to the proposals and the Report itself. First of all, it is stated that there shall be recruitment by way of an extended apprenticeship scheme to young people under 20 years of age. It is apparently accepted by the employers and the work-people in the industry that there is a great advantage in bringing people into skilled occupations while they are young, supple and nimble in the years under 20. I do not think the- right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) attached sufficient importance to the sentence which follows, namely:
  "that special consideration shall, however, be given to applicants who have had previous experience of the trade; for example, building trade labourers."
  I read that is a proposal that the restriction of age shall not be applicable to labourers whom it is suggested should be
  1150
  promoted to the rank of skilled craftsmen. I suggest, without prejudice to the interests of the ex-service men which all of us are exceedingly anxious to meet—a good many labourers themselves are ex-service men—that instead of wholesale recruitment outside of the industry, there is a good deal to be said for the promotion of the unskilled labourer into the skilled ranks. He has been regarded sometimes, even by other workpeople, as belonging to a kind of lower grade, and surely it is in the interests of the industry itself that the unskilled labourer should have the first claim for promotion into the ranks of the skilled craftsmen in the industry of which he is already a member, and that then there should be recruited as unskilled labour workpeople from outside in which special consideration might well be given to the claims of the ex-service men. On practical grounds and on the legitimate ambitions of the labourer himself, that is the proper way to proceed, and I submit that that is already in the Report of the Committee by the sentence which I have read: Firstly, the recruitment of apprentices; secondly, the recruitment by promotion of the labourer to the ranks of the skilled craftsmen.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree with your interpretation of the Report as against my right hon. Friend, but your third point is not made in the Report.
  Mr. MORRISON: It is not in words, hat surely it is clear that if you have apprentices, and then, if you can promote the labourer to skilled craftsmen, you create a shortage of labourers. There has never been any great limitation on the employment of labourers within the industry. The whole problem has been with the skilled craftsmen.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The Minister of Health stated just now that there were very few builders' labourers and therefore there could not be that accession by progression. They have all gone.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. There is any number of them.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am only quoting the Minister of Health.
  Mr. MORRISON: I certainly did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say what the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has described.
  Sir K. WOOD: I will show it to you.
  Mr. MORRISON: Well, show it to-morrow. I need not deal with it now. Above all, this problem of labour supply has to be dealt with on the basis of giving he workmen security and confidence. Hon. Members opposite are for ever claiming that yon must give capital a sense of confidence. There is something in that, but if it is right that capital should be given confidence and security, surely it is equally reasonable that the workman should be given confidence and security. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you extend that to the agricultural labourer?"] Yes, I want everybody to have sufficient security. My claim is that the workman has not had it. The incentive on the part of trade unions to become close corporations is an incentive for which neither the workman nor the union are to blame. It is really ascribable to the conditions appertaining to the capitalistic system prevailing in this country. That is why I am a Socialist. The onus is on these who condemn, to produce social conditions in which it will not be necessary. The difficulty is that hon. Members condemn the workmen for looking after themselves. The basis of the social system is that the individual shall put his interests before the interests of society, but one cannot expect the humble worker to practice all the virtues of Socialism—and they are many—under a capitalistic system. Therefore, we have to get a fair deal for the workmen, and my right hon. Friend is trying to do that. We have a right, to expect, when we do get it, that we shall secure from the workman a fair deal with the community in return.
  Further, we have to recruit from outside into the industry steadily. You are not going to recruit from outside into an industry which is one of the most insecure industries in the country. We shall have to make fathers who want to apprentice their sons to the industry feel that if they put them into the industry they are going to get a decent chance of a. livelihood. No father is going to spend money on apprenticing his son in order to put him into an industry in which foe half the year he may be out of work. It
  1152
  has been said we ought to look to private enterprise, rather than to public enterprise, to meet the shortage in the building industry. The Minister of Health has not excluded private enterprise from the possibility of activities under the scheme he is proposing. If private enterprise can do the job sufficiently well, there is nothing in the British Constitution or in the laws of Parliament to prevent from doing it. I notice an hon. Member opposite laughs. He is a great champion of private enterprise, but I repeat that if it can justify itself against municipal enterprise let it have a go. When private enterprise and municipal enterprise, however, meet on a basis of equality, private enterprise usually fails. It is perfectly true that the pre-War housing estates et the London County Council show a doubled return as compared with before the War. [An HON. MEMBER: What was the capital before the War?"] I am comparing municipal enterprise with private enterprise. Private enterprise in the matter of pre War housing complained that they were losing money.
  All this superstition—this sheer superstition—that municipal enterprise is inefficient is absolute nonsense, it is private enterprise which is inefficient. Members have only to walk around London and look at its architecture, so dull and so monotonous, to look at the similar houses which show no sort of planning, and. they must come to the conclusion that private enterprise has failed. Hon. Members are willing to spend money on slum clearances, yet what are slums but the products of private enterprise? The money spent on sanitary inspectors represents an outlay due again to private enterprise. We have to face considerable expenditure under this Bill, but I think the proposals of the Minister, far from cutting across the principle advocated by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks)—he suggested that we ought to look ahead in our budgetting and finance—prove that that is the very thing which the Minister is doing. Even if it does involve a substantial expenditure of money, may I point out what existing private enterprise in housing has cost the ratepayers of London. In addition to the money spent on slum clearances, the Public Health Services are largely the product of bad housing conditions, the result of private enterprise. A considerable pro-

  1153
  portion of the £1,880,000 spent by the London ratepayers on Public Health Services other than housing is to be ascribed to private enterprise. So, too, is the £500,000 spent on tuberculosis and the £125,000 spent on sanitary inspectors. Nearly the whole of our expenditure on sanitary inspectors is money we have to spend to keep private enterprise in order so that it shall keep its houses in proper repair.
  We need more public enterprise in housing, we want more architectural variety. In spite of the shortcomings and false economy of the Geddes Report, municipal enterprise shows a far greater sense of variety in the building of houses than does private enterprise. I think the scheme that the Minister has put before the House is the most hopeful scheme of housing development we have had since the War. It is true that the amount of subsidy is large, but that is necessary in view of the fall in wages of the work-people and the fact that they cannot possibly afford to pay an economic rent. The rents of many of our municipal housing estates have been fixed by orders issued by previous Ministers of Health and are too high.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: And issued by the present Minister of Health as well.
  Mr. MORRISON: There have been a number of cases in which there have been reductions of rent.
  Lord E. PERCY: In my own constituency the Minister of Health is insisting that the council shall increase the rents.
  Mr. MORRISON: I have cases where the Minister has sanctioned reductions of rent, but, under existing legislation and existing regulations, he is compelled to observe four factors, and he cannot get out of that. This scheme he is now proposing will tend to secure a good class of house at a lower rent.
  Lord E. PERCY: A higher rent.
  Mr. MORRISON: Lower than the rents which would obtain under existing legislation. I think that is very necessary. The rents of some of the municipal houses are undoubtedly too high and ought to be lowered. The scheme which has been put forward by the Minister, the patient negotiations which have taken place—
  1154
  and which have been scorned by hon. Members, although it was a profoundly important factor in dealing with this problem that the Minister should secure the goodwill of the industry—the sound basis on which he has proceeded, and the good plans he has made, in my judgment holds out the greatest hope in dealing with this housing problem—far greater hope indeed than we had under any scheme submitted to the House or the country by any other Minister of Health since the conclusion of the great War.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am sure the House has heard with considerable interest the speech which has just been delivered. It is a very fair speech, and recognises a good many of the difficulties of the present problem. I share the view expressed this afternoon by more than one speaker, that the real problem with which we are faced to-day is not a question of finance but rather a question of men and materials. I am very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman has with such perfect frankness recognised that situation. While I have great admiration for many of the qualities of the present Minister of Health I have always thought he has taken a wrong view as to the difficulty of the problem of housing. I remember very well what he said last year when he was criticising the provisions of the last Housing Act, but really to-day he has gone along the same lines. A year ago he said that the housing problem is not one of house building but is really a problem of finance. T entirely differ from that view of the problem. Hon. Members will give me this credit, that I have never grudged proper sums of money being paid for a reasonable scheme of housing. Money has never been the difficulty. I have been associated with a good many schemes in this House in connection with housing, and it has not been money that has been the trouble. There has been no more generous country in the world, if you can call it generosity, as regards the money which has been given to housing in this country. There has been no country in the world that has spent so much on this question. Money has not been our difficulty, and it is not our difficulty to-day. Our difficulty is the difficulty of men and materials.
  The first thing that interested me in this scheme was to see how exactly the

  1155
  Minister of Health is going to act as far as men in particular are concerned and materials in the second place. It is true, and we must give them credit for it, that the building trade has a past which they cannot easily forget. I want to be fair in any criticism I make. While they have a past, they must, as reasonable men, bear this fact in mind, that there is no industry in the country that has such a future in front of it as far as work is concerned, because it is not only housing schemes that are waiting for them, but great commercial enterprises, places of amusement and so on, are all waiting to be built. Whilst we can sympathise with the difficulties with which they have been faced, we must, as reasonable men, ask them to look at this matter in the same way as everybody else looks upon it, and to realise that there is room in the building trade to-day, without any exaggeration, for another 50,000 skilled men. 1 dc not know anyone who, leaving their political prejudice on one side, will dispute that statement.
  All that this scheme comes to is this, that, there is a very definite scheme presented as far as apprenticeship is concerned. That is set out in the greatest detail, but when we come to the point of the building trade labourers we find a most indefinite paragraph. We must realise that to-day we are making the bargain. We are being asked, quite properly, to vote a very large expenditure of money, and this is the time when we have to make the bargain. We are asked, very precisely, to vote for a certain Financial Resolution, and, therefore, we must expect preciseness and a definite arrangement when we come to the other side of the picture. What we find is this:
  "Special consideration shall, however, be given to applicants who have had previous experience of the trade."
  That may mean anything or it may mean nothing. If there is one thing that anyone who is in the building trade knows, it is that these men could be very largely used in erecting houses. The apprenticeship scheme has not been successful—to day one-third extra number of apprentices could be taken on even under the old conditions—and one reason why people will not be apprenticed to the building trade is that whenever an apprentice has been two or three years in
  1156
  the building trade, and getting rather a low rate of remuneration, suddenly you see a building labourer coming along and doing exactly the same work as the apprentice and getting twice the amount of money for it. That is one of the difficulties of the situation. So far as the proposal is made in this building trade document, the building trade could, to-morrow, without any breach of faith being alleged against them, say:
  "We did not give any undertaking as far as that is concerned."
  It is a fair thing to say that the Minister of Health was at one time in favour of dilution of the building trade. Is it not also fair to say that he has failed to bring about dilution? I will tell hon. Members why I say that. I had sent to me a copy of the article written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or:
  the housing plans of the Government. It is headed:
  "Socialist Cabinet offer 15 years' building programme of municipal housing to relieve unemployment by extensive public work. Human life put before capitalist profits. By Philip Snowden. M.P., Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer."
  I quote from this article, because I was surprised at what the Minister of Health said about dilution. He said something about abandoning freedom, and that we were going to become slaves if we go in for dilution. That was not the view of the Exchequer, because, referring in the article to the difficulty of building labour, he says:
  "The question of labour is a very difficult one. The suspension of house building for 5 years during the War led to the depletion of the building trade. Apprentices did not go in for the trades. Many men formerly employed in the industry drifted into other occupations. A great many migrated to the Colonies and America. The result is that the available supply of skilled labour is only about half that which existed before the War"—
  Then there comes this very valuable statement:
  "and is quite inadequate for such a big housing scheme as the Government now contemplate. The building trade unions have hitherto, naturally, resisted the dilution of their industry"—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no objection to using that word. He faces the problem—
  "by the introduction of large numbers of semi-skilled men. They had no guarantee that there would be work for them for any lengthened period. The building trades in

  1157
  the pre-War days often suffered terribly from unemployment. That experience has left a lasting impression. More men and, indeed, a -large number of additional men"—
  Hon. Members will notice the word "men"—
  "for the skilled branches of the building trade are needed if the large programme of housing now contemplated is carried out. If the trade unions can get a guarantee of continuous work for the men said to be needed for the scheme "—
  They have got that, the Minister of Health has told us that this afternoon—
  "their objections to dilution will be removed."
  That is the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the colleague of the Minister of Health, which appeared in the "New Leader" of Saturday, 8th March. Therefore, it must have been written a fortnight or, possibly, a week before tint date. There is no doubt that at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health and the Government were expecting the trade, in return for the 15 years' guarantee, to give them a proper and adequate form of dilution. The Government have failed to obtain that, and I think it is a great pity that, they have failed, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "A Labour Government is in a much better position to negotiate with the building trades unions on the subject of dilution than a government of the employing class."
  After all that advantage, it is a matter of regret that the dilution which was contemplated by the Government, by the Minister of Health, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been obtained. I want to be perfectly frank when I say, that until this Government or some other Government does obtain—I do not mind by what means or what they give in return—the accession of numbers that I have mentioned, namely, some 50,000 skilled men in their appropriate crafts, they will get very few houses erected in this country. I am not particularly concerned with 15 years ahead. When I look at this scheme I look at it—I have had some experience of previous schemes and of the high hopes that were raised then—as to what is going to be done during the next two or three years. That is what the country is looking for. The people of the country are not particularly interested in what is going to happen in 1930 or 1935. They want to know how
  1158
  many houses are going to be built during the next two or three years.
  One of the most melancholy things this afternoon in the undoubtedly able speech which the Minister of Health made, was the confession that he did not anticipate being able to build in the next year even the number of houses that were built under the scheme of two years ago. It is a most regrettable thing, not from the point of view of party, but from the point of view of the people who are living under such discomfort, that the right hon. Gentleman has to make that statement after all the efforts he has made. I give him credit that he has done his very best to come to an agreement in this matter, but at the end of it, all that he is able to promise is that during next year we shall have a less number of houses built than were actually built two years ago. I think that is the greatest condemnation that we could make of this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman can promise all sorts of things and talk of the enormous sum of money that is to be spent and of the 15 years programme, but what people are really anxious about is this: "Is there any chance of my getting a decent house next week or next month?" It is not a question of getting a decent house 15 years hence. It is no use bringing in a Bill for your grandchildren. You must bring in a Bill for the people to-day. I am surprised that this is the result, after the boasts of the Prime Minister. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister said at York—and this was not in his state of innocence before he came into office—
  "We have had other Governments in favour of housing but they had not the grip of the housing problem and how to solve it which the present Government possesses."
  Yet to-day we have the confession, and I am sorry that it is so, that under this scheme in the first year we must expect fewer houses than were built under the scheme of two years ago. With respect to the question of materials, hon. Members may remember that when the last scheme was introduced by the ex-Minister of Health I took a very strong view on the question of profiteering in materials, and I got up against my own party a year ago and said that they were behaving too generously or with lack of foresight in not taking stronger powers to deal with the situation. There is another most unfortunate fact from the point of view of the future success of

  1159
  this particular scheme to which I would draw attention. In this building trade report, which the Minister of Health says is a very valuable one, they put forward this very extraordinary assumption that houses to-day are being built at the cheapest possible price. I do not believe it for a moment. I urged the Minister of Health a month ago, before he embarked upon this scheme of committing us to an arrangement with the building trade, to appoint a Committee of three to look into the present cost of building, and to see whether we were really justified in entering into a bargain on present price's. He did not do it. I should have thought that it was an ordinary precaution to have taken.
  We know that during the last few months the price of the non-parlour house has gone up £100. That information is given in an answer which the Minister of Health gave to me a few days ago. Whether the price has gone up £100 or not, it would have been a very wise step to have taken before we embarked upon this scheme, with all the money that is to be spent upon it, to see whether we were getting a fair article in return for a reasonable price. The Minister of Health has been in office for over five months. From the time that he took office he has been urged again and again, from all quarters of the House, to take further powers for the Committee which was supposed to be watching prices, and doing nothing else. He has allowed five months to go by and to-day he says that he is going to bring in a Profiteering Bill. It is too late. He is going to begin on the assumption that the present prices are right.
  Mr. McENTEE: No. The prices last January.
  Sir K. WOOD: Even if he goes back to that date, very few people would contend that that is a fair basis to take. It is not a fair basis. He ought to have had some investigation in order to see why it is he is going to take the prices of last January. I am afraid very much that when be tries to frame a Bill dealing with profiteering in relation to materials he will find that he has done it too late. I would not cast a vote against this proposal, because I have seen so many schemes that I am inclined to say to any that come along:
  1160
  "For Heaven's sake do your best, and get on with it." This is a matter of which time will be the true judge. I wonder what my hon. Friend opposite who spoke so eloquently of the scheme this afternoon will think of it in a year's time. I want to be perfectly fair. I say that, during the next two years of this scheme, you will find fewer houses built under it than under any scheme that has been introduced in this House, because I venture to think it is a very great mistake in any trade to ask the employers and men to promote a scheme, human nature being what it is, and to say they are to have a Committee to organise it, and to accept the figures which they put down as the price at which you are to carry it out. I do not wish to make accusations against any body of men, but I venture to say that if you asked any class or group of people to-day to work under a scheme which they were framing, I should not blame them if they were to put forward the very best terms so far as they themselves were concerned.
  I do not want to be unduly critical of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have seen a good many Ministers of Health, and I can say that nobody has boasted so much as he has done. He is the only man who has announced that he has solved the housing problem. I was wondering how he came to say that, because a constituent of his the other day sent me some little pamphlets of a previous scheme in which the Minister of Health was interested. It is called, "All about the £8 Cottages. By Councillor John Wheatley," and it is all explained in a speech in which the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland may be interested, because I see his name is mentioned. It says:
  "Councillors John Wheatley and J. S. Taylor replied to the critics of the Labor Party £8 Cottage Scheme, at the Metropole Theatre, on Sunday evening. Councillor John Kerr, who presided over an attendance below the average intimated that Baillie James Stewart was unable to speak owing to illness."
  We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman has so much recovered since then. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] This was March. 1914. [Ho N. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will hon. Members wait till they have heard it? Because this £8 scheme was nothing to do with "before the War," or prices, or anything else.

  1161
  This is how the Minister of Health was going to build £8 houses:
  "Councillor Wheatley said that owing to the housing propaganda greater interest than ever was being shown in the policy of the Labour party. It was now generally admitted that poverty was at the root of the housing problem, and that the people lived in bad houses because their wages were too small to permit of them paying for a goad house. This was largely due to the fact that profit and interest absorbed at least one-half of the amount paid in rent."
  I fancy I heard some echo of that in the speech this afternoon:
  "He took it that the first principle of Socialism was the abolition of profit and interest. Every Socialist ought to subscribe to that, or get outside the Socialist movement."
  This was his solution for the £8 cottage:
  "The only method by which they could establish Socialism was to provide their own capital free of interest."
  Then he suggested that they should either raid the tramway surplus and not pay any interest for it or go to the national Exchequer and get money free of interest, and so the right hon. Gentleman in those old days was to secure his cottage. Of course, it never eventuated, and, therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will feel a little chastened for his recent experience. I can say this to him, as he knows, with perfect good will, that there have been a good many Ministers who have sat in his place, and, perhaps, not spoken so loudly or boasted so much, who had the same ideals, and, perhaps, worked just as hard as he has. If say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will get no further, or very little further with this scheme, not on account of the lack of money in this country, or the fact that the country does not desire to spend it, because my own view is that if you could put forward a reasonable scheme, you would hardly get a Member to vote against it, and if he did he would come off very badly in his constituency. But he has not solved the great difficulty, and that is the question of men. Until he gets back to the suggestion his own Chancellor of the Exchequer made, namely, to provide, on reasonable terms and with proper satisfaction to the building trade, a reasonable system of dilution, I say he will get very few houses built in this country. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will consider that very serious side of the present situation.
  Mr. FRANKLIN: I would like to congratulate the Minister upon the housing proposition he has launched with high hopes, and to express the hope that he will be more successful than any of his predecessors. Before touching upon the financial aspects of the scheme, may I call to mind one who first launched a scheme of housing in this House, who started also with high hopes, and who was a good man striving against adversity? I refer to Mr. Hayes-Fisher, the last President of the Local Government Board, who, on the 28th October, 1918, presented the first of the building schemes to this House, and I do hope that, as we pass along, perhaps under a different ensign, with a different cargo, but bound for the same port, we will dip our ensign in respect and affection to the memory of a man who did his best.
  I want to deal as shortly as I possibly can with the scheme, which I should like to divide into three parts. The first is getting the houses. Doubts have been expressed about this, and I do hope the Minister will accept houses from whomsoever they may come. Houses are the first consideration. The next consideration is how to pay for those houses; and the third consideration is how to arrange the finance so as to bring down the rents of those houses, and eventually reduce them to pre-War standards. The first and most important question we have to deal with is the question of money. Money or credit is the raw material of all enterprises, and the cheaper we can get money, the less will be the burden upon the nation. You cannot get capital by frightening people. If you attempt a scheme by which you give little security to capital, then the rates demanded by capital will be somewhat high, and, instead of paying, as you would now have to pay, some 4¾ per cent. for money, you would be paying 6 or 7 per cent. or whatever was necessary in order to induce people to forego various things, and to give you what we have always understood to be the stored-up product of labour of past days. The very moment that you create suspicion, capital remains either in its stocking or hank, and, in order to induce it to come forward, you have got to pay so much more.
  For that reason, the first consideration in any scheme of this kind must be how you can best obtain the money at the lowest possible rate. I would beg

  1163
  the Minister to consider what took place in 1920, and not to repeat the mistake that was made then by allowing each municipal authority to compete, and to compete on higher and higher terms for the use of credit. In 1920, at the commencement of the scheme, money was offered at 5¼ per cent, but by allowing competition between the various authorities, drawing upon the one pool where money was obtainable, you drove up the cost of money, even for the big cities and municipalities, to 6½ per cent, which meant that instead of paying 5s. 3d., you paid 6s. 6d., or whatever it was. Therefore, I do press upon the Government to have only one borrower, and, if you have one borrower, I believe you will be able to raise money on some form of local government security somewhere between £4 13s. and £4 15s. per cent, Another figure I should like to give—because I shall have to deal with that afterwards, when we consider in what way we can reduce rates—is this: The amount required every year to enable you to pay 4i per cent. on money, and return the money at the end of 40 years, is £2 16s. ld. every half year, or £5 12s. 2d. each year. If you take your house at £500, and allow £20 as the cost of the land, you would have to find in interest and sinking fund for that amount £29 3s. 3d. If you take off the subsidy that it is proposed to give, then you get the sum of £20 3s. 3d. You will then have to supply the insurance of the house and the water, and deal with the question of rates.
  Coming to this question of rates, the proposal seems to be that the assessment shall be something upon the pre-War basis, which I take it to mean somewhere about the pre-War assessment with the 40 per cent., or I would even give 50 per cent., increase upon the house. Now the houses with which we are dealing now and are supposed to cost £500, cost £200 before the War. On the whole basis of assessment of 6 per cent.—that was, a £12 house—taking 50 per cent. on the assessment makes it £18, and if you take the average of rates over the country at 15s. in the £, that gives you £13 10s. as the rates to be paid. If the local authority give you the £4 10s., that makes £9 that is to go in rates, the exact sum, by-the-by, you give as Government subsidy. Therefore, if you simply let the new houses at
  1164
  the rates as they have done in New York and, I believe, in old York in this country, you will then have the house reduced to something like £32 10s., that could be let at 12s. 6d. You have also to consider this point, that the
  £4 10s. represents roughly the amount that is paid for sinking fund to repay the loan in 40 years. and;f that £4 10s. has been paid by the local authorities, the local authorities would, at the end of the 40 years, and during the life of those houses, get the houses free. If, instead of paying this £4 10s., it were paid by the tenant, the tenant could become the tenant owner. The amount of £4 10s. is between 1s. 8½ and Is. 9d. a week. Therefore, if you make a calculation in this way, you have 12s. 6d. plus, let us say, 1s. 9d., making 14s. 3d., and this 14s. 3d. Will enable the tenant to become owner of his house at the end of 40 years.
  If we turn to the rural housing question, we can, I think, have a more interesting operation. If you take the rural house at, say, £400, and then you *take the land that would be given with the house at, say, £20, the £420 will be represented by an annuity exactly the same as before, that is, £23 11s. 3d. It will enable you to pay interest at 4i per cent., and put aside a certain sum that will give you the return of the money. I am pleased to see that the Minister accords with the wishes of a good many of us and gives us an increase on the amount of subsidy for rural houses. It may be only 7 per cent. of the total houses, and may not amount to a large burden on the State, but it will amount to a large concession for the rural people, because if you take off this £I2 10s. from the £23 11s. 3d., and even if you add the water and insurance, and put aside £1 4s. for repairs, you would be able to come down to a sum of £13 a year. See what that means; £13 a year is 5s. a week, and if you pay, under the Agricultural Wages Act, wages on a 30s. basis, you will then carry out what, in many parts of the country, is a recognised basis for cottage or house—one day's labour, and one day's labour will get the agricultural labourer his house. The amount for sinking fund in that instance is 1s. 4½d., and, therefore, for 6s. 4½d. not only should the labourer be able to afford to pay an economic rent, but that amount would include the savings that would enable him to become the owner of his house in

