Sitting of 4 June 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order) (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Greenock Improvement (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Girvan, Great Yarmouth and Teignmouth," presented by Mr. GOSLING read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Keighley Corporation Act, 1912, relating to Keighley Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. GOSLING; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the St. Helen's Corporation Act, 1921, relating to St. Helen's Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. GOSLING; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  AIR WARFARE (INTERNATIONAL LAW).
  1. Sir GEOFFREY BUTLERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give directions for the publication of the findings and recommendations drawn up at The Hague last spring by the Committee of Experts in International Law upon the subject of the law of air warfare?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to repeat his question after Whitsuntide.

  LIBERIA (CONTRACT LABOUR).
  Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes laying upon the Table of the House, in the form of a White Paper, the representations which have been made to the Liberian Government with regard to contract labour leaving Sierra Leone ports?
  Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have not yet received the text of the note addressed by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Monrovia to the Liberian Government. When it is received, His Majesty's Government will consider the question of laying it before Parliament.
  Mr. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us to what foreign port these people are being taken?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I require notice of that question.

  RUMANIA (PROPERTY LIABILITIES).
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Rumania has undertaken the liabilities in connection with the property to which she has succeeded under the Treaty of St. Germain?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I do not understand to what exact liabilities under the Treaty of St. Germain the hon. and gallant Member refers, and without this information I regret that I am unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question.

  PERU (BRITISH EMIGRANTS).
  Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any additional grant has been received from the Government of Peru in compensation to the British emigrants who returned from Peru in distressed circumstances, owing to the failure of the Peruvian Government to carry out its obligations in the terms of its advertisements in 1920?
  Mr. LUNN (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir, but I am informed that the Peruvian Government have now promised a remittance of £1,200 in addition to the sums already received in final settlement of this claim, and His Majesty's Minister at Lima has been instructed by telegram to press for early payment.

  AUSTRIA (WAR MATERIAL, EXPORT).
  Mr. MORELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government will ask for a Report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris, who is the British representative on the Conference of Ambassadors, as to the output and destination of the war material produced by the Austrian State armament factories and by private armament firms established in Austrian territory during the past 12 months; if His Majesty's Government will ask the British Minister at Prague for a similar Report as to the output and destination of the war material produced by the Skoda armament works in Czechslovakia; and if these Reports can be laid upon the Table of this House?
  Mr. PONSONBY: Articles 132 and 134 of the Treaty of St. Germain govern the output and destination of all war material in Austria, which is solely for the use of the Austrian army. The Organ of Liquidation has not been able to obtain definite proof of the illegal manufacture of war material, and I doubt if any useful purpose would be served by calling for a further report on this subject, which could only be furnished by the Organ of Liquidation. As regards the second part of the question, such inquiry would imply interference in the internal affairs of a foreign and friendly State.
  Mr. MOREL: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's reply that there
  1218
  has been a breach of the Treaty of St. Germain in the matter of the export of war material from Austria; and, if there has been that breach, is it properly attributable to the Austrian Government or to the international body which supervises every branch of industry in the country?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot commit myself to saying there has been any breach. In any case, it is a matter for the Austrian Government to decide.

  VILNA.
  Mr. MORELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that considerable friction, threatening a breach of the peace, has again arisen between Poland and Lithuania in regard to the future of Vilna; if he can say whether the Conference of Ambassadors is about to issue a warning to Lithuania; if, in view of the position of Lithuania under the decision of the Ambassadors Conference in regard to Vilna, His Majesty's Government will recommend that the whole question be referred to the League of Nations; and will he recommend that the activities of the Conference of Ambassadors in the settlement of these contentious questions may be curtailed and the activities of the League correspondingly increased?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The reports of friction to which the hon. Member refers have been brought to my knowledge. The Conference of Ambassadors proposes to address Notes to both the Lithuanian and the Polish Governments urging the importance of maintaining normal and friendly relations between the two countries. The question of Vilna was settled by the Ambassadors' Conference on the 15th March, 1923, after the failure of prolonged and patient efforts at mediation between Poland and Lithuania by the League of Nations; I do not think that any purpose would be served by inviting the League to re-open it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have given orders for the Admiralty yacht

    1219
    "Enchantress" to be temporarily commissioned; whether he is aware that this ship has been out of commission for a very considerable period for reasons of economy; what expenditure will be incurred in recommissioning the ship and in providing crew, stores and fuel; under what Vote the expenditure will be borne; and whether, before any expenditure is incurred, the decision to recommission this ship may be reconsidered?
    Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) what will be the total cost of commissioning the Admiralty steam yacht "Enchantress" for the use of the Board of Admiralty at the forthcoming naval review, including pay of officers and ratings, cost of refitting, victualling, fuel, stores and all other incidental expenses; how many days will she be in commission; and for how many days will the members of the Board of Admiralty be on board;
    (2)how many persons will use the yacht "Enchantress" at the forthcoming review apart from the officers and crew: who those persons will be; and whether any persons not members of the Board of Admiralty or in the naval services will be on board during the time the yacht is in commission?
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what number of officers and personnel will be required for the "Enchantress, "for what period will they be employed on this service, and at what cost to the taxpayers?
    Mr. FOOTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of the members of the Board of Admiralty who will be accommodated on the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; whether the proposed expenditure was specifically provided for in the Estimates for the current year; and what alternative means would be available to enable the Board to carry out their inspection if the proposed recommissioning is net proceeded with?
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty where it is proposed to recondition the "Enchantress"; whether a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary for
    1220
    the purpose; and whether, seeing that the expenditure involved will be taken from moneys that would otherwise be available for the repairing of ships of war in the national yards, he will undertake that the necessary work on the yacht shall not be done by a private firm?
    Mr. LOVERSEEDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recommissioning of the "Enchantress" will involve regilding the external parts of the ship; and, if so, what the regilding will cost?
    Lady TERRINGTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Enchantress" will be used on the occasion of the Naval Review purely for official purposes; and whether there will be any charge on public funds for the entertainment of guests?
    Mr. BLACKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the qualifications of the persons who are to sail in the "Enchantress"; who these persons are; and whether Members of Parliament will he invited to join the party?
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, seeing that the Geddes Committee recommended that the "Enchantress" should be disposed of, why this was not done?
    Mr. KEENSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the estimated expenditure of,£1,100, for reconditioning the "Enchantress," includes reconditioning the boilers; and, if not what will be the extra cost involved?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in addition to the estimated outlay of £1,100, through recommissioning of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress," after having been out of commission for 18 months, it is proposed to incur further public expenditure on convivial entertainment in connection with the review of the Fleet?
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before the hon. Gentleman answers these questions, may I ask if it is not confirmed by long experience that this yacht has bean very useful to the Admiralty, and is there any reason for discontinuing its use? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr.Ammon)The right hon. Gentleman is putting a preceding supplementary question. Orders have been given for H.M.S. "Enchantress" to be prepared for a short commission of 10 days in July. The total cost of the extra work required, together with the cost of fuel and other stores, is estimated at £1,100 out of Vote 8. This includes £143 for opening out, cleaning and testing the boilers. The expenditure involved was not specifically provided for in the Estimates. No Supplementary Estimate will be necessary, money being available through a slight delay in other work at that yard. The officers and ratings will be drafted temporarily from other services, and the only extra cost of personnel will be £20, being the difference between half-pay and full pay and allowances of the captain. Members of the Board of Admiralty will be on board for as many of these days as their duties require. A certain number of official guests, whose names have not yet been settled, will be on board the ship during the review. During the time the yacht is in commission such persons will be admitted on board for various purposes as the captain may permit, in accordance with the custom of the Service. The complement of the ship during the temporary commission will be 10 officers and 190 ratings. All the members of the Board of Admiralty whose duties permit will be accommodated in the ship. No suitable alternative means are available for the Board to carry out their duty on this occasion. A less suitable vessel could be hired, but would cost much more. The dockyard work on the ship will be carried out at His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth. There will be no re-gilding of the external parts of the ship. The Government of the day in 1922, in reviewing the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, decided that the "Enchantress" should be put out of permanent commission and laid up in Portsmouth harbour. Four other vessels belonging to the Royal Navy will be employed for the conveyance to the review of those official guests from the Dominions overseas and from both Houses of Parliament for whom the "Enchantress" will not provide sufficient room. The total amount estimated to be spent on the entertainment of all the official guests
    1222
    invited to attend the naval review is £1,500.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on a similar occasion last year the mine layer "Princess Margaret" was used for exactly the same duties; and does he not think that at a time when the Navy is being cut down to the bone it is very undesirable to spend even £1,100 on a service which cannot be described as a fighting service?
    Mr. AMMON: The noble Lord is wrong in stating there was a similar occasion last year. There has been no review of the Fleet since the War. There was an inspection last year of a small number of vessels but we have to remember that on this occasion there will be a number of visitors from our Dominion Parliaments who have to be accommodated. If we could find other means of doing so, they would he much more expensive than this arrangement and less open to misrepresentation.
    Viscount CURZON: Can I have an answer to the last part of my question?
    Mr. AMMON: Will the Noble Lord repeat it?
    Viscount CURZON rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: "Order."
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Foot.
    Mr. FOOT: Are there any alternative means for inspection, and can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the sum of £1,100 adequate provision is made for restoratives in the event of himself and his colleagues being prostrated by sea-sickness?
    Mr. AMMON: I do not think I need concern myself about the joke. As to the question, alternative means could be found but they would be much more expensive than this proposal.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As the "Enchantress" is being commissioned for 10 days, are we to understand that the Board of Admiralty will be on board for those 10 days and that the 150 officers and men will be withdrawn from the schools for the whole of that period?
    Mr. AMMON: That is so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has the discretion left in previous Boards of the Admiralty with regard to this useful vessel ever been

    1223
    passed under review; and is there any reason to think that this discretion will be abused by the present Board of Admiralty?
    Mr. LINFIELD: Will the bon. Gentleman answer my question in reference to the recommendation by the Geddes Committee?
    Mr. AMMON: I am afraid the hon. Member was not paying attention to my reply, because special reference was made in it to his question, as to each of the other questions on the Paper on this subject, and it was pointed out that the Government of the day in 1922, in reviewing the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, decided that the "Enchantress" should be put out of permanent commission and laid up in Portsmouth Harbour. In reference to the question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I agree with him, but it is a question of the larger expense, and the expense connected with the "Enchantress" will be much less than under alternative methods. With regard to the question by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), so far as I know the Board's discretion has never been challenged, and there is no question of abuse. It is for actual work in connection with the review and the duties of the Board of Admiralty.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Will the official guests also include an adequate representation from the Press? The hon. Gentleman did not mention the Press.
    Mr. AMMON: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply he would have heard that it has not yet been fully determined who the guests are to be.
    Mr. HOPE: Is there any reason why the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should he grudged the enjoyment of the full amenities and prerogatives of their offices for the short time during which they are likely to hold them?
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRIs it in consonance with the dignity of the Lords of the Admiralty that they should proceed to sea in a yacht, on the reconditioning of which only £1,100 has been spent, and the gilding of which has not been attended to?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's answer that this yacht is only going to be employed for 10 days, and is requiring to be reconditioned and the boilers and engines to be overhauled, when the 10 days are over, will the hon. Gentleman use his influence, as a Labour man and a Socialist, so that the poor women and children of the East End of London be allowed to get the use of this yacht afterwards?
    Mr. AMMON: I will certainly convey the suggestion of my hon. Friend to my Noble Friend (Viscount Chelmsford).

    CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a dispute exists between Messrs. Vickers and Company, Barrow, and the Boilermakers' Society concerning the piece-work rates to be paid in connection with the construction of the new cruiser; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action relative thereto?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges)It is understood that some difficulty has arisen regarding piece-work rates. So far as is known, no occasion has yet arisen for any intervention by the Admiralty.
    Mr. SHORTIs the hon. Gentleman making inquiries in this matter, and, if necessary, will he intervene?
    Mr. HODGESWhen we have had a definite complaint, we shall make inquiries.
    Mr. MILLSIs any complaint likely to, be raised by the contractors, and can the hon. Gentleman say if, in ordinary conditions of peace, the general conditions of day work should not be observed in order to spread the job over a longer period, employing more men? Piece-work always means quicker and larger profits.
    Mr. HODGESWe cannot undertake to deal with any matters that do not come to us officially, either from the trade unions concerned or from the representatives of the employers. if there is a dispute in existence.
    Mr. SHORTIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that members of the Boilermakers' Society have refused to commence work on these cruisers until they secure satisfaction regarding these rates?
    Mr. HODGES: The Boilermakers' Society has not made any representations to us, and that is the whole point of my reply.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the cost of the new cruisers, including guns, armour and ammunition equipment, now being constructed in the Royal dockyards and by private firms, respectively?
    Mr. AMMON: Arrangements are lot yet sufficiently far advanced to admit of a reliable statement of the total cost being prepared, but as far as the construction of the hulls is concerned, it is anticipated that the cost of the dockyard-built ships will compare favourably with the cost of the ships to be built in private yards.
    Mr. HARRIS: Do we understand from that, that work is not yet begun, and, therefore, has not yet absorbed any of the unemployed?
    Mr. AMMON: The hon. Member should not understand anything more than I have given in the answer.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the work is brought forward for the purpose for which the Estimate was given?
    Mr. AMMON: I can assure my hon. Friend that everything is being done to expedite the work as rapidly as possible.
    Captain BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the statement of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the work was put in hand to absorb unemployment?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in these comparisons the Government are their own rating authority, and in the case of a private enterprise they get back a substantial amount in Income Tax?
    Mr. AMMON: All the facts have been taken into consideration in the answer I have given.

    MEN'S CANTEEN COMMITTEE.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the verbatim Report of the 19th Men's Canteen Committee meeting, held on the 25th April, 1924, will be issued for the information of the Fleet; and what has been the delay in this issue?
    Mr. AMMON: The Report referred to is distributed by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, and it was issued last week. I understand there was no undue delay in issuing it on this occasion.

    WARRANT OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that certain warrant officers who are now in receipt of naval pensions will suffer hardship when the 5½ per cent. deduction on their pensions becomes operative in July next, in so far that they will be receiving a lesser amount after the reduction takes place than they would be receiving had they been pensioned as chief petty officers; and will he state whether these officers will be placed on a rate of pension not less than that earned by their service as petty and chief petty officers, etc., in addition to the augmentations from Greenwich Hospital funds?
    Mr. AMMON: I presume that the hon. Member refers to certain pensioned ratings who were given temporary acting warrants during the War. If so, I may say that it is intended to review these cases specially after the general reassessment of retired pay has been undertaken and give each of the men concerned a definite option between retired pay as an officer and pension as a rating. Those who elect pension as a rating will be eligible for the usual augmentations from Greenwich Hospital funds on attaining age 55 and age 65.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is it not a fact that no post-War pensions will be made smaller than pre-War pensions by this scheme?
    Mr. AMMON:That is so.

    DIVISIONAL SYSTEM.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the experiments with the divisional system in His Majesty's ships have shown that this system would benefit His Majesty's naval service; and, if so, when will it be generally introduced?
    Mr. AMMON: The Divisional System is still under trial, and until the experiments have been completed and the results investigated, the Admiralty are not in a position to express any opinion on the subject.

    DOCKYARD MEN (PENSIONS).
    Major HORE - BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the established men in His Majesty's dockyards retiring since the 20th March, 1922, receive pensions which are considerably less than those that they would have received had they retired prior to the 16th August, 1920, although their service is identical with those who had the advantage of better conditions of retirement., he will take steps to recommend that their pensions be increased, so that their families may not be at a disadvantage as compared with the families of their colleagues?
    Mr. HODGES: I recognise that anomalies of this nature arise in applying the Superannuation Acts to the abnormal conditions which arose during and since the War. The Civil Service generally is affected, and not only workmen retiring from His Majesty's dockyards, and, consequently, I am unable to recommend any alteration in reference to the special classes referred to in the question. I may say that the supplementary pensions based on industrial bonus awarded to the established men who retired on or after the 21st February, 1922, are subject to periodical revision following variation in the rate of the bonus. This revision followed upon the general decision announced on the 22nd February, 1922, by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury and accepted by this House which was detailed in Treasury Minute of 20th March, 1922. The effect of this decision is that all workmen pensioned on and after 21st February, 1922, on the same basic emoluments and after the same service are at the present time in receipt- of the same rate of pension.

    DOCKYARD CRAFTSMEN (WAGES AND HOURS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the yardscraftsmen in His Majesty's dockyards have had a grievance regarding the number of hours worked in comparison with the very low wages received, he will state whether it is the policy of his Department not to remedy any grievance unless and until a decision has been taken by the Whitley Council upon it; whether he will state the last occasion upon which the Whitley Council
    1228
    discussed the grievance of the yardcraftsmen; and what representation the yard-craftsmen have upon the said Council?
    Mr. HODGES: As regards the first part of the question, the Admiralty policy is not as suggested; a grievance of a grade of yardcraftsmen was discussed on the Industrial (Whitley) Council on 15th April last; the yardcraftsmen are represented by the officials of several trade unions on the trade union side of the Council.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact, with regard to the particular Whitley Council, that the procrastination that goes on there is a living scandal? Men are working 100 hours a week for £2 4s.