  1165
  40 years. It would turn the tables on the landed interests at last. Instead of the labourer's cottage being tied to the farm, the farm would be tied to the labourer's cottage, and the labourer would retain it during the latter years of his life.
  I have not dealt with the question of rates for this reason, that the people whom we propose to house are people who are already there. There is no extra charge for Poor Law. There is no extra cost for education. There should be something less for the health. Therefore, when you consider that you have only the question of main drainage, and possibly the road keeping, you will come to the point when you should not have more than one quarter the amount of rates that may be charged, and if the amount that is to be given by the rural authorities is fixed at £4 10s., surely that would cover the whole question of rates, and you would be able to let the agricultural labourer have his house at 5s. net, without any consideration of rates. In the 1919 Act we had the curious phenomenon of the giving of a subsidy that seemed to vanish as soon as the contracts came in, and it should be a lesson to us not to commute the sum that we give out in subsidy, and give it as a lump grant to the industry, but to use the subsidy to the reduction, as rent, so that gradually we may come to the position that we should come to with rents gradually sinking, until we come to the pre-War rate. The houses that you put up you would be able gradually to dilute. I am not referring now to the building trade, but you will be able to dilute the houses, gradually to increase their numbers, and then by the laws of supply and demand, you will get down your rate without any heroic action on the part of the Government.
  I should like also to deal with one other matter with regard to finance. You have heard criticisms of this financial action that will entail an expenditure of £1,400,000,000. When you come to consider how this amount is made up, and see that it is made tip by adding the yearly grants that you give for subsidy, you see how utterly strange all this is to people who look upon these questions of finance from their actuarial value. You might just as well say that because we give £300,000,000 a year for education, therefore, in 25 years, we have doubled the National Debt, because the
  1166
  cost of education will be £7,500,000,000, as to say that £1,400,000,000 is the cost of the subsidy for this scheme. What really is the cost is the present value of the £23,156,000, which is the highest amount given. It is 17¾ years purchase upon a 41 per cent. basis, or 20 years purchase upon a 4¾ per cent. basis. Take the amount at 4 per cent., and you have about £460,000,000, the gift of the State in subsidies, and the amount of £230,000,000 taken from the local authorities. That amounts to £690,000,000, and is not in any way £1,400,000,000.
  In 1918 Mr. Rowntree laid down the proposition that the difference between the pre-War cost and the after-War cost was a War charge, and should be paid by the Exchequer, but the difference between the pre-War house and the present price of the house is the difference between £200 and £500, and, therefore, if that theory is to be carried out, £300 perhaps, is the amount that the Treasury should pay. Three hundred pounds a house for 2,500,000 houses amounts to £750,000,000, therefore the provision of the subsidy, such as it is, is well within the figures. But look at the result of the Addison Housing Scheme. The subsidy, which began at £120, went up as far as £280 a house. This is an average, according to the Minister of Health's Report of
  August, 1923, of £242. That was the subsidy we paid in the first instance. Then we made an agreement with the various authorities that we would pay anything required above the penny rate, and that amount averaged, during 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, at £30 a house. On the houses you are paying £8,000,000 of loss, or subsidy, which makes it £46 for every house.
  This scheme, I hope, will be accepted. It will require a certain amount of self-sacrifice. It will require self-sacrifice by the building trade. I would put this proposition. If ever you have a Socialist State you will have to depend upon the ability of the organisation and the self-
  sacrifice of the workers. You have to practice a little self-sacrifice now, if you want to give the houses to your fellows. It is not a question of making profit. It is not a question of making a profit for the big employer. It is a question of doing something to bring down the rents, to make life easier for our fellows. It is a sacrifice that we can ask, also, of the big municipalities, when we ask them to

  1167
  sacrifice their pride, so that there can be only one borrower, and the richer and more important city should not boast, possibly, that it gets its money easier than someone else. It is a sacrifice that must be made by the tenants whose rents are higher. It is a sacrifice that will be made by the owners of the houses and by the constructors of the houses; it is a sacrifice that will have to be made by the nation, but the sacrifice is worth while if we can solve this great question of housing.
  Mr. RAYNES: In rising to address the Committee, my inexperience will give me the assurance that I shall receive a sympathetic hearing. I want to compliment the Minister of Health on his proposals, and on the way in which he put them before the Committee. The whole country to-day will be given a new hope and a new confidence. Hundreds of thousands of hearts will feel hope renewed on the opportunity of having a home to live in. I would not rise to speak on this occasion but for the fact that I am a building trades manager and one of the few Members in this House who have practical knowledge of that trade 'from the operatives' side and the side of the employer.
  My experience is one of 30 years, 15 years as a working man and 15 years as an employer, in a branch of the building industry, and when I hear hon. Members talk about ea canny in the building trade I feel that they do not know much of what has happened in the building trade. Every inducement to encourage ca'canny in the building industry was given during the War period. When buildings were urgently required for national purposes the Coalition Government paid the builder a commission profit on the total cost of wages and material for the building, and if that system would not encourage ca'canny both on the part of the employers and the workman I do not know any system that would. You are suffering to-day from the results of that pernicious system, both from employers in the building industry and employés.
  When I hear hon. Members opposite talk about the number of bricks a bricklayer should lay in a clay they prove nothing to me except their crass ignorance of the whole industry. I have worked on buildings where 70 bricks per day would
  1168
  be a good hard day's work and give ample satisfaction to the employer, and I have worked on buildings where 700 bricks a day would be a very easy business. When you talk of laying bricks you talk about an operation that varies with every class of building. The dilution of the building trade appears to be the one hope of hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway of a solution of the difficulty. If hon. Members opposite had any practical experience of the industry they would drop that idea immediately. It is impossible in any branch of the building industry to produce competent workmen under at least four years' training.
  It has been suggested that the Minister of Health has changed his view with regard to dilution; it may be that the Minister of Health has been brought to appreciate the fact which I have just stated. It is more difficult in the building industry than probably any other industry in our country to train men in the industry after they have reached 23, 24 or 25 years. If any hon. Member opposite doubts that statement. I would suggest that he should climb a 100-feet scaffold and try to walk a single plank. To lay bricks properly you would not train a man under four years. He must be taken under 20 years to go on bricklaying at any corner on any class of building, and if he were over 20 years of age the man would be very exceptional who would be capable of being trained to take any corner on any class of building.
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: What is your remedy?
  Mr. RAYNES: The only remedy—and this ought to have been taken four or five years ago—is to fill the industry with sufficient number of apprentices. There is no patent way of getting craftsmen. The only way is to train a man in his youth. Had the Government faced this difficulty in a proper way five years ago, we should have had to-day many thousands of additional craftsmen in the industry at, the business end of life. You can, by the help and sympathetic support of the men now in the industry, train men who have been labourers in the building industry up to 20 years of age. They can be given willingly a course of training in the crafts of the industry, and they are men who will be qualified to learn rapidly the particular craft to which they are

  1169
  going, and they will not suffer from the disability of other men who have never been on a building in their life.
  But I am interested in the financial side of this business. I cannot go into the intricacies of the figures to which we have listened with such delight as the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), but there are financial aspects of the situation into which I can go. I have heard the terms "private enterprise" and "public enterprise," and "public authority" used in to-day's Debate, and have been surprised at the loose way in which these terms have been used. We have practically no, or very little indeed, public authority building in its proper meaning. What we have to-day is private enterprise acting alone and independently, and private enterprise subsidised by the State, and I have this fear—and here I wish to criticise in a friendly way one of the proposals of the Minister of Health—that it is possible with all these splendid proposals put before us to-day that we may play into the hands of some people who may, with the opportunity, become unscrupulous in their dealings with the Government.
  What is the cure? I believe it is possible to use all the resources of private enterprise to the best advantage of the nation as a whole, but the Government must tackle in some way or other exorbitant prices in building material and unfair profits in the building of houses. As a member of a local authority of some importance, I was a short time ago brought up against this difficulty. We had to put up a building the lowest contract price for which was £46,000. We knew the price was too much, but the opinion of the Council was that we were in the hands of the builders and must allow them to put up that building. I took up the matter and strenuously opposed letting the contract at what we thought was an exorbitant price, and the result was that we actually got public enterprise at work without any help whatever from private enterprise. We set up a public works department and I had the honour of being chairman of the committee which ran that department, and that building was put up by direct labour employed by the corporation. The contractor's lowest estimate was £46,750, which would have been reduced by reductions in wages and cost of material during the progress of the work to
  1170
  £40,903 13s. 2d. and the actual cost to us was £28,341 17s. 4d. The experience of the Derby Corporation in connection with that work impelled them to go in for house-building by the same process. The result has been that whereas in July, 1919, we were paying for our houses a contract price of £873 each, which with increases of wages and higher cost of material worked out at from £1,060 to £1,200, by bringing in direct labour and, I admit, incidentally by a reduction in the cost of wages and material, we brought about a gradual reduction in the cost of houses until they could be built for £415 each. The con. tractors' price, when the contractors had the field to themselves, was reduced only to £715 by the falling costs, but immediately a contract had been let to contractors at £715 per house, the Corporation, by its direct labour department, entered into the business and built houses at £424 each.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the hon. Member's statement to the effect that the contractors' price was £700, and that the houses were built in the same period by the Corporation for £420?
  Mr. RAYNES: If the hon. Member will allow me time; I will develop my argument. The contractors' prices, of their own volition, after the reduction in the costs of material and wages, came down to £715 per house for houses of the non-parlour type. Then we came in with our own works department, and commenced building the same houses to the same plan on an adjoining site under exactly similar conditions, and we built the houses for £424 each.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: At the same time?
  Mr. RAYNES: Yes. The contractor who was building houses at £715 each was invited to tender for a further lot and he tendered at £424, and he was building side by side two blocks of houses, one at £424 per house and the other at £715 per house—both exactly on the same plan. I submit very respectfully that in order to bring down costs to what should be their normal level, a normal level which will last for some years to come, the only way is to encourage by every means the setting up of direct labour departments. More than that, I believe that with the shortage

  1171
  and high prices of material it is the clear duty of the Government to open up as a Government speculation those brick-fields and clay deposits which are now lying idle, to make bricks and to re-open what are left of the war-time factories for the making of wood-work in standard parts, for the making of cement, for the burning of lime, and so forth. By producing these articles they will not only get the material which is so much required, but they will tend to reduce the cost enormously.
  Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: Tell us about labour. Where are we going to get labour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Maiden speech!"] I do not wish to make a big point, but I think the hon. Member should deal with that matter.
  Mr. RAYNES: I said earlier in my speech that there was no royal road to securing skilled labour for the building industry. If necessary I will repeat that statement. You cannot pick up skilled labour in the gutter; you cannot manufacture it in three or six months or in three years. It will take at least four years to do so, and then you must have young men to start with. I heard it said by the Minister of Health that in the years prior to the War many thousands of bricklayers left our shores for America. To-day we have a surplus of engineers in this country, and some people are doing their best to induce those engineers to emigrate. In five years' time we may want those engineers here just as we want the bricklayers to-day, and if a 15-years' scheme and an assurance of steady and good employment result from the proposals of the Minister, is it not possible that many thousands of those bricklayers will come back to their native land and take work? I believe that, if there is a proper system of apprenticing lads to the trade—and there has not been a proper system for many years past—a system
  of training young labourers already in the industry, and the bringing back or inducing back to our shores of those skilled men who have left, we shall, in a very few years, largely solve the question of labour and get along with the programme which the Minister of Health has laid down.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I wish to say at the outset that I do not for a moment
  1172
  oppose this Resolution. I see my fellow-citizen the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. W. R. Smith) on the Government Bench. When I was Chief Magistrate of our native city, we saw all the misery brought about by large numbers of men being thrown out of their houses in the slums owing to a flood, a few years ago, and I shall certainly not do anything that would hamper giving better houses to our working people. But I have a great fear, although I will help the scheme if it be in my power, that this scheme will not do anything like what is hoped for it. It will not even approach providing the remedy for which the Minister of Health has designed it. Before I go on to one or two points which I have in mind, may I observe that I was glad to hear the Minister of Health say that the question of land or the cost of it, as I know full well from personal experience in my own native city, has never prevented the building of houses for our working people. When people make a great outcry about land being scarce and dear there is nothing in it, and people who put forward that scarcity or price of land argument only befog the argument and hurt their own case. If the land were a gift it would not affect the housing problem a pin. The Minister of Health has said something to-night which ought to go through the length and breadth of the country and settle the grievance based on the cost of building land, and that is, that the land for working people's houses does not account for more than 1½d. a week in the rent. It is a negligible amount, and the cost of land should in future be swept away as an argument.
  I hope this following proviso will be insisted upon by the Minister. I saw as chief magistrate of my native city—an old city, with hideous mediæval slums—how wrong it was to build dwellings again in the middle of the city, and I would remind the Minister—though I am sure he has thought of it himself—that he should bring all the pressure he can to bear upon local authorities to build right in the fields outside the towns, to get away from their centres, away from the wharves, rivers and factories, otherwise you only make these slums over again. I would give preferences, if it were possible, to those authorities who build four or five miles outside the city gates, who

  1173 take the train lines out, who let the men, women and children get the fresh air, and who built new factory-cities, and, if possible, garden cities. I think that should be well borne in mind when bringing this scheme into operation.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the scarcity of building labour. Two or three days ago I had the privilege of addressing this House on the Finance Bill, and I took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to a most regrettable state of affairs in investigating the occupations of people who are unemployed. Out of a million people unemployed, no less than 400,000 of them are men or lads between 18 or 28, and there is a terrible point connected with it. We have been told by a man who knows what he is talking about, Mr. Cramond, the adviser to the Ministry of Labour, that most of these 400,000 men are without a trade. Take some of those men into the building trades, quite apart from the engineers to whom attention was drawn in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Raynes) just now. Take some of those men, who must be under 20, or even if they are 28, and teach them as apprentices. Why leave them there without a trade? Surely the unions must see that they would help themselves, and the country, and the tradeless men, in a national necessity. Those men, who are now without a trade, probably owing to the fact that they served in the War, should be taught something. Here is an opportunity for us, as Members of the House of Commons, and for members of the trade unions, to benefit by the necessities of the building requirements and get these men not only put into work but taught something of lifelong use to them. There is no reason whatever why those men should not be taken into trade unions and given the training which they so lack.
  I was very sorry to hear—I hope he did not mean it—the Minister of Health make an attack on capital. It is really very foolish. It injures his chances of success. After all, capital is no more than our saved earnings. If I earn money and do not spend or waste it, that becomes capital, and I lend it for wages to those who want it. Interest is the wage of saved earnings. Capital is no more than saved earnings, and if the Minister runs down
  1174
  capital and make use of expressions such as were quoted from the Minister of Health's speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), it is very foolish. If people are asked to supply capital free of interest, then, instead of saving capital as they now do they will spend what they earn, not save it. They certainly will not save it to let someone else have the use of it for nothing. Why should they? Human nature is not made in that way. Working people who have worked hard and saved a few pounds could spend that money on a holiday or something else, but if they save it and put some of it into housing bonds or into savings banks at a small rate of interest, they provide the life blood for building these houses. I think the right hon. Gentleman may have used that argument for the purpose of flattering his constituents, but he must do violence to his own intelligence if he thinks that such an argument does him credit in this House or anywhere else. If he wants to get down to logic chopping again, read what people in Russia have lately done. They have come over here to try to buy capital, to borrow capital, of us, and they are willing to pay us 7 to 10 per cent.—an outrageous price—for it. They will not get it even then. They are, in Russia, now hopeless and paralysed without capital. They come here begging for it. They have learnt their lesson in Russia, and find they have destroyed their power of production by destroying capital. The Minister of Health, if he will take my advice—and I tender it to him very humbly—is very foolish if he runs down capital. He will want it for these houses, and if he discourages investors or speaks ill of capital, he will find that those people who have saved any will button up their pockets and will say to him: "You must get your money elsewhere, as we are frightened of lending it to you."
  I made some notes as the right hon. Gentleman went along with his speech, and I was astonished at one omission. He told-us how much we should have to pay over these 60 years in subsidies, and I believe the figure was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) at £1,375,000,000, but the Minister of Health forgot to tell us that, in addition to having to find this £1,375,000,000 as subsidies over a long period, we must also put down £1,250,000,000 to build the houses. This is

  1175
  an additional sum and stupendous. That is a point that I think the Committee has not yet fully grasped. As a matter of fact, you have to put down £1,250,000,000 to build the 2,500,000 houses of £500 each, in 15 years, on top of the £1,375,000,900 which the State and the municipalities have to find as subsidies. Let us pause for a moment. Does the Minister think he is going to put forward this housing proposal, and at the end of a year or two find himself out of office, and leave us to flounder about to find a method of dealing with it? Where is he going to get his £1,250,000,000 with which to pay for building his 2½ million houses in 15 years? During last year, 1922–23, we saved £97,000,000 by our foreign trade, and somewhat more by our home trade. £97,000,000 was about as much as we invested abroad, and it was supposed that we were straining our resources by investing abroad this £97,000,000 as the result of the profits on our foreign trade. If we have to equip 300,000 extra population every year, that will require annually £160,000,000 additional saved capital before we can begin to repay War Debt. Where, then, are you going to get the £1,250,000,000 to build these houses in 15 years? It is something like, roughly, £100,000,000 a year beyond population-increase needs and sinking fund on War Debt, and if you, in addition to all that, go into the market—and I am perfectly certain I am right in saying this—year after year for 15 years and take about £100,000,000 more out of the pockets of investors—never mind how they may otherwise invest it—for the purpose of building houses, or anything else, you play havoc with the finances of the country's industries. They will be starved of capital.
  Mr. VIANT: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to us just how this £100,000,000 is going to be dealt with? Is it going to be taken out of the country. Is it not going to be spent here?
  Mr. SAMUEL: How this is to be dealt with I leave to the Minister of Health to explain. But it may be that these additional millions are required for the shoe or shipping industry or for the building industry. It is true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that the money will not go out of the country, but if industries want money they are competing with the Min-
  1176
  ister of Health, and he is competing with them, for the available capital surplus, and what is the result? You cannot get enough housing money from other Indus if it is required there, and put it to a different purpose, it is not there to take. Does the Minister intend to embark on inflation to finance his scheme? What would be the result of inflation? Why disaster of course. You would put up the price of money if you tried to borrow an extra £100,000,000 a year to such a height that you could not borrow for trade. I ask the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) who knows about cotton, what would happen in Manchester cotton finance if you have an annual drain of an extra £100,000,000 for housing schemes. I hope the Minister of Health may get the money. I wish him to get it. If I had the power I would help him to get it. But I doubt very much in view of the ordinary drain for industry whether he would have the power to get it. If he does go into the market to get it I say he will be doing damage to the rest of industry. He ought as I have said to be very careful in any case how he talks against capital. People who have taken housing bonds will not welcome his views if he speaks about getting money and not paying interest for it. He will not get his £100,000,000 a year from the savings of the investors if he talks like that.
  I pass to another point in connection with the housing scheme. It is a point to be recognised, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health intends to leave it out of account, because he did not say anything about the other point—the £1,250,000,000 required to build the houses in addition to the money required for subsidies. But the point is this. Houses are built under this scheme. They are let at a rental, owing to the subsidy, at less than an economic rental value. In some municipalities, say, in the same area there are houses which are owned by their occupiers or are rented by the occupiers, and are being assessed on their economic value, that is to say, at something like the rental based on cost, or on the figure the occupier pays. What will happen? Take the houses which are now to be built by subsidy. Take a house which is built for £500, the economic rent of which is almost £42 a year, which

  1177
  includes rates, taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. For that house you have a subsidy of £13 10s. Did the Minister of Health clearly point out how you are going to assess that house for rates; on what basis, on an economic rental basis, or on the rental reduced by the subsidy? If he says these houses are to be assessed for rates on the rental under subsidy and not on the economic rental value, we have 2,500,000 houses being assessed at £13 10s. a year less than the economic value. Let me carry that further. Take the average amount of rate poundage all over the country, and I am not taking as the average that of Norwich, where it has been as much as 32s. in the Take an average low sate, throughout England, say, of i0s. in the £3. If we take that on the £13 10s. subsidy excused, you get £6 15s. per year. Call it £7 to make the argument easier. £7 a year of rates is excused each one of these houses; and the consequence is that every non-subsidised house, shop, factory in that area is not only paying its own rates, based in most, cases on roughly its economic rental value, but also part of the rate which has been excused on the subsidised houses. If that is reckoned on 2½ million houses, it works out at £17,500,000 per year—a year, not in one lump sum and finished with—but a year, and this burden on non-subsidised property is being paid neither by the rating authorities nor by the Imperial Exchequer under the scheme before us.
  Let this House, and the country realise that, and let non-subsidised ratepayers in every municipality realise that this will be an extra burden on them of £17,500,000 per year, in addition to the rates and taxes they bear already. I think the Minister of Health has overlooked that little point, and I am bound to say from what I have heard—and I hope he will not resent it if I say that economics and finance are not the strong points of this Government—that that extra burden will have to be added to the, amount of money which he is asking the House to-day to give him by the Resolution. However, it may be considered unfair to take an extreme case. Suppose, then, we take a row of houses built and let under the subsidy arrangement on the one side, and more expensive types of houses built on the other side of a street, five and twenty years ago, and assessed for rates on their economic rent, because
  1178
  occupied by the owners, who may be work-people. Why in the name of reason are the subsidised people to be assessed at a lower relative rate than the others? They enjoy the same advantages in the community, lighting, draining, policing, the cleaning of the streets, and so on; yet the others have to have an additional burden on their shoulders—they pay their own rates and then, besides, a part of the rates on subsidised houses, assessed on non-economic rents.
  Mr. MILLS: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee of houses in any locality built since War which are assessed lower than any pre-War houses?
  Mr. SAMUEL: That does not apply. The houses, shops or factories to which I refer may be occupied by a small shopkeeper, by a greengrocer, by a man of business, by men who have bought their own houses to live in or shops to trade in and paid for them out of their savings 25 years ago. These are assessed on the economic value. Why should these people, this little shopkeeper, the resident doctor, or it may be the manufacturer, a small man or big man, have to pay on an assessment upon the economic value of their premises, and those on the other side of the road or in the next street, the subsidised houses, be assessed on the subsidised value and throw part of their rate-burden upon other shoulders? It is not a political matter, but one of pure honesty and fairness, and I think when the ordinary unsubsidised ratepayer who has occupied or owned his premises for many years realises what the effect of this subsidy means in respect to extra rates on him, he will have something to say about this proposal. I have said nothing to indicate in any way that I am opposed to this Resolution, and I shall support it if it goes to a Division. I hope the Minister will carefully consider the question of the non-economic assessment to which I have drawn attention. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked it, and whether-it has been included in the figures given in the White Paper.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I am afraid the hon. Member who has just sat clown has somewhat drawn upon his imagination, because I have always understood that the question of assessment rested entirely with the local assessment committee.
  Mr. SAMUEL: What is the good of talking like that If a man comes before those on the assessment committee and says, "I am paying a rental of £29" because it is a subsidised house; he has to be assessed on that amount, and he cannot be assessed on the £42 which may be the economic value. That is the law.
  Mr. THOMSON: I submit that the matter rests entirely with the assessment committee. Suppose you are living in a house of your own for which you are not paying rent. You are assessed at a rate comparable with a similar house in that district. I think this matter is entirely foreign to the larger issue before us, and it is a matter for the local assessment committee. In the town with which I am acquainted I know they would only be too glad to get these additional houses in order to get any assessable value or any rates from them, because in the majority of cases these poor people are not paying rates at all, and their children are being educated.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The point was not whether the municipalities would like to have these houses or not. Of course they want them. The point was how unfair it is to throw part of the rates upon other ratepayers in order to subsidise these houses in addition to the subsidy provided by the Exchequer and the local authorities.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. THOMSON: I was pointing out that these people were enjoying the
  advantages of education and other communal services, and -were paying only a tithe of the rates they would pay if they
  went into the new houses. Surely, the local authority has no cause to complain in regard to what the Minister has proposed. With regard to the larger issue, I would like to join in the congratulations, which have been showered upon the Minister of Health from all sides, upon his speech and his proposals. It is easy to be cynical and have doubts and fears, but, I submit, that in what he has put before us, the labour of the last few months, has resulted in, what I would
  like to describe, as a great act of faith, and with good will and co-operation there is greater hope of achieving a solution of the housing problem than we have seen for a
  long time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joyn-son-Hicks) said when they were in office
  1180
  they tried to come to terms with the building operatives and the trade with regard to a system of augmentation of labour, and they failed. We hope that where they failed the present Minister may succeed. He has got the employers and employed to come together and work out a scheme, and instead of this being received as a satisfactory co-partnership, it is looked upon by hon. Members opposite as an unholy alliance. This is the only way to get a solution of the problem. Does anyone suggest that this House by legislation can enforce such terms on the building industry as will give us the necessary augmentation of labour? I submit that the scheme which has been submitted to us may be in some respects rather sketchy and faulty, but it is a great achievement to have got the two sides to come together and express their good-will and their intention to do all they can to solve the problem. I hope nothing will be said in this Committee to make it more difficult for those who have undertaken to assist in a solution of this problem to bring it to a successful issue.
  Can we wonder that there has been difficulty in apprenticeship in this trade? Up to quite recently this difficulty was believed to be due to some nefarious action on the part of trade unions, and this was given as the reason why the number of apprentices was so small. In the Report which has just been issued. I think it is made clear that this difficulty is not due to any restrictive action on the part of trade unions, but it is really due to reluctance on the part of apprentices and their parents, and this has kept the trade short of the necessary labour. We have been told that, according to the trade union rules, there could have been 56,000 apprentices, whereas, as a matter of fact, there are only 21,000, and this clearly shows that there are other reasons to account for the shortage than trade union hostility. It is due largely to the uncertainty of employment and lack of security for those who enter this trade. If the Minister's scheme can give that security and bring in the dilution of labour it will certainly do more than any other thing to give us the houses we require.
  I agree that the Minister seems to have been very moderate in his estimate of the houses he is going to produce in the coming year, and I hope he has under-

  1181
  estimated the number. We find that during the boom year of the Addison period we had 90,000 houses produced. I think the figures, as compared with 1922, should not give us a lesser but a larger number. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham suggested that the need was not so great as had been indicated, but surely that statement is not in keeping with the actual facts of the case. Anyone in touch with the conditions existing in our great industrial towns must know that the need for houses is as great to-day as ever it was. In my own town with 120,000 inhabitants we have a waiting list of over 4,000, and over 2,000 of that number have had their names down for three years waiting for houses which have never materialised. The experience of the town I represent is the same as it is elsewhere, and there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that the need for these houses does not exist.
  With regard to the price, I submit that, provided we can get the 2,500,000 houses during the next 15 years, the gain to the, community as a whole, even on the narrow ground of pounds, shillings and pence, will be worth the money we are spending. Reference has been made to the tremendous burden of tuberculosis in our large towns, and the tremendous cost of our health services resulting from neglect of housing. All these things would show a very great saving, and, above all, you would have greater contentment, and you would have a decent home life possible which is not known at the present time. Therefore, I say that no effort is too great and no sacrifice too much to make in order to remedy the present appalling state of things. It is a sacrifice which must be made on all hands. I agree with my hon. Friends on these benches that there does not seem to be, in the Minister's proposals, sufficient security that we are going to be protected against a rise in the price of materials, or even that we are going to get adequate labour. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pursue his inquiries in both those directions, so that, before the Bill has passed through this House, we may have a reasonable guarantee that the labour will be forthcoming, and that we shall be protected against inflation of prices. Reference has already been made in the Building Trades Report to that protection which the builders seek as against the importa-
  1182
  tion of foreign goods. I think the Minister has said elsewhere, and I hope he will say here before the Debate closes, that he has set his face resolutely against the formation of any rings or protected combines in this country, and that we are going to be free, as municipalities and as private individuals, to import from elsewhere those goods which are essential for the building of houses.
  There is one more important question still upon which I should like to appeal to the Minister, and that is the restrictive Clause which he has in his Resolution specifying that the types and sizes of houses must be those mentioned in Section 1 (2) of the Housing Act, 1923. The Minister of Health himself rather apologised for the insertion of that Clause when he was speaking, but I understood him to say that it had been forced upon him by the municipalities. I venture to suggest to him that he has yielded unnecessarily, and that, before this passes from our keeping, before the Bill is passed into law, he should open up negotiations with municipal associations and local authorities and see whether this is really an essential part of the bargain. I have some little knowledge of the Municipal Corporations Association and of local authorities, and I have heard nothing from any considerable section of them insisting upon this proviso as essential. It is true that, according to the correspondence, they have specified it as one of the matters which they desire the Minister to consider, but I do ask the Minister whether he has really put up a serious fight on this question, and Whether he will not renew his efforts to see that this, which will be a most restrictive Clause in the Resolution and in the Bill itself, should it become part of it, is not allowed to pass into law. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) said earlier, we had a most eloquent speech from the benches opposite against that limitation when it was provided for in the 1923 Bill. Surely, if we are going to spend this huge of public money, we have a right, as custodians of the public purse, to see that the return we get for that expenditure is of a higher standard than that which was foreshadowed in the 1923 Act.
  To allow millions of public money to be spent on putting up houses with only two bedrooms and only 550 superficial

  1183
  feet, is an abuse of public money, and, therefore, I appeal to the Minister in all seriousness to tackle this question. Otherwise, we shall have a most retrograde Measure placed on the Statute Book. I am aware that it is left to the local authorities to exercise their discretion, but, where there is such a large expenditure of public money, money which the local authorities are not providing, the House of Commons should have the major voice on the matter. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter, and see whether, by calling a conference again of the municipal associations and local authorities, he cannot get them to waive this most restrictive Clause. With an area of 550 superficial feet and two bedrooms, you cannot get a house worthy of the name of a home. It is as bad as the old days, and to perpetuate that for the next 50 or 60 years, possibly in hundreds of thousands of cases, will be a reflection on the good sense and good government of the House of Commons. I believe that the Municipal Corporations Association and the local authorities will be willing to meet the Minister on this point, and I hope that, even before the Financial Resolution passes from this Committee, a modification may be possible, because I understand that, if it goes through in its present form to-morrow night, the hands of the Committee upstairs are tied so that they cannot make a modification within these Regulations. I appeal to the Minister, before it is too late, carefully to reconsider the matter, and to allow the Resolution to go through the House in an open form, so as to leave time for reconsideration and conference with the local authorities. Then, if they insist upon their bargain, it can be restored in Committee, but let us not tie the hands of this Committee or of the Committee upstairs by passing this Financial Resolution in this particular form, limiting the grants to houses of the type and size mentioned in Section 1 (2) of the Housing Act, 1923. The Minister will spoil an excellent Measure if he does not seek to modify it on those lines.
  Mr. R. F. JACKSON: In rising to address the Committee for the first time, I know that I am assured of their indulgence. I am very happy
  1184
  in the thought that my first contribution to the Debates of the House should be upon this pressing and human question of the more adequate housing of our people. I would like the Committee to know that, for many years before coming to the House of Commons, I was actively engaged in the public administration, not only of the 1919 Act, but of the subsequent Acts, and while I may have held pretty definite views as to the correct method of financing our housing schemes, and as to the correct method of practically undertaking those schemes, I have been bound to feel so strongly the necessity for speedy work on this great problem that I have never allowed those doctrinaire views to interfere with my active work in housing. For instance, when it came to financing the Addison scheme, I, with others of my administrative colleagues, did a bit of tub-thumping at street corners and at works gates, in order to raise the finance through housing bonds and so on. Therefore, I think my work in administration entitles me to put forward some views of a very practical character. I had anticipated that the central feature that would emerge from this discussion would be the more adequate provision of labour power in our housing scheme, and I think I am not unjust in saying that, important as may be Members of Parliament—and we are all important, at least in our own estimation—what would be of much more importance in solving this housing problem would be the existence, not so much of 600 Members of Parliament, but of 600 efficient bricklayers. If that be so, why is this House, why is the Ministry so dis-inclined to afford to that industry just that measure of improvement in conditions which the industry is rightly asking? In addition to my municipal experience I am a building trade operative. I remember the bricklayers' lot in pre-War periods, when he was a very fortunate bricklayer who could earn on an average £1 a week. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) has recently made three contributions in this House on this question, with all his sincerity, his ability and I think his purity of motive. He once wooed the constituency that I now represent, and at that time I admit it was a pleasure to sit at his feet as a political philosopher. I pay my regards to his political philosophy even to this

  1185
  day, but when he attempts to pose as a practical builder I am bound to part company with him. Speaking on this question of housing on the Adjournment for Easter he said:
  "There is no suggestion of any change by offering a bonus, or by piece work, or oven by higher wages, which they say they are giving at Wembley to speed up this necessity of life. I do not know that there is any need to consider those questions in dealing with ordinary, that of museums or big architecture, etc. My interest is in building houses for the poorest of the people. In these circumstances I think we ought to demand on the one hand a limited amount of profit, as we thought we demanded during wartime—and this is a wartime measure—for those who are engaged in building, and also sonic special effort in speeding up on the part of those who are engaged in the actual work of construction. I do not want to ate the word dilution.' I shall he very eager to hear what criticisms hon. Members have to make afterwards." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April. 1924: col. 145S. Vol. 172.]
  I offer my criticism. I want to ask why, if it would add to the efficiency and increase the output if a system of piece work was imposed upon the bricklayers' operatives in the erection of houses, it will not also increase the efficiency and the output in the building of your magnificent Government buildings, museums, and the higher forms of architecture? I wish the right hon. Gentleman were here, because I want to put this to him. I want to imagine him in a much more affluent position than he is to-day, being in the position of erecting for himself a house somewhere in the vicinity of Walton Heath. What would he do? He would first of all, very rightly, engage an architect who would prepare specifications for the building. He would then insist that a clerk of the works should be engaged in order to see that the specifications were carried out. The right hon. Gentleman would do all that to ensure that he secured for himself a good building and one which would be as substantial in 60 years' time as it is to-day. His whole philosophy on this building question would simply lead to this, that the houses that the Government are to erect for the workpeople of the country should be jerry built houses, and that we are not having. I think the whole Labour party will support the Minister of Health in insisting that these houses that we are to build for the people shall be built not only under the best possible circumstances but also that they shall be of such a character that
  1186
  at the end of 60 years they will stand a real asset to the wealth of the community.
  I want to deal with this innuendo which is being frequently made against the bricklaying operatives. I think it arose because, undoubtedly, in the earliest stages of the Addison scheme the output of the bricklayers was not what perhaps we expected it to be, and it was not high for this reason, that the bricklayers who were at work at that time were men in the main who had been through the great War. I have in mind two men who were working not far from me, one a man who ought never to have been at work. He had 14 wounds in his body, and the other was nearly as bad, yet those men wanted to help in the work of building houses for their fellows and the employers patriotically employed them. If there is an employer in the building trade sitting in this House to-night he will be bound to agree with me that the output of the bricklayer to-day is far nearer normality than it was in the early period of the operation of the Addison Act. Therefore I think the members of the Opposition are doing a distinct dis-service to this great work by issuing to the people of the country leaflets of this sort. Employers of labour are with me, and any man who is associated in the work of a public housing committee is with me, and I beg of those responsible for the tactics of the party opposite not to persist in such methods as these, because. I am assured that if you want to gain the hearty co-operation of the building industry that is not the way to do it.
  There is one other point while I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions—that, of training. I should like to see many of those men who are really the backbone of the building industry, the builders' labourers, become bricklayers. What is the difficulty? The average all-round bricklayer's labourer is a very handy man, and I think we have succeeded in bringing his wages very near the level of those of the bricklayer. I shall not be satisfied till they equal the wages of the bricklayer. He is a very handy man, but without this guaranteed week for the bricklayer your average bricklayers' labourer finds himself much better off than the bricklayer. When the bricklayer is unemployed the bricklayer's labourer can often get a job while the bricklayer cannot. Therefore, it is most

  1187
  incumbent that you should give the bricklaying industry that guaranteed week for which they are asking. Again, that is a big factor in preventing boys coming in. There is not a Member in the House who would apprentice his son to the bricklaying industry. What are the conditions? A man has to be physically fit. He has to be prepared to rough all weathers. It is the one industry in the building trade which perhaps has to labour under the worst conditions. I want to submit those ideas to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme, because I know what tremendous influence he has with his party. I know the tremendous influence he carries in the country, and also in my constituency. Therefore I hope he will consider what I have ventured to put before the Committee to-night. I think we have a right when so much is expected of our own industry to ask what sacrifices are the possessing classes of this country prepared to make in this great work? In my own locality I ventured to submit to the wealthy people there that they might afford to our town council a loan for rehousing the slum dwellers at, say, 3 per cent. I was told that I ought not to make that suggestion to the monied people. If what I am saying will go beyond the four walls of this House, I would make my final appeal that the monied classes owe a real obligation to these houseless men, many of whom were ex-servicemen and therefore they should not look on their money so much as bringing additions to their income, but rather as a means, which is theirs alone, of helping the Government to get on with this great and courageous scheme of re-housing the people in a scientific manner.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: There is one point in this Debate that really appeals to me very strongly. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he cannot give some reason, and give a true reason, why the building operatives have fixed an age limit which is really penalising the ex-servicemen? There are young ex-servicemen of 28 and 30, many of them married, who, at the ages of 17, 18 and 19 were fighting for their country. They have been unemployed for years and cannot get work. An hon. Member on the benches opposite mentioned that five years ago they should have been taken into the building trade. Here they have a scheme
  1188
  for 15 years' certain employment, and yet these men are to be debarred because the age limit is fixed at 20. I brought this up at the Committee the other day, and when I was challenged the other night I asked the representatives of the building operatives: "Is it not a fact that under this housing scheme these men are to be debarred?" The apprentices to be taken in are boys from school, and it is penalising ex-servicemen who fought for their country and are only too anxious to get something to do. It is penalising them in one of the things we want most of all—houses—and one into which they will put their whole heart and soul. I ask the Minister of Health if he will not give the true reason why the building operatives will not take those men into their trade.
  Mr. E. SIMON: I want to say a few words from the point of view of the local authorities as one who has for the last few years taken an active part in the building of houses by local authorities. I think the local authorities will be compelled to continue to play a large part in this programme. I must confess that we have failed miserably in what we have tried to do in Manchester; we have not been able to build even as many houses as are required to meet the increasing population. The same is true, I think, of all other local authorities in the country. The reason why we have failed is that we have been up against, the problem of getting skilled labour. Bricklayers and plasterers have been the key question. Every single scheme has broken down on the same point. This scheme, so far as local authorities are concerned, must be judged on that point. Can it provide extra labour? If we get extra labour we shall require extra material. Can it provide both of those without allowing the cost to go up? We will welcome any scheme with both hands that can give us labour on these terms. There are two quite distinct proposals in Mr. Wheatley's scheme. The first is the increase of subsidies, the second the extension of subsidies to 15 years. Both of these are liable to increase the cost. The increased subsidy is given with the object of letting houses at lower rents, because I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say to-day that the houses now are being built for the rich. It arias some phrase to

  1189
  that effect which I could not understand. As regards Manchester, I resent that very much indeed. The houses in Manchester have been built for the working classes. We had a census only a few months ago. We had 3,000 houses finished; 48 per cent. were occupied by artisans, 48 per cent. by clerks, and 4 per cent. by Others. I do not think anybody will deny that clerks are members of the working classes, and that they deserve houses as much as anybody else. Ninety-six per cent. of these houses are occupied by the working classes, and we are continuing to build the same type of house under the Chamberlain Act. It is only labour that has stopped us. There is an unsatisfied demand by thousands and thousands of people of the same class for these houses.
  This increased subsidy as to Manchester is not going to give us a single extra house to let. It is going to reduce rents by something like 1s. 6d. each. The "Manchester Guardian" referred this morning to
  "this outpouring of money in aid of rents."
  I want to make it quite clear that that has not been asked for by the building trade. There is nothing of it in the building trade Report. It has not been asked for by either the employers or employed in the building trade or by the local authorities. It is a perfectly spontaneous gift on the part of the Government for the purpose of reducing rents of houses for which there is a demand from the working classes, so as to create a, class of privileged tenants living at a rather lower rent. There is, however, a. danger that this subsidy may be partly absorbed by the building trade. That has been the history of previous subsidies. Even the relatively small contribution given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite last year had that effect, not as regards municipal houses, but as regards houses built to be sold. There was an advertisement offering 2s. for a bricklayer as against the standard rate of 1s. 7½d. The present value of the Chamberlain subsidy we are giving for houses for sale is £100; the Wheatley subsidy is to he no less than £240. If already 3d. above the standard rate is being offered on a £100 subsidy, there is a danger of demoralisation as regards material and labour from the immense increase in the subsidy For that reason T think we want to regard this increase, which is not going to get a single
  1190
  extra bricklayer or a single house, with a good deal of suspicion and to see that adequate safeguards are included in the Bill, to make sure that it does not go to the demoralisation of the building trade. Members of the building trade admit that by the Addison subsidy the trade was demoralised and they wish they had never seen it, despite the profits they made out of it at the time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see there are adequate precautions in the Bill to avoid that sort of thing happening again.
  Mr. Wheatley's second proposal is the extension of the subsidy for 15 years. That I take it is based on the building trade's Report. You really must have a long term programme if you are going to increase the amount of labour and materials available on reasonable and businesslike lines. If it is done on such lines it ought to mean not that the materials will go up in price, but that the over-head charges of the manufacturers will be lessened and prices will come down. They will be able to supply materials for a scheme of this sort, therefore, at lower prices. That can he done if there is a proper plan and good will on all sides, but if we endeavour to rush the scheme through too hastily it will naturally mean another boom and chaos in the trade. I think all sections in the House therefore will welcome the long period programme. The effect of this is more or less a guarantee against unemployment. I have the greatest sympathy with that. I think it ought to be done if possible. But we must not overlook this very unfortunate face that during the boom in 1920, when there was no unemployment and also when the building trade was suffering from the effects of contracts during the War, it took 5,000 hours to build an 18,000 brick house. After 18 months when there was a certain amount of unemployment the time came down to 2,000 more hours, or less than one-half. That was partly the result undoubtedly of unemployment. It is a very unfortunate thing that if you guarantee a trade altogether against unemployment and there is no other incentive to make people work above the standard rate, and if every man is paid at a fixed trade union rate whether he be a good man or otherwise, the tendency is for the output to go down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that wholly the fault

  1191
  of the operatives?"] Some employers may have profiteered in materials and they may have encouraged the men to slack.
  I want to deal with an aspect of the building trade report which is exceedingly serious in my opinion with regard to the future success of this scheme. The report was a very welcome one because of the spirit in which it is written, because the operatives have agreed to allow one apprentice to every three craftsmen. But there is one thing I deplore in that report, and that is that the output which has been taken as the
  basis of calculation is so low. It is calculated that to build an 18,000 brick house it should take a bricklayer 12 weeks to do his part of the work. An hon. Member said just now that people who spoke about the output of bricklayers showed nothing but crass ignorance. But the matter is so important that I must take the risk. I have discussed this question with very many people. I am not a builder myself, but I have talked with those who are. The output of a bricklayer who takes 12 weeks to build his portion of an 18,000 brick house would be equal to 273 bricks a clay. That is the average output for the whole period, and I am taking the figure from the building trade report. The report goes on to say that these houses are being built, in their opinion, at the lowest possible cost. It also says that although there have been fluctuations in output in. recent years, there is no serious reduction in output to be apprehended as, far as they know. But there is not a single word in the report suggesting that at any time either the operative or the employers may improve their methods or output. As they are asking for a guarantee for 15 years, I frankly say it is very deplorable that there is not a single suggestion that there should he an improvement in that respect.
  I think the figure laid down in the Report is far too low. I base my statement on actual facts given me by people experienced in the trade who have been doing housing work in Manchester. I will give four illustrations, and I may at once explain that I shall give no names, because they have told me that this is a report of employers and employed who have agreed to the figures, and they sug-
  1192
  gest it might be made uncomfortable for them if they appeared to differ from the report. In the first case the contractor to whom I put the point said that the allowance of 12 weeks to a bricklayer for an 18,000-brick house was too much. It should be in his experience between six and seven weeks, and that would mean a rate of 500 bricks per -day. If payment by result were adopted the output would be increased by 20 or 25 per cent. without any undue pressure, and that would represent 600 bricks a day. Then we had a direct labour scheme in Manchester. The direct labour manager reports that the average number of bricks laid in the latter part of 1929 was not above 306 per day, whereas early in 1922, after a good deal of unemployment had supervened, the output was between 500 and 600, and in one case it reached 600. That is not a comparable figure with that which I gave before. But it emphasises this fact, that the increase from 1920 to 1922 was from 306 bricks to between 500 and 600 bricks. The third case is that of a speculative builder, a man who has built more houses than almost anybody else in Manchester. He is not building now, He says:
  "The rate of output in cottage buildings in pre-war days averaged 800 to 1,000 bricks in a 10 hour day—bricklayer and labourer. I have known many men on cottage buildings 20 years ago to well and truly lay an average of from 1,000 to 1,250 bricks in a 10 hour working day."
  The fourth case is that of a very large contractor. This is not a case of house building, but a big job which he had to carry out during he War. It was straightforward building work, and he could only get an average of 300 bricks a day laid. Then he started a system of payment by results, and in the second week the rate of bricklaying went up from 300 to 1,200 bricks a day, and the whole of the job was finished at an average rate of 1,200 bricks a day, as a result of payment by result. He goes on to say:
  "There is no reason why such a system could not be applied to housing schemes."
  That is the position. One gets the same kind of evidence wherever one speaks to employers.
  Mr. McENTEE: It is not fair to give only the employers' statements
  Mr. SIMON: One statement which I have given was in connection with the

  1193
  direct labour scheme in Manchester and the evidence is available. I do feel that this scheme is an illustration of the danger of calling in a trade in connection with such a matter. There is temptation for the employers and the employed. They know that they have been called there to agree, and in this case they have agreed. They have agreed on an output which the trade unionists were willing to accept, and they naturally have accepted a low output. I do act say that they intend to stick to that. I gather that the whole subsidy is based on this building trade Report, and the figures given in that Report. If that he so, it ought not to be accepted by this House.
  The precaution taken by the Minister of Health is, I think, a very good precaution. He says that if the price exceeds a certain figure, then we stop building. What does that mean? It means that, if for any reason the price becomes too high, he will bring about unemployment again in order to bring the price down. There are only two ways in which you can give incentive to men to do better. You can pay a flat rate, and if you pay a fiat rate you will get very flat-rate work. I heard an interesting story on that subject which was alleged to have been broadcast by the Leader of the House in an after-dinner speech. He told of a gentleman who employed two bricklayers, one of whom was only laying half the number of bricks that were laid by the other. He went to the man who was giving the low output, and said, "You see that fellow over there. He is doing twice as much work as you are." "Yes," replied the man in an aggrieved tone, "I have told him about it several times, and he will not change it." You will get that sort of thing so long as you pay on a flat rate. One method of dealing with the matter is the threat of employment. That is a method which none of us wishes to employ.
  An alternative method is that of providing that if the man lays more bricks he gets more in proportion to what he does. That is a system of payment by result. We have payment by results in the cotton industry and in the engineering industry, and in all kinds of industries. I happen to be an engineer myself. The system works fairly well in the engineering trade, but in both the engineering and building trades the
  1194
  system has one very unsatisfactory feature, and that is that the worst employers fix a rate, and if a man earns too much they cut the rate. Employers have been very much blamed in the past for that, and I admit they are to be blamed for it. That has caused a quite undeserved ill-repute for the whole system of payment by results.
  There are two conditions for any proper system of payment by result. One condition is, that the man must get his trade union rate minimum, whatever happens, and the other condition is that the rates of output must be fixed by some impartial committee in such a way that they cannot he cut by any individual employer. Something of that sort could be done quite easily as regards housebuilding. It might be done by district committees. Unless these conditions are observed, any form of payment by result falls to the ground.
  It is difficult to say how much the out put could he increased by payment by results, but it could certainly be increased very substantially. If the men felt that if they did extra work they would be paid for it, they would certainly work harder. The success of this scheme is clearly going to depend upon getting extra labour and additional output from such labour as we have. From the point of view of the trade unions, it would be an enormous advantage to have some such system as this. They would be saved from having their rates cut; they would earn mare, and with the increased production it would not be necessary to get anything like the extra number of apprentices into the trade that will be necessary otherwise, and there will not be the danger 10 or 15 years hence, of which the Minister of Health made so light, that when the housing schemes are coming to an end you have your labour at an absolute maximum. That risk could be avoided by payment by result and a larger output from the existing Members of the trade.
  The one thing I am anxious about, and which everybody connected with local authorities is anxious about, is to get this extra labour into the trade, and to get the work done at a moderate price. That is the real urgency of the problem that is before us. I have the greatest sympathy with the trade unions. I believe quite sincerely that in their interests as well as in the interests of the

  1195
  community as a whole, that the way I suggest is the best way of solving the problem, and I do appeal to the trade unions to give the matter serious consideration in conjunction with the employers in the trade. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to do all he possibly can, and I hope he will be successful in getting a scheme that will build the houses, but he can do very little, and nobody can do anything much in comparison with the service that would be. rendered by the trades unions if they would forget their ancient prejudice, forgive their employers for mistakes in the past, and adopt the system of payment by result. This would give us the labour we want almost at once, and could go a long way towards solving the housing problem in the next few years.
  Mr. SHERWOOD: I speak with all humility as a new Member. I wish to speak as one who has tried to get the best out of the pre-Addison era, then out of the Addison scheme, and also the best out of the 1923 Act. I believe that the present proposal of the Minister of Health is much better than either of the other schemes. The failure of the Addison scheme was that the liability of the local authorities was limited to a penny rate. That in itself created a competition between local authorities to get the houses, willy nilly, at the expense of each other. That was the cause of the prices going up to such an extent that in my own town the price was £1,000 for an A3 type house.
  The 1923 Act went to the other extreme. There the Ministry did not care how much the house cost because the Ministry's total contribution was £75 or thereabouts. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) referred to the cost of houses, and said that we must get the cost down. The way to get the cost down is by co-operation between the Ministry on the one hand and the focal authorities on the other. If the Ministry have to find £9 per annum per house, the local authorities by cutting down the price can reduce the £4 10s. which they are to pay. In that case, there would be co-operation, at any rate, as far as the administrative authorities are concerned, in the cutting down of the price of the houses.
  1196
  The right hon. Member on the Front Bench was very much concerned about the owner-occupier. I want to say that if we are to have the owner-occupier and this is where I do not like the Minister's scheme—then the owner-occupier should purchase his house through the local authority as built by the local authority. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. In 1922, in our city, we built 136 houses. Seventeen bricklayers on corporation work built 102 houses; that is six per man. Fifteen bricklayers in private enterprise built 34 houses. That was not the fault of the bricklayers, because they were very often the same men changed over. It was because of bad organisation, and it is not so much the question of how many bricks this man or that man lays in a year, but it is rather a question of organisation of labour, and if you get on to new housing especially, and have a regular sequence of labour, you can double the output even of the men in the trade to-day. We have seen men waiting with nothing to do. On municipal schemes we do not do it—at least, we do not do and I hope they do not do it in Manchester.
  So far as subsidies are concerned, I regret paragraph 3. It does not mean you will get more houses. Our object should be to increase the aggregate number of houses, but what do you get? The man who goes to his local authority for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, does not, by any means, get the advantage of the £75, and what I would like the Minister to do, in every case of a subsidy house, is to insist that the Ministry shall be satisfied that the price of the house of the owner-occupier compares with the house the local authority can build. Last year we sanctioned primary; certificates for houses that cost £700. We have built the same houses for under £500, or, rather, better houses, with more amenities, through the local authority. My contention is, that the whole of that £75 granted to the owner-occupier went into the' hands of the profiteer, and we have gone so far now that before we grant a primary certificate for a subsidy house, we have it valued.
  There is just one matter on which the hon. Member, who has just sat down, will agree with me, and that is, that we have got to get beyond bricks and mortar,