    SLAVE TRAFFIC, RED SEA (DESTROYERS).
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been decided to detail a division of destroyers for service in the Red Sea; whether he is aware that such vessels are, by reason of their construction, peculiarly unfitted for prolonged service in such waters, especially at this time of year; whether he can give an assurance that it is not intended that these ships should remain indefinitely in these waters without frequent relief, and whether officers and ships' companies will be entitled to hard-lying allowance?
    Mr. AMMON: In view of reports received of a considerable increase in slave traffic in the Red Sea, four destroyers were sent to those waters from the Mediterranean in April last, as a temporary measure to assist in the suppression of this traffic. These vessels have now returned to the Mediterranean. The Admiralty are aware of the climatic conditions in the Red Sea, and it has never been the intention to keep such vessels indefinitely in those waters.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of the question, with reference to hard-lying money?
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman submit to the Foreign Secretary the importance of allowing the country to see the reports which have been received upon this traffic?
    Mr. AMMON: I am afraid that that hardly refers to me.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to what has led to this increase in slave traffic recently?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would be for another Minister, and the hon. Member had better put a question on the Paper.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many destroyers are detailed for this special service this summer, and whether the Italian Navy is co-operating with our ships?
    Mr. AMMON: No destroyers are detailed for this work this summer. The destroyers referred to in the Noble Lord's question have done their service, and have now returned to the Mediterranean. With regard to the question of hard-lying money, hard-lying money is not payable in destroyers to either officers or men, but both will be eligible for climate pay and tropical pay under the usual conditions as laid down in the regulations.
    Viscount CURZON: Under such very severe conditions as those in the Red Sea, for ships of this class, surely officers and men are entitled to hard-lying money? Is there no special power to grant it?
    Mr. E. WOOD: Before we leave that question, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the conditions which led to the destroyers being sent there a few months ago have now disappeared?
    Mr. AMMON: We are so far satisfied that we have been able to withdraw our complement of ships which were operating in that part of Africa.

  JAPANESE CRUISER "NAKA."
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware the Japanese light cruiser "Naka," of 5,570 tons, and armed with seven 5.5-inch guns, was very badly damaged by the earthquake while building; how many days later a cruiser was laid down to replace her; and what was the tonnage and armament of that cruiser?
  Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is believed that the "Naka" is being taken to pieces
  1230
  and that she will be rebuilt. There is no information as to another light cruiser having been ordered to replace her.

  BRITISH, AMERICAN, AND JAPANESE DESTROYERS.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what will be the destroyer strength of the British, American, and Japanese Navies in 1919; and what the position is to-day, eliminating in each case destroyers considered to be worn out or obsolete?
  Mr. AMMON: On the basis that the useful life of a destroyer is 12 years, and that in the case of British destroyers one year's war service is equal to two years' peace service, the destroyer strengths on the 4th June, 1924, are

  British Empire

  …

  197

  United States of America

  …

  279

  Japan

  …

  74

  On the assumption that existing programmes authorised and projected will be completed, and taking no account of possible future programmes, the destroyer strengths on the 1st April, 1929, will be

  British Empire

  …

  119

  United States of America

  …

  262

  Japan

  …

  82

  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the formula of one year's war service equalling years' peace service applied to the strengths of all countries named in the hon. Gentleman's reply?
  Mr. AMMON: The answer I gave was as far as the British Empire was concerned. We are unable to answer for other countries.
  Captain BENN: What is the value of the comparison if you have artificial standards for British ships?
  Mr. AMMON: The value of the comparison must be quite simple, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give it a moment's reflection. No other Navy did the same service as our Navy during the War.
  Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Did not the American Navy do any service?
  Mr. AMMON: Not the same amount of comparable service.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WOMEN.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are available to show the number of women at present in receipt of unemployment benefit who had not completed their eighteenth year in December, 1918; and the number of such women who have not been in actual employment in the trade under which they are registered for more than six months?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): Statistics of the ages of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit are not regularly compiled by my Department. Special investigations, made at the end of last year, indicate, however, that about 40 per cent. of women claimants to benefit were then between the ages of 18 and 23, and would, therefore, be, in 1918, under the age of 18. I am unable to state the number who have not been more than six months in the trade under which they are registered.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether women registered as unemployed, who undergo the home-training courses promoted and extended with Government assistance through the central committees on women's training and employment, are in receipt of unemployment benefit during the time of training; and whether there are any obligations upon the students attending these courses in regard to the class of occupation for which they are registered?
    Mr. SHAW: Women attending these courses do not receive unemployment benefit during training. They receive a maintenance allowance from the central committee on women's training and employment. No undertaking is required as to the future employment which persons trained will follow, but the fact that they have received training is taken into account in deciding what is suitable employment for them, should they subsequently claim unemployment benefit.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. SIMPSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any figures showing the amount of unemployment among agricultural labourers at the present time?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have been asked to reply. No figures are available showing the amount of unemployment amongst agricultural workers, but, so far as I am aware, no considerable numbers are unemployed at the present time.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us what has happened to the 100,000 men who have gone out of work in the last three years?

    APPEALS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour the number of appeals arising under Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, made to the Court of Referees and the umpire during 1923, and the number of such appeals which were disallowed?
    Mr. SHAW: During the year 1923, 11,598 appeals against disallowance under Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, were made to the Courts of Referees, and in 8,456 cases the Courts of Referees recommended disallowance. During the same period 2,072 cases were referred to the umpire, and of these 1,573 were disallowed. I should point out that the number of claims affected by these appeals was much larger than the figures mentioned, as the appeals were frequently taken on test cases.
    Mr. MILLS: Would the Minister of Labour be prepared to allow an applicant before a referee to have the services of a friend? There are cases—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite a new point. The hon. Member had better put a question down.

    HOSPITAL PORTERS.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that porters employed in hospitals do not come within the scope of the Unemployment. Insurance Act; and whether he will consider bringing them under the Act at an early date?
    Mr. SHAW: It has been held by the High Court that employment as a hospital porter is employment in domestic service, and that, accordingly, hospital porters do not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I do not see my way to bring domestic service within the scope of the Acts.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are a fluctuating body, and when they leave the hospitals they are denied the fruits of the Act?
    Mr. SHAW: I can only repeat that the High Court has determined the matter, and I cannot interfere with its decision.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: If these men are excluded from the Act, is it not a fact that they do not pay any contribution?
    Mr. SHAW: Quite.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, ELTHAM.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to re-open the Employment Exchange at Eltham?
    Mr. SHAW: The Employment Office at Eltham was a purely temporary one. The number of persons attending at the office has decreased by, approximately, one-half since the date on which it was opened, and, in view of the proximity of other local offices, it was decided that the expense of keeping the Eltham office open could not be justified. I do not think re-opening would be warranted so long as the present conditions exist.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hors. Gentleman aware that, owing to this decision, a very large number of men will have to walk several miles to the next Exchange, and that it will considerably interfere with their efforts to obtain employment?
    Mr. MIILS: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the present so-called temporary Exchange at Eltham is in response to the ever-increasing needs of the district, and that this temporary Exchange actually records a greater number of signatures than many of the so-called permanent Exchanges, and if it is a question of cost, the local hall offered by the borough council is open to them?
    Mr. SHAW: No, I am not aware that a very large number of people are placed at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with the conditions in other parts of the country. I am at all times willing to consider fully any demand made for accommodation, and to meet that demand
    1234
    if I can in reason meet it, and, in the circumstances, T will give it consideration.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether in those cases where unemployment is above the average for the rest of the country, he would recommend the Government to make larger financial grants to local authorities who were prepared to carry out works public utility by unemployed labour which, owing to their already heavy rates, they are unable to finance without further State assistance?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The representations recently placed before the Government on this subject are now being considered.

    LABOUR DISPUTE (BIRKENHEAD).
    Mr. EGANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to a strike of boys connected with ship repairing at Birkenhead, a number of men were suspended; that on the dispute ending all the men suspended were not allowed to resume work; that the work in question having been completed, those men are not allowed to qualify for unemployment benefit pending an appeal to the referee; and, as such appeals are not heard for weeks in many cases, will he, in view of the hardship involved, issue instructions to hold a referee court immediately in this and similar cases, especially where a large number of men are concerned?
    Mr. SHAW: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. EGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive particulars from me?
    Mr. SHAW: Yes.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the necessity for the Government to make further efforts to relieve unemployment, any of the following proposals will receive their support and assistance; a road bridge over the Firth of Forth at Queens-ferry, a road bridge over, the Tay at Dundee, and a tunnel under the Thames for road transport at some point close to Erich and Tilbury, a road bridge over the Severn at some point as near Chepstow

    1235
    as possible, a tunnel under the Mersey for road traffic near Wallasey, a tunnel for road traffic under the Humber at some point close to Grimsby and Hull, the removal of level crossings over main arterial roads, and their substitution by bridges or traffic subways?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. With the exception of the last, the schemes referred to in the Noble Lord's question are all at the present moment the subject of discussion with the authorities concerned. In two cases arrangements are being made for a survey and report, and in a third case a report has already been made by three eminent engineers. I may point out that each of these schemes would require Parliamentary powers. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given him on 3rd June.
    Viscount CURZON: In respect to the latter part of the question, cannot the hon. Gentleman and his Department take the initiative of seeing what they can do in the matter themselves?
    Mr. GOSLING: We are continually doing so.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has stated that the Government contemplate assisting arterial roads out of State funds, will the hon. Gentleman see whether this at least cannot be done out of State funds instead of asking the local people to do it?
    Mr. GOSLING: It seems advisable to ask the local people to bear their share.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the County Council have dropped the idea of a road bridge over the Tay, and, if they have, would the Ministry not themselves be prepared to consider a scheme on their own account?
    Mr. GOSLING: We will look into that.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is not the position of the proposed road bridge across the Forth due to the fact that the Minister of Transport so far has not come to any agreement or arrangement for a survey and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to advance the question by securing that a survey is completed?
    Mr. GOSLING: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that question, so that I may see it fully, I will give him an answer.

  FORTY-EIGHT-HOUR WEEK (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).
  Mr. AYLESasked the Minister of Labour what countries represented at the Washington Convention have refused to ratify the proposal for a 48-hour week; if he has any information as to the reasons for such refusal; and whether he can now state when he hopes to introduce his Bill for the ratification of the Convention by Great Britain?
  Mr. SHAW: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  The following are the countries represented at the Washington International Labour Conference which have not so far ratified the Convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and 48 in the week:—

  Argentine.

  Nicaragua

  Belgium.

  Norway.

  Bolivia.

  Panama.

  Brazil.

  Paraguay.

  Canada.

  Persia.

  Chili.

  Peru.

  China.

  Poland.

  Columbia.

  Portugal.

  Cuba.

  Salvador.

  Denmark.

  Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

  Ecuador.

  Finland.

  France.

  Siam.

  Great Britain.

  South Africa.

  Guatemala.

  Spain.

  Haiti.

  Sweden.

  Italy.

  Switzerland.

  Japan.

  Uruguay.

  Netherlands.

  Venezuela.

  Of these countries—according to information supplied by the International Labour Office—Argentine, Brazil, Chili, France, Italy, Netherlands and Spain have introduced legislation with a view to ratifying the Convention. Furthermore, several countries have either passed Acts or introduced Bills dealing with hours of labour.
  While I have a certain amount of information as to the reasons given by some of the, Governments for their inability to ratify the Convention, it would be convenient if my hon. Friend would indicate the countries in which he is interested, in order that I might give him such information as is at my disposal.
  In reply to the last part of the question, I am afraid I am not yet in a, position to indicate the precise date on which I shall introduce the Bill.

  TRADE BOARDS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction is expressed by the employer members of trade boards through the action of the Government in only allowing third-class fares to such members travelling to and from the place where the board meetings are held; and, in view of the fact that officials from the Ministry are allowed first-class fares when travelling in connection with the work of trade boards, will he be prepared to allow equal facilities to the employer members who voluntarily serve on these boards?
  Mr. SHAW: I have received representations from certain trade boards in the sense indicated in the question. The class of travelling approved in the cases of employers and workers' representatives on trade boards is that applicable to similar bodies and committees working in conjunction with the Ministry and other Government Departments, and, in the circumstances, it is not proposed to make any change in the present scale.
  Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these gentlemen, or some at least, travel on their own business first-class? Why should they not be allowed first-class when travelling as members of these boards?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that surely all members of the boards ought to be treated on the same footing? Why discriminate between one member and another? They do the same work, and should receive the same consideration.
  Mr. SHAW: I have not discriminated. The question discriminates between em-
  1238
  ployers and employed, apparently. I can only repeat that this is the general rule throughout the Service, and if representations are made by people who believe that the treatment is wrong, I will go into the matter with the Treasury, and see what the general feeling is.
  Mr. AYLES: May I ask the Minister when this custom was commenced?
  Mr. SHAW: I cannot say.

  DONALD WIRELESS REPORT.
  Mr. BAKERasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the Government's decision on the Donald Wireless Report?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question of the 28th May on the same subject.

  MINISTER OF PENSIONS (CIVIL SERVANT'S SPEECH).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech made in Northampton on 31st March, 1924, by Major Evans, a permanent civil servant in the Ministry of Pensions, in which he made an invidious comparison between the humanitarianism of the present Minister of Pensions and that of all his predecessors; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The speech referred to was delivered in my presence, and my recollection, which is confirmed by the shorthand notes, is that no invidious comparison between my predecessors and myself was made or intended. I need hardly add that I should strongly deprecate any such comparison.
  Mr. HOPE: On the general question involved, is it desirable that civil servants should utter in public encomiums on Ministers from whom, in the natural course of events, they might expect promotion? Can I not have an answer?

  HOUSING.

    DEMOLITION, CAMBERWELL.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a large number of habitable houses in Champion Park and Denmark Hill, Camberwell, have been recently sold for purposes of demolition; for what purpose this clearance of house property is being carried out; if he will inquire as to whether the present tenants have any prospect of securing alternative accommodation; and if any compensation has been offered in respect of the disturbance of tenancies, especially to the smaller tenants concerned?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I am informed that six large houses belonging to the Salvation Army in Champion Park, Denmark Hill, are in process of demolition with a view to the erection on the site of a training college and residences for students; and that compensation for disturbance was paid to the tenants who have provided themselves with suitable alternative accommodation. I understand that the Salvation Army are also the owners of adjacent property, but that it is not intended to disturb the tenants of these houses at the present time.

    BUILDING OPERATIVES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he can give any figures showing the number or percentage of building operatives engaged on the construction of working-class houses under State-assisted schemes or otherwise and the percentage engaged on other forms of building at the present time or during any period since State-assisted housing schemes were started?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: As the answer in-involves tabular statements, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as I possess.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of men engaged at various dates upon the erection of houses by local authorities and public utility societies in England and Wales under the Housing,
    1240
    Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919, were as follows:

    Date.

    Number of Men.

    Skilled.

    Unskilled.

    30th June, 1920

    …

    15,100

    18,092

    31st December, 1923

    …

    40,270

    41,093

    1st July, 1921

    …

    79,908

    69,946

    1st January, 1922

    …

    67,987

    49,792

    1st July, 1922

    …

    40,248

    29,675

    1st January, 1923

    …

    12,971

    10,276

    1st July, 1923

    …

    5,420

    3,816

    Information is not available as to the numbers employed upon house building under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, or on houses erected without State assistance.
    It is not possible to state the numbers engaged on building work other than house building, but the total number of skilled operatives in October, 1923, insured against unemployment in England and Wales, excluding operatives employed in connection with industries other than the building industry, e.g., shipbuilding, was 319,790.

    BUILDING GUILDS.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding his official attitude towards the right of local authorities to enter into contracts with the building guilds on the basic sum principle?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter, but I hope to be able to communicate with my hon. Friend with regard to it at an early date.

    BRICKS.
    Sir CHARLES STARMERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a landowner in a north-eastern district who, in spite of the prevailing scarcity in bricks, refuses to sell the land necessary for the extension of an adjoining brickfield; and whether he will take the necessary steps to obtain powers to intervene in a case of this sort?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have considered the case which my hon. Friend brought to

    1241
    my notice. I think that owners of land can generally be trusted to act with public spirit in cases in which their land is required for the public good and payment is available. If I find that the production of building materials is hampered by landowners, I shall consider submitting a short Bill to the House.
    Sir C. STARMERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the increased cost of building houses on Tees-side is due to transport charges of bricks; and whether he will co-operate with the local brick manufacturers with a view to additional plant being installed under a. guarantee to take their increased production?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no precise information on the point raised in the first question. As regards the second, if a fifteen years' building programme is accepted by the House, brick manufacturers should be enabled to extend their plant without specific guarantees in view of the continuing demand for their product.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit the importation of foreign bricks where there is an insufficient supply of bricks?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no intention of interfering with the free importation of building materials.

    PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON,Junior asked the Minister of Health how many dwelling-houses have been built under the auspices of public utility housing societies since 1919; whether these societies have received any financial assistance from the Government; if so, the amount of such financial assistance; and whether, in view of the fact that the work of these societies is highly satisfactory and should be further encouraged, he will include such societies in the scope of his proposals for dealing with the housing problem?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: 4,540 houses have been erected by public utility societies with the aid of the subsidy payable to societies under the provisions of the Housing Acts, 1919 and 1923, namely, 50 per cent. of the annual loan charges until 1927 and 40 per cent. of the annual charges during the remainder of the
    1242
    period of the loans (50 years). I have no information as to the extent to which these societies have erected houses without State aid, nor am I able to state how many houses are being erected by them with the assistance of the subsidies which local authorities may give in respect of houses erected by private enterprise under the terms of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923. I am proposing that provision should be made enabling increased assistance to be given to societies who build houses for the working classes subject to special conditions as to their letting and to the amount of rent to be charged for them.

    BUILDING MATERIALS(PRICES).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to enable him to prevent owners of land with building materials in it from increasing their prices for these commodities?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If my hon. Friend knows of any case in which landowners Have done, or have threatened to do, as he suggests and will let me have particulars, I will consider what action can be taken.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to afford to local authorities who are at present engaged in the preparation of housing schemes under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, the advantage of the increased subsidy now proposed; and if he can state the conditions under which the new financial provisions will be made applicable to existing housing schemes?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: As indicated in the White Paper circulated in connection with the Financial Resolution on the Housing Bill, it is proposed that houses provided under proposals approved after 1st February, 1924, shall be eligible for the increased Exchequer contributions contemplated under the Bill if the houses are subject to special conditions as to lettings and rents.

  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.
  Major BARNETTasked the Minister of Health whether the General Nursing Council for England and Wales duly submitted its amended election scheme before

  1243
  the 14th March, 1924, as required; if so, whether such scheme has met with his approval and will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, in the event of such scheme not having been submitted or not having been approved, what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the decision of his Department, as approved by the House?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The General Nursing Council have submitted proposals for the amendment of the election scheme, but as their precise intention was not clear, they have been asked to give further consideration to certain points. Pending their reply, I am unable to come to any decision as to sanctioning the amendments, but I hope to be able to lay amended Rules on the Table of the House before the end of the Session.

  HOARDINGS (BILL POSTING).
  Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from urban or rural district councils or other bodies as to the increasing number of hoardings for bill-posting being erected and the probable effects on the rateable value; and if any powers will be given to local authorities in this matter?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 26th ultimo to the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Hoffman).
  Mr. BROWN: Does that include an answer to the last part of my question—if any powers will be given to local authorities in this matter?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer to which I have referred my hon. Friend was, I think, to the effect that there is now a Bill before Parliament proposing to give these powers.

  TRANSPORT.

    LIGHT RAILWAYS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister what are the Government's proposals in regard to the development of light railways?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to answer this question. I am always ready
    1244
    to give sympathetic consideration to applications for powers to enable light railways to be constructed, and during the last few months have made several Orders under the Light Railways Acts. The Unemployment Grants Committee are prepared to consider applications for financial assistance towards the construction of light railways in suitable cases.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament mentioned that the development of light railways was part and parcel of the policy of the Government. Surely there is some scheme in hand now that we are two-thirds of the way through the Session?

    DUMBARTON AND CLYDEBANK ROADS.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he has received a representation from the Dumbarton Town Council for a grant towards the making of a new road in connection with housing scheme and why the request has been refused, seeing that it would give work to the unemployed;
    (2) if he has received representations from the Dumbarton Town Council for a grant towards the making of a new road which is urgently needed in the district and if he will state the reason for which the request has been refused, seeing that it would give work where it is needed?
    Mr. GOSLING: I will answer these two questions at the same time.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the hon. Gentleman answers Question No. 91—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member, if he looks at the clock, will be wise to let the Minister give the answer.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to make a correction in the second question. The first question refers to the Dumbarton Town Council, but the second refers to the Clydebank Town Council, and not to the Dumbarton Town Council, as stated on the Paper by a printer's error.
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not sure what change that will make in my answer. Are the Dumbarton Town Council and the Clydebank Town Council the same?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, they are quite different, and I want the information as to them both.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only expect the Minister to answer the questions as, they are on the Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can I have an answer to the first one?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister will give the answer that he has, and if any error has crept in another question may be put down.
    Mr. GOSLING: I assume that these two questions relate;A) a proposal put forward by the Dumbarton Town Council for the construction of a new road from Hartfield Gardens to the Silvertonhill housing site. This scheme was submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee, and I believe that Committee have agreed to make a contribution towards the loan charges.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the second question?
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member (Mr. Kirkwood) represents both these places, Dumbarton and Clydebank?

  BLIND PERSONS BILL.
  Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to facilitate the Blind Persons Act (1920) Amending Bill by introducing the necessary Financial Resolution?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Government are considering the contents of the Bill and procedure in relation to the Rules of the House. If the question be repeated after Whitsuntide, a definite reply can be given.

  MR. HODGES, M.P (VISIT TO PRAGUE).
  Mr. COOPER RAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who left England by aeroplane on 30th May for Vienna via Prague, is making this journey in connection with the public service; upon what Vote the cost of it will be charged to public funds; and what is the nature of the public service in which he is engaged?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
  1246
  negative, and the third part does not, therefore., arise. No additional charge to public funds has been involved by my hon. Friend's journey.

  ELECTORAL REFORM
  Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Slaithwaite on 16th May on the subject of electoral reform; whether, in accordance with such statement, he intends, before this Parliament comes to an end, to submit to the House a measure of electoral reform; and, if so, whether he is able to state what the nature of such reform will be?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that my right hon. Friend expressed his personal hopes that it would be possible to submit in the present Parliament a measure of electoral reform, but I am not able to make any statement on the subject at the present time.
  Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any electoral reform suggested will apply to Northern Ireland, where Nationalists have been gerrymandered out of every district and county council in the six-county area?

  SOVIET DELEGATION.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister the names of the Soviet Delegation now sitting at the Foreign Office; and whether any undertaking has been obtained from them to abstain from propaganda of a political nature whilst in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will circulate a list of the names of the Soviet Delegation in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards propaganda, no specific undertaking has been asked for, but the delegation must be held bound by the previous undertakings of the Soviet Government.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is the Prime Minister aware that a violent speech was made at the Communist Conference at Manchester on 18th May by someone stating he was a delegate from the Communist International; and is not that body practically identical with the Soviet Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not seen that; perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman is really accurate in his statement, he will send it to me.
  Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no propaganda going on on the part of any member of the delegation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If there is, we have no information on the subject.
  Following is the list of the members of the Soviet Delegation

  Christian Rakovski,

  Chairman.

  Maxim Litvinov,

  Member.

  Mikhail Tomski

  Member.

  Aron Sheinman

  Member.

  Eugene Preobrazhenski

  Member.

  Ivan Radchenko

  Member.

  Ivan Zhitkov

  Member.

  Ivan Kutuzov

  Member.

  Nicholas Shvernik

  Member.

  Ingamadjam Khidyraliev

  Member.

  Boris Stemoniakov

  Member.

  Jacob Yanson

  Secretary-General.

  Experts.

  Nicholas Liubimov.

  Alexandre Dolgov.

  George Lashkevich.

  Vladimir Osetrov.

  Eugene Berens.

  Philip Rabinovich.

  ADMIRAL VON TIRPITZ.
  Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister if there are any unpublished documents dealing with the responsibility of Admiral von Tirpitz in the matter of the German submarine campaign during the Great War; and will he consider the desirability of their publication?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are unaware of the existence of such papers.

  NAVIGATION ROAD, BURSLEM.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to compel the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company to immediately recondition their land known as Navigation Road, Burslem, as in its present state it is a danger to the health and safety of the people living there?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am in communication with the local authority on this subject.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (MENTAL CASES).
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he will notify the heads of all mental institutions to send up to the officers of the Board of Control a photograph of every service patient suffering from loss of memory, whether said to have been identified or not; is he aware that Private Walter Symonds, No. 87460, B company, Section 3, 51st Horse Battery, Machine Gun Corps, who went to France for the third time on the 2nd April, 1918, was eight days later reported missing from La Bassée, but was afterwards seen suffering from shell-shock by a comrade near Achoix Wood; that he has never since been heard of; and, in view of the possibility of his having been relegated under another name to some asylum, will he take steps to see that the doubt of such a fate having befallen him be set at rest?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): I have been asked to reply. As to the particular case, Private Symonds was never reported missing. He was reported by his Commanding Officer, on 20th April, 1918, as having been killed in action on 10th April, and I regret that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of this report. There is no trace of any report that he was afterwards seen suffering from shell-shock. As to the general question, there is no soldier of the Imperial Army under care for mental trouble who has not been identified and whose condition and situation have not been notified to his relatives. I do not think, therefore, that there is any need for the action suggested' in the first part of the question.

  LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1922.
  Mr. FOOTasked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to state that the operation of the Law of Property Act, 1922, which is due to come into force on 1st January, 1925, will be postponed?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I cannot add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on

  1249
  the 2nd April last, to the effect that when the Consolidation Bills are laid before this House it will be necessary to propose that the operation of the Act be postponed to the 1st January, 1926.
  Mr. FOOT: May I take it from the answer that there will definitely be a postponement of the operation of this Act, having regard to the number of text books at present in course of preparation?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly, that is the intention.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Is it proposed to postpone the whole of the Act, or only the first part of it?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The w hole of the Act.

  CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS (LAW OFFICERS).
  Mr. FOOTasked the Attorney-General if he has yet received the opinion of the highest judicial authorities as to the desirability of continuing the exceptional privilege of reply exercised by law officers of the Crown in criminal prosecutions?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The answer to this question is in the affirmative. The opinion conveyed to me is that in the view of the highest judicial authorities it is not desirable to introduce any alteration in the existing system. I may add that as far as I am concerned I do not intend to make use of the privilege except in cases where I am satisfied that it is essential to do so in the public interest.

  FISH (PRICES).
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the, Minister of Agriculture if, considering the difference between the price of fish at the quayside and in the shop, he will set up a committee of inquiry in order to discover the causes of the discrepancy and to recommend remedial measures?
  Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON (Comptroller of the Household): The question raised has been under consideration for a long time past, and my right hon. Friend does not think that any inquiry would add to the knowledge of the facts
  1250
  in his possession, or would be the means of discovering a remedy. A very considerable discrepancy between the wholesale and retail prices of fish is due to its perishable nature and the fluctuations in supply.
  Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the Minister of Agriculture is?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: He is lifting his winnings on Sansovino!

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (COMPENSATION).
  Mr. ALSTEADasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the amounts of compensation paid for dairy cattle slaughtered in Cheshire during the earlier months of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease have fallen far short of the cost of replacement; that owing to the rise in values consequent upon the reduction in the numbers of cattle in the country, as recognised by the Ministry in their later valuations, grave injustice has been inflicted on the farmers first affected by the disease, and if he will take steps to remedy these inequalities; and will he explain why the Cheshire chamber of agriculture is refused permission to scrutinise the list of valuations?
  Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the replies given yesterday to two questions on this subject put to him by the hon. Member for Wirral.
  Major WHELER: Does the hon. Member realise that this question applies not only to Cheshire but to many other counties?
  Mr. ALSTEAD: Does the hon. Member quite realise that it is absolutely impossible to replace the stock on these farms at the prices now ruling for cattle or to replace those which have been destroyed?
  Mr. PARKINSON: I think that point was covered yesterday.

  COMMERCIAL TREATY (POLAND).
  Mr. BARCLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House whether the commercial treaty between His Majesty's Government and Poland has yet been ratified?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I have been asked to take this question, and regret to state that the formalities of ratification have not yet been completed by the Polish Government.
  Mr. BARCLAY: Can the Under-Secretary say when it is likely to be completed?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid I cannot
  Mr. HEALY: Can he say when the Treaty with Ireland can be completed?

  J. LYONS & COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. BAKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the capital, interests, and profits during 1919–23 of Messrs. J. Lyons & Company, Limited, which employs a large staff at the British Empire Exhibition?
  Mr. LUNN: My hon. Friend will find all the information which he requires in such books of reference as the Stock Exchange Year Book, and in these circumstances he will, perhaps, excuse my furnishing a reply which would involve reading a lengthy series of figures to the House.
  Mr. SHORT: Is the hon. Member aware that the catering arrangements at the Exhibition are entirely unsatisfactory, and that it is impossible to cope with the large crowd?
  Mr. LUNN: I do not think that point arises on this question.

  POSTMASTERS (TELEPHONE DUTIES).
  The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LINFIELD:
  "82. To ask the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that, in addition to the ordinary duty of 48 hours per week, postmasters in residence on official premises are required to attend to the telephone at night for an approximate average of 70 hours per week at a very inadequate remuneration of a few shillings per week, he will consider the question of making other arrangements for this class of work or the granting of a fair remuneration based on the number of hours on duty.
  Mr, LINFIELD: May I now, Mr. Speaker, put question 82?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; I called upon the hon. Member three times, and I observed that he was otherwise engaged.

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

    CATERING.
    Sir ELLIS HUME - WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that at one of the restaurants at the British Empire Exhibition run by Messrs. Lyons and Company, in the exercise of their monopoly, the prices are as follows; tea, 7s. 6d.; dinner, 25s., cocktail, 2s. 6d.; and if he will take immediate steps to have these prices reduced to a level which will not bring disrepute to the Exhibition in the eyes of the visitors, who include many thousands from the Colonies?
    Mr. LUNN: I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that the particular restaurant to which the hon. and learned Member no doubt refers was provided by Messrs. Lyons with the approval of the board of management, who felt that there was scope for an establishment which would be comparable with the best class of restaurant in the West End of London. I understand that the charges in question include facilities for dancing. As over 50 other restaurants have been provided, at which the charges are designed to meet the requirements of all sections of the public, I do not consider it necessary to make any representations to the British Empire Exhibition authorities on the subject.
    Mr. SHORT: Is the hon. Member aware that the catering arrangements are quite inadequate for dealing with the 150,000 people who were there last Saturday?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: In view of the fact that a very large number of people will be going to the Exhibition next week, and that to-day, when the attendance is below normal, people were waiting in a queue at 12.30 at one restaurant, and at 12.50 they were waiting in a queue at another restaurant, and the other restaurants were all full; and in

    1253
    view of the fact that it is impossible with the present accommodation to deal with all the visitors, will the hon. Member see that steps are taken to improve matters?
    Mr. LUNN: I think my hon. Friend has a written question down on the Paper on this particular matter, and he might await the answer, in which I inform him that additional cafes are likely to be provided.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is there any power in the management of the Exhibition to control the prices charged in the restaurants?
    Mr. LUNN: I am not aware of it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This point arises on the next question.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what control the management of the British Empire Exhibition are able to exercise over the catering arrangements in the hands of Messrs. Lyons; whether, he will consider the propriety of having, a representative of the Exhibition management in each restaurant to receive the complaints of visitors, and a policeman at the door of each to control the unseemly quarrels which now take place; and can he state what, if any, proportion of the waiters are British born, and how many possess a fair working knowledge of the English language?
    Mr. LUNN: With regard to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave him on the 26th May. With regard to the second part, I have asked the British Empire Exhibition authorities to investigate the matter which he has been good enough to bring to my notice, and to take such action as may be possible or within their competence to remove any cause for complaint. I have no information regarding the third part of the question, but I understand that the foreign waiters employed by the caterers are part of their regular staff.