  1197
  and, in spite of all that has been, said, we have to be building some concrete houses at present. I have had no objection from the building trades union in our area, and there are as good trade unionists in Wakefield as in Manchester We are even going further than that, and are building with a sort of novel material of the best English oak and stone slabs, and although we have done away, not only with the bricklayer and plasterer, enthusiastic trade unionists have taken no objection. As a matter of fact, they are working on houses practically side by side, and I do want to submit that, even in the building trades, we have got to explore every avenue. But do not lay it on to the bricklayer You cannot lay bricks by machinery, and if a man is to be paid, as the hon. Member suggests he should be paid, on a speed process, then God help your houses! I would not like to think I had got to build one anyway, and to talk about training a man to build houses with bricks after a short period of training is simply ridiculous. I am not satisfied with the steps that are being taken at the Ministry for controlling prices. In our area, in 1919, our building was costing us 17s. per square foot of floor space. In 1920, it went up to 20s. Last year we got down to 8s. 6d. Now we are paying 11s., and it is floor space that counts. We are able to build to-day on contract an A3 type house for £350, excluding land and sewers. It has electric light, bath and fence, and is all ready for the tenant to go into. For £400 we are building a B3 type of house with parlour, kitchen, scullery, three bedrooms and a bathroom, just keeping inside the 1923 Act with 949½ feet of floor space area, which is not a bad house for a working man.
  I hope this Resolution will go through, not because the 1923 Act was bad, not even because the Addison scheme was bad, but because they were not quite good enough. I believe that by co-operation with the local authorities, the building trade operatives, the master builders and the public, we will get houses under this scheme, I believe they ought to get a move on to insist on the small builders in a given area pooling their resources. It is simply playing at building houses for the man who employs, perhaps, a single working bricklayer and himself. These people cannot take a big job. They
  1198
  ought by co-operative methods, or some other way, to pool their resources, in order to give co-operative construction of houses, so as to have a sequence of labour.
  Captain ELLIOT: If I might be allowed to do so, I should like to congratulate the speaker who has just sat down on his contribution on this subject, and I hope we shall be able to hear his contributions in the future. I feel some sympathy with him, as I am, in a manner, a maiden speaker myself. I claim the rights and privileges, the fact being that I find it difficult to realise that any change has taken place. I find the same debates going on in the House of Commons as were going on when I was here before. I find, it is true, that usurpers have taken our places on the opposite benches, and that my old place is being occupied by a Member at another party. If he finds it as hard work as, I found it he is earning every penny of his very meagre salary. When I was on those benches with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N Chamberlain) we tried to indicate our views on the inclusion of Scotland in au English Bill. As in many other things, we find that the same process takes place, with office, as often takes place with a. railway train. The people find themselves sick and faint when they are facing in one direction, and their faintness completely disappears if they turn round and take their seats on the opposite side. Possibly that feeling of nausea which overcame Scottish Members at the thought of being included in an English Bill has completely passed away when it is brought forward by lion. Members of their own party, and, consequently, the particular case for Scotland is only raised from the Front Bench, and we have to consider in June not merely the general case with regard to-this Bill, but also the particular case that arises, and, in particular, the case with regard to Scotland.
  In the first place, I say that it is a, very extraordinary thing, after all the confessions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, 'that they so meekly fall in with the practice we laid down only a year ago. The Minister of Health has eaten many of his words le-night. After all, the Government are in the process of being convinced by practice, and long may that process continue! They are modifying already. The Minister of Health comes down to

  1199
  explain that what he said about interest only refers to the happy state of society which he would wish to see. The proposals that he brings forward, he said, axe to buttress up the capitalist state of society. What would have been said in any part of this House if we had been told that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) would be coming before us and pleading with us to pass a Resolution on the ground that he was—[An HON. MEMBER:"] They are only pulling your leg! "] Hut I would rather take the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health than the editor of a great organ of public opinion in Scotland. If we are to take all his contributions to the pages of "Forward" in the same sense that the hon. Member the editor suggests we should take his contributions in Debates in this House, then I say that the pages of that paper, which I sedulously read, will have, in my eyes, much less value than they have now.
  There is another singular fact. The process of education has gone on more rapidly and with cinematographic speed in recent days. The Minister of Health got together a committee of both sides of the building trade, and this committee put out a report, and the Minister fell on its neck and blessed it, and said he would adopt this report. He went to the local authorities, and the local authorities tore the report into tatters, and the Minister of Health said: "I accept that," and be comes down to the House, not with a scrap of paper, but with an envelope full of scraps of paper, and asks us to give him a blank cheque. The essential features of the scheme are numerous and important. Take the 15 years' guarantee, for instance. The local authorities said: "We are not going to give you a 15 years' guarantee. We are not going to give you a guarantee at all." "All right," said the Minister, "I will agree to that." He is going to reconsider it in three years' time. The contribution is to be renewed every three years. Is that a guarantee? Would any hon. Member consider it a guarantee at all? What sort of guarantee is it? All we can say is that sooner or later the building industry will have a right to turn on him and indicate that in their opinion he has not carried out any of the proposals they brought forward. They
  1200
  put forward proposals to deal with the organisation of a statutory committee of the. building industry. The statutory committee, we were told, was to be given a status which would enable it to deal with anything arising within the industry, the expenses to be paid out of funds to be provided by Parliament. I do not find a single mention of this, and so I understand that a statutory committee has gone west, along with the other essential features of the scheme. The statutory committee, we are told by the Minister in his review, is now to be merely an advisory committee. An American philosopher mid it was good advice to run three planets of the same dimensions. The statutory committee has gone. This statutory committee seems to me to be the central part of the scheme, for to it was to be entrusted the absolute power to prohibit building material entering this country. The building committee came to an agreement on this basis, and the Minister of Health tears it up. Do we understand that the committee has sanctioned all these alterations? Was the letter from the London County Council submitted to this committee? What has happened to it? The fact that this committee considered it necessary before they would even try to instal the additional plant or extend work in any section of the trade that it should be safeguarded against the unrestricted use of foreign goods on houses built under this scheme seems to indicate that they attached considerable importance to this statutory committee, and if we are to understand now from the right hon. Gentleman that this is only an advisory committee, this seems to be another part of the scheme which is torn up. There are very many recommendations here which do not find any fulfilment in the Financial Resolution tabled by the Minister, and in particular in the portions relating to the housing schemes for Scotland. Scotland is dismissed in one page by this committee with the statement that further steps will be taken by the committee to deal with it, and I understand from the Secretary for Scotland to-day, in answer to a question from me, that no steps have been taken.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: £12 10s, instead of £6.
  Captain ELLIOT: That merely refers to 7½, per cent. of the houses to be built under the scheme, and not only that, but

  1201
  when this scheme was under consideration the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) rent the air with declamations proclaiming that nothing but £12 a year, and that for 60 years, would go any distance towards satisfying the Borough of Dumbarton. Now it 40 years and not 60 years, and if he thinks that he can delude the Scottish Board of Health into regarding Dumbarton and Clydebank as a rural area he is much mistaken. No minor modifications even are proposed with regard to the Scottish scheme. We have a party here which recommends two different things. It is stated by the Minister that the question of railway freights is very important. In the English Report one finds that in the opinion of the Committee the freightage charges at present in operation should be considerably lowered, but in regard to the Scottish Committee it is stated that railway freightage is a matter as to which the Committee would desire to recommend that assistance should be afforded in the case of materials for housing schemes. However, that does not in any way affect the all embracing scheme of the Minister of Health and the Secretary for Scotland. They are willing to swallow both of these and leave it to be threshed out subsequently when the electors come round to find out under which thimble is the pea.
  I am not bringing forward these facts as to the position in Scotland, regarding local authorities' schemes from the national or from the local point of view. I am simply showing that there we find the difficulties which have been emphasised all this afternoon; and especially do we find in Scotland that the shortage is a shortage of labour and to some extent of material, but that finance does not really enter into the question at the present moment. How are we justified in saying that? Because in Scotland at the present, moment a considerable number of houses remain to be built under the Addison scheme for which the State is paying far above anything now proposed by the Minister of Health. The Scottish Board of Health this summer will have to give their consent to the extension of the subsidy period not merely for the year allowed by Parliament beyond the time in the English scheme, but for an additional period of several months, owing to the bottle neck which exists in regard to the supply of
  1202
  skilled operatives, and in order that we may be able to complete these houses which are being built solely and entirely at the cost of the State with no other authority contributing one penny.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Are you right three?
  Captain ELLIOT: I will give you the figures. The four-fifths of a penny which was contributed has been expended long ago. We are now dealing with areas in which the four-fifths of a penny has been consumed, and where the State is bearing the whole of the loss upon all the houses that can be built. In October of last year there were 2,900 houses to be completed under the Addison scheme, and 1,700 houses were not begun
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Sanctioned?
  Captain ELLIOT: Sanctioned but not begun. They have still to be begun from the cutting of the soil. However, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health will not deny that there is a matter of several hundreds, possibly of 1,000 odd houses which have still to be completed.
  Mr. JAMES STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): One hundred and thirty-six.
  Captain ELLIOT: Are there any in regard to which it will be necessary to get an extension?
  Mr. STEWART: Up to the number of 136.
  Captain ELLIOT: So that under the Addison scheme even the year's extension beyond the English lime has not sufficed to complete our houses, and with regard to 136 we will need to get a further extension beyond what, is contemplated in the extension already sanctioned by Parliament. A further point is that when the grant was given for slum clearances in Scotland, we called the local authorities together and asked them what was the utmost amount, of rehousing they could carry out in two years with the conditions of labour and material which existed in their areas. That was the utmost amount, remember, everything that the building trade of Scotland could turn out, and the reply was 6,000 houses. All these houses have been sanctioned and are being proceeded with, and so you find that the Addison houses are not yet completed,

  1203
  while we have a full programme under the slum clearance scheme of 6,000—limited by the supply of actual labour and materials—and, in addition, we have a number of houses to be constructed under the 1923 Act. In all, there were to be built, when we left office, between 17,000 and 18,000 houses for which we had provided, for which the financial obligation had been settled, and the bottleneck was labour. It was a programme which with the labour at our disposal was utterly impossible to complete within the time. It is easy to see why the hon. Member who spoke last referred scornfully to the builder who employed one bricklayer or the employer working with one or two bricklayers. Take the schemes carried out in the capital city of Edinburgh. Here are three schemes which were being carried out there on 6th September, 1923. In one of them, the number of houses under contract was 24, the number of bricklayers required to build the houses within the subsidy period was 12, and there were one foreman and one bricklayer on that contract. Another scheme of 48 houses needed 24 men to carry it through, and there were one foreman and one bricklayer working on that contract. There was another scheme of 36 houses, which required eight people to carry it through within the subsidy period, and there were one foreman and two bricklayers on it. There were 44 men needed to carry out that scheme in the subsidy period, and there were seven men working on it, and under this proposal of adding one apprentice to every three we should get two more men on that scheme, so that, instead of seven working on it, there would be nine, although 44 were needed. That is simply an example.
  Everybody knows that the shortage of labour is very acute and that really the bottleneck is not the question of finance. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sherwood), whose lucid exposition of the position I must compliment him upon, has said, the finance of this is a bonus gift, and it is supposed to go towards reducing the rent of the houses which are constructed under the scheme. It will not increase the houses to be produced by one single house. It is hoped that it will serve to bring down the rents under the scheme, but, as we already know, the cost
  1204
  of the houses has enormously risen. Since the mere rumour of this scheme was introduced, houses which were being tendered for at £386 in January have gone up to £389 in February, £416 in March, and £425 in April. All that the Minister can hope to do with his subsidy is to keep pace with the rise in the cost, and he has not yet laid a brick of his houses.
  Mr. McENTEE: Rise in prices!
  Captain ELLIOT: The prices of materials were fixed in January, and the hon. Member must not assume rashly that this is due to rises in the price of materials. The Minister has been watching that very carefully, and I know that, with the Minister's ruthlessness towards profiteering in any shape or form, he would be the first to pounce on any unfortunate profiteer he had found, to wring his neck, and serve up his body here on a platter, to show his keenness for the cause of housing in Great Britain. The hon. Member may talk, but "Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. If they like to come here, when the next annual Housing Bill is being discussed in this House, and show a scheme with anything like as good results as we have got, then they can talk, but not now. I quite agree with the Minister that this is not the revolutionary proposal that is put forward by certain hon. Members. What he has done is, roughly speaking, to double the 1923 subsidy. The lump sum value of our subsidy was £75, and this is £160. It is a very great reform, a revolutionary step, a wonderful advance, to double the subsidy given by a Conservative Government. Let me suggest that he might pass a one Clause Bill, saying "Any subsidy given by the Conservative Government is hereby doubled." He could bring up the Corn Production Act and double the subsidy there. If this is merely a proposal to double the subsidy, all one can say is that it is not a really practical step towards obtaining houses for the people of this country. The debate has shown that the question of labour is paramount in this matter, and let me point out even with regard to material—I mention it in passing—I am not at all convinced that the figures given in the report of the Building Trades Committee are correct. They put the output of bricks at 227,000,000 per annum for Scotland. The

  1205
  figures I got when I was at the Ministry were not more than 144,000,000 per annum. There is a discrepancy there which seems to require some explanation. The general position, as I said, remains, and you have got to see where the Min- ister is heading to. If he is going to build any more houses, what he has got to do is either to decrease the cost or increase the rent of the houses. I cannot see he is producing the effect of which he is talking.
  Then, again, where does the right hon. Gentleman stand in regard to slum clearances? There were great powers given by the Act of 1923 with regard to slum clearances. That is a problem which has to be tackled separately. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say a great deal—and theoretically one would agree with them—as to taking the population out of a crowded area and putting them into less crowded places. But there are people at Finweston who are living near the river, and want to live near the river, and they are not going to be shifted away by the wave of a wand of the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division or any- one else.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have lived at Gorbals for the last 30 years.
  Captain ELLIOT: Fifteen or twenty years ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals was, perhaps, not taking the interest in public affairs that he is to-day. However that may be, we require special treatment for slum clearances. We were carrying on the slum clearance on a 50 to 50 basis. The present subsidy is on a 75 to 55 basis, but no one is going to build on a 50 to 50 basis if he can get the better terms, and how in this matter will we find ourselves in view of the Act of 1919 and the Act of 1923, and of the provisions under the subsidy pro- vided by this Financial Resolution?
  It is necessary to consider the whole question from the point of view of the Minister who claims by his scheme to be about to absorb the whole output of the building industry. He is going to divert houses from one section to another. In doing so he will have to consider whether this will meet the necessitous portion of the population; whether it is going to benefit under any scheme which he is bringing forward, because of the rents that are charged for houses for
  1206
  slum clearances. In my own constituency we are building a lot of houses and letting them at 28s. per month, with rates. That is a long way below the 11s. 6d. per week on which the present housing scheme is estimated. As to the £500 house, and the 9s. per week rent, which the Prime Minister, a few months ago spoke about, that now, of course, has vanished into the limbo along with the other promises made by the Government.
  Be that as it may the necessity for some long term scheme is essential, but I am not convinced that the present long term scheme is anything more than the merest delusion, nor do I believe that it will lead to any continuity of policy. After all no Parliament can bind its successors, and the present attempt to run an economic scheme by a political body shows that we are dealing with an omnipotent State which is only 3½ years old, and never gets any older. The life of a Parliament is 31 years and in the present attempt to get continuity you are dealing with an omnipotent baby which grows up to years old at the outside. This all-powerful baby is the real danger to the housing of this country and you cannot deal effectively with any housing scheme if you are going to have this omnipotent baby rolling over it in every direction as it is now doing.
  You are not getting continuity under this scheme, and it will be necessary ultimately for Parliament to face the question of setting up some commission or trust, and entrusting it with a big sum of money and assigning to it the duty of dealing with the housing situation. If the Minister of Health can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House a Supplementary Estimate for a really large sum of money, that is the only way in which you will get Parliament out of this continual business of interfering with house building. If the right hon. Gentleman can bring forward proposals for a sum, say, of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 to be handed over to some sort of permanent body in order to put housing on a permanent basis, I will back him all the way. The natural loquacity of the Scot is proverbial, and I could go on producing arguments so cogent that they would persuade even hon. Members below the Gangway to vote against the Government. It has been suggested in this Memorandum that by this Financial

  1207
  Resolution you are putting private enterprise in the same position as State enterprise. It says that you are:
  "Providing an increased contribution for houses which will be subject to special conditions governing the letting of the houses to occupying tenants."
  One can see that the proposals with regard to occupiers or the small builders are bound to prove utterly illusory. In this way you are cutting out an important section of the trade, and those who must bring in labour and train that labour. One condition is:
  "That the houses are let for occupation to tenants who intend to reside in them; that they shall not he assigned or sublet by the tenants except with the consent of the local authority; that they shall not be told or otherwise disposed of except with the consent of the Minister or the Scottish Board of Health.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not in any Bill, nor is it in the Resolution.
  Captain ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman is sketching in this White Paper the provisions he intends to put into the Bill. We put down an Amendment to deal with this question, but it was ruled out of order because there was a danger of increasing the number of houses that were to be built. I will leave that to hon. Members below the Gangway. All I can say is that we shall give these proposals our closest and, I hope, not unsympathetic consideration, but we do consider that they do not grapple with the main difficulty of the present day in any adequate sense—that the provision of extra labour, either by the better use of the labour we have or by the reinforcement of the ranks of the skilled operatives in the building industry, is not adequately grappled with; and that, consequently, this Bill will not produce the extra houses. The throwing in of the extra money will, however, produce a rise in cost, and that rise in cost will knock out private enterprise as against collective enterprise, and to that extent will prejudice instead of helping the object we all have in mind, namely, the speedy provision of the number of houses required for the people of this country.
  Mr. JAMES STEWART: I would like to compliment my compatriot, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot), on making his reappearance against us, even although it
  1208
  was, unfortunately, at the expense of one of my own party. [Hoc. MEMBERS: "No, a Communist."]
  Mr. LANSBURY: We are all Communists!
  Mr. STEWART: The hon. and gallant Member made the Committee, during the time that he spoke, feel pleasure in hearing him once again. His somewhat caustic humour at the expense of the party on this side of the Committee has been most enjoyable, and not least so to us who were the recipients of it. He made several points in common with the points that were made by most of the other speakers. They have said that we cannot get on because of the lack of labour. They have said that we cannot get on because the men—the bricklayers seem to be the particular villains of a very villainous play—will not do the work.
  Captain ELLIOT Captain ELLIOT indicated dissent.
  Mr. STEWART: The hon. and gallant Member did not, perhaps, emphasise it, but others have undoubtedly made the point that somehow or other the bricklayers will not produce the goods. Further than that, some of them, at least, have suggested that the finances of the country will not be able to bear this burden, and that., consequently, the housing schemes, as far as finance is concerned, will in all probability fail. I do not think there is any need for that feeling at all. I am sure that this country, which has borne even greater burdens at various stages in its career, will be able to bear this one, which is going to redeem us from a position in regard to housing in favour Of which not a Member of the House will say a word. My hon. Friend declared that so far as slum clearances were concerned in Scotland—and that mainly applies to the large towns and the industrial part of Lanarkshire—the people there must live near their work. I am certain it is not so. The schemes which have been promoted in Glasgow have not taken into account the fact that the workers must live near their work. They have gone out wherever they could find the ground, and they have gone a considerable distance away from the parts where the people they were dishousing were to be rehoused. Again, the Treasury have consented to increase the amount of money which was granted for slum clearance schemes. It was £30,000

  1209
  to begin with, it was then increased another £15,000, and now for the moment it stands at £45,000, and recently the Treasury have stated that the sum will be increased to the necessary amount required.
  Captain ELLIOT: Do you propose to proceed under that?
  Mr. STEWART: In the meantime, yes. We propose to continue until we have got something better to put in its place. It was declared that under the recent scheme there is a considerable amount of house building being proposed in Scotland and a considerable amount being held up. Under the 1923 scheme the houses which are being built by private enterprise total 1,802, and the number completed on 30th April last is 73
  Captain ELLIOT: That does not include the slum clearances.
  Mr. STEWART: The houses under construction by local authorities number 1,007, and the number completed is 16. Under the slum clearance schemes, which began, I think, under the late Government, there are 1,267 under construction and 430 completed. Under the 1919 Act there have been completed 21,785, and there are under construction 2,989 out of the. total of 22,550 which have been allotted to Scotland as her share. That is never going to solve the housing position in Scotland. The number of houses which were required in 1917 was £35,000. Of that number 121,000 were required then, and to make up for the low standard of housing another 114,000 were required. You have tried various schemes to get on with that, and you are not making progress. Now—and this is where the Government, instead of meeting with the commendation it, ought to be meeting, is being held up to criticism, perhaps according to' party ideas quite fairly—we have taken a step which has not been taken by anyone else. We have appealed to the patriotic sense, to the sense of fair play, to the nation's requirements, to the people who are interested in industry, and I believe my countrymen who are engaged in these avocations, whether as workers or employers, recognising the necessity of dealing with this question, and of cutting out this cancer that is eating into the vitals of our nation, and will help to bring about
  1210
  disaster unless it is dealt with, are rising to the occasion, and. will give us of their best.
  It has been suggested that they will hold up the work, and that they will not proceed. We have every evidence that can possibly be given and every pledge to prove that they will do this work. I am content to await the results, confidently believing that they will not fail us on this occasion. A great deal has been made of the cost; the fact that it is going to cost over £1,300,000,000 in connection with the subsidies. For about 23 years the subsidy is to be, between the State and the municipalities, £34,000,000. That is a tremendous amount of money, but not a greater burden than we can bear. It is not so much as we are bearing at this moment. Here I can appeal to the professional knowledge of the hon. Member for Kelvingrove—and I know he will agree with me—that we are losing more money from bad houses that produce bad health than it would cost us to go on at an even greater expense and build new houses that will tend towards abolishing the bad houses. The hon. Member for St. Alban's (Lieut.- Colonel Fremantle) stated in 1922, I think, that we were losing at a very low estimate—he said it was an under-estimate—£150,000,000 a year arising out of bad health; that tuberculosis alone was costing the country over £94,000,000 a year, and he has been backed up by the principal medical officer of health for the Ministry of Health and the medical officer of health for Manchester. Everyone of them is agreed that we are losing money steadily by the present position of affairs. If we want to abolish this, we must get at the cause of this tremendous expenditure.
  In my own city we have a tremendous expenditure with regard to the Poor Law. We are spending in Glasgow at the moment on the maintenance of widows with young children over £143,000 per annum and, besides, we are spending £17,000 per annum on the maintenance of orphan children—t160,000 to maintain orphans, widows with young children. The average age of these widows is under 40 years of age, meaning, of course, that their husbands died at a time when they ought to have been maintaining their wives and children themselves. This, according to the evidence that we get, all arises from respiratory diseases, the

  1211
  thing that mainly again arises from bad housing. I do believe that every citizen in this country is entitled to give of his best and to devote his energies not to making party capital out of this—I do wish we could realise that this question transcends party—but in the hope that it will do good. I am certain that, if this scheme is adopted in the form in which it has been put forward to-night, and if it is proceeded with, at the end of three years, as the result of experience—whether the people with materials will give us goods, whether the workers will turn those goods into houses, and whether the financial provisions will work out as we think they will—at the end of three years, with that experience, applying ourselves to providing these houses as we desire to do, it is going to make things a bit better not merely for the people who will live in the houses, or the people you are dealing with, but for us who are in this House, as well as all those who are immediately concerned. I believe that will be done. This House need not worry about supervision. Let it get the scheme started, let it build the houses, and as years go on we will overtake this housing problem in a manner creditable to the House itself, at the same time meeting the needs of the people with whom we are dealing.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to he made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Harpenden District Gas Company, which was presented on the 20th May and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to he made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Skipton, which was presented on the 26th May and published, he approved"—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

  TEMPERANCE (WALES) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. James Gould.]
  Question again propoised, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: We are not prepared to resume discussion of an issue which arouses heated controversy. This is a Bill which seeks to impose upon the country a system which is by no means—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SIERRA LEONE (TRIALS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
  Captain BERKELEY: I should like to refer to the question which was put by the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris) yesterday, regarding the system of trial in the West African Colonies. I should like to call attention to certain anomalies that exist in these parts of our Colonial possessions as compared with other Colonial possessions. The case on which my hon. Friend founded his question was that of a Mr. Fitzgerald, a Government servant, who was charged in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone, as distinct from the Colony, with the misappropriation of ·certain Government funds. In the Protectorate, as distinct from the Colony, there is no provision for trial by jury, and this ex-Government servant was brought before the Second Court Judge of Sierra Leone Protectorate, assisted by three assessors, and charged with the misappropriation of £20 odd of Government money. The trial proceeded and after it had concluded the assessors were called upon to pronounce their verdict and the three unanimously pronounced

  1213
  the prisoner to be not guilty. The Judge, however, as he was perfectly entitled to do under the procedure, overruled the verdict of the assessors, convicted the prisoner and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.
  I do not wish in any way to animadvert upon the Government, because those of us who have studied colonial administration of justice are well aware that it is not a matter that can be laid to the charge of any particular Government. It has been the result of an aggregation of conflicting judicial procedures. There is in some colonies an appeal from these decisions, but in some colonies there is no appeal. In the Sierra Leone Protectorate it so happens there is no appeal from a criminal conviction brought about in these circumstances.
  What I am urging upon the, Government is this: In all Colonies, so far as I know —and I have made a fairly diligent search of the ordinances and rules of procedure in other Colonies than the West African Protectorates—in all Colonies except West Africa, so far as am aware, there is an invariable rule that any European charged with an offence against the criminal law is entitled to be tried by a jury of his own countrymen. In the Sierra Leone Protectorate, as distinguished from the Colony, where trial by jury is provided. there is no such provision, the only provision being for trial by assessors; and under the Criminal Procedure Regulations, the verdict of the assessors has no binding effect on the court whatever It is laid down that the Judge is entitled, if he wishes, to overrule the verdict of the assessors, and in this particular case he did overrule the verdict of the assessors
  Without in any way commenting upon the propriety or impropriety of the verdict in that case—that has nothing to do with the point I am putting before the House—this procedure seems to be a very serious departure from the ordinary
  1214
  administration of justice as we understand it in this country. An accused person of our race is entitled to be tried by a jury of his own countrymen on the facts, and the Court must be bound by the finding of the jury. The difficulty is, of course, a practical one—we have to recognise that. The difficulty is to empanel a jury of Europeans in a place like the Sierra Leone Protectorate. My submission is that we have a perfectly good precedent to go upon, to he derived from other Protectorates of the Crown, and that is that where you cannot get a jury in the Protectorate with the Circuit Court or the District Court, as the case may be, you should commit the accused for trial to the nearest centre at which a jury can be empanelled in the Colony itself. In this case you have the two jurisdictions side by side. You have the Sierra Leone Colony, in which there is no difficulty whatever in obtaining a jury, because the natives are entitled to trial by jury. There is no provision whatever for trial by assessors except in such cases as the Attorney-General should certify that a fairer trial would be obtained by suspending trial by jury, and providing assessors for the Court. In the Sierra Leone Protectorate, which holders on the Sierra. Leone Colony, on the other hand, a European arraigned before a Court of justice is not entitled to be tried by a jury, and has no- claim to a jury, but must be satisfied with trial by assessors. I think I ought to indicate to my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench that since 1901 there have been no fewer than 13 cases in which the Judge of the Sierra Leone Courts—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at Eleven Minutes after Eleven of the Clock until To-morrow.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EPILEPSY.
  EPILEPSY.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS (REASSESSMENT).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS (REASSESSMENT).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  VOLUNTARY DISPOSITIONS.
  VOLUNTARY DISPOSITIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE (REPORT).
  COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE (REPORT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (COMMON SENIORITY).
  CIVIL SERVICE (COMMON SENIORITY).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  GERMANY (IMPORTED TEXTILE GOODS).
  GERMANY (IMPORTED TEXTILE GOODS).
POST OFFICE.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  WIRELESS RESEARCH AND SERVICES.
  WIRELESS RESEARCH AND SERVICES.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  ALTERATIONS TO CABLES, TORQUAY.
  ALTERATIONS TO CABLES, TORQUAY.
  DELIVERIES, BOURNEMOUTH.
  DELIVERIES, BOURNEMOUTH.
  BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES (JAMMING).
  BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES (JAMMING).
  POST OFFICE SERVICES (PUBLICITY).
  POST OFFICE SERVICES (PUBLICITY).
  NEWSPAPER POST.
  NEWSPAPER POST.
  TOWNLANDS, LONDONDERRY COUNTY (FACILITIES).
  TOWNLANDS, LONDONDERRY COUNTY (FACILITIES).
  MACNAMARA AND COMPANY (WAGES).
  MACNAMARA AND COMPANY (WAGES).
TRANSPORT.
  CONCRETE ROADS.
  CONCRETE ROADS.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, UPPER TEESDALE WATERS.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, UPPER TEESDALE WATERS.
  BIRMINGHAM AND WOLVERHAMPTON NEW ROAD.
  BIRMINGHAM AND WOLVERHAMPTON NEW ROAD.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (EXCESSIVE NOISE).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (EXCESSIVE NOISE).
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (RHINE).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (RHINE).
  BRITISH CEMETERIES, PRANCE AND BELGIUM (EMPLOYÉS).
  BRITISH CEMETERIES, PRANCE AND BELGIUM (EMPLOYÉS).
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the teaching of seditious and blasphemous doctrines and methods to children, and for other purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, if this was a Public Bill I would not ask your Lordships to oppose it on Second Reading but to amend it in Committee. It is a Bill of 83 Clauses, but there is only one Clause—Clause 61—to which I desire to draw your attention. Your Lordships would, no doubt, approve generally of the provisions were it not for the fact that amongst the clauses is one to set aside to the advantage of the railway company one of the general laws of the country. When it is desired to set aside the general law of England in some special case your Lordships would probably have no objection if sufficient reasons were adduced, but I submit that when it is desired to set aside the general law of the country the proper way is in a Public Bill and not in a private measure.
Under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 land which was acquired by an undertaking and found to be superfluous for that undertaking had to be sold and a right of pre-emption was given to the original owner. In a famous case in 1868 between Lord Beauchamp's father and the Great Western Railway Company it was decided that where land was used for any other purpose than that of a railway company a right of pre-emption existed. By subsequent Private Bills this right of pre-emption has been to some extent modified. A company is now allowed to hold its superfluous land beyond the period originally laid down in the Act by which that land was acquired and to dispose of it if it so desires, but the right of pre-emption, although postponed, still exists and has not been abrogated.
The clause to which I desire to draw your attention goes a good deal further than anything to which I have so far referred. If this clause becomes law this railway company and others who are preparing to follow suit will be allowed to erect "shops, chambers, flats, offices, or any other similar buildings"—a very wide phrase—not only on land which they may hereafter acquire but on land of which they are already possessed; in fact, on all land which they may now possess or at any time acquire. Indeed, the power asked for goes further because it is retrospective, a matter which I think your Lordships have always treated with great suspicion not only in Private Bills but in Public Bills as well. You will find that the company asks to be deemed always to have had the power to erect buildings, and so on. They also ask for power to dispose on lease of any superfluous land for any purpose whatever. I must point out that a railway company has the power to erect buildings in order to house its own employees. That obviously is part of the undertaking of a railway company, but I doubt whether any noble Lord who may speak for a railway company will contend that under present day conditions a railway company is likely to erect workmen's cottages for anybody but its own employees, for which it has already the power.
Let me point out what may be the effect of this clause. A railway company has the right to acquire land compulsorily, but when it desires to do so it is com-

781
pelled to notify each individual owner and to give him an opportunity of appearing before a. Committee; of your Lordships' House, stating his case, and putting forward any objections he may have. He may also appear when a railway company desires to alter or repeal any express statutory provision which exists for his protection. Under a general clause such as this the landowner gets no such notice. Under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House all that a railway company is required to do is to produce an abridged notice in one issue of the London Gazette, a full copy of the Bill in one London newspaper, which must appear on one day in two subsequent weeks, and a similar notice in a county newspaper. I do not know whether your Lordships are in the habit of reading all the Loudon newspapers from cover to cover, and all your country newspapers as well, but my impression is that I shall not be over stating the case when I say that a notice such as this probably does not come before five per cent. of the landowners who may be affected by this clause.
A statement has been circulated to your Lordships by the railway company in which it is pointed out that shops and offices are built over underground railway stations under powers which have been already acquired, and it is suggested that this is a typical example of the intention of this clause. Perhaps I may be allowed to give other instances not quite so favourable from the point of view of the railway company. The railway company would be entitled to erect a large and unsightly block of tenements or flats in the midst of a garden city. Such an erection would obviously destroy to a large extent the æsthetic amenities of the neighbourhood and the value of much of the property. Your Lordships are well aware that in many of these garden cities small owners are in process of buying their houses under the instalment principle. These owners would be just as much hit as any large landowner, and would object perhaps even more strongly because they have nowhere else to go. In the same way under this clause the railway company would be allowed to lease land for, let us say, the purposes of a soap or candle factory in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, or to erect an oil stores close to a timber yard, or, as in a case which actually occurred a few
782
years ago, to demand power to lease fifty acres of land for the erection of four large blast furnaces. This clause did not then exist and that power was successfully opposed. I think I shall have the support of my noble friend Lord Newton in regard to the smoke nuisance in view of the powers that may be acquired under this clause to erect large chimneys belching forth smoke.
It may be argued that railway companies, having paid in full for their land, should be allowed to use it for any purpose they desire. Under the law compensation is paid to the owner for any land which is compulsorily acquired on this basis: Where damage is occasioned the compensation shall be determined—I quote the words of the Act—" by the exercise of the powers of this or the Special Act or any Act incorporated therewith." The clause of the Bill which is now before your Lordships proposes, without further compensation, largely to extend those powers. Even if I were prepared, for the purpose of argument, to admit that land had invariably been paid for in full, I submit that this general clause, which obviously has not been seen by every owner who may be affected thereby, does not give such owners any chance of appearing before the Committee of your Lordships' House and stating his case, for the simple reason that he probably has never heard of it.
I am aware that a limiting proviso affecting this clause has been inserted in another place, by which the company is not absolved from any covenant or condition in a deed of sale and consequently is not able to override it, but I must point out that the company was limited in its powers and the landowner further had the protection of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. It is very improbable that many deeds contain the conditions necessary to protect the interests of the landowner. Moreover, there are many people who have bought land or houses, or are in process of doing so, under the instalment principle, who felt when they entered into their bargain that they were safeguarded by the fact that the neighbouring land was available only for railway purposes, and for no other. If this clause becomes law they will find that this land may be used for any purpose whatever.
I must frankly confess to your Lordships that this is not the first occasion on which a clause of this character has appeared before your Lordships' House. Last year the Great Western Railway Company succeeded in getting a clause of this character with even wider powers, and I understand the London and South Western Railway Company also succeeded in doing so in 1913. I believe that in both cases no opposition whatever was offered by either House of Parliament, either on the floor of the House or upstairs, and I have very little doubt that it was for the reason which I have suggested—that the clause was entirely unknown to the ordinary landowner—that no opposition was made in either case. May I make a further confession? I do not own a single yard of land alongside any railway which is ever likely to be developed or to have surplus land for sale, and I may further add that I am not a railway director. I see railway directors to right of me and to left of me prepared to volley and thunder, but at any rate I can claim that in bringing this matter before your Lordships I am doing so as an entirely disinterested person.
I submit that a general and retrospective, clause of this character inserted into an omnibus Bill gives no opportunity for legitimate objections being heard by your Lordships' Committee for the reason that owners know nothing whatever about a clause of this character. I further submit that to attempt in a Private Bill to destroy piecemeal a Public General Act—in this case the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act—is a practice which Parliament ought to resist. I am unable to move that this clause should be omitted from the Bill, and therefore, failing an undertaking that it shall be omitted when it goes upstairs before your Lordships' Committee, I have no alternative but to propose that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down said that he saw railway directors all around him prepared to volley and thunder. I am speaking as a railway
784
director on behalf of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company, and I will endeavour to make my thunder as short as possible, and also as fair as possible to the noble Earl's case. It has been my duty, in the interests of the railway company with which I am associated, to read through the speech made by counsel on behalf of this clause before the Committee of the House of Commons. It was a very able speech, though I found the subject somewhat dry and lengthy. The proceedings before that Committee of the House of Commons persuaded it to pass this clause. That is no reason why it should be assumed that the Committee of your Lordships' House, or your Lordships, will be prepared to pass the clause. They will approach it independently and de novo, but I would submit to your Lordships that you ought not to come to a decision on this clause without having given the railway company the same opportunity of stating their case as they had in another place. They do not ask more than an opportunity of stating their case in relation to this long, technical and somewhat dry subject.
I will not attempt to go over the whole ground, but I should like to put one or two points to your Lordships. In the first place, the point at issue under this Bill is not, as the noble Earl argued, a large point; it is a small one. It is not the London and North-Eastern Railway Company which is coming for the first time and asking for a modification of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. That has been done again and again already. It is argued against this clause that if it is passed the railway company will have power to erect buildings on superfluous land not required for railway purposes. At the present moment the principal railway companies have power to sell or lease superfluous land for buildings to be erected, and the difference which will be made by this clause is not that they will have power to sell or lease land for building for the first time, but that they will have power to do on their superfluous lands the things for which they now have power to sell or lease lands for other people to do. That, as I understand, is the size of the point at issue.
The noble Earl says that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are promoting this Bill and asking for this power, and that, if they succeed in getting

785
it, other companies will follow suit. As appeared from the noble Earl's own speech the thing really is the other way round. Other companies have this power and the North Eastern Railway Company are following suit. The London and South Western Railway Company got this power in 1913. The Great Western Railway Company got the same power in 1923. The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company are asking for this power this year in a Bill which your Lordships have already allowed to pass through Second Reading and go upstairs in the usual way. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships the point really is this: Why is the London and North Eastern Railway Company to receive less favourable treatment on this clause than has already been given to the other three great railway companies? I can only suggest one possible reason for meting out different treatment in this case to the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and it is that there are landowners owning lands adjoining that of the company who are in a special position, and that, therefore, you ought not to be satisfied with the treatment with which landowners adjoining the land of other railways have already been satisfied or with which Parliament has decided they should be satisfied.
AS to the particular circumstances of those petitioning against the Bill I know nothing, but if there is any reason why the landowners who petition against the Bill should be treated differently from those who own lands adjoining the land of other railway companies, I submit that that is a point for the Committee to go into. If ever there was a Committee point that, surely, is one, and if your Lordships say that that point is to be settled on the floor of this House and not by Committee, I think you might as well abolish Committees on Private Bills altogether.
I have only one or two further observations to make. The noble Earl said that if this power had been given to other railway companies, it was probably because landowners interested had been unaware of what was being done, I understood from his argument that the Standing Orders, in his opinion, did not provide sufficient notice to landowners. The railway company in this case have complied with all the Standing Orders. I ask you to consider what it would mean
786
if, before a railway company promoted a Bill in Parliament, it had to ascertain the names of the owners of all land adjoining its system—a more enormous task than ever now that the railway companies have been amalgamated—and send them separate notices of what was being proposed. It would make it impossible for railway companies to introduce Bills at all. I submit that what has hitherto been considered sufficient in the Standing Orders should be regarded as sufficient for the purpose of this Bill. If the Standing Orders are not considered sufficient, that is a matter which should be taken up by your Lordships, not on the case of an individual Bill like this but as a general question affecting the whole scope of the Standing Orders
If the Standing Orders are altered to meet the noble Earl's point, it would make the promotion of Bills by railway companies impossible. The noble Earl said he would oppose the Second Reading of this Bill unless the railway company withdrew this clause. It is not, I think, fair to the railway company to ask them to withdraw this clause without being heard by counsel before the Committee, and we ask for the opportunities your Lordships usually afford railway companies of being heard before a Committee. It is not reasonable to ask us to withdraw this clause without having had an opportunity of stating our case.
The rejection of the Bill would be a serious matter. Under the Bill powers are taken to carry out work on which between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 will be spent. The railway companies, like other great institutions, have been urged by successive Governments, in the public interest, to push on their works in order to find employment at this very critical time. If you reject this Bill it will mean that these works will be held up, and that the railway company, which has been asked in common with others to do all it can to expedite work, will have those works exceptionally delayed. On the ground of public policy I submit that that would be very undesirable action for your Lordships to take. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to undertake action of that kind, on so small a point as that which the noble Earl has raised in moving the rejection of the Bill. I therefore ask your Lordships, on the general ground of public interest and from the point of view

787
that no really essential point has been raised by the noble Earl, to pass the Second Reading and allow the Bill to go to Committee in the usual way.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I have often asked your Lordships to allow a Bill to go to Committee upstairs, as has been suggested by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, but I have never done so with less hesitation than on the present occasion. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill claimed that in doing so he was adopting his only remedy. He evidently was not present a fortnight ago. I quote this precedent with some reluctance as your Lordships on that occasion voted in such a way that I voted in the minority. Only a fortnight ago your Lordships decided that a clause should be struck out of a Bill, after allowing that Bill to go to a Second Reading. If the noble Earl wants to take action that is his proper action, instead of moving the rejection of a Bill of eighty-three clauses, when he says frankly that he has no objection to any of them except Clause 61. It is obvious from the speech of the noble Viscount that it is a Committee point. The noble Earl says that landowners do not get sufficient notice. In this matter the Standing Orders of the two Houses are practically the same, and at any rate twenty-six landowners opposed this clause in the House of Commons. That fact entitles me to say that a considerable number of them, at least, had notice of the clause, and, as has been made clear in the debate; twenty-four of them have been satisfied by the Amendments which were made in another place. The remaining two have deposited Petitions in your Lordships' House. I think I may quite fairly argue from that' that they, at any rate, would not be displeased if this Bill went to a Committee and their cases were heard there.
I really do not feel that I need say another word upon the subject. It is a small point—I admit an important point—but it is a point in accordance with precedent. It is nothing revolutionary. And if the landowners who have lodged Petitions in your Lordships' House are in an exceptional position, compared with the other landowners who have appeared, they can make their case in the Committee in the usual way by
788
giving evidence. This is obviously a point that we cannot decide in a Second Reading debate, and I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, like the noble Earl who moved the rejection of this Bill, I approach the question from an unprejudiced standpoint. I am not a railway director, and not even a landowner, and I am solely interested in this Bill from having had considerable experience of Private Bill legislation. I confess that I view with great surprise the attitude of my noble friend. I always looked upon him as a solid, substantial member of this House, who had a strong sense of responsibility. But what has he asked the House to do? Here is a Bill, an omnibus Bill of a far-reaching character, involving the expenditure of several millions of money. That Bill has been fought at considerable length in the House of Commons, where twenty-six landowners appeared, in addition to the Land Union. Of those landowners twenty-four were satisfied, and even the Land Union were satisfied, and withdrew their opposition. I should have thought that my noble friend might have had sufficient confidence in that institution to realise that there was nothing very revolutionary about this Bill.
My noble friend dwelt on the awful consequences that might ensue if the Bill were passed. What consequences have-ensued from powers that have been given to the railways already quoted? Can my noble friend quote any instance in which the London and South Western Railway, or the Tubes, or the Southern Railway have perpetrated any of the atrocities which he contemplates as a possibility? The only evidence of the kind that I know of is that in certain of the London Tube stations there are a few shops, and I am not aware that they do any harm to anybody. If the rejection of an omnibus Bill is to be moved because certain people object to one clause it really is rendering the whole practice of Private Bill legislation little better than a farce. We have on several occasions lately, I think, acted with rather doubtful wisdom in imposing restrictions upon Committees. I cannot help thinking that, if this House has not got confidence in its own Private Bill

789
Committees, it cannot have confidence in anything at all. It is for that reason that I submit that the objections ought not to be entertained by the House. The point raised is a purely Committee point. The noble Duke and the other noble Lord concerned can appear before the Committee, and they are just as likely, if rot more likely, to get full consideration from a Committee of this House as they are from any tribunal in the country.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, reference has been made in this debate, and in the printed statement issued by the promoters of this Bill, to the Land Union. When this Bill was brought forward the Land Union took up with the railway companies certain points, especially Clause 61 which had been brought to the notice of the Land Union. The railway companies met the Land Union's wishes most courteously, and a provision has been inserted in this Bill, Clause 61 (4), embodying our agreement. There may be other points to which some people may take objection, but we were satisfied that our definite points had been met. My noble friend Lord Stanhope referred to the Great Western Railway Company's Bill of last year, and I should like, to point out that that company obtained powers to alter the Land's Clauses Acts, but when the Land Union this year were agreeing their clause with the other railway companies, the Great Western Railway Company very generously decided to fall into line with the other railway companies and to give up the power they obtained last year. They put into this year's Bill, which is now before the, House of Commons, Clause 60, waiving their previous power. I should like to express to the Great Western Railway Company my sincere thanks for the way in which they have met the Land Union.
On the other hand, I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanhope that the Standing Orders require to be looked into. It should not be possible for a Private Bill like this to upset public Acts of Parliament, without due notice being given of what the intentions of the Bill are. My noble friend Lord Stanhope pointed out that notice has merely to be given in the newspapers. If you look at the title of this Bill you will find it is an Act to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to con-
790
struct new railways, widenings, etc., and for other purposes. Nobody reading that notice in a newspaper—even supposing that they saw it—would imagine that the Lands Clauses Act was going to be altered in a Private Bill. The title ought to have been: "London and North Eastern Railway Company Bill, and a Bill to amend the Lands Clauses Act." If people had seen that in the newspaper their attention would have been drawn to it much more forcibly. I should like to see a Committee set up to inquire into the Standing Orders, and to make the Standing Orders insist that in future a proper title should be given to every Bill. While, however, I. support the proposal for a Committee, I consider that this Bill should be allowed to proceed, and not be delayed while a Committee is sitting to inquire into the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived, and Bill read 2a.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SUTTON HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STRATFORD-UPON-AVON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I can tell your Lordships very shortly what this Bill contains, but may I first say a few sentences about the law as it stands which is proposed to be amended? The Common Law of this country puts the father in the position which was the outcome of the general principle of the Roman law, under which he was the head of the unit called the family. He controlled that unit, and he had tremendous power not only over his wife, but also over his children. Over the children he had complete disposition so far as their nurture and upbringing were concerned. In the year 1886 your Lordships passed an Act called the Guardianship of Infants Act. By that Act the power of the father was put under a considerable measure of control.
To-day, it is proposed by this Bill to apply a very simple principle; that is, that the care and interest of the child shall be the first consideration. No Common Law provision as to the father's right is any longer to prevent the Court interfering if the infant is maltreated in any way. That principle is connected with another—namely, that the status of women has very much changed in the last twenty-five years. Recently it has been so changed that the woman has almost the same status as the man. She has not altogether the same status, because it is
792
necessary to preserve the position of the family as a unit, and if you have a unit there must be a head to that unit. When you come to the interest of the child it is recognised as most important that the mother should be able to intervene and take care of the child with a power of doing good and preventing evil equal to that possessed by the father.
There came a time when there were various Bills before Parliament. There was one introduced by a member of your Lordships' House, which proposed to give various powers to the mother. That and other Bills raised the broad question, and the result was that the matter was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Wemyss. That Committee went into the subject and presently it became clear that all sorts of difficulties would emerge unless the simple principle which I have mentioned, or something akin to it, was accepted. It was impossible to determine the details and to say what the Court should do in the event of this and that quarrel between husband and wife without preventing the desired result, and in the end the Committee presided over by Lord Wemyss was unable to come to complete agreement. But a great deal of valuable information was brought to light in the course if its inquiries.
Next came the Bill proposed by Mrs. Wintringham, in the House of Commons. That was a very valuable Bill because of its simplicity. But there again the resort to the Court was made more extensive than seemed to be safe, in view of the circumstances which Lord Wemyss' Committee had brought to light. The consequence was that the Government, while strongly approving the principles of the Bill, invited Mrs. Wintringham to come into consultation with a view of shaping a Bill. The result of those consultations is this Bill, which is the outcome of prolonged conversations with various persons interested in the subject.
The Bill is a very simple one. It does not go into detail, but it lays down the principle which governs the detail. The principle is that the interest of the child is to be paramount. Your Lordships will find that in Clause 1, which provides that the Court, in deciding the question as to the custody or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property

793
belonging to or held on trust for an infant, or the application of the income thereof, shall have regard solely to the welfare of the infant and shall not take into consideration whether, from any other point of view, the claim of the father, or the right at Common Law possessed by the father, in respect of such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father. That is the principle, and it is an advance on the principle of the Act of 1886, which left to the Court a very vaguely worded discretion in dealing with these things.
Under Clause 2 the mother has, of course, the same power of applying to the Court in respect of any matter affecting the infant as the father. Then Clause 3 provides that—
"The power of the Court. … to make an order as to the custody of an infant and the right of access thereto may be exercised notwithstanding that the mother of the infant is then residing with the father of the infant."
At Common Law the father could bar the mother from such action altogether if she was living with him. Subsection (2) says:
"Where the Court under the said section as so amended makes an order giving the custody of the infant to the mother, then, whether or not the mother is then residing with the father, the Court may further order that the father shall pay to the mother towards the maintenance of the infant such weekly or other periodical sum as the Court, having regard to the means of the father, may think reasonable."
Then there is this provision in subsection
(3)—
"Where at the time when any such order whether for custody or maintenance is made the mother is residing with the father of the infant, the order shall not be enforceable whilst she so continues to reside with him."
Therein lies the difference between this Bill and the Bill brought before the House of Commons by Mrs. Wintringham.
Under Mrs. Wintringham's Bill, if the father was supporting the mother and was not giving her enough for the purpose, she could come before the Court and ask for an order to be made enabling his wages to be attached, if necessary. In the circumstances the husband could probably get round the order. The way it worked out in the negotiations was this. It was said that it is quite right
794
that the mother should be able to apply to a Court so that the Court may say what is a proper sum to be awarded for maintenance, but it does not follow if the mother chooses to continue to reside with the father that she ought to be able to enforce that law. Therefore, it is provided that that order should not be enforced while they are living together. If things get so bad that the wife is bound to leave her husband then she has an order ready, and the question of the custody of the children is in the discretion of the Court, which is to have regard to all the circumstances in deciding who should have the custody of the children.
The Bill may be said to do four things. In the first place, it lays down general principles and leaves the Court to work out the details in accordance with the circumstances of each individual case. In the second place, there is no power actually to apportion the husband's income while the husband and wife are living together, but a principle is laid down under which an order can be made that will take effect if the wife thinks it necessary to leave the husband. In the third place, the interest of the infant is to be looked at exclusively in judging what is right to be done; and, in the fourth place, there is given to the wife what I think is quite right—the husband already has it—namely, power to appoint a guardian by will. If she does that then that guardian will be guardian jointly with the father, and if they do not agree the Court will settle who is to prevail. That is the whole Bill. I am far from saying that it is a Bill which someone might not be able to make better. It is too difficult a subject for any one to say that a better Bill might not be made, but with this difficult subject those of us who have been concerned in the matter, after exercising all the ingenuity and skill we could bring to bear, have come to the conclusion that this is the simplest way of dealing with the matter. We think this is a measure that will work, one that will remove a great injustice, and one that will tend to satisfy public opinion. On those grounds I venture to commend it to your Lordships' consideration, and I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, having been Chairman of two Joint Parliamentary Committees which dealt with the question of the guardianship of infants, and having listened to a large amount of evidence, most of it twice over, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on the Bill which the noble Viscount has introduced. I may say that the two Joint Parliamentary Committees over which I presided showed considerably more vitality than the Parliaments which appointed them, because the first Committee had not concluded its evidence when the Parliament that appointed it expired, and the second Parliamentary Committee had listened to the evidence and was bringing up its Report when the second Dissolution of Parliament came about. But, as the noble Viscount has told your Lordships, our labours were not altogether in vain. It would be idle to deny, I think, that the first Bill which we considered was frankly impossible. Had it been introduced to this House it would have been riddled with ridicule and killed at once. The second Bill was a great improvement on the first. It is a fact that the promoters of that Bill showed a very reasonable spirit and a great anxiety to meet difficulties and to come to a compromise. Although the grievances complained of were mainly sentimental, there undoubtedly were a good many instances of real grievances, and, of course, these might have been increased.
These were the reasons which impelled me to be anxious to see whether the Committee could not arrive at some practical scheme which might carry out as far as possible the wishes of the promoters. I, therefore, drafted a Report which I had hoped might meet with the approval of the Committee. I am sorry to say that it did not. but after a conference with Lord Askwith—and I hope he will allow me to say that he never showed more conspicuously those qualities of skilful negotiation and conciliation for which he is notable than he did on that occasion—I came to the conclusion that our differences were more apparent than real, and that we might easily have built a bridge over which we could have unitedly walked to the other side, and passed all that was good in the Bill. But it so happened that Parliament came to an end and the Bill could not go on.
796
I think I may say, however, that our labours were not in vain, because this Bill practically embodies the compromise that we should have arrived at, and really carries out, in the main, the recommendations in my draft Report. The Bill of the Government does away, in my humble opinion, with all the objectionable features of the original measure. It removes all those fertile opportunities for domestic differences with which both the other Bills bristled. It gives to the Courts the power of deciding questions solely in the interest of the child. The differences between the parents do not affect the Court. What they have to decide is what is the interest of the child, and it is that which we all agree is desirable.
It carries on that parental jurisdiction over the children which the Chancery Courts have always carried on, and, as far as possible, it extends it to the inferior courts. The Lord Chancellor did not tell us how far the Chancery Judges are reconciled to this Bill. Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence, whom we heard, was very much against the Bill, and most of his colleagues, I think, were also; but I really think, although I have had no opportunity of conferring with him, that most of his objections are met by the Bill. Then again, the Stipendiary Magistrates, and Sir Chartres Biron in particular, were very much against the Bill, though it is only fair to say that Mr. Chapman was very much in its favour. Still, the large majority of the Magistrates were against it, and I should have liked to have heard that, their opposition had been removed.
There is one very important matter to which the noble Viscount alluded, and that is the question of granting maintenance allowance when parents are living together. Orders may not be enforced when they are living together. Sir Ernley Blackwell, who represented the Home Office before us, drew a very lurid picture of what had happened, and what might happen. He told us that a very large proportion of the murder cases that had been tried had to do with the separation laws, that if many of them were not caused by those laws, at all events the question of separation was a factor in them, and he drew a most alarming picture of what might happen if this were extended to maintenance, implying rather that there might be a general massacre of wives if this were