    WAITERS AND WAITRESSES.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what number of waiters and waitresses are employed by
    1254
    Messrs. Lyons and Company in their restaurants at the British Empire Exhibition; what are the hours per diem which waiters and waitresses are expected to work, and what wage each class receives; has any complaint as to hours or pay been received from either; and what was it?
    Mr. LUNN: I regret that I am not in possession of information which would enable me to answer the first and second parts of the hon. and learned Member's question. As to the third and fourth parts, while I have not received any specific complaints from either waiters or waitresses employed at the Exhibition, I have received a number of communications, both written and verbal, from various sources, in regard to the general conditions of their service. I may add that I have been endeavouring to arrange for the constitution of a body which would discuss questions of this kind, but, unfortunately, it has not at present been possible to get such a body set up. In the meantime, I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, to the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the reasons for the delay—what is keeping back the setting up of this body?
    Mr. LUNN: The only reason that I know of is that certain employers in the Exhibition grounds are preventing it. The Trade Unions have endeavoured to obtain it, and I have tried to make arrangements with all the parties. I do not say it has failed, but for the moment we are not quite successful.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that certain employers are quite agreeable to enter and give it their support, but that certain other employers stand in the way; and who are the employers that stand in the way?
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is it a fact that the waiters and waitresses in these restaurants are underpaid at present?
    Mr. LUNN: I do not think I am called upon to answer that question. I have endeavoured to set up a body which may deal with complaints of that sort, if they exist, as to which I have received communications corroborating the hon. and learned Member's point. With regard to

    1255
    the other point, I might say that quite a number of employers are willing to come in, and the Trade Union body are considering what action they will take. One of the firms, of course, that refused to come in was that of Messrs. Lyons.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Is it not a fact that there was a strike of waitresses at Messrs. Lyons' restaurant at Wembley?
    Mr. LUNN: I do not know.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not the fact that the catering, in view of the crowds there, is being handled extraordinarily well? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now announce his reply to the application of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers of Woolwich Arsenal that the recent advances granted to the skilled workers by an arbitration tribunal shall be applied to them?
    Mr. LAWSON: This matter is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when I can put this question down so that I can receive a reply?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry I cannot say exactly. I think I ought to remind the hon. Member that a concession has already been made to this particular class, but that is only part of the claim, the second part of which we are considering, which was laid 12 months before we came into office and refused.

    SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS (PAY ALLOTMENTS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to encourage thrift amongst non-commissioned officers and men of the Army, he will re-introduce an unrestricted system of allotments to parents and dependents?
    Mr. LAWSON: I will consider this suggestion, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends that the Lords Amendments to the Prevention of Eviction Bill shall be considered by this House so that the Bill may be passed before the Whitsuntide Recess?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): We were anxious that the Bill should pass into law before the Whitsuntide Recess, but the Amendments from the Lords have not yet been received. They could not in any circumstances be considered by this House earlier than to-morrow. I understand they cover points of the most acute controversy, as shown in this House when similar questions were considered here. This House does not determine when the House of Lords will rise or re-assemble and, reviewing the whole circumstances, it appears to us to be quite impossible to arrange for the consideration of these Lords Amendments and for the passage of the Bill into law this side of the Whitsuntide Recess.
Captain BENN: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lords Amendments were made on 29th May, and are well known to Members of this House, being, in fact, printed and available; and in these circumstances could he not take the Lords Amendments either to-night, inasmuch as the Third Reading will be given in the other House, or failing that, as first Order to-morrow, while the Lords are still sitting, so that the Bill may be passed into law before Whitsuntide?
Mr. CLYNES: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we share his anxiety to get through these Amendments, but t must have regard to the desire of other Members of the House with respect to the items of business announced for each day. I should be willing to put the consideration of the Lords Amendments to this Bill on the Order Paper for to-morrow—not as the first Order, because that would be contrary to the wishes of other hon. Members with respect to other business—but I must repeat that, even if to-morrow we were to dispose of the Amendments, they would have to go back to another place, and it would, in those circumstances, be utterly impossible to place the Bill on the Statute Book before the rising of the House for the Whitsuntide holidays.
Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, in putting a question, I warned him that such a situation might arise, and asked him to put down a Motion which would enable him to take the Lords Amendments to-day? Would he not take them as first Order to-morrow in order. If there be disagreement, it can be communicated to their Lordships while they are still sitting.
Mr. CLYNES: I think the qualifications in my reply yesterday showed that I was not in need of any warning, but I cannot alter the circumstances or control them.
Commander EYRES-MONSELL: May I ask when the Motion for the, Whitsuntide Adjournment will appear on the Order Paper?
Mr. CLYNES: To-morrow.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention of the Government still to proceed with the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill tomorrow, and will it be the first Order?
Mr. CLYNES: As I indicated, the order of business to-morrow is not changed.
Ordered—
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Housing (Financial Provisions) [Money], and on Report of Supply [12th May], and on Report of Supply 128th May] he exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

IRISH BOUNDARY QUESTION.

  PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of the Irish negotiations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the House will pardon a somewhat unusually lengthy answer. I think the House may wish to know, without delay, what steps the Government have taken in connection with the Irish Boundary question. Our relations with Ireland are now governed by the Treaty, ratified with the approval of all recognised parties after a General Election, during which the matter was
  1258
  specifically submitted to the electorate. The Irish question has thus been placed outside the ambit of party controversy, so far as this country is concerned. The task of the present Government is greatly facilitated by the fact that it has merely to give effect to the policy outlined by our predecessors, with which we are in perfect agreement. To us, as to them, the Treaty embodies a final settlement of Anglo-Irish relations, made once for all, with no ulterior purpose. And as we intend to observe it in the spirit as well as in the letter, so, of course, we look to Ireland to observe it. Without qualification, I must say that absolute faith has been kept by the Government of the Irish Free State with us.
  With regard to the Boundary question, our predecessors made every effort to bring about a settlement by agreement. We continued those efforts, but when the Government of the Free State on the 26th -of April informed us that they saw no hope of further progress, we agreed to carry out the provisions of Article 12, as we were bound in law and honour to do.
  Immediate steps were taken to find some person qualified and also willing to accept the appointment of chairman. Our view has been that the person selected should, if possible, be some one with judicial experience, detached from the politics of both countries. I have to-day received a cable which enables me to say that we have secured a chairman with these qualifications. I shall be in a position to- announce his name to-morrow.
  On the 29th of April we informed the Government of Northern Ireland of the steps we were taking to appoint a chairman and requested them to appoint their representative. On the 10th of May the Governor replied that his Ministers respectfully declined to appoint a representative. This refusal naturally created a situation which His Majesty's Government were bound to take into serious consideration.
  It was a reply which made it necessary to consider what were the legal and constitutional powers which His Majesty's Government are hound to exercise. It must be held in mind that under Article 12 of the Treaty the boundary between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland is to be such as is determined by the Commission. A question may there-

  1259
  fore be subsequently raised in the Courts as to whether a valid award has been made, involving the further question whether the Commission was legally constituted. His Majesty's Government have therefore decided to avail themselves of the power conferred on them by Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, to ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to advise them as to their legal and constitutional powers to constitute the Commission. We are laying the correspondence on the Table up to this point and Members will be able to see the terms of the reference to the Judicial Committee which are set forth in a dispatch. I have, however, a word to add as to the constitution of the Judicial Committee. The Lord Chancellor is anxious to include on this tribunal distinguished Judges from the Dominions. I am happy to inform the House that at his request the Chief Justice of Australia has consented to act, and will leave for London in the course of the next few days. For these arrangements His Majesty's Government are deeply indebted to the helpfulness and courtesy of the Commonwealth Government. We are in hopes that a member of the Canadian Bench will also be available. There is thus every reason to believe that the Judicial Committee will he able to sit and resolve the legal and constitutional issues in July.
  We have by no means abandoned hope that the two Irish Governments may reach an agreed settlement before the Commission is constituted, though, even in that event, the Commission will be necessary to give formal effect to the agreement. In these hopes we have all been encouraged by the conciliatory utterances of President Cosgrave and Sir James Craig. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose unfortunate illness at this particular moment we all deplore, felt that we ought to invite them to discuss the matter together. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, took the same view, and so at the instance of my colleagues I wrote to President Cosgrave and Sir James Craig inviting them to meet, me on Saturday. At the meeting which took place I asked them to think over certain proposals which I have since submitted to them in the form of letters.
  I will now read to the House the letter which I have sent to President Cosgrave:
  "DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,
  In the course of our conversation with Sir James Craig at Chequers on Saturday, the 31st May, I pointed out that His Majesty's Government, being bound to exercise all their powers under Article 12 of the Treaty with a view to constituting the Boundary Commission, were taking steps under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, to ascertain the exact extent of those powers. In view of the constitutional importance of the questions to be referred to the Judicial Committee, it is proposed to include in the Tribunal eminent judges from the Dominions. The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia have, at the request of the Lord Chancellor, arranged for the Chief Justice of Australia to come to England for that purpose. We hope that a Canadian judge will also be available. Every effort is being made by His Majesty's Government to secure within the next few weeks the services of a Chairman qualified to preside over the Boundary Commission. As the Chief Justice of Australia cannot reach London until July, some time must necessarily elapse before further formal steps can be taken. I am sure that the interval could profitably be employed, with the assistance of the proposed Chairman, in examining the general aspects of the problem and in seeing how far the desire for an agreed settlement expressed in your recent public utterances can in practice be fulfilled.
  I intend, therefore, that the services of the person designated as Chairman should he available for this purpose. If, as I earnestly hope, progress can be made on these lines, the difficulties by which we are all at present confronted may well be brought within the compass of an amicable settlement."
  The letter to Sir James Craig was couched in identical terms. I have had a reply from him saying that he is "willing to assist in every way in his power the consummation of this, the only statesman-like solution of the problem."
  I have not yet received President Cosgrave's reply, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a despatch evidently

  1261
  sent just before my letter could have been delivered, deprecating delay, and expressing a hope that the early appointment of a Chairman will enable certain preliminaries to be put in hand.
  I cannot but feel, in view of these two communications, that we are in a position now to advance this vital matter one stage further. At any rate, of this I am sure that the spirit shown in recent pronouncements by the Irish leaders, which I conceive still animates them, gives me ground to hope that Irish statesmanship will enable the solution to be reached.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects that the Chairman will be in England?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The communication does not mention it, but we are trying to get him here without delay. He is, I think, 16 days off.
  Mr. FERGUSON: What will be the attitude of the Government if Northern Ireland refuses to be represented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: He is expected to arrive on 30th June.
  Mr. FERGUSON: What steps do the Government propose to take if Northern Ireland refuses to be represented? I would warn them that the covenanting spirit of Scotland is not dead.

Government Houses (FACILITIES FOR LETTING).
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of certain vacant dwelling-houses and to cause the same to be made available for letting."
The Bill, which is quite a short one, provides that in the case of houses on Government estates which become vacant, at any rate half of them during a period of twelve months shall be made available for letting at reasonable rents, and that only after it has been found impossible to obtain tenants for them shall they be offered for sale. I may say that it is supported in all quarters of the House, and the reason I bring it forward is to put an end, as far as possible, to the practice and policy of the First Commissioner of Works, who on certain estates, when houses become vacant, is
1262
holding them up and offering them for sale with vacant possession. Whenever a house becomes vacant, for instance, on the Well Hall Estate, the First Commissioner will not allow it to be let, but insists upon it being put up for sale. He is advertising very extensively the fact that these houses are to be sold with vacant possession at sums varying from £500 to £700 each. I suppose his idea is to get the best possible price for the houses while the boom continues. I dare-say that hon. Members may remember that the Prime Minister some time ago at York said that the present Government were facing the problem of houses that would be let, but just about the same period the First Commissioner of Works was inserting advertisements to this effect:
"Well Hall, 30 minutes Charing Cross, modern freehold houses, close to station and trams, for sale with vacant possession."
Then it describes the houses—
"Price £550 or offer. Larger houses with extra sitting room and bedroom, price £700 or offer. Similar houses are available for sale for investment or future occupation. Apply, Superintendent, His Majesty's Office of Works, Estate Office, 163, Well Hall Road, Eltham."
Mr. MASTERMAN: Where did that advertisement appear?
Sir K. WOOD: It appeared in the "Evening News" of 26th March. As a consequence, a very large number of tenants in this district—
PRINGLE: Does he advertise in the Harmsworth Press?
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Or the "Daily Herald"?
Sir K. WOOD: There are, I may say, some 3,000 people on the waiting list in this particular district, and, as will be anticipated, a very large number of them are not able to pay the £500 or £700 which the First Commissioner of Works demands. My Bill, which I think will be recognised as a fair one, says that in future, at any rate, half of these houses shall be available for letting. I am one of those who believe that both demands ought to be met. I like to see the owner occupier, but I think the First Commissioner of Works is going much too far when he says that not a single house shall be let on this estate. I think it is

1263
correct to say that perhaps with half a dozen exceptions the First Commissioner of Works has not let a single house on that estate since he took office. I, therefore, venture to suggest to the House that this is a proper course to take. I may say that I communicated long ago to the First Commissioner of Works asking him to abandon this practice, which he is following in the footsteps of other people, and at any rate to allow a certain number of houses on the estate to be let, but be has not seen his way to do that, and therefore, very reluctantly, I am compelled this afternoon to take action, and to ask leave to introduce this Bill, which I hope will receive, as the Bill which I introduced yesterday received, the unanimous approval of the House.
Major BURNIE rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Major BURNIE: I do. I rise to oppose the Bill, because we have more urgent business coming before us. I do so, because I believe that the Government is not a suitable landlord, and I have formed that opinion on the evidence of a very distinguished Member of this House, namely, the hon. Member who sits for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who on several occasions has called the attention of the House to the treatment of their tenants by the Government.
Sir K. WOOD: I wish I could abolish them.
Major BURNIE: I also do so because on several occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House the hon. Member has drawn attention to the fact that private enterprise is by far the best way of solving the housing problem. I do so for a third reason. The Government is the proprietor of many houses throughout the country, and it is offering these estates in some places, particularly in Gretna, as a whole concern. My belief is that by the sale of single houses you will get greater security for the tenant than you will if any capitalist friend of the hon. Member buys the whole estate. Knowing that the House has urgent business to get through to-night, I therefore, in these few words, oppose the Bill.
Question,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of certain vacant dwelling-houses, and to cause the same to be made available for letting"
put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Kingsley Wood, Mr. Masterman, Sir Fredric Wise, Mr. Percy Harris, Mr. Snell, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. D. G. Somerville.

Government Houses (FACILITIES FOR LETTING).
  GOVERNMENT HOUSES (FACILITIES FOR LETTING) BILL,
  "to prohibit the sale of certain vacant dwelling-houses and to cause the same to be made available for letting," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS (1882 TO 1922) AMENDMENT.
Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the powers of joint electricity authorities."
I do not need to press on the House the urgency of this problem, because last week it was pointed out by the Prime Minister that in the development of electricity could be found a method of considerably relieving unemployment, while at the same time giving a tremendous stimulus to industry and manufactures. I need not remind the House that numerous committees during recent years have reported as to the urgency of co-ordination of all our machinery supplying electricity and especially its generation. I suggest to hon. Members that if they have not studied these reports of the Coal Conservation, the Electrical Trades, and other Committees, it would be well worth while their doing so, for while considerable progress has been made in this country since the War tremendous strides have been made on the continent of Europe and in America where they are spending vast sums of money in setting up electricity power stations. In France three of the greatest railways are being electrified. Italy and Sweden also are advancing, and in New Zealand a great deal has been clone in the same direction. The development is also going on in America. Even before

1265
the War Chicago with a population 2,000,000 less than that of London was producing 2½ times the number of units.
I am informed that this development is still going on, but meanwhile, owing to vested interests and our antiquated system, we in our great cities are standing still. Trouble has arisen from the legislation passed at the foundation of our electrical organisations. The Acts passed from 1882 to 1888 assumed that it would be impossible to distribute electricity over great distances and, consequently, the local government areas were strictly adhered to and one generating station was provided for each area. In London there are 85 authorised distributing systems with 76 generating stations, and we could easily do the work more efficiently, more economically, and more cheaply by concentrating the power stations. Legislation was introduced In 1919 and carried through this House after a very long discussion, but at the last moment in the House of Lords, in December, when it was too late to disagree with the Lords Amendments, the Bill was very much mutilated end the financial provision which would have made the legislation effective had to he left out. Three years later there was a new Bill restoring those financial conditions, but leaving out, the vital power of compulsion. The scheme provided that the Commission should set up joint electricity authorities representing various interests, and these authorities were to be responsible on the one hand for the co-ordination of the system and on the other hand to secure the conservation of power in a few generating stations.
But the Act of 1922 made no provision for compulsion, without which no electrical authorities could hope to operate successfully. Out of 16 areas into which London was divided, only nine have been organised, and in these nine very slow progress has been made. The Bill was brought forward by private interests. The matter is particularly urgent because those Bills are now before the House of Lords. The object of the Bills is to divide Greater London into two separate areas, but what is really the more serious part of the scheme, which is backed by the Ministry of Transport, is the proposal to give fresh life for something like 40 years to various company interests. It also provides for a very high scale of dividend—8 per cent. The development
1266
of electricity is so vital that we must take the right line as soon as possible or else Parliament will be compelled to allow the present chaos to go on and give these companies powers for a longer period without adequate control. My Bill is only a short one; it consists of two Clauses, and it provides merely for the restoration of the principle of the power of compulsion which was provided for in the original Bill. Until that principle is adopted no hope can be held out of really reorganising the electrical industry and enabling this country to compete successfully with other industrial competitors and to get that stimulus which its industry so badly wants at the present time, at the same time providing a considerable amount of employment in the industry in manufacturing the necessary plant. It is under these circumstances that I ask leave to introduce this Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: I think the hon. Member, in asking leave at this early date to amend the Act of 1922, should have supplied this House with some sound reasons for doing so. He asks leave to bring in a Bill to increase the powers of joint electricity authorities which were set up under the Act of 1922, but he did not tell us how many of these joint authorities are in need of further powers. Indeed, he did not tell the House how many joint authorities have been set up.
Mr. HARRIS: Nine out of 15.
Sir J. NALL: No, they were not all joint authorities. Some of them were joint advisory councils. There has been no statement that they need further powers, and so far as the Manchester area is concerned I am not aware, as a representative of the city, that there is any demand for this Bill.
Mr. HARRIS: I agree that Manchester does not need it.
Sir J. NALL: That is so, we do not need it. Only two joint electricity authorities have been set up under the Act of 1922. The others to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are advisory authorities only. It may well be that in due course, when a larger number of joint authorities have been set up and have had experience, and have found some difficulty in carrying out their functions under the Act of 1922, it will be necessary to increase their powers and to amend

1267
the Act, but I submit to the House that in the absence of any evidence of difficulties tendered by the hon. Gentleman, and in view of the fact that so few out of the possible number of joint authorities have yet been set up, and that, for the most part, the bodies which have been set up are advisory in character and, as the hon. Member admits, are working smoothly in some of the most important districts, I say that this House, at this stage, would be making a grave mistake in attempting, under the Ten Minutes' Rule, to bring in a Bill to upset what was and is now one of the most important pieces of legislation dealing with electricity. I therefore hope the House will not grant permission to bring in the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Percy Harris, Sir John Simon, Major Gwilym Lloyd George, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Atholl Robertson.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS (1882 TO 1929) AMENDMENT BILL,
"to increase the powers of joint electricity authorities," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Aberdare Canal Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments: Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No 1) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford Extension) Bill, without Amendment.