797
passed. I do not know how far his opposition has been met, but I think that so long as the women's societies are unanimously in favour of this clause, as they are, knowing and having had pointed out to them the perils they may incur under it, and if they are still prepared to face those perils, then we ought to allow them to do so. Therefore I shall support that clause.
I do not think there is very much else in the Bill to which I need allude. Personally, I am in favour of the measure. So far as I can see it does not require very much alteration. After all, we must remember that we have given equal rights to women in most respects. We have given them the Parliamentary franchise, and if what I hear is true they will in a short time have such a majority of votes that if they organise we shall be under their control. If that is the case, it is surely straining at a gnat to try to refuse them the right of joint control over their children—a right that nature and, I think, reason urges. Really we ought to be grateful to them that in their strength they are merciful, and, although having a majority of numbers, do not claim full control over their children. I am glad, as the Chairman of the Committee, that our labours have not been in vain. I hope this Bill may pass into law and remove grievances which, although they have been exaggerated, undoubtedly do exist and might otherwise continue to exist.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the principle of this Bill is like an egg which your Lordships have been trying to hatch for two or three years. Twice in the case of analogous Bills which I introduced this House has agreed to the Second Reading and sent the Bill to a Joint Committee. Twice has that Joint Committee heard evidence at enormous length; it had to be gone through over again because the members of the other House are not so permanent as members of this House. When probably another meeting might have led to an arrangement there came the Dissolution of Parliament. Finally, a Bill was introduced in another place. It was discussed at considerable length by the promoters hero and in another place, and by the officials of at least five Departments under the Solicitor-General. This Bill is the result of these Conferences. I endorse the view of the noble Earl who has just spoken and of the Lord Chan-
798
cellor, and hope that it will pass into law. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack alluded to the Guardianship of Infants Bill, 1886, as being a great alteration in the opinion of that time. Undoubtedly it was, but if it is read carefully it will be seen from the tone of it that there was an atmosphere of distrust as to what could be allowed to a woman in regard to her own children, and in regard to her power over her child after her death.
This Bill proposes to give a wife the power to name a guardian by will, not provisionally only but as a right, in the same way as it was given to the father under the Bill of 1886. But the Bill of 1886, although it made a considerable change in favour of women, confined it to certain classes of the community who alone could afford the expense of going to the High Court of Justice. Children are under the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. This was extended in 1886 so as to give it to the County Courts. But the County Courts have not the facilities for hearing these cases and, in fact, as far as the County Courts are concerned the Bill of 1886 was a dead letter. The present Bill proposes to give powers, and also powers under the Act of 1886, not only to the High Court of Justice and with revised conditions, to the County Courts, but, under certain limitations, to courts of summary jurisdiction. For the first time it gives to the masses of the women of this country the power to have something to say in regard to the welfare of their children. That is perhaps the greatest and most important innovation in the measure.
The principle of the Bill is this: that the question has to be determined when it comes into the Courts solely by consideration of the welfare of the child, and that in any evidence that is given no superiority is to be attributed to the father over the mother in the weight which that evidence is to have on the opinion of the Court. Further, whenever the father can apply to the Court in regard to anything relating to the custody or maintenance of his child, the mother is to have an equal right. There are clauses in regard to the registry of marriages with which the promoters of the Bill are not interested, but which I understand do take away a considerable hardship that existed.

799
Another alteration of an important character does get rid of a considerable hardship. At the present time an order for custody cannot be applied for by a woman unless she is separated from her husband. She cannot possibly obtain the custody of her children unless she leaves her home and from that distant point tries to obtain power over her children. Under this Bill she will have the right to apply for custody while she is still living with her husband, and the Court can determine what maintenance the husband ought to give towards the child, according to his means, if she leaves him. But that order is not to be enforceable as long as she stays under his roof. That is a compromise by which an endeavour is made to get rid of a dual authority which was considered to be one of the chief difficulties of previous Bills.
Some alteration is surely required in the law in regard to the principle from which it looks at the father and mother. The question has arisen in a great many cases. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with many legal cases, but I have one instance which shows that this is a grievance which should be considered. A case came up quite recently, and was decided by the House of Lords on May 6 last. It arose in the North of Ireland and was a question of religion. A man and woman were married and had three children. From an early time the father, a Catholic, gave way to habits of intemperance, and treated his wife with cruelty. He was dismissed from his employment as a traveller in Allsopp's Brewery, owing to his intemperate habits. He was found to be an habitual drunkard, and on several occasions the wife was compelled to take the children with her and seek protection in her parents' house. For many years she supported herself and the children without any financial assistance from her husband. At last, in June, 1920, she left him and took her children with her.
He took no further interest in them until his death in October, 1920, when he left a will in which he left a small amount of property and expressed a wish that his children should be brought up as Roman Catholics. The children had resided with the wife until May, 1923, but in April, 1923, the husband's sister, the aunt of the children, applied for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to bring the children up before the Court. The Lord Chief Justice of
800
Northern Ireland and another Judge decided that only the eldest child should remain in the religion of her mother, and that the two other children were to be taken away, to be under the care of the paternal aunt and brought up as Roman Catholics. Under presumption of law consideration was not given to the welfare of the children so much as to the wish of the father as stated in this will, dated three years before this decision was arrived at, although the father had taken no interest in or care of his children up to the time of his death.
The mother appealed, and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland reversed the decision as regards the two youngest children, and affirmed it with regard to the eldest child. A further appeal—and consider the cost of all this!—was made to your Lordships' House, and my noble and learned friend Viscount Cave, in a judgment with every word of which I agree, affirmed the opinion which the Court of Appeal in Ireland had stated, that under the circumstances the welfare of the children ought to be paramount, that the girls ought not to be separated and brought up in different religions and different households, and that the welfare of the children was the rule by which this case ought to have been decided, although he had to say that in certain circumstances the law still was that the wishes of the father should have a paramount position. Under this Bill the father's wish or the mother's wish would have had an equal weight in the hearing, the Court would have looked at the matter from the point of view of the children only, and the case would have been decided solely in regard to the welfare of the children. I need not refer to the expense of a case of this kind going through three Courts and finally having to be decided by your Lordships' House. I think that this Bill will remove many causes of hardship, that it will bring the possibility of justice to a vast number of people who have suffered injustice, and that it might well receive the assent of your Lordships.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, it has been stated by the noble Earl that the Judges in the Court of Chancery and most of the Stipendiary Magistrates of London were against the Bill. He also said that women's societies were in favour of it, which, to

801
my mind, does not carry very great weight.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Will the noble Lord allow me? I did not say that the Magistrates were opposed to this Bill, but only that they were opposed to the Bill which we considered, which is an entirely different matter.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Do I understand that the Judges are in favour of this Bill?
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: That I cannot tell you.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then the Judges were opposed to the original Bill, and so were the Magistrates?
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Some of the Magistrates. Mr. Chapman was very much in its favour.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: So far as I remember what took place in the House of Commons on that occasion, there was one Magistrate, Mr. Chapman, who was in favour of it. So far, then, the Judges and the Magistrates have not pronounced an opinion on this Bill, but the women's societies are in favour of it. To my mind, the fact that the women's societies are in favour of it goes against the Bill. I have never known them to be right, in anything that they did. Most of them, I think, are composed of spinsters, and therefore they do not know very much about married life. The noble Lord who hats just sat down gave a case of great hardship, but I might point out to your Lordships that the result was a right one. The Judges gave the proper decision, and I do not think that it is desirable to alter the present law merely because there happens to be one hard case, and that in Ireland, where hard cases arise very often.
There is a clause in this Bill which does strike me as being an extremely bad one. I should like to say to your Lordships, first of all, that I quite recognise that there are a great many bad fathers in this world. There are also a great many bad mothers. So far as I can see, a mother who is not on good terms with her husband, and who may be quite wrong in the method by which she desires to bring up the children, might declare in her will that a certain person is to be the guardian of her children, and, if this Bill becomes law, the father cannot have the
802
management of his own children. He must consult with the guardian appointed by his wife, with whom perhaps he did not get on and who may have been a foolish woman, and his control of his own children is taken away from him. I have always understood that family life is a great thing to maintain, that there should be a head of the family, and that the head should be the father. I hope that if this Bill receives a Second Reading, as no doubt it will, your Lordships will be careful, at any rate, to amend some of its worst features in Committee.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, as a member of the two Committees which sat in two different Parliaments and were presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, I should like to say that I thoroughly welcome this Bill as a compromise with regard to the difficulties which we then felt, but I would bring to your Lordships' notice, as has already been done, subsection (3) of Clause 3. The same difficulties still arise on this clause—namely that, although under this Bill the mother can obtain a custody and maintenance order whilst living with the husband, she cannot enforce it while she is living with him, and has therefore to leave him to obtain enforcement. That was one of the great troubles which were brought before the Committee in the last two Parliaments. Sir Ernley Blackwell, as has been mentioned, was brought in, I think at the instance of the Home Office, and he pictured the terrible results which would follow if the scope of separation orders were increased, but when it came to cross-examination—and I had the pleasure and honour of cross-examining him a great deal—I think he came down to about two instances to which wife murder could be traced in twenty or thirty years. I think that this clause should be given further consideration.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I welcome Clauses 1, 2 and 4 of this measure, but I should like to say, as a Judge who for many years had to administer the law in the High Court, that I regard Clause 1 as only stating the law as it at present stands, and as I had occasion, as a Judge in the King's Bench Division, to administer it. I look upon Clause 3 as comical; there is no other word to use about it. The father and mother are to live in the same

803
house, and the mother is to go round to a Police Magistrate and to see that she has the custody of the child. What does that mean, when they are both in the house? Does it mean that she is the only person to take it out walking, or to shut it up in a room if it is naughty? What can it mean? But notwithstanding that she gets an order that the father should pay for maintenance, she is not to be able to enforce it. As I say, I regard (he clause as comical as it is at present balanced. If it was unbalanced by taking away subsection (4) then I should regard it as mischievous. As it stands I think it may well be allowed to remain on the Statute Book, until it is found to have no effect and is repealed in some Statute Law Revision Act.
I would remind your Lordships that you are putting some difficulty in the way of marriages by Clause 8. At present, a child under age can be married by consent of the father, or, if the father is absent, under an order of the Court by consent of the mother. You are now requiring, if both parents are living together, the consent of both, and are thus putting further difficulty in the way of a minor child's marrying. It may be right, but I think your Lordships should consider the point. Then I beg your Lordships to reject paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Clause 8, which gives to the registrar of the County Court the power of deciding these very delicate questions. Up to comparatively recently either the Lord Chancellor himself, or at least a Judge of the superior Courts, was the only person who could determine such delicate questions. If they are to go to the County Courts, so be it, although I think it is quite unnecessary, but if they are do not delegate them to a subordinate official such as the registrar, because if there is an appeal from the registrar there will be reluctance on the part of the Judge to vary his decision, when it is on a matter of discretion. I hope the registrar will not be given this power.
The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, spoke as if unless you went to the County Courts you could not bring this matter to the ordinary people of the country. I think he is entirely mistaken. As a Judge in Chambers I have had applications in this matter from the poorest people, many of whom have lived at some distance from London. I think there is no neces-
804
sity for the County Court or the court of summary jurisdiction to have this jurisdiction, but at any rate do not give jurisdiction to the registrar.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are in some difficulty in dealing with this subject, for the reason that, as Lord Wemyss explained to you, the Report upon which this legislation is founded, which really would give a guidance to us in the matter, is not in existence. Owing to the exigencies of the political crisis of the time the Report was never agreed to. I do not know whether the evidence which the two important Committees collected was ever laid before Parliament, but I gather that it was not. That is a very considerable handicap in arriving at a just conclusion upon the details of the Bill. But there are one or two principles contained in the Bill, to which, but for the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I should have thought we should all have agreed.
In the first place the interest of the child should be the predominant matter considered. That, the noble and learned Lord says, is already provided by the law. The other point is the element in the Bill that rich and poor should be placed upon absolute equality in access to proper judicial authority for the purpose of deciding what the interests and welfare of the children demand. The noble and learned Lord thinks that that is achieved already by leaving it in the hands of a Judge of the High Court. Lord Askwith takes a different view and thinks that unless the lesser Courts are allowed to have jurisdiction there is, in fact, a denial of justice in this matter to the poorer classes. I hardly like to express an opinion of my own, but I confess my feeling is rather with Lord Askwith in this matter. I do not believe that poor people living in all parts of the country have the knowledge, or the courage, or the enterprise, to approach the High Court in these smaller matters, and if you confine jurisdiction to the High Courts you do, in effect, deny them justice.
There are other intricate matters contained in the Bill. The guardianship clause strikes one, at first, as containing a rather strong doctrine. I should not like to express any opinion upon that at the moment. However, I think your Lordships are agreed, at any rate we on

805
this Bench are agreed, that this Bill should be lead a second time, but I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to give us a little time between the Second Heading and the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord opposite suggested that there is an absurdity in one of the clauses, and that comment shows how carefully the Bill ought to be scrutinised. Obviously it is a compromise, and compromises do sometimes lead to rather ridiculous results. I understand from a movement of the Lord Chancellor's wig that he agrees to my suggestion, and I do not think that we should put any further obstacle in the way of this Bill being read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not able to make any statement at present but we shall not take the Committee stage before Whitsuntide, and I propose to leave the date for the Committee over until we see what Amendments come in.
THE MARQESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not put down any further Amendment In this Bill. As your Lordships remember, we had a rather heated controversy over a certain proposal relating to aliens, which some of us thought infringed existing Treaties. I propose simply to let the Bill go through in the form in which your Lordships amended it, and then we shall see what view is taken in another place.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order.

INDIA: LORD OLIVIER'S LETTER TO MR. SATYAMURTI.
VISCOUUNT PEEL VISCOUUNT PEEL had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the letter written by the Secretary of State for India to Mr.
806
Satyamurti, member of the Madras Legislative Council, and particularly to the statement contained in that letter that the maintenance of the communal system is antagonistic to the possibility of any proper working of democratic institutions in India; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I desire to call the attention of your Lordships, and of His Majesty's Government, to a letter written by the Secretary of State for India to Mr. Satyamurti, and I think I ought to read the letter, which is quite short, before I comment upon it. It runs thus:
"I have been glad to receive your letter, end am strongly disposed to share your confidence that closer contact with the Swaraj Party is very desirable. I am interested to receive your observations on the working of the diarchy in Madras, and your project for forming a non-communal Party. I rather gather from the debates in the Council that this was already the platform the Swarajists desired. It certainly seems, to mo that the maintenance of the communal system is antagonistic to the possibility of any proper working of democratic institutions in India."
I do not know why Mr. Satyamurti was selected by the Secretary of State as the recipient of this important missive. As far as I have been able, to discover the past and the political predilections of this gentleman, he is a member of the Legislative Council of Madras, and is well-known as a non-co-operator and as a strong supporter of the Swaraj movement.
I may say at once that this letter which was addressed by the Secretary of State was not authorised by him to be published, and that, I think, is one of the unfortunate aspects of this incident; because when a private letter is published it gives people the impression that you are really getting at the inner mind of the individual who has so published it. When we express ourselves in public documents or in Despatches, we naturally make use of that dignified solemnity and occasional obscurity of language which is sometimes necessary in that class of communication. But in private, letters we express ourselves with the directness and familiarity which is permitted in those documents. Although this letter, I agree, ought not to have been published, we have to deal with the facts of the case as they are and the effects which that letter may have had.
It is common knowledge that this question of communal representation—that is to say, of representation by religious communities—is, and has long been, a very burning and controversial one in India. It is well known that the abolition of this communal system is the aspiration, and the very natural aspiration, of a large body of Hindu politicians, for the very simple reason that, if that were done, they would get far larger representation in the Assembly and in the Councils, and would have far more political control. I do not know whether this consideration appealed to the mind of the Secretary of State when he addressed the letter to this gentleman. What did he suppose? Did he suppose that this gentleman wa3 going to go about for the rest of his life, all on fire with information which he is bound to suppress, and burdened with a secret which, if delivered to the public, must, of course, give him a natural precedence among his political fellows? The Secretary of State has had a long career. He has had great experience in the Civil Service. He has been a Colonial Governor, and, I believe, head of another great political Department, and I think it argues very well for that simplicity of mind which he has been able to maintain through all the changes of political and official life that he still, no doubt, considered that a politician would not do violence to his own intimate private feelings, and consider that in the public interest he must publish a matter of public import.
I wish to examine this matter from one or two different aspects. What, I ask, is, and what must be, the position of the Viceroy and his Government in face of communications of this kind? Constantly communications, public and private, important and intimate, are passing between the, Secretary of State and the Viceroy, and it is of the highest importance for the good government of India that there should be complete and absolute confidence existing between those two great officials. What must be the opinion or the feelings of a Viceroy—and his position is difficult enough in all conscience in these days—when he does not know, or may feel that he cannot know from moment to moment, what other communications on important subjects are passing, not through the recognised channels of correspondence but through politicians—not even officials—selected at
808
will, I suppose, from prominent Swarajists or non-co-operators in various parts of India? His nervousness is bound to be increased, because, even if these declarations or letters are upon the same subjects as those which have been dealt with in correspondence between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State, you may have different versions, differently expressed, of the same policy, and these versions, I can assure your Lordships, are carefully compared, collated, and contrasted by some of the most ingenious minds that you have in the world, by lawyers of great acuteness, by persons who may be said to be the lineal descendants of the old commentators on the Upanishads. They are most skilled in all the intricacies of language, and the danger of communications of this kind is that different inferences will be drawn by these gentlemen as to the policies guiding the minds of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State.
The remarkable thing is that the Secretary of State himself has drawn attention to the danger of any looseness of language. He commented not long ago in your Lordships' House with great severity upon a statement made by Mr. Lloyd George when he was Prime Minister in a well-known speech known as the "steel frame speech." The intention of that speech was perfectly clear. It was intended to give fresh heart to the Services, which were suffering from the situation in which they found themselves, very largely as the result of the new reforms. But he used one loose expression from which at once arose a flood of deduction, of speculation, and of inference, which seemed to suggest that the Prime Minister was going to go back on the declarations of 1917, and the Act of 1919, that the reforms were to be stayed, and that the word of Great Britain was to be imperilled. You may say that these are large buildings to erect either upon a phrase or upon a letter, but that is a characteristic of many of these Indian politicians, and you have to deal with them, indeed, as you find them. And there is no soil in which these seeds of suspicion can grow more rapidly than in the rather heated and inflammable soil of Indian politics.
Perhaps I do some injustice to the noble Lord, because, after all, he is only following the example that has been set him by so many of his colleagues in the

809
Labour Government. It has been one of the marked characteristics of this Government that they seem to have a singular aversion from making their first statement on important subjects within the walls cither of another place or of this House. There are many instances in which they have thus spread the light of their countenance, and in which the first beams of some new project has appeared in a newspaper, either in America or elsewhere. Their international sympathies,.I suppose, require some degree of international propaganda. Anyhow, it is, I think, the greatest contribution of the Labour Government—their main contribution in fact—towards constitutional innovation.
Now let me ask what is the exact interpretation of the words of the Secretary of State. First of all, I would observe that in the first portion of the letter he was "strongly disposed to share your confidence that closer contact with the Swaraj Party is very desirable." On that I have only to make one observation—that if it is thought wise that there should be any rapprochement in this connection with the leaders of any Party in India it is far better left to the Viceroy and to his advisers there. After all, they are on the spot and they know the whole situation in a way that the Secretary of State cannot know it. Moreover, they know the individuals there who are to be trusted and those who are not to be trusted.
The latter part of the statement to which I attach more importance—that as to the communal system—is, I think, capable of more than one interpretation. It may, for instance, suggest that communal representation is necessary; that this is incompatible with democratic government, and that until the deep-seated and deep-rooted differences on which communal representation is founded are reconciled, the democratic aspirations of Indian politicians must remain unsatisfied. If it mean that, it is apparently a mild, philosophic rebuke administered by the Secretary of State to Mr. Satyamurti. But, after carefully investigating the evidence, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that this is not the right gloss or interpretation to be placed upon this particular document. You have to regard the general views and sympathies of the Party with which the noble Lord is
810
associated, and looking at those associations and sympathies, I think the simplest interpretation (and in textual criticism it is said, I believe, that the simplest explanation is generally the best) is that communal representation is an obstacle to self-government, and that it ought, therefore, to be removed. I remember examining at the General Election many of the Labour declarations and Election addresses with a view to deciding what their policy was. They were certainly based upon the most colossal ignorance of the situation, and their ignorance was only equalled by their colossal self-confidence. But they were all in the same direction—a general feeling that immediate self-government should be granted to India. Therefore, that inclines me to this latter interpretation
Let me say this only about their speeches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day how valuable a thing it would be if all their pre-Election speeches were to be burned. I am certainly inclined to echo that sentiment. Unfortunately, whatever you may do in this country, there can be no purification by fire of this kind in India. These observations, thrown out casually and carelessly very often, are treasured and made note of in the retentive memory of the Indian politician.
I understand from a letter or statement that I think was published by the noble Lord that he has more than one explanation. It is always useful to have more than one explanation of any particular course one has taken. He says that this is a mere speculation; it is not a declaration of policy. I submit to your Lordships that the mere speculations of the Secretary of State for India ring and reverberate throughout India and that on this matter, though individual Secretaries of State may have their own opinions, if they differ in any sense from the political and public opinions that they are putting forward, for Heaven's sake let them bury them in the remotest safe that they possess in their chambers. Another statement by the noble Lord was that he was only repeating some statement that he had already made to your Lordships on another occasion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): What is the noble Viscount quoting from? He referred

811
in the previous sentence to something I said. He is now talking of something else that I said, and I want to know where it comes from.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was quoting from a statement which was stated to have been received from the noble Lord and published in the Daily Telegraph.
LORD OLIVIER: I cannot imagine what the noble Lord is referring to. If he will tell me I shall be very glad.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will read the exact statement. It was a statement published, I think, in the Daily Telegraph, and it learns—
LORD OLIVIER: Will the noble Viscount read precisely what it is he is quoting? Will he read the whole statement? I do not, know what he is referring to
VISCOUUNT PEEL: I am referring, first of all, to the defences that may be put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD OLIVIER: To the defences that may be put forward?
VISCOUUNT PEEL: Yes.
LORD OLIVIER: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I referred, of course, to a statement that was published in the Daily Telegraph, which I presume—if I am wrong, of course, I withdraw it—was issued by the noble Lord, and in any case it is said to be the same as the statement already made in your Lordships' House.
LORD OLIVIER: That is a statement which appears, I believe, as "learned" by Reuter.
VISCOUUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord has nothing to do with it I will not put it forward as his own.
LORD OLIVIER: I had nothing to do with that statement: although I do not repudiate it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then may I put it in this way—that it is possible that the noble Lord may contend that this statement has already been made, or words very similar to it uttered, in your Lordships' House? I put it in that form, and the noble Lord does not object to that statement?
LORD OLIVIER: To what statement? Lord Olivier.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To the statement I have just made. I say that it is quite possible that the noble Lord may contend that the statement contained in the letter has been already made in the same or in another form before your Lordships' House.
LORD OLIVIER: I take no objection to that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord takes no objection to that, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord, because I have examined rather carefully and read through the very long statement he made in your Lordships' House in February last, and I cannot see there any statement similar to the one that is contained in this letter. There is, I agree, a statement with reference to affairs in Kenya, but that, of course, is a very different business from India. There is also a general statement about the representation of common interests—
"unless a Parliamentary system is welded together by predominant common interests from its foundation in the electorate upwards no theoretical constitution that may be arrived at by a concordat among leaders of divergent interests … can prevent it from flying asunder."
That is the only passage that I can recall which has any likeness to the passage in the present letter. As your Lordships know the term "communal representation" is a very special term of art meaning a specific thing, and I do not think that any one reading the speech of the noble Lord could have supposed from his observations about common interests that he was really referring to the substitution of a common electoral roll for the communal representation now obtaining in India.
However that may be. I attach no very great importance to that point for this reason—that it all depends, of course, on the circumstances under which the statement is made, on the importance that is given to that statement, and the surrounding conditions and feelings under which the statement is made. At the present moment, as your Lordships know, an investigation is going on into the defects in the working of the Act of 1919. A Committee has been investigating that matter. I understand that a further Committee with unofficial members is also going to deal with these defects. I do not think that the reference to the Committee

813
which the noble Lord was kind enough to send me would admit of their dealing with this great subject of communal interest, but I suggest that people do not read very carefully terms of references to Committees, and it is very unfortunate that a reference should be made to the mind of the Secretary of State on so important a matter as communal representation just at the moment when an investigation is being conducted into the working of the Constitution; for a suspicion may very easily arise that this, among other subjects, is going to be considered by that particular Committee.
Let me address myself to the real gravity of spreading through India a statement of this kind in the present situation. It suggests, as I have said, that the Secretary of State is in favour of the abolition of communal representation—a great and an immense boon from the political point of view to the Hindu politician, but a great risk and danger to the vast Moslem community, the Sikh community, and the other smaller communities which have separate representation, a representation which they would not be entitled to if merely heads were counted.
This is a very old subject, as the Secretary of State knows. I was looking at the Report signed by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford on the Indian Constitutional Reforms. They have a paragraph dealing with this case. They express, first of all, as strongly as a Secretary of State can, that communal electorates may be a serious hindrance to the development of a self-governing system, but, after having expressed that opinion, they go on to say, in the strongest way, that they are in favour of communal representation, especially as regards the Moslems. They say that the Mahomedans were given special representation with separate electorates in 1909, and that the Mahomedan regards these reforms as settled facts, and that any attempt to go back on them would raise a storm of bitter protest and put a severe strain on the loyalty of an India which has behaved with conspicuous loyalty during a period of very great difficulty. The Mahomedans, again, regard separate representation and communal electorates as their own adequate safeguards. It is plain from this, and it is plain from
814
other events, that the Moslems have a very strong feeling on this question of communal electorates.
Whatever their feeling may be—whether for home rule for themselves, or whether they would prefer to be under the Government of this country—there is no question that there is one form of Swaraj they do not want, and that is a Hindu Swaraj. Indeed, if self-government were granted to-morrow, if the declarations in many of these Election addresses were put into force to-morrow. I think it is probable that the desire and the determination of Moslem India to have separate communal representation would be even stronger than it, is to-day. But, after all, this political aspect of it is only another aspect of the feeling which is expressed in a common speech. Whereas in this country you may ask whether a man is a Frenchman or an Englishman, in the East you are more inclined to ask: Is he a Moslem, is he a Hindu, or is he a Sikh?
There may be objections from the abstract political point of view to these communal electorates. There is, at the present moment, a very considerable reaction in many quarters in India against the impact of Western ideas. I think it would be very unfortunate, if we strengthened the forces of that reaction by trying to force upon those communities one form of our Western institutions which is not justified by the conditions of the day, and by the political situation. It is very unfortunate, especially at this time and in view of recent history, that there should be any risk of stirring up again Moslem feeling in that country. We know what disturbances were caused by the feeling respecting the tight bonds in which Turkey was tied by the Treaty of Sèvres, but as regards the Treaty of Lausanne which, as your Lordships know, in some quarters of this country met with criticism, then can be no doubt that so far as Indian feeling is concerned the settlement under that Treaty of Lausanne was wholly beneficent. It is very unfortunate when, after that settlement, Moslem feeling is quietening down that it should be stirred up again, and I am afraid, from certain evidence we have seen in the papers, it is being stirred again by the suspicion or the fear that there may be some desire in the mind of the Secretary of State—some sympathy in the mind of the Secretary of State with

815
the suggestion—to go back on that settlement which was reached after so much discussion and examination.
I do not want to go over the whole field of Indian politics, but I should like to add that the same applies in the case of the Sikhs. We know very well that there has been a great disturbance, especially in the Punjab, mainly owing to the Akali movement which, starting as a religious movement, was seized upon by the politicians, and became a very large political movement. It has caused trouble to the successive Governors in the Punjab, but that feeling is quietening down and it would be a thousand pities if a fear that they would be swamped electorally by the surrounding population were to be aroused among the Sikhs by the publication of this letter.
I am going to ask one thing of the Secretary of State. I am going to ask him if he will be good enough—and I hope that he will do it—to state definitely in this House that whatever may have been the statements of the letter, whatever may have been his abstract view as to the relations of the communal system in the electorates to democratic government, yet that he has himself not the slightest intention—that it is far from his thought—of making any disturbance, or of altering in any way the settlement that was then arrived at. Therefore I urge upon him to quench the fire he has kindled before, by the breath of rumour and suspicion, it grows into a mightier conflagration. I beg to move.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I have been wondering for about a week what it was that we were to hear from the noble Viscount this evening; how, upon such an extraordinarily trivial and flimsy foundation as there has been for this Motion, he could venture to make a speech in your Lordships' House which would necessarily impose upon me the duty and the necessity of making you a rather long and serious reply upon a subject totally unworthy of so much attention. The noble Viscount has moved for Papers. I do not know quite what Papers he wants, but I will give him all the Papers that I have in this matter—that is to say, I will give him the history of the whole of this correspondence.
816
There is a gentleman in the Madras Council named Mr. Satyamurti. He is a member of the Swaraj Party. The Swaraj Party means the self-government Party, and it is the most advanced section of the reform movement in India, which is distributed into sections known as the Swarajists, the Independents, the Liberals and the Moderates, all of them aiming at self-government for India, but desiring to pursue a somewhat different pace of acceleration towards its attainment. Mr. Satyamurti had an interview with Mr. Montagu when he was in Office, and consequently I imagine him to be a person of some consideration and, at any rate, of reasonable address. Mr. Ben Spoor, now the Chief Whip of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, was in India some years ago and he formed the acquaintance of Mr. Satyamurti. When the Labour Government came into Office in January last Mr. Satyamurti forthwith addressed a friendly letter to Mr. Ben Spoor expressing his views on certain questions. Mr. Ben Spoor wrote back to Mr. Satyamurti and suggested that anything he wished to say about Indian matters should be addressed to myself.
I then received from Mr. Satyamurti this letter, which I will read:—
"Dear LORD OLIVIER,
"You will kindly excuse the liberty I take in writing to you without having the privilege of your acquaintance. My friend Mr. Ben Spoor has suggested my writing to you, and I am doing so. I may say at once that I quite recognise the limitations of your Party, in Office, and not in power. I may add that I am a Swarajist and I believe fully in our programme, but I want to assure you that we are not political ogres and that we are only waiting for a right gesture on your part. Summon a round-table conference and you will find our leaders reasonable, practical and willing to recognise real Imperial obligations. Naturally, I am particularly interested in Madras. Diarchy has worked havoc here. A purely communal Party, with no political faith or programme, has been put in power and Madras promises to become the Ulster of India. We are just now forming a non-communal Party in the local Council. It is up to Lord Goschen to help us to the extent he can. I shall be glad to sec him and put my point of view before him if he sends for me. I shall be glad to write to you in more detail on hearing from you."
I replied to that letter. I did not mark my letter private.

817
Some comment has been made by the noble Viscount as if it was an improper thing on the part of my correspondent to publish that letter. I did not write with the idea or the desire that he should publish it; but when I am writing a letter of an intimate character which I do not want on any account to be published, I mark it private. All my life I have made this my role in ordinary circumstances—that if any person of any political Party whatever, however distant from my own views, whatever reputation he may enjoy among any other Party, writes to me a civil letter expressing certain views, then he will receive from me a civil and frank answer to the best of my ability.
And the answer I gave to this gentleman was a civil and frank answer, and in my opinion a perfectly discreet answer.
I will read it to you again:—
"I have boon glad to receive your letter"—
May I have the noble Viscount's attention, and I hope it will not be interrupted. The noble Viscount said that this letter will be studied by pundits who are careful interpreters of language. I am glad to think that that is so. I wrote as follows:—
"I have been glad to receive your letter of the 3rd instant, and am strongly disposed to share your confidence that a closer contact with the Swaraj party is very desirable"
That was an echo of a statement I made in this House with the authority and consent of His Majesty's Government. Consequently it was not a new pronouncement on my part, but it expressed my sincere feeling and desire.
Let me read the passage to which I refer and as anticipating that communication:
"His Majesty's Government have been impressed by two characteristics in the atmosphere of Indian politics. The first is the intense and, as they are convinced, the greviously mistaken mistrust and the determination of uncompromising intransigence indicated in the election manifesto of the Swaraj party last autumn, and also the dissatisfaction expressed by more moderate advocates of self-government. Secondly, and more recently, an appreciable modification of that hostile and intransigent attitude has been indicated"—
And I may say that Mr. Satyamurti's letter is a very good example of it—
"not only in the recent proceedings in the Legislative Assembly, but in many communi-
818
cations and expressions of opinion which have reached His Majesty's Government, both through official and unofficial channels"—
I had not at that time received Mr. Satyamurti's letter—
"from persons representing weighty and influential opinion who are anxious that by some manner of conference a way forward may be found out of the present difficulties.
"His Majesty's Government … are earnestly desirous of availing themselves in whatever may be found the host possible method of this manifest disposition towards effectual consultation. Various modes of making this approach have been unofficially suggested. The Legislative Assembly have proposed a round-table conference. The Indian National Conference is proposing to send a deputation over, and representatives of Indian interests in his country have suggested a Mission to India. His Majesty's Government, while they are open to consider any practical proposals, are not yet satisfied as to what may be the best means for establishing that closer contact and better understanding that is so manifestly desirable. Some means of arriving at that closer contact must, they are convinced, be sought, and they hope, after due consultation with the Government of India, to be able with the least avoidable delay to decide upon the means they will desire to adopt."
I am repeating that statement because it is precisely the temper in which I wrote and phrased my answer to Mr. Satyamurti.
No one in this House will deny that better contact and a better understanding between members of the Swaraj Party and all other progressive Parties in India who are coming over to England, and sending deputations here to the Secretary of State, cannot but work for the good of India and also for the better understanding of the difficulties with which we have to deal. Can any one take the slightest objection to the suggestion of that reasonable and very necessary resort? That is the first phrase of my letter. The second one is this:—
"I am interested to receive your observations on the working of diarchy in Madras and on your project of forming a non-communal party."
I do not think that phrase can be held to express any declaration of policy. I say
"I am interested." I was.
"I rather gather from reading the debates of the Council that this was already the platform Swarajists desire."
In the Madras Council, owing to the enormous preponderance of non-Brahmins, a

819
wholly non-Brahmin Ministry has been set up, and I noticed a movement in the Madras Council to protest that the interests of minorities were not being properly considered; that is to say, that the communal system, giving an enormous preponderance of non-Brahmin voters in Madras, was, in the opinion of the Swarajists, being somewhat misused.
Now I come to the phrase upon which the noble Viscount has built an enormous edifice:
"Certainly it seems to me that the maintenance of the communal system is antagonistic to the possibility of any proper working of democratic institutions in India."
The word "antagonistic" is a Greek word with the strict significance of which some journalists may not be familiar. To say that in my opinion a certain system is antagonistic to the working of democratic institutions is not, I can assure the noble Viscount, tantamount to saying that I am going to use my powers as Secretary of State immediately to force the Viceroy and his Council, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, to upset the Constitution of India. It expressed an opinion, and that opinion appears to me to be an exceedingly innocent opinion.
I heard in this House with great pleasure, about two or three months ago, a disquisition by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in which he surveyed the question as to how far and in what respect the peculiar characteristics of the Indian nation might make them fit for democratic institutions, and. so far as I myself was concerned, I did make, on February 26, the observation which the noble Viscount has quoted regarding the effect of the communal system on the working of democratic institutions. Since the noble Viscount has proposed to raise this question in this House and to challenge me upon it, I have looked up the statements

Mahomedans

Non-Mahomedans (i.e., in effect, Hindus)

Europeans

Anglo-Indians (generally people of mixed race)

Sikhs

Indian Christians

820
of other authorities upon this subject, other critics of Indian Government and Indian institutions, and I have found, as I expected, that they are one and ail of exactly the same opinion as myself, including the noble Viscount—I will quote the noble Viscount—that the working of this system is antagonistic to democratic institutions.
Before I pass to that point, however, I should like to give your Lordships a sketch of that which is called the communal organisation of politics in India, and I think that when I have given it your Lordships will admit that it is rather in the nature of a crazy quilt, liable to produce nightmare in any of those who have to administer the Constitution under it. The rules made under the Government of India Act prescribe, inter alia, "the qualifications of electors, the constitution of constituencies and the method of election for. … Councils, including the number of members to be elected by communal and other electorates," and "the qualification for being and for being nominated or elected a member of any such Council." The rules framed under these provisions classify electorates as general and special, and the general constituencies are on a territorial basis—that is to say, each covers a defined territorial area consisting, in the case of certain constituencies, of a single town or a group of towns, and in the case of rural constituencies of a district or group of districts, and in a few cases of a whole Province. With the single exception of Burma, general constituencies are communal; that is to say, a given area in a Province forms several constituencies, which consist of the qualified electors of a particular community resident in the area.
Communities for which their own general constituencies thus exist are:
In all Provinces, except Burma.
In all Provinces, except Burma.
In all provinces, except Assam. (In the Punjab and the Central Provinces, by nomination.)
In Madras, Bengal and Burma. (In Bombay, the United Provinces and the Central Provinces, by nomination.)
In the Punjab.
In Madras. (In Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, the Punjab and Bihar, by nomination.)
In all these cases the electors must be of the community specified, and members of one community cannot vote in the electorate of any other community. In all cases also the candidate must be of the same community as that of the electorate for which he sits, except in Assam and the United Provinces where this restriction on candidatures does not (in theory) apply. In Burma the bulk of the general constituencies are non-communal, but there are constituencies set apart for Europeans, Anglo-Indians and Karens and Indians, who, if they live in areas which form these constituencies, can vote only for candidates of their own race.
The special constituencies are of the following kinds, to give special representation to the interests denoted by the names: to landholders, in all Provinces; to Universities—that is an anomaly of which we are still suffering the presence—in all Provinces: to commerce and industry, in all Provinces except Bihar; to planters, in Madras, Bihar and Assam; and to mining in Bihar and the Central Provinces. These are instances of the special representation of classes or communities. Besides communal electorates, provision exists in the rules for the special representation of certain classes or communities by nomination, that is, by earmarking for them one or more of the seats which the Governor fills by nomination. These are:—(1) Depressed classes—in all Provinces but the Punjab and Assam: (2) inhabitants of "backward tracts"—in Madras and Assam; (3) the labouring classes—in Bombay, Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Burma; (4) the cotton trades—in Bombay; (5) Punjabi officers and soldiers—in the Punjab; (6) aborigines—in Bihar; (7) Bengali domiciled community—in Bihar; (8) industrial interests—in Bihar; (6) Indian commerce—in Burma. It will thus be seen that the special provision by nomination partakes of the character in some cases of general (communal) constituencies and in others of special constituencies. It is made in cases in which the nature of the interest or community in question is such as to make the provision of electoral facilities difficult or impossible. In Madras and Bombay twenty-eight and six seats respectively in certain plural-member non-Mahomedan constituencies are reserved for non-Brahmins by an arrange-
822
ment which ensures that, if there is a non-Brahmin candidate for one of these seats, he secures it whatever his position at the poll.
Those are the electoral arrangements which resulted from the attempt to put into force the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms under the best system possible at the present time. With regard to the statements of my noble friend Lord Chelmsford and of Mr. Montagu, the noble Viscount has given a very garbled extract; that is to say, he took out one particular sentence of what they wrote. I am going to read to your Lordships what is practically the more important part of what they wrote, indicating the place where the reservation which the noble Viscount made comes in. First of all they say, under a heading to the effect that communal electorates are opposed to the teaching of history:—
"The crucial test to which, as we conceive, ah proposals should be brought is whether they will or will not help to carry India towards responsible government. … But when we consider what responsible government implies and how it was developed in the world we cannot take this view. We find it in its earliest beginnings resting on an effective sense of the common interests, a bond compounded of community of race, religion and language."
The noble Viscount quoted me as saying—and I am much obliged to him for quoting it, for it will save me the trouble—that one of the great difficulties of establishing democracy in India was that the community was so divided by divergent racial and temperamental interests, and His Majestys Government did not believe that until those divergent interests and temperaments had been consolidated into a common public purpose you could have stable institutions in India. That he quoted from me, and I am obliged to him for doing so.
The Report continued:—
"In the earlier form which it assumed in Europe it appeared only when the territorial principle had vanquished the tribal principle, and blood and religion had ceased to assert a rival claim with the State to a citizen's allegiance; and throughout its development in Western countries, even in eases where special reasons to the contrary were present, it has rested consistently on the same root principle. … We conclude unhesitatingly that the history of self-government among the nations who developed it, and spread it through the world is decisively against the admission by the State of any divided allegiance; against the

823
State's arranging its members in any way which encourages them to think of themselves primarily as citizens of any smaller unit than itself.
"Indian lovers of their country would he the first to admit that India generally has not yet acquired the citizen spirit, and if we are really to lead her to self-government, we must do all that we possibly can to call it forth in her people. Division by creeds and classes means the creation of political camps organised against each other, and teaches men to think as partisans and not as citizens; and it is difficult to see how the change from this system to national representation is, ever to occur. The British Government is often accused of dividing men in order to govern them. But if it unnecessarily divides them at the very moment when it professes to start them on the road to governing themselves, it will find it difficult to meet the charge of being hypocritical or short sighted.
"There is another important point. A minority which is given special representation owing to its weak and backward state, is positively encouraged to settle down into a feeling of satisfied security; it is under no inducement to educate and qualify itself to make good the ground which it has lost compared with the stronger majority. On the other hand, the latter will be tempted to feel that they have done all they need do for their weaker fellow countrymen and that they are free to use their power for their own purposes. The give-and-take which is the essence of political life is lacking. There is no inducement to the one side to forbear, or to the other to exert itself. The communal system stereotypes existing relations.
"We regard any system of communal electorates, therefore, as a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle. The evils of any extension of the system are plain. …"
Then the writers of the Report refer to the fact that communal representation had been necessarily granted to the Moslems, and that there was no question of recommending its being withdrawn. They also went on to say that communal representations of the Sikhs was suggested. The Report goes on:—
"At the same time we must face the hard facts. The Mahomedans were given special representation with separate electorates in 1909. … We have been pressed to extend the concession to other communities. Some have based their claim on their back-ward, others on their advanced condition. Thus the Sikhs in the Punjab, the non-Brahmins in Madras (although in that Presidency these actually constitute a majority), the Indian Christians, the Anglo-Indians, the Europeans, and the Lingayat community in Bombay have all asked for communal representation. The large landowning classes also generally desire representation in an electorate of their own. … Any general extension of the communal
824
system, however, would only encourage still further demands, and would in our deliberate opinion be fatal to that development of representation upon a national basis in which alone a system of responsible government can possibly be rooted.
A very able and distinguished Committee was appointed on that Report under the Chairmanship of Lord South-borough, to make recommendations with regard to the franchise and electoral districts. They were appointed to advise on arranging a system of representation, and this is what they say:—
"The Joint Report recognises the necessity for the communal representation of Mahomedans in Provinces where they do not form a majority of electors. The evidence received by us and the opinions of local Governments concerned were almost unanimous in favour of this course. In the Punjab we have recommended a separate electoral roll and separate constituencies for the Sikhs. The other communities for which we recommend separate communal electorates are Indian Christians, Europeans and Anglo-Indians. … In recommending communal representation for these and other communities, we have done so in the hope that it will be possible at no very distant date to merge all communities into one general electorate."
Those are the recommendations of Lord Southborough's Committee. Not, as the Daily Telegraph puts it, the recommendations of regrettable doctrinaires, but of sober English and Indian opinion, public officials and statesmen of long experience. Their opinion coincides exactly with my own.
Then there is the Government of India's Despatch on the above Report, No. 4, dated April 23, 1919, and it is as follows:—
"In the event, communal electorates are now proposed not only for Moslems everywhere and for Sikhs in the Punjab, but also for Indian Christians in Madras, Anglo-Indians in Madras and Bengal and Europeans in the three Presidencies, the United Provinces and Bihar and Orissa. We feel the objections of principle to the communal system as strongly as the authors of the Reforms Report but see no advantage at this stage in reiterating them. India is not prepared to take the first steps forward towards responsible government upon any other road. The road does not lead directly to that goal, and we can only echo the hope expressed by the Committee that 'it will he possible at no very distant date to merge all communities in one general electorate.'"
Now, I will read to your Lordships one or two extracts from speeches in Parliament. In the House of Commons, during the debate in Committee on the Government

825
of India Bill on December 3, 1919. Mr. Montagu said:—
"Nobody objects more than I do to communal representation. I believe it to be a great mistake, but there is one mistake which would, be greater and that is to get Legislative Councils in India that are not properly representative of all classes; and if communal elections are provided for temporarily in order to ensure that, I believe they are well worth having."
Then, in the House of Lords, during the debate on the Second Heading of the Government of India Bill on December 12, 1919, Viscount Midleton said:—
"I do not suppose under any circumstances in this country could it occur that we should be placed in the position in which the members of the Committee were placed, of having a remonstrance addressed to us most fervently, and continuously pressed home, that we should carry out the communal system of representation, described by Lord Sydenham, in such a way that although the non-Brahmin population in Madras is 27,000,000 and the Brahmin population 1,000,000 we should give, quite a different representation to the Brahmins, in order to preserve the great influence of the small minority. That is a state of affairs which shows that you have to deal with India in a different spirit from that in which you would deal with any electorate in this country.
Again, in the House of Commons, during the debate on the Rules under the Government of India Act on July 23, 1920, Mr. Montagu said:—
"I would welcome the disappearance of communal representation in India, but it can only be done at the request of the community itself and at a far Infer stage of development."
Then Mr. Ormsby-Gore said these words to the same effect:—
"The vast majority of the radian Christians in Madras do for the present wart this communal representation. I quite agree that the sooner we can get rid of it in India altogether the better."
Finally, I come to the noble Viscount. In the debate on the communal franchise in Kenya, on July 26, 1923, the noble Viscount spoke as follows:—
"Let me allude to one or two points in the White Paper. My noble friend Lord Selborne made a most eloquent defence of the communal system. It was so eloquent and earnest that I thought that he, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, must have been the author of it. I am sure it will interest him to know that, although that system in many ways has prevailed in India, there is in the Assembly and in the Council of State a very strong feeling against it.
826
"Although the noble Earl says it is an Indian invention they do not seem to be so proud of their own offspring. They say: 'We do not look upon it as a great invention. We think that where it can be avoided it should be avoided.'"
I should have thought that I was entitled to quote what the noble Viscount said as evidence of his own feelings, but I gather-that he rather objects.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was expressing there not my view. I was trying to express in this House the view prevailing in certain political circles in the Assembly and in the Council of State. I did not say it was my view.
LORD OLIVIER: I am satisfied to leave it at that, and to say that that view prevailed in the Council of State, in which ease I cannot be accused of being extremely subversive of the Indian Government by saying that that is also my opinion. But, the noble Viscount having demurred to my quoting him. on the ground that he was speaking of Kenya, I will not press that argument.
Those, then, are the views of the Government of Indian in Council, of high Government officials, and of members of all Parties in this country, to the effect that the communal system of representation is antagonistic to the progress of democratic institutions. As I said, not everybody appears to understand what the word "antagonistic" means. It means that it militates against the progress of democratic institutions. That appears to be an obvious truism, and I do not believe there is anybody in this House who has given any attention to political philosophy who would for a moment question it, or would attempt to traverse the very strong arguments that were put forward in the Montagu Chelmsford Report to that effect, all of which I have not read. It must be a political truism that to have a mosaic of communal constituencies, all of which are exacerbating their own differences, is antagonistic to the progress of democratic institutions; and no possible exception can be taken to that.
I want to refer to some of the comments that have been made upon this letter of mine, because I think the attitude which has been taken up towards this episode evidences a temper and a habit of judgment which are extremely antagonistic to

827
the public interest, and I want to comment upon it rather freely. We get first this statement in a telegram from Calcutta:
"The fear that the Labour Government, despite the assurances to the contrary which have been given in statements in Parliament, its inclined to seek a compromise with the Indian extremists is likely to be increased by the wording of a remarkable letter which has been received—"
Then the letter is quoted, and this ominous paragraph follows:
"The Secretary of State's explanation as to how he reconciles these sentiments with his recent public pronouncements, is awaited with eager interest in India."
I have pointed out already that this letter is exactly in accordance with what I stated in your Lordships' House.
Another paper says this:
"An extraordinary story circulated by an Indian news agency last night purporting to quote a letter from Lord Olivier to Mr. S. Satyamurti, the well-known Swarajist and member of the Madras Legislative Council, was temporarily suppressed by the papers here in response to a request from the issuing agency."
You observe the way in which a newspaper sensation is being worked up. The next day the following telegram appeared:
"The alacrity with which Mr. S. Satyamurti, the Swarajist member of the Madras Legislative Council, agreed to accept full responsibility for the publication of Lord Olivier's letter is a strong piece of evidence favouring the widely held opinion in India that the Secretary of State has been trapped into a carefully prepared plot by the Swarajists. … To say that Lord Olivier's letter, though carefully worded, is regarded here as a grave error of judgment, is putting the case very mildly, and it is felt that some official pronouncement is called for immediately."
My official pronouncement would be that His Majesty's Government consider that improved contact and understanding between the Government and the Swaraj and other advanced Parties in India is not only desirable, but that the Viceroy is considering with His Majesty's Government the best means by which that contact can be established, and is taking means towards that end. Also, I am of opinion that communal representative institutions are antagonistic to the progress of sound democracy. That is the statement which I have to make.
The newspaper quotes from the Statesman:
828
"Private advices from England indicate that a determined attempt is being made to stampede public opinion and the Labour Government into a hasty, ill-considered action with regard to the reforms. Among other points upon which these attacks are converging is the question of communal representation, to which the extremist politicians and, to some extent, the Hindus, are generally opposed because they consider the earmarking of certain constituencies for certain communities is likely to prejudice their interests.. … It is evident from Lord Olivier's letter that the politicians who are now pressing the claims of India to a fuller measure of autonomy have placed the communal system in the forefront of their case and it is only too clear that they receive a sympathetic hearing. Unless, therefore, wise counsels prevail, there is reason to fear that the proposed amendment to the Government of India Act will force India a long step further on the path towards tyranny. … India, alas! seems doomed to suffer from the dreams of the doctrinaire"—
such as the noble Lord, Lord South-borough, and the Council of India and Lord Chelmsford—
"and it is a grave disappointment to learn that a man of Lord Olivier's experience is powerless to shake himself free from the influence of preconceived opinion."
The whole of that is a mare's nest, so far, at any rate, as either I myself or, so far as I am aware, any members of the Government are concerned.
I have had conversations, as it was proper for me to do, with the representatives of all shades of opinion in India, beginning with ex-Governors, members of the European community, members of the mercantile community, Indians of almost all shades of opinion, including Mr. Rangachariar, who is now on an official mission to this country, deputed by the Government of India, and Mr. Sastri, a member of the Liberal Party. Curiously enough, I had myself, without having been previously "entrapped," expressed that view to Mr. Satyamurti, but not a single, one of any of the Indians who have spoken to me has as much as raised or mentioned the question of commuunal representation, except Mr. Sastri, who criticised it in respect of its operation in Madras. Mr. Sastri has made to me no official representations on behalf of the Independent Party which he represents. I understand that the Independent Party propose at a later date to approach the Prime Minister or myself by a deputation to put before us their views. But there has been no shadow of an indication on the part of these deeply-plotting