Prevention of Eviction Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill,

Harrogate Corporation Bill, with an Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to increase the rates, dues, and charges leviable by the Sutton Harbour Improvement Company; and for other purposes." [Sutton Harbour Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Southend Waterworks Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Southend Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Manchester for the construction of street improvements, main drainage works, and tramways, and for the running of trolley vehicles; to enlarge their powers in regard to their water, gas, electricity, and tramway undertakings; and to make further provision in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Stratford-upon-Avon." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stratford-upon-Avon Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Sutton Harbour Bill [Lords],

Southend Water Bill [Lords],

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STRATFORD-UPON-AVON EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
Lords amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 161].
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A. [Progress, 3rd June. ]
  [Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]
  Question again 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

  (cto 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."

  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Committee is to be congratulated upon the fact that during this Debate, in spite of some passages of a somewhat provocatory character in the opening speech of the Minister of Health, our proceedings have been conducted
  1292
  with complete good humour, with an anxious desire thoroughly to understand the proposals that have been put before us, and with an earnest wish, if possible, to see that they shall be effective in operation. I think that is because the whole Committee feels that this question is so serious and so pressing, that it has been with us so long, and that all efforts up to the present have made so little progress towards its solution, that it would be wrong—indeed it would be positively indecent—if we were to spend our time in hurling party gibes at one another, instead of combining to try to make it a workable scheme.
  In the observations which I propose to make I do not intend to follow the example of the Minister of Health, but to address myself to his proposals in a serious spirit, and with the object of clearing up some points which to me are still obscure, at the same time pointing out some dangers which I think attach to the proposition he is making. Before I deal with the proposals, there are one or two passages in the speech of the Minister of Health which I do not think I can allow to pass without some comment. I hardly know whether to call them more irrelevant or more unfair, but I shall deal with them more in sorrow than in anger. I shall endeavour to point out to the Committee and to any others who may read what I say why I maintain that the part of his speech on which I comment was characterised by a partisan spirit and an unfairness altogether unworthy of the subject. The first passage to which I wish to draw attention was that in which he sought to belittle the operations of the Act which was passed last year. I feel that I must do so, because the Minister affected to be particularly generous in his statement. He said:
  "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."
  What was it that the Minister was endeavouring to show? He said that, judging by the test of letting, he would be able to prove that the Act had been a complete failure. What was his method of proving that the Act had been a complete failure? He stated that the annual requirements of the country in new houses, to prevent conditions going worse

  1293
  than they are now, are 100,000 houses, and he went on to say:
  "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 the country are orsening."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1924; col. 1102, Vol. 174.]
  I would point out that, in the first instance, the 17,000 odd houses to which he referred was the number of houses built or building in nine months, and not in 12 months. That does not show a great spirit of fairness. Is it a fair statement merely to take the houses built or building? I would ask the Committee to remember that the Minister was dealing with the first nine months of the operation of the Act. He was dealing only with the operations of the local authorities. It is well known that the operations of private enterprise in this matter have been very much more rapid than those of the local authorities. It is also a fact, and no one knows it better than the Minister of Health, that the limitation on local authorities has not been anything in the terms of the Act, but the plain, simple fact that they could not get labour to carry out the work they had under consideration.
  I have before me a statement issued by the National Housing and Town Planning Council. The gentleman who writes the records of that council, which he is good enough to provide for a number of us, is a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman. He describes his scheme as
  The most comprehensive and most statesmanlike that has ever been put before any country by any citizen.
  He, therefore, cannot be said to be unduly prejudiced against the right hon. Gentleman, or to be unduly friendly to hon. Members on this side of the House. In this statement, that gentleman gives some attention to the Act of last year. He says:
  "The experience gained will exercise a great influence upon the public mind. Judged from the point of view of actual building operations, the policy of the late Government has achieved a striking success."
  I would prefer to take as the test of success the actual building operations rather than the test of whether the houses are to be let or to be sold. If you get the maximum contribution in the pool of houses, no matter whether those
  1294
  houses are to be let or to be sold, it must lessen the tightness of houses generally. It must make more room, it must provide accommodation for more people, and it must, in some way or another, to some extent, benefit even the poorest of the poor. He gives figures which show that the number of houses entitled to the 1923 subsidy is stated to be 45,647 building or to be built by local authorities, and 87,909 built or to be built by private enterprise. In his particular statement, the Minister was dealing only with houses to be let. So I will leave out of account the houses which are being built by private enterprise. I would point out that if the Minister really wishes to be fair to the operations of the Act passed last year, at least he should take into consideration the number of houses the erection of which has been approved already by local authorities and by his Ministry, namely, 45,647, and not merely those that are actually being built, which come to a much smaller number.
  I pass from that statement to the next, which is a more personal matter. The right hon. Gentleman gave an account of the processes of thought through which he said I had passed when I was constructing my Bill last year. He said:
  "Having contemplated that situation, he said to himself, 'Let me 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.'"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June. 1924; cols. 1102-1103, Vol. 174.]
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members behind the Minister cheer those words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Presumably, they think that is an accurate description of what was in my mind when I framed the Housing Bill of last year. May I read to the Committee a few words from my speech on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill of last year, a speech which was read by the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory before he spoke yesterday, because he made a quotation from it. Dealing with this very point I used these words:
  "Whatever subsidy we gave, we could not get more than a certain limited number of houses built in this period. We are limited

  1295
  by the capacity of the trade, and therefore this is the consideration which you must put before your mind—Who are to come first? Who are to be provided with houses first, since all cannot be provided with houses in the time which we are considering? Well, I must say that it seemed to me that those have the greatest claim upon our consideration who are living to-day under the worst circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1923; cols. 311-12, Vol. 163.]
  How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile it with his conscience that he should put into my mouth the words which I have read to the House, and that he should sanction the publication of those words in a leaflet which is to be sent all over the country, and sold to his admirers at a penny apiece—how does he reconcile it with his conscience as a man of honour, as a gentleman, to give such a complete travesty of the words which I used, and which he must have known I used when he made his statement?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to refresh the memory of the Committee, read the passage from his speech that I quoted yesterday?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The passage that the right hon. Gentleman quoted from my speech has nothing to do with this point. I will read the passage:
  "I am going to ask the House to regard this Bill from that point of view.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1924; col. 1100, Vol. 174.]
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I mean the other passage, as to private enterprise turning from the more expensive to the less expensive houses.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will read the passage:
  "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 lees 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."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 24th April, 1923; col. 307, Vol. 163.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really seriously contend that that is any justification for the other passage which I have read to the House from the right hon. Gentleman's speech? I was speaking, in
  1296
  the passage which I have just read, of the operations of private enterprise apart from my Bill. In my speech on the Second Reading, I said, and I said it more than once, that I desired to benefit the people who were living under the worst possible conditions, and I pleaded with the House to have more consideration for those who were crowded together in one or two rooms rather than for those who were living under more comfortable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman was interrupted yesterday when he made the statement to which I have directed attention, by some hon. Member saying "Nonsense." He thereupon somewhat receded from the attitude he had taken up, and said that at all events that was the effect of the Bill even if it had not been the intention. That is a different point altogether, and I would like to say a word about it.
  Last year when the Bill was brought in, there was a certain limitation put upon the area of the houses which made them eligible for the subsidy. I was pressed very hard from more than one quarter of the House to increase the limit, and to allow larger houses to be built under the subsidy. I said at the time that if you increased the area of the house one of two things would happen— either the house would be taken by a superior class of person than those for whom. I had been endeavouring to cater, or that if they still went into the houses they would be forced to sub-let, because they would not be able to afford the rent. What has happened? The first of the two alternatives. By increasing the area of the house you have encouraged a. certain class of person higher than those I had in mind —higher in income, I mean—to accept a house rather smaller than they would have liked, but they have accepted it in order to get the subsidy, and that is the reason why you have so many houses being built by private enterprise for sale to-day which you would not have got had you kept to the original dimensions of 850 superficial feet.
  When the right hon. Gentleman reproaches me with the actual effect of the Act in producing a different class of house for a different class of people than those for whom he now desires to provide, he ought, at least, to remember that it was largely due to him and his friends that the conditions were so changed as to

  1297
  alter the idea that I originally had, and to bring about the very thing which I prophesied was bound to ensue.
  I come to another passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which was introduced, I am afraid, solely for the purpose of creating prejudice, for it seems to me to have very little relevance to the particular proposals which he is putting before us. Still I would like to make some comments on that passage in which he analysed the rents of houses, and suggested that, in the total cost of the house, only a small proportion was due to land and labour, and by far the greater part was due to interest on capital. First, I would point out that the total assumed in his calculation was £500, out of which £200 was labour, £280 material, and the remaining £20 for the cost of land. There was one item that he seems to have left out altogether. That was the cost of the development of the land. There are drainage and road-making which will probably put another £50 on the cost of the house. For some reason which I do not understand, that was left out of the calculation altogether. Let me come to the next point. The right hon. Gentleman said that the total cost of labour was 1s. 3d., out of which the bricklayers take 2½d.,and he suggests that if we can get, as we should no doubt desire, bricklayers to lay bricks for nothing, the only difference must be a sum of 2½d. from the rent.
  I have tried to work out these figures at which he has arrived, and I make it that the 2½d is equivalent to a total cost of bricklayers' labour of £32 10s. per house. That does not agree with the figures which are given in the report of the building industry, for there I find in Appendix A, on page 29, that bricklayers are put down, at 12 weeks per man per house, at a total cost of £39. That is not a very large difference, I agree, but I am coming to something else. In a note at the bottom of the page it is stated that these costs are not, of course, costs of the various components of the total, because they have been averaged out between skilled and unskilled labour. Of course, that is obvious if you look at what it means, because £39 in 12 weeks gives £3 5s. per week, and I take it that a bricklayer's wage would be more in the neighbourhood of 75s. than 65s. Therefore, it is clear that he has seriously
  1298
  under-estimated the actual cost of bricklayers' wages in working out his calculation.
  Mr. STEPHEN:A farthing wrong.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am only showing that the way in which the calculation was made was rather rough and ready, and that in the details there were considerable inaccuracies to which, I think, attention should be drawn.
  But I come to a greater fallacy which the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his calculation. He calculated the cost at £500, £200 of which was labour, and interest upon the capital cost, he says, is twice the cost of all the constituent parts of it, 6s. 6d. per week, against 3s. 3d. for the rest. And he goes on to say, therefore, that if you built the house free of labour charges, if the workers worked for nothing, you could reduce the rent by only 1s. 3d. per week. But he surely forgot that if you reduce the cost of labour you reduce that part of the capital cost, and therefore you reduce the interest. That is an automatic reduction. If you took away the cost of labour, it at once cancels out that part of the interest that was due to the capital cost of labour. He has surely made the mistake there of under-estimating by one-third the amount of saving which he would have made by his imaginary conditions.
  What was really the point of this calculation? If it mean anything, it means that no interest should have been charged on capital at all. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's policy—to go to the capitalist—in this case the local authority which has to raise the money—and ask him to supply, free of interest, the money that is necessary to build these houses? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he and his colleagues would not lend money free of interest even to the Russian Government; much less to a British employer or a British workman. I cannot see why, if it is the height of absurdity to suggest that the bricklayer should lay bricks for nothing, he should be asked, if he has saved up a little money, to forego interest on it if he lends it to somebody else. It is clear that this calculation was put in simply in order to create prejudice and to suggest to his friends and supporters in the country that the proper thing is to do something which he has no intention

  1299
  of doing. This will prove a boomerang, because if his friends take in the point of his argument, they will be wanting to know why he does not carry out that policy.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am going to ask him that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They will want to know why he does not carry out the policy which his whole argument supports. Coming to the actual proposals, as far as I can gather them from the Financial Resolution, may I point out one consideration which I do not think has been fully appreciated, except by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) who in his speech made some special allusion to it. That is that in the proposals before us there are two separate parts which are in no way connected with one another. First of all, there is the proposal to increase the subsidy in order to obtain houses to let instead of to sell, and, secondly, there is the proposal to augment the labour, and therefore the productive capacity of the building trade. Those two things have nothing to do with one another. It would be possible to provide an extra subsidy for increasing the number of houses to let at the expense of the number of houses to be sold without augmenting the labour, and equally it would be possible to augment the labour in the building industry without introducing any new proposals beyond those which were introduced last year. I want therefore, in examining the proposals, to take each of those two questions separately, and to deal with each on its merits as I find it.
  Take first the question of the subsidy. What is really the difference between the proposal which we are considering now and that which occurs in the Act of last year? It is not in the numbers. The new proposals do not add a single new house. It is not in the type of the house or in the size of it. That is one of the astonishing things, when one remembers the debates of last year, and is a great tribute, I may say, to the Act which was passed last year against the will of the right hon. Gentleman, but which he now insists on prolonging for another fifteen years. It is not the cost of the house. There is no difference in the proposals between the cost of the house as under the 1923 Act and the cost of the house
  1300
  now, though I shall have something to say presently upon what I think will be the effect of these proposals upon the cost of the house. Therefore the one difference between the two proposals is that in the one case houses might be built either to let or to sell and in the other case houses can be built to let only. What are we asked to pay for the pleasure of transferring houses from the category of those which may be sold to the category of those which can only be let?
  5.0 P.M.
  Experience shows that, contrary to what we thought when we introduced the Bill last year, in most cases no subsidy from the local authority was required at all to get the houses built. The subsidy sufficient for getting the houses built was then £75 per house. Under the present proposal a subsidy of £240 per house is contemplated, and the price therefore which we have to pay for the transference from one category to another is no less than £165 per house. I do not at the moment say whether it is worth it or not. I only want the Committee to see what it is we are being asked to pay, and what we are going to get for paying it. That £165 is the price per house that we are going to pay, in order to set up a privileged class of tenants, taken from a particular section of the community, who are to have this dole given to them by the State, paid for by the rest of the community, including the other men of their own class. Of course, there is a condition attached to the letting of these houses, and I want to devote a few minutes to that condition. It is a remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech yesterday devoted so little attention to this question of rents, and to the method in which he had calculated how those rents were to be arrived at. This is what he says:
  "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."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1924; col. 1118, Vol. 174.]
  Is that understood? Do hon. Members understand it? Rents are to be pre-War rents, plus 40 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] That is what I thought hon. Members understood, but I am sorry to

  1301
  tell them that the Minister of Health misled them. Let me read to hon. Members what the memorandum says upon this subject. I sympathise with hon. Members, because it does rather tend to give one that impression.
  Mr. MAXTON: Give us all the sympathy you can, because we need it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A good many more beside the hon. Member will need sympathy in this matter. Let me come to the position. The memorandum says:
  "The rents to be charged for the houses shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount which would be payable if each house were let at the rent at present commonly charged in the area for pre-War working-class houses"—
  but the quotation does not stop there. It goes on:—
  "except where the average deficit on the houses, after receipt of the Exchequer subsidy, would exceed the equivalent of £4 10s. a year for 40 years."
  That is one way of stating it. The Committee will see that the emphasis is laid upon the pre-War rent, plus 40 per cent., and that the expenditure is put at the end and in such a way as not to attract the major amount of attention. I would like to go back to 12th May, when a letter was written from the Ministry of Health to the representatives of the local authorities. It referred to the conference and gave the Minister's views on certain resolutions which had been passed by the conference. This is the way in which the Minister in that letter dealt with this same question of the rents:
  "The aim of the present scheme is to secure rents for each locality equivalent to the rents now prevailing there for working-class houses built before the War. Until those rents can be reached, local authorities will charge such rents as will be remunerative, after allowance has been made for the total subsidies of £13 10s. a year for 40 years mentioned in paragraph 1."
  Hon. Members will see that in that draft, which came fresh from the mind of the Minister before he had had time to think how he would present this matter to the House of Commons, the emphasis was laid in exactly the opposite direction. The pre-War rent, plus 40 per cent, is to be an aim to be achieved in time, if it is possible to do so, but meanwhile the rent which is to be charged is to be such as will be remunerative to the local authority, after taking account of the subsidy from the Exchequer and the loss by the
  1302
  local authority of £4 10s. Therefore, it becomes very important to know what is the cost per house which the Minister had in his mind as enabling a remunerative rent to be reached at the level of pre-War rent plus 40 per cent. after the deduction of the subsidy.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: £475.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Now we know what is our starting point. The question, therefore, is, what is going to happen? Suppose that these proposals are carried and that the cost of the house remains stationary at £475. To make it quite clear, I assume that the £475 is the all-in cost. Is that so? Not the cost of the Louse only? Let hon. Members be very careful. It is the all-in cost, land, development and everything. They can take it as equivalent to something like £425 as the cost of the house itself, and that is the last figure which we had of the cost of these houses in the month of April or May. Assume that the cost is to remain fixed at £475. Then you are to have two schemes running side by side. On the one hand you will have private enterprise entitled to a subsidy of £75 per house.
  Mr. VIVIAN: What sized house? "house" is a very vague term. Can we get from the Minister what he is talking about? Is it a doll's house, or what sort of house?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I take it that the house is a non-parlour house, with three bedrooms. Is that right?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The average.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be sufficient for my purpose if the Minister will say that the house calculated at £475, all-in, is the same house as that for which the figures have been published and given by him in answer to questions put to him from various parts of the House as to the cost of houses. Is it the same house?
  Mr. WHEATLEY:I cannot undergo a catechism.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the Minister, too, is in need of sympathy, for he does not himself seem to know what is the type of house on which he has based the most fundamental part of his scheme. Let me, however, go on with my argument. I was saying that there would

  1303
  be two schemes running side by side. On the one side there would be private enterprise, with a subsidy of £75, going on building, if it can find people to buy, and on the other side the local authority building houses of the same type and the same size, but to let at a pre-War rent, plus 40 per cent. It is very difficult to prophesy exactly what would happen in those circumstances. I will not press the right hon. Gentleman to give me his opinion as to the results, because that might again embarrass him, and I do not wish to do that. I think it is possible that, on the one hand, it may kill private enterprise altogether. It depends really on what view is taken by those people who are at present buying houses under the Act of last year. If they think that the local authorities are likely to construct a really large number of the same kind of house at a rent far below the economic rent, then, of course, they will wait, and they will decline to buy any more houses, but will say, "We will get one of those municipal houses."
  I do not see in these proposals or in the Memorandum any indication that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in any way to limit the discretion of the local authorities as to the class of tenant who might take the new houses. That is a point of importance. On the other hand, I think it is equally likely—I am not sure that it is not even more probable—that the people who are now buying those houses will say, "There is not going to be in any reasonable time a very large augmentation of the number of houses available. It would pay us better to buy a house even at an exorbitant price to-day and to get into it, rather than to wait indefinitely for the provision of a municipal house which perhaps may never come." If that should be so, there will be a scramble for labour and materials between the local authorities and private enterprise, and I venture to say that in that event private enterprise will win hands down, because private enterprise will be bound only by the capacity of its clients to pay the increased price of the house, whereas the local authority will at any rate desire to keep the rents as near as possible to the level which has been fixed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Is it likely that the price will remain stationary? I know that hon. Members
  1304
  opposite are placing great reliance upon a Bill which is to be laid before us presently for dealing with profiteering in materials. I think it is rather a pity that the word "profiteering" is used so freely. If the employer puts up his price it is profiteering, but if the union comes along for an advance in wages it is not profiteering; it is merely a proper exercise of their opportunities to gain for themselves a higher standard of living. I am not saying that it is wrong for them to ask for more money. I am suggesting only that the word "profiteering" is used rather too freely and loosely in these matters, and that it tends to obscure in the minds of hon. Members opposite the fact that the increasing cost may be due, not at all to profiteering, but to a legitimate and desirable increase of wages which may be paid in that industry or elsewhere. But the right hon. Gentleman says: "I have fixed all that. I have seen the manufacturers of building material, after seeing the employers in the building industry. They met me very fairly and they have agreed to limit their prices to what prevailed on 1st January, 1924." I wonder whether hon. Members opposite think that that is a tight guarantee? If they do, I would ask them to read again carefully the words that were used by the right hon. Gentleman when he was referring to this fixation of prices. He said:
  "They are prepared to see 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd June, 1924; col. 1113, Vol. 174.]
  Then I turned for further light to the Memorandum, and I saw there that in the event of the costs going up at any time, there is to be a full inquiry, and it adds:
  "In any such inquiry regard would be had to all the circumstances and in particular to the question whether any increase in cost was due to causes within the control of persons engaged in the building industry or the manufacture and supply of building materials."
  How far is this inquiry to go? Is it to stop with the manufacturers of building materials, or is it to go beyond them to the people who supply the articles which

  1305
  are required in the production of these building materials? Let me give an instance. Supposing the miners get an increase of wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" I hope the industry will be able to give it to them. Supposing that puts up the cost of coal. That is going to put up the cost of bricks. Is the inquiry to include an inquiry into the coal industry, or is it to stop at the bricks? Because if it stop at the bricks, then the brick manufacturer will be able to say: "I have only put up my costs sufficient to pay the extra cost of coal," and that will not help the right hon. Gentleman. The cost will have gone up just the same. I understand that the workers in the clay industry are asking for an increase in wages. If it be given, bricks, pipes, tiles, all these things will go up. I understand the workers in the foundry industry are asking for an increase in wages. If it be given, all these light castings about which we hear so much will go up in price, and all the inquiries in the world— if they stop short at inquiry into the state of the industries producing the materials— will not touch the matter at all. There are the things which are behind those industries. There has been an increase in dockers' wages. If that mean an increase in dock dues, it means an increase in the price of timber, and again an increase in prices as regards houses.
  I read a few days ago in the "Daily Herald"—I hope hon. Members will accept its authority—a quotation from a committee of building material manufacturers. They said that out of 342 items used in the production of houses, 240 showed no advance in April compared with January, and of the 102 which did show an advance, 69 were items over the price of which the British manufacturer has no control, the price being governed entirely by import costs. There again, as far as these items are concerned which are not produced in this country but are imported from abroad, that is a matter over which the fixation of prices at those prevailing in January, 1924, will have no control whatever. You will not be able to stop them going up further, if they chance to do so. I should like to read the next paragraph in the "Daily
  1306
  Herald," because it seems to me to have a considerable bearing upon the case:
  "The Committee state the organised brick manufacturers gave the Minister of Health on 19th February a definite assurance that they would not make any advance in prices which were not justified by in creased wages or other costs. They have loyally carried out this undertaking, and no instance is known of organised manufacturers having advanced prices unless the advance was warranted by increased wages or other cost,"
  What has happened since 19th February? Prices have gone up. In March there was an increase of £27 in the price of a house, and in April a further increase of £9. Is it not perfectly clear that this pretence—I do not mean a deliberate pretence, because I think probably the right hon. Gentleman is deceiving himself, but I do not want the Committee to be deceived— that you can fix prices and keep them at a definite level is not going to be any protection? In my opinion the price of houses is definitely bound to rise under this scheme. I want hon. Members opposite to realise also that the right hon. Gentleman in these' proposals has introduced a new and very striking principle, which is quite different from the principle either in the Act of last year or in the previous Act in respect of rents.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me point out to the hon. Member what it is. I am not quite sure that he appreciates it.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I appreciated your last one all right.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Addison scheme the liability of the local authority was fixed to a penny rate, and the rents were fixed, but the liability of the Exchequer was unlimited. Under the Act of last year the liability of the Exchequer was fixed, the rent was fixed, but the liability of the local authority was unlimited. Under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, the liability of the Exchequer is fixed, and the liability of the local authority is fixed, but it is the tenant who has to bear the unknown quantity, and it is the tenant who is going to suffer if the prices of these materials go up. Has the Committee properly appreciated that the whole theory of houses to let for the workers by the million at pre-War rents plus 40 per cent depends upon the cost of the

  1307
  house not exceeding £475 all in? The moment you get an increase in the cost of the house—and I think I have given reason to show that it is not only possible but probable— you are bound to get an increase in the rent. I commend the right hon. Gentleman for that policy. I think there is something to be said for it, but it is certainly not the policy I pursued last year, which was to keep the rents fixed, and let the local authorities bear the unknown quantity, in order that they might exercise due economy. He has introduced this new principle so that the tenant shall see what the effect upon him is of any increase in the cost either of material or of wages. If the effect of this principle be that the rent is going up, what is going to happen then? Either we are not going to get the houses at pre-War rents plus 40 per cent.—and in that case again a new class of persons will come in and take the houses—or else the local authority is going to stop building altogether, and in that case we get no houses at all. In either case, as it appears to me, the object of the right hon. Gentleman is going to be defeated, and I ask him therefore to give serious attention to the arguments I have used; and when the hon. Member who is going to reply addresses us this afternoon I hope he will be able to give us some assurance, which will relieve me from the anxiety that I feel upon this matter.
  There are two other points which I wish to mention in connection with rents and cost of houses. Several speakers on the other side have protested that whatever the cost of this scheme may be, that ought not to deter us from supporting it, if it is going to give us the houses. That is a proposition which I think every one of us would accept. If we are certain that we are getting a sufficient number of houses at a reasonable cost, we must face the cost of that whatever it may be. But there is an aspect of this question which has not been touched on, and which I am going to put forward not as an argument against going on with the provision of houses, but as one which has a bearing upon the question of cost. I refer to the financing of this scheme by the local authorities. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) pointed out yesterday that the actual financing of the houses was going to cost an enor-
  1308
  mous sum of money—something like £1,200,000,000—and he suggested that would be taking away capital otherwise required for the financing of industry. I do not think I go quite the whole way with the hon. Member on that point. I think the financing of industry is done from rather different sources than those which generally provide capital for the securities of municipal bodies or Government securities. No doubt they overlap. Still there is a special market which supplies capital for securities of this kind, and what I want to point out to the Committee is that you are going to have, year after year, the great local authorities of this country going upon that market with demands out of all proportion to any demands they have hitherto put forward.
  That is bound to have an effect upon their credit. It is bound to have an effect upon the rate of interest at which they can raise money, and the increased interest which they will have to pay will come back upon the cost of the houses, and raise the rents to the tenants. I have calculated that if London provide something like one-tenth of the houses under this scheme in the first 10 years, it will have to finance 15,000 houses a year. The cost in London, of course, is much higher than in the rest of the country, and it may be taken at somewhere about £650 per house. This will mean that they will have to raise every year £9,750,000. That would be nothing in one year; but when the London County Council comes on the market for almost £10,000,000, year after year for 10 years, when that is taken along with the demands of the Government, who will have to meet some very heavy obligations of debts which are maturing in the next few years—when all these things are put together—they are going to have a serious effect upon the financing of this scheme, and one which somehow or another will have to be met by the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with its administration.
  I wish to say a few words upon the augmentation of labour. Having read the Committee's report, I confess I fail to find where they are going to get the extra labour required to provide 50,000 additional houses in the first year. It cannot be by means of apprentices. Apprentices will not be skilled men in the first year, but only raw youths. If we

  1309
  take the figures supplied by the building industry itself, they calculate that to provide 50,000 additional houses no lees than 34,000 additional craftsmen will be required in the first year. Where are these to come from? I do not find in the Committee's report any indication of the source from which they are to be drawn. I ask the hon. Member who is going to reply to throw some light on that problem, and to tell us where he is going to get the 34,000 additional craftsmen. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health told us last night that they were going on a new principle of promoting goodwill among the members of the industry. I am sure we all wish them success in that object, but I am bound to say we have not seen very much sign of it up to the present. In my own city of Birmingham there has been a desperate scarcity of skilled labour for the past two years. In spite of that, Birmingham has built more houses to let than any other city in the country, but it has been prevented from doing anything like what it would desire to do by the fact that it has not been able to get skilled labour, and in their efforts to produce more houses for the people they started to build them of concrete. They let two contracts for concrete houses, and the contractors started to build those houses without bricklayers, so that these houses might be got on with in addition to the ones which were already occupying all the bricklayers that they could scour the country to procure. What was the attitude of the Bricklayers' Union? They went to the contractors and told them they were breaking their rule. They told them that, unless the unskilled men were taken off and bricklayers put in to do this work, which did not require bricklayers to do it, they would remove every man from the contracts. They presented that ultimatum. Is that the spirit of good-will that we are to expect from the members of this trade, who see the people of their own class all crying out for houses, who see the opportunity of getting houses without over-tasking the available labour in the trade, who, nevertheless, for these selfish reasons, go down to the contractors, threaten them, and try to stop the building of houses altogether, in order that they may keep a monopoly for their own particular men?
  1310
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will return to this question of dilution. I feel quite certain that he will never get the houses in his programme if he is going to depend solely upon the training of apprentices.
  Mr. MAXTON: Why did not you carry it out?
  Mr. STEPHEN: Answer that!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman told us he had given a written guarantee to the building industry, and that was a very important statement. When are we going to see the written guarantee that he has given to the industry? There was some question yesterday as to whether the terms of the agreement with the industry would allow men over 20 years of age to be admitted into the craft. Some hon. Members took one view, others took another view, and I think we are entitled to ask for definite information from the hon. Member as to whether the terms of the agreement with the industry will allow men over 20 to be taken in. For my part, I should attach very great importance to that question, and if the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in obtaining the assent of the Bricklayers' Union, and the masons, to the admission of men over 20 years of age, that is, the bricklayers' labourers, to come in and take their places as bricklayers, then I think he has indeed done something for which credit is due to him, and which will make a material difference in the speed with which his programme is carried out.
  I think it is obvious from the Debate that the idea of a 15 years' guarantee is a complete washout. What we have got is not a 15 years', but a three years' guarantee, and, personally, I think that is right. I think that there is a sufficient guarantee for the men engaged in the industry of practical employment for 15 years in the actual needs of the situation and in the realisation of those needs by every party in the State. I think that is a sufficient guarantee. I think that another kind of guarantee is wanted for those who are producing building materials. What they want is not so much a written guarantee on paper—for I do not think it would be worth the paper on which it was written—but a guarantee of continuity of policy, and if we could get continuity of policy, if we could get

  1311
  something in the nature of an agreement with the men that they would allow dilution, that they would work longer hours—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They will not!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member may speak for Dumbarton, but I can speak for Birmingham.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not for the bricklayers.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, for the bricklayers. There have been deputations of bricklayers to the Birmingham Committee, and I will quote the words in the Committee's Report:
  "The men themselves want to work extra time. The house-building sub-committee have been assured of this by deputations of the bricklayers themselves, and there is similar evidence from almost every one of their building jobs. The union alone stand in the way. Only this week an official communication was received from the union complaining that men on one contract were working overtime, and that as a consequence other contractors were losing men, who left to work on jobs where the longer hours were in vogue."
  That is sufficient proof of what I say—that the men themselves desire to work longer hours in order to get the larger earnings which that would mean to them. We have not to-day before us the Bill in which the provisions contemplated by the right Gentleman are contained. We are only to-day considering the enabling Money Resolution. When that Bill comes, we shall consider it carefully, and we shall put down such Amendments as seem to us necessary to improve it. Speaking for myself, and for myself alone. I say that, feeling, as I do, convinced that the one thing we require above everything else is continuity of policy, being convinced that that continuity of policy can be arrived at only after a certain amount of trial and error, knowing that we shall never convince hon. Members opposite by argument, and that nothing but bitter experience will show them the truth of what we say, I, for my part, and speaking only for myself, feel that it would be in the best interests of the country that the right hon. Gentleman who is now in office should have his opportunity of putting his scheme into operation. If it fail, he perhaps will find conviction that he has been on the wrong lines. If it succeed,
  1312
  if I am wrong in the view that I have taken—and I see myself nothing but failure in front of it—then nobody would be better pleased than I should. At any rate we on this side will be quite as much open to conviction as hon. Members on the opposite side, for I believe that we are, as I give them credit for being, thoroughly desirous of seeing an end put to this age-long question, which affects the lives of so many of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. VIVIAN: In taking part in this discussion, I should like first to say that it would be an advantage to all parties if we assumed that each party is just as anxious as any other to secure houses, and, with all that is at stake, address ourselves to the question as to the best and most practicable method of achieving that end. I, like the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), who has just taken part in the Debate, feel very strongly that along the lines on which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is proceeding we are not likely to secure the houses. At any rate, I would put to him these propositions: First of all, the whole of the available labour in the building trades to-day is fully employed for all practical purposes, and is inadequate to meet present needs. That is either true or untrue, and if it be true, it is a significant fact in connection with this additional programme. Secondly, I would assert that there is a complete demand already for practically all the important building material, and, indeed, that there is under-supply. Again, that is true or untrue, and if it be true, it is a significant fact in connection with this proposal. It seems to me to arise naturally from that that, unless the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to increase, and increase substantially, both the available labour and the available material, one thing is as certain as that the sun rises to-morrow morning, and that is that the whole of his subsidy will pass, not into the increase of houses, but into the inflation of the price of the building that is already going on.
  To present that point of view to the right hon. Gentleman is not to cast a reflection upon him, it is not to show any ill-feeling towards him. In any business proposition, one who is concerned with a proposition naturally welcomes criticism

  1313
  that enables one to get down to the bedrock of truth, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that those are his best friends in this connection who warn him, along these lines, as to the inevitable results which will follow unless he can secure a, substantial addition to material and to labour. I repeat that the subsidy will pass wholly into the inflation of the cost of building that is already going on. That means that you will get no addition of houses at all, that you will increase the burden upon those already striving to secure houses and, as a matter of fact, you will probably intensify the trouble for the poor. One of the claims that my right hon. Friend makes—and I do not deny his sincerity—is that he primarily stands for the poor. I do deny that he has any monopoly in that respect, but I put this to him, that if he achieves the result of inflating on a great scale the cost of building that is already going on, he is going to intensify the evil for the poor, because the building that is going on is, in a degree—not as great a degree as we would wish, I assure him—having its effect upon those who are badly housed.
  I suppose I am not wrong in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is making the greatest demand for credit and money at the hands of the State for a civil purpose that any Minister has made in the history of our Parliamentary life, and, therefore, he ought to go out of his way to satisfy this Committee that there is a reasonable chance of his attaining his objective. We all agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when he said, in effect: "Show me that you can attain your objective, and I will not quarrel with this great Vote." I think I can speak for many of my hon. Friends here along the same lines. The whole point is as to whether the right hon. Gentleman will attain his objective, and unless he can show us, before his Housing Bill passes through, that he is more nearly on the track of a substantial increase in the volume of labour and of material, I frankly say that I not only have grave doubts, but I am absolutely satisfied that the Vote we are giving him will go to inflation and not to the increase of houses. I have an Amendment on the Paper which I probably shall not have the opportunity to move, but I want to say a word in regard to its prin-
  1314
  ciple, as emphasising that I desire to help the right hon. Gentleman in his task. I have suggested there that we should put a limit to the cost per super-foot beyond which this Committee will not consent to give subsidies.
  Such a principle will bring in all interests, from the time the architect takes the thing in hand, and begins designing the house, right away to the builder, the material supplier and the operative. If you are able to bring all in under a limit of this sort, your architect will know perfectly well that it is no use putting in a lot of fallals, as it would bring it over the amount. The same with the material, and if the operative comes along and asks for an extra 3d. an hour, the builder will say: "You know perfectly well that will bring this group of houses out of the category which entitles them to the subsidy." I am put on the track of that principle, to a certain extent, by the Report which has been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman—and which, I gather, he substantially endorses—by the Committee of builders, operatives and merchants. I quote from the bottom paragraph on page 9:
  "The Committee has given careful consideration to cost, and as a result of careful examination is of opinion that houses are being built to-day at the lowest possible cost."
  These are the vital words:
  "In its judgment, taking the costs of labour and material as current on the 1st March last, houses from 850 to 950 feet super of contained area, based upon the Schedule as supplied by the Ministry of Health, should, tinder normal circumstances, not exceed in cost front X to Y per square foot."
  There is a footnote which tells us that that cost is "conveyed confidentially to the Ministry of Health." I want it on the Floor of the House. I have suggested in my Amendment 10s. 6d. per square foot super. If you take 950 feet, the biggest house referred to in this paragraph, and the largest house brought within the scope of the subsidy, 10s. 6d. is £498. It is the £500 house—that is pretty clear. It may be out of order on the Financial Resolution, and, if so, I hope we may put some such limit in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman considers 10s. 6d. not enough, let us make it 11s., or, if the evidence justifies it, 11s. 6d.; but, at any rate, let us have some figure beyond which we will not per-

  1315
  mit architects, merchants, builders, or operatives to demand from the public subsidies to enable them to inflate the burden which the public will have to bear. The only result, if you do not take that course, will be what we have experienced—what I have experienced—that of builders who are engaged on building subsidised houses going to the operatives on contracts that are not subsidised, and offering 2d., 3d., or 4d. an hour to leave the non-subsidised job and go to the subsidised job. The result will be inflation of both. That is the viciousness of this kind of thing. But if you put some such limitation as this per foot super—per house will not do—that will apply automatically. Such limit should be put on for the protection of those who are finding the subsidy, and for the protection of those who will live in the houses afterwards, and will suffer in rent if inflation is allowed to take place.
  I will pass over one or two points, but I would like to make one reference to the paragraph in the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with the contribution to the total of rent by the different factors concerned. I certainly never expected to live to hear a Minister of the Crown put forward such rubbish. I say quite frankly, I can only assume he never intended it for the House of Commons, but for the platform. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it untrue?"] As a sum in arithmetic it is correct; as a statement of economic truth, it is absolutely false. He took the cost of the land and the contributions of wages and material—and, by the way, in speaking of the building of a house, it is a mistake to speak of the labour in building as the only labour involved. [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said it was."] I do not say he said it. I am saying it is a mistake to assume that the labour in a building is building wages only. To keep the true perspective, we must take the labour throughout the whole process. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned £200 as the building wages, but, of the remaining £300, something between £150 and £175 is wages. At any rate, I can speak of one raw materal with which I am acquainted, where two-thirds to three-fourths of the prime cost is in wages, and the other is coal, and these two together make the total prime cost. Hon. Members will see that, in order to get the true proportion of wages, you
  1316
  must take the wages throughout the whole process.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to these different Factors that contribute towards rent, first took the laud, and spread the payment over 60 years. If you were to take wages and spread them over 60 years as well—[Interruption. ] If that is not so, we must be told what is meant. I am only out for the truth. I have no other end to serve, except to help my right hon. Friend and prevent him from getting into a muddle. [Interruption. ] What other object do hon. Members think I have? The only reading I can put into these figures is, that the cost of the land was to be spread over 60 years, the wages were to be spread over 60 years, and the material was to be spread over 60 years. Spread over 60 years in that way, it would amount to the infinitesimal sums the right hon. Gentleman gave. Why not spread it over 1,000 years? What it amounts to is this: The right hon. Gentleman, with all respect for propaganda, is denying the justification for paying a reward for capital. Is that right? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] I thought so. I want my right hon. Friend to consult with his other right hon. Friends, who have been the heads and the chairmen and managers of building societies, industrial co-operative societies, and so on, which societies have hundreds of millions of money invested houses and property of that kind. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman said, in finishing up with this point:
  "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.—"
  Is that a true statement of the position? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Do hon. Members mean to tell me that an engine-driver—[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt. We have a lot of business to get through.
  Mr. B. SMITH: By the same reasoning, will you ask the hon. Member not to interrogate us?
  Mr. VIVIAN: The right hon. Gentleman referred to these savings as not being the result of labour, but of makings, and I was illustrating my point by giving the case of an engine-driver who has spent

  1317
  his savings of 20 or 30 years in order to invest in the Co-operative Building Society, of which the Colonial Minister was for many years the admirable chairman. Am I to understand that the £200, £300 or £500 that engine-driver has invested at 5 per cent. or 4½ per cent, in that admirable institution is not the result of his labour? If you take the whole of these great societies, with these hundreds of millions of capital—and they hold, to a very large extent, the small property of the country—I am sure that was not a fair presentation of the case. Then I would ask, Is that engine-driver, as compared with another engine-driver who does not abstain from—shall we say? —the consumption of sumptuary articles—is the engine-driver who saves up his £500, and puts it into the Co-operative Building Society, not entitled to some reward for the contribution he has made through that building society in the erection of a house, as compared with the other man, who refuses to exercise that sacrifice and discipline, and spends the margin which the other has saved—I do not say in any discreditable way—but, at any rate, he has not denied himself the pleasure and satisfaction which the other one has denied himself, in order to get a future satisfaction in his old age, and to make his contribution to his own house?
  6.0 P.M.
  I have quite a number of other points,
  but I shall not detain the Committee any
  longer—[HON. MEMBERS "Go on!"]—except to say this: that I am
  going—and I say it quite
  sincerely—to do nothing that
  will make for the discouragement of that
  type of citizen. Believe me, that is the
  type of citizen that is going to keep this
  country going. It is not the type that
  continually leans on somebody else or
  the State. A nation of leaners sooner or
  later fails to be self-supporting and will
  have to make way for others. [Interruption. ] Finally, in regard to this particular Resolution before us, I say quite frankly I have very real doubts as to whether the scheme will function. I believe sincerely that it will result in inflation. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman will get the houses on the scale that he estimates, unless he
  puts forward a very different policy in regard to the available labour and materials. He has, however, seen the
  executives of the unions. He has seen the master builders. He has seen the mer-
  1318
  chants. According to the reports that he and they have presented they believe they can deliver the goods. I assume that he, as our managing director for that purpose, believes that those goods can be delivered. I am not, therefore, going to stand in the way of his getting this Resolution. I wish him success. I hope he will succeed. We all want the houses, and I say that my doubt, therefore, will in no way interfere with my vote for giving a chance to the right hon. Gentleman to see what he can do to make a good job of it.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Prior to criticising the Resolution before the House, I wish to make my position quite clear as regards the question of housing. It is the most important question before the country to-day. Unless something is done to deal with it—to settle this appalling question—there can be no real peace or contentment in industry. I am familiar with the condition of things in Glasgow and in some of the great Midland towns, and I think that if the House as a whole had seen the things I have seen they would not pass any more legislation until something very definite had been done about the housing programme. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman who put forward this Measure had had the courage of his convictions. I do not refer to his sneers about and against private enterprise. I refer to his wonderful scheme for giving a 15 years' contract to the building trade. It is really not a 15 years' contract, but a three years' contract, which can be cancelled at the option of the Government if, at the end of three years, it is found that prices are not reasonable or the houses are not being built at the rate they were promised. He can, I say, terminate the arrangement. But who is going to say what is a reasonable price? It is a very wide subject to discuss. The great point about the whole of this housing matter—one of the great points, at all events—is the cost of the houses.
  The Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, have based their working on a house at about £500. That figure includes the land. It is said to be £200 for the material, £280 for labour and profits, and £20 for land. It does not, I take it, include draining, roads, sewering, and other services. I want to know where these prices come

  1319
  from? I had a look at the "Builder" for 23rd May. I looked over some recent housing contracts that had been let. I endeavoured to take a number of representative contracts. I find that on 23rd of last month a 48-house contract was let at Croydon. The price for each of these houses was £664, exclusive of land, an excess of £164 over the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. I next noted that at Brandon in Warwickshire a contract was let for 12 houses at a price of £556 each, an excess of £56 on the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. At Liverpool there was a contract let for 54 six-roomed houses, the price being £625 each, or £125 in excess of the figures of the Minister of Health.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: What sort of houses were these?
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: They were six-roomed houses, the latter, and are to cost £625 each. You have, therefore, on a total of 114 houses only an excess over the estimate of the Minister of Health of £15,300. That does not include land, drainage, and the other services. Suppose you simply take £20 to cover the land, and get an average excess of £160 per house, that means, on a total of 2,500,000 houses under the programme another £400,000,000 to be found by the country. But the right hon. Gentleman suggests that prices are going to fall. How can that be? Builders' operatives are endeavouring to get their wages up ½d. per hour. That is going to put up the price of houses. Bricks have not remained at the January price. They have gone up on an average 2s. to 8s. per thousand—when you can get delivery—which is very difficult! Taking the Minister's estimate again of the whole capital cost of the scheme for providing 2,500,000 houses at £1,250,000,000, you have to add another £400,000,000 to it, which makes £1,650,000,000; you then have an expenditure of the subsidy of £1,375,000,000, giving a total capital expenditure over 15 years of over £3,000,000,000—pretty well half the total of the National Debt. Where is the money coming from? It sounds very simple, but the whole programme is unreal, unpractical, and ridiculous. We have not got the men to carry out the work. You cannot get them under the
  1320
  conditions. You have not got the materials at present. There are possibilities of getting the materials if the matter is properly handled.
  Now I understand the whole of this agreement, the Financial Resolution before the Committee, and the Bill that is going to be put forward, is based on the Report prepared by various unions and the employers engaged in the industry. The Minister is relying upon his ability to get the houses on the undertaking of these people who have joined in this Report. But is it not the fact that the National Federation of Building Trade Workers, which includes the keymen, the bricklayers and the stonemasons, have decided at a mass meeting of their workers to withdraw from the arrangement which was entered into under this Report? They have sent a letter to Mr. Nicholls, the Chairman of the National House Building Committee, giving in their resignation so far as they are concerned as from the 3rd May. Is it not also a fact that this resignation has been confirmed and strengthened by another letter written by the union on 24th May? It may interest the Committee to know the reasons why they have refused to subscribe to this agreement. Their reasons were two. The first is because no wet time is to be allowed, and the second reason is—and this is interesting —that an opportunity is going to be given to take into the trade men of over 20 years old. There is a possibility of dilution of the trade, and on account of these two reasons they decline to carry out the agreement made with the Minister.
  How are houses going to be built in these circumstances? I want also, now that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has come in, to give a direct contradiction to the Minister's statement made to the Committee when he said there were no builders' labourers who were prepared or anxious to become tradesmen. He said they did not exist. I say definitely from a practical knowledge of the trade that there are any number of men who are only too anxious to become tradesmen, but they have been absolutely discouraged by the unions. I have men who have come to me in connection with some of my contracts, and have said, "We would like to become tradesmen, but when we ask the unions.

  1321
  they have told us to get away to some other place"—and it was not in connection with the job either!
  The statement has been made that 2,500,000 houses are required. I absolutely deny there is any such need. There are not 2,500,000 houses required. There is no such scarcity in this country. There are certain very well-defined areas, Glasgow and other towns in the North and South, where there is an enormous scarcity of houses. Let the trade and the Ministry concentrate on these particular areas, and build the houses. Let them be built, if necessary, by the State and then they can be let at a low rental to those who cannot afford to pay very much. Settle these particular areas where you have a shortage, and you will solve this problem to a very great extent. As to the rest of the country you might give a subsidy—not a yearly subsidy, but a lump sum subsidy of £150 or £200—and if you leave the matter to private enterprise they will build all the houses that the country needs, and let them at an economic rent which the working man could pay, and not sell them. The capital cost of houses to-day is so considerable that it is difficult to pay the rent; but if you give a lump sum subsidy and builders know what the price is to begin with they will be able to build a lot of houses, and in that way private enterprise will fill the Bill.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has ended upon a note which I think is appropriate to him, that is, the encouragement of private enterprise. The real purpose of the Act of the right. hon. Gentleman opposite last year was precisely that: to revive private enterprise as the medium through which the housing needs of the nation could be met. The party opposite has made a shibboleth of it. We have been accused in the past of shibboleths, but we never held them so stubbornly as hon. Gentlemen opposite who stand by private enterprise. Building by private industry has never satisfied our housing requirements and never could. I am not blaming private enterprise, but I am saying that the test of providing for the housing needs of the country is one which is utterly beyond private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-
  1322
  wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) believes in private enterprise, but the result of even the few months we have had of his efforts goes to show that it is not going to meet what we regard as the real problem. We are not saying there is no problem amongst the middle classes, but we are saying that a subsidised private industry concerned in building houses for sale is not solving the problem of the housing needs of the working people.
  I do not admit that, if you empty one middle-class house, you thereby make another house for a working man's family. As a matter of fact, there is a movement from bigger to smaller houses just as there may be a movement from one and two-roomed cottages to four and five-roomed houses. The fact that, as far as regards the houses built under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, two-thirds of them have been built for sale, is sufficient to condemn the Act which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood. The only effect of the continued operation of that Act would be to make the private building industry of this country masters of the situation, and that would be a position with which they could not successfully grapple. Our proposal is not to abolish the private builders or the privately owned building industry of this country, but to divert it to a, new purpose as the servant of the community in a big national effort to solve a national need.
  The two main criticisms which have been brought against our proposals are those of finance and of labour. I am not quite sure to which of those criticisms hon. Members opposite attach the greatest importance, but they cannot attach equal importance to both of them. If the cost be so colossal as they have represented, then clearly the country will have got the houses for its money. If there is not the labour to produce the houses, there will not be this colossal expenditure falling upon the State and the local authorities. I should have preferred a pretty clear indication from hon. Members opposite as to which was their major argument, because they are trying to have it both ways. With regard to the question of costs, the building of 2,500,000 houses is bound to involve a considerable sum whoever builds them. But we have to keep a sense of perspective. If hon.

  1323
  Members will go back, and apply the same efforts to adding up our expenditure for 55 years before the War on our National Debt services as they have applied to totting up the figures given in the White Paper, I think that they would find for the same period as we propose to spend this money, there was in the 55 years before the War on a small National Debt as much money spent out of the Exchequer on the National Debt Services as we propose to spend to satisfy the housing needs of the country.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: This is a future liability.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If we are to continue for 55 years to pay £300,000,000 a year as interest on the National Debt services, then we are going to spend five times as much as we are asking should be spent on housing the people of this country. Hon. Members opposite have often pressed for a large expenditure upon our fighting Services, and to-day we are spending more than £100,000,000 a year on those Services. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite choose to maintain that expenditure for 55 years, the total cost to the community is going to be several times as much as the amount we intend to find out of public funds for the housing of the people. My point is that we are committed, and have been committed in the past for a similar period of 55 years, to an expenditure far larger than we are now asking for these vital social services, and for which we are not now getting an equivalent return.
  I put it to the Committee that a country which can find this staggering amount of money for its fighting Services can find means to provide houses in the necessary number for the people of this country. If it cannot, then this country is bankrupt, and we ought to say so. I do not believe that anybody in any quarter of the House dare say here or elsewhere that this country is unable to afford decent housing accommodation for the masses of the people. The proposal of £13 10s. represents the maximum sum over this period of years which we are asking for from the State and from local authorities. It might well be as a result of the triennial revision that the public expenditure would be reduced, in which case the colossal sums which were
  1324
  mentioned across the Floor of the House yesterday and to-day will not be needed.
  One other point to which I wish to refer is the one raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood and by the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) about raising the capital for this expenditure. It is perfectly true that if you are to provide the houses you will need capital and we have never denied it. What is the alternative? Either the provision of capital with all the difficulties incidental to it or no houses. Whether the municipality or the private investor goes into the market to provide 1,000,000 houses they will need the capital for 1,000,000 houses.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We say there is not the money in the pool for you to take it Out. Let the hon. Member tell us how you are going to get the capital?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The nation has either got to find the capital or do without the houses. That is the price you have to pay for a century of neglect, and it is not the fault of the present Government. It is perfectly true that you would increase the demand for your capital, but through improved houses you improve the efficiency of the people, increase national income and your capacity for saving. I do not believe myself that the community will shrink from finding the necessary capital. I say nothing about the credit side of the balance sheet because with that we are all familiar, but whatever the cost might be, its effect on national wellbeing would be worth it. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot)—in an extraordinarily entertaining speech which I think we all enjoyed—referred to the subsidy, and said that we had merely doubled it. Others have said that as a consequence of our proposal there will be no more houses at all, but I do not accept that statement. The effect of increasing the subsidy will be, in the first to provide houses where houses are to-day not being provided. It is admitted that in certain parts of the country, and I believe Scotland is an example, the £6 subsidy was insufficient., and certainly it has been insufficient in the rural areas, where there are some of the worst slums in existence at the present time, and the effect of the subsidy will clearly be to place houses where they are not being built at the present time.

  1325
  In, so far as the increased subsidy induces local authorities to make more generous provision for the housing needs of their own people, to that extent it will operate on the industry which will build the houses, and be an additional inducement to that augmentation of labour and materials which hon. Members desire. In that way it will facilitate and increase the number of houses. That is not the only purpose of the increased subsidy, which is to provide houses to let at reasonable rents. There is a very hard fact about the history of wages in this country, and it is that the level of wages at any given time has never been sufficient to provide the working-class family with a house which the public conscience at that particular time regarded as necessary. In the vicious economic circle in which we live I do not see how you are likely to get wages at such a level that working people will be able, unassisted, to provide the decent houses which the community has a right to expect its citizens to live in. It is a social duty of the community as a whole to do what it can to enable its more unfortunate members to live in the houses demanded by the public conscience of the time.
  There is an implication that this expenditure is extravagant, but I doubt whether there has ever been a scheme hedged round with more checks than the present scheme. Local authorities—and this was used as an argument against us—have power to stop building. Why did local authorities wish to preserve the right at any time to stop building? The argument which was advanced to us was that they wished to be in a position to stop building if prices were soaring. But that is a good thing. That will not diminish the number of houses, because, if prices are soaring, it means that either labour is short or materials are short, or both; and it would then be the proper thing, in the interests of public economy, for the local authorities to hold their hands for the time being.
  The Government also is taking to itself power to stop—another means of checking rising expenditure and inflated prices. Further, we have had offered to us, with great cordiality and earnestness by the building industry, its knowledge and experience with a view to bringing down costs and cutting out unnecessary expenditure. We have in the background our
  1326
  Bill for dealing with prices, a Bill which will, I believe, exercise a salutary effect on those who would allow their private greed to outweigh their public spirit. The right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood does not believe much in this Prices Bill. He asks how far we will go. My answer is that I hope, when he sees the Bill, he will go as far as we do. But I would put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. What did he do? So far as I am aware, the only step taken by the right hon. Gentleman during his period of office was to set up the Mac-kinder Committee to watch prices.
  Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: They never went up.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not at all sure that that is quite accurate. Unless I am mistaken, certainly some commodities went up very substantially. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "What were they"?]
  Mr. B. SMITH: There was a rise in door-knockers.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman did not take any steps of any kind to deal with this problem. It was not regarded as necessary, apparently. We are asked to-day what steps we are going to take to deal with a possible rise in prices, and the question is put with great force by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood, who, during his period of office, took no steps whatever. I think, however, it will be found, when the Bill is introduced, that we have gone a long way to meet the desires of those hon. Members as regards dealing with extravagant rises in prices. There is, behind all that, a final check upon extravagance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood poked fun at my right hon. Friend because he had not fixed a rent which was immovable. It is perfectly true that, in so far as the Exchequer subsidy and the local grant do not cover the right economic rent, rents are to be raised. We have not done that by accident; we have done it deliberately, and for this reason, namely, to bring home to the people of this country that, notwithstanding every power we are taking and every effort we have made, the private industry has not played the game—to bring home to the mass of the people that the powers

  1327
  which a minority Government can exercise are insufficient. It is perfectly right that we should bring home to the people the fact, that steps have been taken and have failed, because the people then at least have the power to put it right, in a way that might not be quite to the taste of hon. Members opposite.
  Let me say a word or two about the question of labour. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lady-wood that, on the whole, this Debate has been a good-tempered Debate, but there has crept out in the speeches of some hon. Members an anti-trade union bias, which was not unexpected. We have been told that, unless there is a very substantial augmentation of labour, this scheme will fail. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? No single step did he take, not a single finger did he move, to increase the supply of labour. The problem was as insistent last year as it is this year—quite as insistent. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest that there was ever a labour surplus as regards houses last year. There was a shortage. Complaints were made last year about the labour shortage, and yet the Government of the day did nothing. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W JoynsonHicks) was about to do something when he left office—so he told us after he had left it. But he did not in fact do anything. We have done something. We have done more for the augmentation of labour supply than any Government since the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "What have you done?"] You shall have the answer in a minute. Let me say this, that, in so far as there has been reluctance on the part of the building trade workers to co-operate in schemes of this kind, it is due very largely to the economic conditions under which they have lived and worked during the whole of their lifetime in an industry that is always open to great and wide fluctuations, and to Government schemes after the War which came to an untimely end. I am not surprised that Labour should look a little carefully at schemes of this kind.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: You do not like your own scheme?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will wait, he will get his answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1328
  Twickenham, in his speech yesterday, said he did not believe that we should stop prices rising by any efforts we could make. He said:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June. 1924; col. 1137, Vol. 174]
  The law of supply and demand is the god before whom the right hon. Gentleman worships. Why should any hon. Member opposite invoke supply and demand when it comes to defending the interests of capital, and deny the same right to the worker? And yet we have proposed to the workers that they should deprive themselves of a portion of their economic power, and they have agreed to do so. I hope hon. Members opposite will persuade their friends to do their patriotic bit in this great job, and forego some of the gains which come through the unfettered play of the law of supply and demand. The hon. Member who spoke last referred with an amazing ignorance to the question of certain letters which he said had been sent to Mr. Nicholls, the chairman of the National House-Building Committee. My hon. Friends on this side will realise how much he knows about trade union matters when he talks about a resolution passed at a mass meeting of the national trade union. He refers to two letters—letters which were in their nature semi-confidential, and which had to be taken in relation to negotiations which were taking place at the time within the building industry on certain proposals which were under discussion. It is true that those letters passed.
  How my hon. Friend got hold of them I am not concerned to inquire, but at least he might have got hold of all the letters. Since those two letters were written, a ballot of the building trade unions has been taken, dealing, amongst other things, with the matters referred to in those letters.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Since the 23rd May?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes. That ballot gave to the trade unions power to negotiate and settle with the employers on the chief question referred to in that correspondence, and, following upon the result of that ballot, Mr. George Hicks, the general secretary of the Amalgamated

  1329
  Union of Building Trade Workers, sent this letter to the National House-building Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the date?"] The 2nd June. This is the letter:
  "Sir,—With further reference to my letters of the 3rd and 24th, may I beg to inform you that as the result of a ballot of the building trade unions on matters arising out of the present negotiations in the building industry it has been decided to refer for negotiation and settlement a number of questions, including that of payment for loss of time due to circumstances outside the control of the workers. As this question raises the problem of payment for wet time it becomes in the meantime a matter for discussion and settlement within the industry itself, and I trust that an amicable solution of this important question may be reached without undue delay. In these circumstances, I should be glad if you would regard my previous letters as withdrawn."
  There are people who desire to make helpful suggestions, and people who make mischievous speeches in this House, which can do nothing but make more difficult an already difficult problem. What good has the reference to these letters done? Has it done anything to inspire a little more confidence in the fair-mindedness of the House of Commons If these statements have done anything whatever, they have done something to justify the natural resentment of the bricklayers. It will not be hon. Members opposite who will get augmentation by tactics of that kind. If augmentation comes, as it will come, it will come because of the confidence we are willing to place on this side in the trade unionists of the building industry. All the building trade unions agreed to it. They have agreed, first, to a very considerable extension of their apprenticeship system. That is not a thing the importance of which anyone in this House should attempt to belittle. As the result of conditions due to the War, the number of skilled men in the trade has been considerably reduced. Large numbers of them have gone to America. If they are to be replaced, it is right that we should, as far as possible replace them by youths who have been fully and properly trained. I resent very much the implication that semi-skilled labour is good enough to build working-class houses. As part of any national scheme, you must make arrangements for the steady and regular recruitment of labour through the normal channels. That is
  1330
  the first step. The second step is the kind of step for which hon. Members opposite have been working. They asked that the door should be opened more widely to adult workers. That proposal has been made and agreed by the unions and the employers' associations.
  Sir K. WOOD: What is the agreement?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member had attended that meeting upstairs, as he might have had the advantage of doing, though, no doubt, he thought it unnecessary, ho would have heard the President of the Building Trades' Federation say quite explicitly, in answer to a question by the hon. Lady (Mrs. Philipson), who spoke yesterday, that "the age limit is not a bar, because we have deliberately made a provision whereby men can enter through the unskilled door. By entering the industry as unskilled men for a period, they can then, by a process of selection, be allowed to complete their training as skilled men." The proposal is, that you shall not take in, from the ranks of workers outside the industry, men to walk straight into the craftsman's job. It is that you should proceed by training and promotion within the industry, filling up the unskilled jobs from the men outside.
  Sir K. WOOD: What is the arrangement?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have explained it as clearly as I can. It means that the building trade unions have made a bigger contribution than any other section of society to a solution of the problem.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: What is the bargain?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have tried to explain that the building trade unions and the employers are agreed on the introduction into the skilled ranks of the industry of men already within the industry capable and adaptable for training, with the object of bringing into the industry, for the lesser skilled jobs, men outside.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is very important that we should get clear in formation as to what is the exact arrangement that is being made about these people. I understood from the statement of the Minister yesterday that it formed the subject of a written agreement. Is

  1331
  it only the guarantee to the building industry that is written? Is there nothing on the other side written, because the Minister said he had given a written guarantee to the building industry? If there be a written guarantee or agreement, there must be some clause in it which deals with that particular point, and what we want is that the hon. Gentleman should read to us the clause in which the exact promise is stated.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The agreement to which my right hon. Friend referred is the agreement that is found in the table of the number of houses. We have no other agreement. Why should we have an agreement? What right have we to ask for an agreement on a question internal to the industry? The question of the method by which the industry will augment its labour to fulfil its undertaking to provide the houses is a matter for the industry itself.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is there any limitation of the numbers?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: So far as I am aware, no limitation whatever. This is a matter for the industry itself. What hon. Members are trying to do now is to throw suspicion on the suggestion that there can be augmentation. The whole purpose of the questions that are being put now is to belittle the offer that has been made. The method that we have adopted consistently is a method of getting the best out of the industry, employers and men. What is the alternative of hon. Members opposite? Is it conscription? If it be not conscription is it going to be an avowed and deliberate attempt to break the trade unions, for, believe me, apart from co-operation and agreement with the trade unions, there is no other method than that of compulsion and pressure, and we have done our best through the method of co-operation in the hope of winning, as we have done, the sympathy and the whole-hearted cooperation of all people engaged in the building industry.
  I want to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's plea for continuity of policy. On this side we agree. I believe half the difficulty we are in to-day is because the nation as yet has not settled down to a continuous policy of housing. But
  1332
  that continuous policy means more than was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It means more than augmentation of labour and longer hours. It means that whatever Government follows this will do its best to carry out the long-term programme. There is still a long-term programme. The hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Captain Elliot) last night said the 15 years' programme had been scrapped and thrown overboard. The same thing has been said to-day.
  Sir K. WOOD Sir K. WOOD indicated ascent.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I see the hon. Member for West Woolwich nodding his head, notwithstanding the fact that he has an Amendment down, believing it was 15 years, to terminate it in three years. What did hon. Members is expect us to do? Did they expect us to come to the House with a 15 years' programme without any conditions of any kind whatever? Did they expect us to say that even if we let houses rise to the prices of Addison days we were still going to go on without any modification of our plans? We have come with a 15 years' programme capable, as is reasonable and business-like, of revision every three years. Who loses by that? No one, unless the building trade does not play the game, unless the building trade does not deliver the goods, unless people are desiring to exploit the national deed. Whose is the gain? The gain is the community's, quite obviously, because there is the maximum charge upon the Exchequer. But providing the scheme works, provided that labour is augmented, that the supply of materials is augmented, and that economies can be introduced, there will be ultimately, long before the end of the scheme, I hope, a reduction in the charges upon public funds, national and local. Therefore, we still claim that it is a, 15 years' scheme, and, if we are to get augmentation of labour, if we are to get a steady increasing supply of material, that long-term programme is fundamental. That is what we mean by continuity of policy. I do not believe that there is very much that divides Members in different sections of the House on this Financial Resolution. Much as some people may have said they dislike it, I cannot think that there is any Member of this House prepared to take the risk of casting his Vote against it. I prefer

  1333
  to believe that, just as we have had the whole-hearted and open-handed co-operation of the local authorities and the building industry, we shall get the same cooperation from the other parties in the House. We are desirous of lifting this problem above the ruck of party politics. There is in this country a majority of people who so desire. We have made our contribution to its solution. There may be ways of improving it. Let us hope it will be improved, but I would ask the House to show their earnest intention of putting this question on a basis which will mean that we have got, to use the right hon. Gentleman's term, continuity of policy.
  Hon. Members opposite, as I understand, do not like sob-stuff. I am not ashamed of sob-stuff. That sob-stuff that wells up is an expression of very real feeling. This question, although it has been debated primarily as an economic question, is a great moral and social question that is going down to the very roots of our national life. The marvel to me is that the spirit of the people of this country has not been destroyed by the housing conditions under which many of them