829
Swarajists in England, or India, or elsewhere, so far, that they want to stampede the Labour Government or to entrap them into any kind of promise that they are going to abolish the communal representation, and if the noble Viscount wants any assurance from me that His Majesty's Government have not taken into consideration for a moment up to the present the question of any modification of the communal representation he has it, and he has no ground whatever for assuming from anything that I wrote in my letter that either His Majesty's Government or I had any intention of doing so.
I will go on now with a few more of these choice extracts. The determined effort to stampede is again referred to. Then there is a further comment—
"While the official statement from London that Lord Olivier's letter to Mr. Satyamurti contained nothing that the Secretary of State had not already said, may be literally accurate"—
That statement was made by Mr. Richards in Parliament in reply to a Question, and it had my authority. The letter was not written with a desire for it to be published, and the letter contained nothing, as I said, that I have not already given expression to. This comment, however, is made—
"While the official statement … that Lord Olivier's letter … contained nothing that the Secretary of State had not already said, may be literally accurate, his expression of desire for closer contact with the Swaraj Party, being made to a notoriously anti-British politician, is a big advance on Mr. Richards' House of Commons statement of April 15 that the Government desired to establish contact with those Indians who were prepared to co-operate."
That brings me really to the close of what I wanted to say. These Press extracts, culminating in that statement that I had expressed the desire for closer contact with a notoriously anti-British politician, indicate throughout the temper in which the Party in India who resist all progress habitually approach these matters. That is a very mischievous temper. I have no ground whatever, and I do not suppose that anybody has any ground whatever, for saying that Mr. Satyamurti is an anti-British politician. His letter to me contradicts it. He says that he is not an anti-British politician. He desires to maintain the union and association of India with Great Britain.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say so.
LORD OLIVIER: The noble Viscount did not, but this is the quotation from a Calcutta correspondent and the whole of this Press "stunt" is inspired, it is perfectly clear, by what one may call a suppressed complex of suspicion, first of all, of the Labour Government and, secondly, of that particular Party in Indian politics who are called the Swarajists. That is to say, it is immediately assumed that when the Labour Party come into office they are prepared to be stampeded, and it is immediately assumed that the Swarajists are prepared to entrap and stampede them. It is also indicated that it is something disloyal or improper or strange on the part of the Secretary of Slate that he should address a civil letter to an elected politician. You have that sort of feeling reflected in the supplementary Questions that were asked in the House of Commons the other evening.
Lieut. Colonel Howard-Bury asked this supplementary Question—
"Is this an example of the new methods of the Government for communicating Cabinet decisions to the people of India?"
A frivolous question! Then Viscount Curzon asked—
"Are we to understand that the Government view with approval the action of the Secretary of State in communicating direct with this extremist leader in Indian?"
I wonder in what sort of political world I am living when that kind of question can be put in all seriousness in the House of Commons of this country. Because a man happens to be a member of the Cabinet he is not to write such a civil letter as. I wrote to a man who is a representative, and a constitutionally appointed representative, of a considerable Party in India!
The Swaraj Party, the Home Rule Party, are, as I have said, the most advanced cohort of the entire Indian national movement. They have at present a considerable majority in two or three of the Councils, and altogether they have the strongest representation of any political Party in the Councils and in the Assembly in India. They have a constitutional position and a constitutional right to be recognised as enjoying the privileges, the confidence and the credit attaching to their constitutional position which your Lordships have created for them. You have no business whatever to

831
say that any one should have any more prejudice against a Swarajist than against a Moderate, or an Independent or a Liberal. They are all of them elected representatives in their various Councils, and they are entitled to be regarded without prejudice either by the Government of India or by the Government of this country. I repudiate entirely the theory that because the Swarajists are giving the Government of India a certain amount of trouble, as I have said, because they are pursuing their perfectly constitutional aim in what we consider to be a factious and mistaken manner, they are to be regarded as a kind of political outcastes and as antagonists and enemies of Great Britain, and that we are to he asked: "Why do you write civilly to these people? If you write civilly to them you at once discourage the Moderates and the Independents who would be your backers."
We desire, by arriving at an understanding with all Parties, to get as much backing as we can on all political questions from all Parties, and we have said that again and again. I have said it in this House, and my right hon. friend has said it in another place. It is not the fact that the Swaraj Party are at the present time entirely non-cooperating. At the present moment there is being discussed in the Legislative Assembly in India a Tariff Bill for the protection of steel. That was referred by the Assembly to a Select Committee. That Select Committee included members of the Swaraj Party. Those members of the Swaraj Party are dealing with it without any prejudice, simply on its merits as a political question. They are not saying: "This is a Bill of the Government of India and we are going to hamper it and to sabotage it." They are dealing with it on its merits. That is an advance, at any rate, to that kind of co-operation which the Swarajists can perfectly well undertake without in the slightest degree prejudicing their political programme, and in my opinion they will very much strengthen their chance of advancing towards that programme by adopting that line of action. I do most entirely protest against the attitude which is too often taken up, and I am sorry to say I see it in some of the Reports which I get from the Government of India, regarding the Swaraj Party, simply because of their constitutional
832
agitation, as being persons who are to be discriminated against as distinguished from other politicians.
On February 26 the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, made a comment upon one of the matters to which I referred—namely, the handling by the Government of India of the Jaito disturbance, and he expressed very bodly the opinion that "there must have been regrettable mismanagement somewhere to have brought about a state of affairs in which you have bodies of Sikh fanatics marching about the country," and so on. That is the sort of criticism of the Government of India which, if I had made it, would have meant at once a tremendous attack upon me for belittling the Government of India.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I said that there must have been mismanagement somewhere. I did not attack the Government of India. I did not attack anybody. I alluded to a deplorable situation, to a state of affairs which has grown up in India with the explanation of which I was not acquainted, but which, evidently, did indicate some gross mismanagement on the part of some persons. Then the noble Lord gets up and says I am making an attack on the Government of India.
LORD OLIVIER: I do not think I used the word "attack." The noble Marquess said there must have been grave mis management somewhere. Who was responsible for managing the affair if not the Government of India? The noble Marquess went on to say that he thought things would be put right when we got. Sir Malcolm Hailey as Governor of the Punjab. If he could manage it right, who could manage it wrong? The noble Marquess said that he made no direct attack. No, he made a criticism. When I want to steal a horse I shall get the noble Marquess to do it, and I shall turn my back to the hedge carefully. I should not have dared to say so much in disparagement of the management of India as the noble Marquess clearly and definitely said in those words.
I say this further, that I, unfortunately, see in the reports which I receive from districts and otherwise that there is a constant tendency on the part of officers of the Government rather to hold them selves justified in regarding the Swarajists

833
as treasonable persons and to treat them in a somewhat objectionable manner, subjecting them to pin-pricks, to disparagement, and special treatment, regarding the Swarajist Party as we used to regard the Home Rule Party in Ireland, as a Party with which no respectable politician could possibly associate or have anything to do. That is unfortunate. This Press "stunt," which has come from Calcutta and elsewhere, is an indication of the miserable temper of supposing that the Swarajists are traitorous people, that they are worse than other politicians, and want to entrap and bamboozle the Secretary of State and the Labour Party, as if the Labour Party were capable of being stampeded by them. The policy of the Labour Party has been stated to your Lordships' House, and it is proceeding.
Having regard to the complaints that have been made as to the working of the present Constitution in India, the Government of India has established a Committee with a view to finding out what amendments, if any, are required in the Act by rules or otherwise. First of all, that Committee was appointed as an official Committee. It has now been enlarged, and I have given the noble Viscount the reference to it. Only yesterday the Government of India proceeded on these lines which I indicated that His Majesty's Government would be glad that they should proceed, and are adding unofficial members to that Committee with a view to seeing whether we shall receive from unofficial critics representations with regard to the working of the Government of India Act. That is an advance towards greater and better contact, and if, by perhaps harmless letters and such harmless correspondence as has passed between myself and Mr. Satyamurti, any kind of better contact or understanding can be established between ourselves and those advanced politicians in India, I shall be exceedingly glad, and I shall not for a moment be ashamed of what I have done.
I do hope that no one of your Lordships who is to follow me will say that you have received any relief or satisfaction from what I have told you. What I have told you with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government has been told you already. The policy of His Majesty's Government has not been altered or modified or departed from. I must; say
834
that, on the whole, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having given me this opportunity of expressing myself on the subject and of making this protest. I beg him to believe that, while I should myself have considered it too trivial a matter for so serious notice to be taken of it, I am not at all sure that it has not been, on the whole, in the public interest that some discussion should have taken place.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTOIN: My Lords, I do not think the speech which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, has just delivered is one of which, if he reads it in print to-morrow morning, he will have any particular occasion to be proud. Of one thing I am sure he has not convinced your Lordships, and that is that this matter is as trivial as he led your Lordships to think, and that, to quote the words with which he opened, it was quite unworthy of the attention of your Lordships' House. If that were his view he would not have spent fifty-five minutes in attempting to demonstrate the contrary. He evidently regarded it as a matter of very serious importance, so important indeed that, having dealt with the charge, to which matter I will confine myself, he thought, it necessary to attach to his argument a discussion of almost every other aspect of the Indian question, and to indulge in observations with reference to the political position in India, and to those who criticised him, and so on, the greater part of which was wholly irrelevant to the comparatively narrow, though important, point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Peel.
The chief reflection that was borne in upon me as I listened to the rambling remarks of the noble Lord was this, that His Majesty's Ministers are really the most inexperienced, the most ignorant, and the most sensitive body of men who ever sat upon that Bench. They make the most astonishing speeches, and are surprised when they are asked to explain them. But whatever you may think of their speeches, their letters are positively amazing. We never know from day to day with what new situation we are going to be confronted. One day it is the Home Secretary who, although a politician of some experience, plunges unasked into the maelstrom of European

835
politics, and has to be disowned by his chief. The same Home Secretary, only daring the last week, has made another divagation into the field of South African politics. Subordinate members of the Ministry cannot keep quiet for a week. Now the noble Lord, whom I have hitherto regarded as a rather quiet and stable sort of person, seems to me to be the worst offender. And the worst part of it is, he is wholly unconscious of his error, and has spent the greater part of an hour this afternoon in pointing out to your Lordships' House that he is a most innocent person, and that everybody else in the world is carrying on a "stunt," to use his classic phrase, of which he himself especially is the quite unmerited victim.
Let us deal with the case. The noble Lord has written a letter. The terms of that letter were read by my noble friend. What is the defence of the noble Lord in reply? He says, in the first place, that his letter was written to a highly respectable Indian politician who was a friend of Mr. Montagu's. I do not desire to say one word against the gentleman referred to. He seems to me, if I may say so, to have been, on the evidence of the noble Lord, an exceedingly shrewd person, and to know pretty well the sort of conditions under which Labour Ministers can be approached. He said, in the first place, that he was aware of the limitations under which a Labour Government rests. He did not know how easy a Labour Government finds it to relax those limitations, at any rate in speech and in letters. He said, in the second place, that he was expecting some sort of gesture—"right gesture" I think the phrase was—from His Majesty's advisers.
Now we will take the gesture itself. The noble Lord seemed to think it was an adequate defence to say that when a civil communication is sent to him he ought to return a civil reply—a civil and frank reply. I do the noble Lord the justice of believing that he is incapable of returning any other reply. But this is not a case of the ordinary exchange of civil letters between a correspondent and a gentleman who chooses to address him in England. This is the case of correspondence between an Indian politician of admittedly advanced views and a Secretary of State. The noble Lord then says, in self-defence, that all he expressed was an innocent and a philosophical opinion. I agree with the
836
noble Lord as to his innocence. It is almost incredible. But as for his philosophy it is not the business of Secretaries of State to be philosophers. If the noble Lord desires to make philosophical statements about Indian politics let him do it in the silence of his own chamber. Do not let him do it in letters which are published to the world. Indian Secretaries of State are not abstract persons who can indulge in abstract generalities They are concrete individuals charged with great responsibilities whose words pre circulated throughout India and whose opinions carry an importance which the noble Lord seemed quite unable to appreciate.
The third defence which the noble Lord offered for his action was that he was merely expressing in his letter opinions to which he had already given utterance in your Lordships' House. That is not so. I do not say anything about the first part of the letter, his general sympathy with Swarajist aims, because I have not sufficient time in which to deal with it. But the second part of the letter, which is the real gravamen of the charge brought by my noble friend—namely, that "the maintenance of the communal system is antagonistic to the possibility of any proper working of democratic institutions in India"—is certainly not what the noble Lord has said on previous occasions, and it is a point of view which he admitted in the concluding sentences of his speech is not shared as regards action by the Government of India or even by His Majesty's Government at home.
Why is it that a statement by the noble Lord, even couched in abstract and philosophic form, upon this question is unwise? I think I would put it as follows. In the first place, it can only produce, and it has already produced as is obvious from the quotations which the noble Lord gave, considerable excitement and unrest in India. He seemed to confine himself to the disparaging remarks about himself that have emanated from the European Press. I do not attach any particular importance to them. What I look to are the sentiments that have been expressed by those communities in India whose security consists in the retention of the communal system. I look to the feelings of Mahomedans, to whom the noble Viscount called attention, and such in-

837
dications as I see lead me to think that the Mahomedans in India are gravely alarmed at the suggestion that the Secretary of State for India disapproves altogether of that which they regard as the main safeguard of their interests and the individuality of their community.
Take again the Sikhs. The noble Lord was quite angry that I had indicated that the recant agitation in the Sikh community was due to mismanagement somewhere. I do not desire to pursue that point, but he will agree that the one thing we want as regards the Sikhs is to get them back into the condition of contentment and loyalty which up to a few years ago they had observed. If you indicate to them that the Secretary of State is opposed to the communal system without which they will be submerged and their voice extinguished, you are going a long way to exaggerate the feelings of distrust that unhappily already exist among that important community.
There is also the point made by the noble Viscount behind me. Did the noble Lord consider, in making that declaration, whether the announcement at the present time would be acceptable to the Government of India and whether it would strengthen their hands? Did he consider whether it was consistent with the general lines of policy we have been pursuing ever since the Montagu-Chelmsford Report took the shape of legislation, which, was passed by your Lordships' House. The noble Lord comforts himself by the statement that it is merely the legitimate expression of opinion to say that "the maintenance of the communal system is antagonistic to the possibility of any proper working of democratic institutions in India," Why should the noble Lord set himself up as a judge of what is the proper working of democratic institutions in India?
LORD OLIVIER: I was humbly following a large number of better qualified judges.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then my remarks are not applicable to the noble Lord alone. Why should any one lay down, of a population of 320 millions, split asunder by every diversity of race, religion, language and creed, that the communal system, introduced by His Majesty's Government themselves, is inconsistent with the development of
838
democratic institutions? And are you quite certain that the democratic institutions of which you speak, and the principles which you are advocating, are suitable to the peoples of India at all? Are we wise here in laying it down that because we in Western countries, with centuries of development and experience behind us, have arrived at certain broad principles and conclusions, we are therefore justified in laying them down for, or offering them to, all the diversified communities of India? The answer, of course, is contained in the very document which the noble Lord quoted. To justify himself he referred to the Report signed by Mr. Montagu and Viscount Chelmsford, and he read from that Report passages containing a metaphysical discussion of what responsible self-government really means, or ought to mean. I have read those passages also. From whom they emanated I have no idea, but I can hardly believe that they represent the views of so sensible a man as Lord Chelmsford. They are written in a general philosophical and abstract way.
But after paying this lip service to the real meaning of democracy, what did the Montagu-Chelmsford Report go on to do? It went on at once to provide for the creation and maintenance, of the very communal system which, in theory, they denounced, and which the noble Lord himself proceeded to explain to your Lordships. His speech was the most powerful vindication of the communal system in India that could be desired. What did he tell us? He said not merely do Mahomedans in India require for their due representation to have a system of special, representation of their own, not merely is it necessary for the Sikhs to have an opportunity to have it too, but you have to provide it by the creation of special electorates and nominations for such sections of the community as the planters, the Anglo-Indians, the great landowners, the miners—I might indefinitely extend the list quoted by the noble Lord. Therefore, he himself showed that the Government, which is the author of these reforms which he is defending and desires to extend, finds itself unable to act up to its abstract principles and is compelled in practice to introduce as the whole basis of representation in India a system which he dislikes.

839
That is the position, and I confess that the action of the Secretary of State, from which, as he has told us, he is not going to depart, and from which the Government of which he is a member dare not depart—the action of a Secretary of State who, in an incautious letter to a prominent politician in India, says that he personally dislikes the system thus administered and would like to see it abolished, and that it is not compatible with the principles which he and his colleagues avow—is not only indiscreet, but is deserving of the gravest condemnation at the hands of your Lordships' House. I promised I would be short in my observations, and I will not pursue the matter. I regret that the noble Lord thought it necessary in the latter part of his observations to think that he is the victim of some special and malignant misrepresentation or attack at the hands either of the European community in India or of any body of opinion in this country. That is very far from being the case.
LORD OLIVIER: I did not refer to myself personally, but to the Labour Party.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the noble Lord did signal out the attacks which have been made upon him personally in newspapers in India, but, whether he was referring to himself or to the Labour Party, I would ask him to disabuse himself of that idea.
LORD OLIVIER: The suggestion was that the Labour Party had been stampeded.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the noble Lord has really shown undue sensitiveness upon that point. In this House, certainly, every consideration has been shown to him on every occasion when he has addressed your Lordships. I would beg him, therefore, not to pursue that line of argument, and not to be surprised if incautious utterances of his call for the explanation for which the noble Viscount has asked to-night.
It only remains for me, in conclusion, to take note of the fact, and to nail the point to the counter, that the noble Lord, although he has expressed these abstract views of his own, has stated with even greater clearness that the Government of
840
which he is a member has no intention of abolishing the communal system, that this pronouncement must not be taken as indicating any change of policy, that it was an utterance on his part, as we think, irresponsible, as he thinks innocent, and that no importance whatever must be attached to it. That it should require a reply of fifty-five minutes' duration on the part of the noble Lord to demonstrate to the House that we need not attach any importance to that which he said is, I think, an extraordinary phenomenon, but at the same time I am prepared to accept it if only for the satisfactory nature of the general declaration with which he has furnished us.
THE LORD SPEAKER (EARL BEAUCHAMP): Does the noble Viscount wish to press the Motion for Papers?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, I will not ask for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICES COMMISSION.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Indian Legislative Assembly will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the recommendations of Viscount Lee of Fareham's Commission on the Indian Services during the present short Session, in view of the fact that no further sittings of that Assembly will be held until the month of September.
I can deal with this Question, though it is important in substance, very shortly, but I must in two or three sentences explain the reason why I put it down. On the occasion of the setting up of this Commission, I made a statement in the nature of a pledge as to the opportunity that might be afforded the Legislative Assembly in India to discuss this Report. It was a carefully guarded statement, and I think I ought perhaps to read to your Lordships the actual statement as it was made by the Home Member, Sir Malcolm Hailey, in the Legislative Assembly. He was speaking, I think, in March of this year, and he repeated a statement which he made in July. He said:
"In July last I said: 'We cannot here, either as an Assembly or as a Government

841
of India, limit the constitutional and statutory powers of the Secretary of State in this respect, and, if there are matters pressed upon him by the Royal Commission which require immediate orders, then it will be necessary to recognise his power to take a decision in advance of any discussion by the Assembly. For the rest, we shall be quite prepared to allow the Assembly an opportunity of discussing the main recommendations of the Royal Commission; we shall meet any views it may advance in discussion in the usual way, and shall forward its recommendations to the Secretary of State.'"
That is the quotation which. Sir Malcolm Hailey gave from his own statement.
He went on to say:
"That was a formal declaration made in recognition of the constitutional powers of the Secretary of State. We cannot tie his hands, but I have no doubt that he will endeavour to allow full discussion here before any action is taken on the main recommendations of the Commission."
As the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, well knows, the Assembly is at present sitting, but the Session is, I understand, likely to be a short one. No other Session is likely to be called or take place until September, and I am anxious that the proposals made by Viscount Lee of Fareham and his Commission should, if possible, be discussed during the present Session.
I will tell your Lordships why. It is obvious, after the great despatch with which Lord Lee and his colleagues have discharged their very difficult and complicated duties, that it would be very unfair to expect the Secretary of State to wait, before taking decisions upon the Report of that Commission, until September, when the Assembly may have had its discussions. It would also, if I may say so, be very unfortunate for the Services concerned, because, whatever the decisions taken by the Secretary of State on this proposal, it is obvious that they should, in the interest of the Services, be taken as soon as possible, in order that the Services may know exactly where they stand. I was going to ask the noble Lord if the Government of India would not only place no obstacle in the way of, but do what they can to facilitate, a discussion on the Report of Lord Lee's Commission taking place this Session. I should imagine that this would also be to some extent in their own interests, because any representations they may make upon it are likely to carry more weight when the Secretary of State is beginning to deal
842
with those changes than when, in September perhaps, he has already made up his mind and may have passed orders carrying out a great many decisions. I beg, therefore, to ask him that specific Question.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, it may be of interest to the noble Viscount if I read the text of the announcement which was made on behalf of the Government in both Houses of the Indian Legislature on May 28. It ran as follows:—
"The Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Services in India is now in the hands of hon. members. When they have had an opportunity of perusing it, they will no doubt observe that the recommendations of the Commission are unanimous in all the main points. They cover a wide held, including Indianisation of the Services, the establishment of a Public Service Commission, the control by Ministers of the Services, which the Report recommends should be recruited provincially in the future, and the remedy of the grievances of the Services. I should point out to the House that the Report is of an urgent character, that its main recommendations are inter-dependent and that this inter-dependence was the basis of its unanimity. The House has already been assured that the Government propose to give an opportunity to the hon. members of expressing their views, but they will no doubt understand that neither the Government of India nor the Secretary of State can suspend the consideration of the Report in the mean while. However, if, after the hon. members have had an opportunity of examining the Report, there is any strong feeling in the House in favour of a discussion during the current Session, the Government will be glad to give an opportunity for this, and will consider what arrangements could be made—"
that is, in the current Session, the May Session—
"although, of course, it will not be possible for them to express their definite views at such short notice. The hon. members will understand that the Provincial Governments are vitally interested in many of the recommendations, and their views must be obtained. While the Government are anxious to obtain the general views of the Assembly at the earliest possible date, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to take decision on matters of urgency, and, in this connection, I must refer the House to what my predecessor said in July, 1923, and again in March, 1924. We cannot here, either as an Assembly or as a Government of India, limit the constitutional and statutory powers of the Secretary of State in this respect, and if there are matters pressed upon him by the Royal Commission which require immediate orders, then it will be necessary to recognise his power to take a decision in advance of any discussion by the Assembly. For the rest, we shall be quite prepared to allow the Assembly an oppor-

843
tunity of discussing the main recommendations of the Royal Commission. We shall meet any views it may advance in discussion in the usual way and shall forward its recommendations to the Secretary of State. I take this opportunity of announcing that the Secretary of State and the Government of India are of opinion that whatever measures of relief recommended by the Commission may be finally sanctioned should have effect as recommended by the Commission from April 1, 1924."
I hope very much that the Viceroy may find it possible to dispose of the discussion of this Report in the Assembly which is now being held, and I have already pressed upon the Viceroy, as strongly as I can, my sense, and that of my Council, of the urgency of dealing with the matter as quickly as possible, in view of the considerations to which the Viceroy himself has called attention. I have no doubt whatever that Lord Reading will do all he can to secure the earliest possible expression in a sufficient manner of the views of the Assembly. He knows the feeling of His Majesty's Government upon the subject, and he will, subject to the obstacles standing in his way, be disposed to press forward the matter as quickly as possible.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I will only say in a sentence that those who sit on this Bench have listened with satisfaction to the remarks which have just fallen from the Secretary of State for India. I am glad to learn that not only are the Viceroy and the Government of India anxious to take this matter at once in India, but that those views are shared by the Secretary of State himself. It is obviously extremely desirable that the matter should be taken in hand without delay, both because of the nature of the Deport and the great disadvantage of letting the matter stand over till September, and also because, as the noble
844
Lord pointed out, there may be matters upon which the Government of India think it necessary to act without any delay at all. If so, how desirable it is that any discussion should take place soon. Further, in view of the labours of the Commission, of which Lord Lee of Fareham was Chairman, and the urgent recommendations that the Report should be considered as a whole, that it should be treated and if possible accepted as a whole, and that the changes proposed should be initiated with as little delay as possible, it is only fair to my noble friend and his colleagues that so far as His Majesty's Government can influence that course of affairs they shall do so. Therefore, we are gratified to learn that the Secretary of State for India will exert the whole of his influence in that direction.
[From Minutes of May 29.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Wednesday next.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, June 2.]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday, July 1 next.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The Viscount, Allendale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Blackpool, Brighton, Doncaster, Don-caster and Tickhill Joint Water District, Northumberland and Sheffield—Was presented by Earl De La Warr; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATER) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
  STROUD WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAY'S AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.

  LANARKSHIRE HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table, the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
  Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies.
  Brighton Corporation Water.
  Grampian Electricity Supply.
  Manchester Ship Canal.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  WEST THURROCK WHARF AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn to Thursday, June 26, for the convenience of parties.
  Report from the Committee of Selection that Lord Glenarthur be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of Lord Treowen; read, and agreed to.

  STANDING ORDER, No. XXI.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed.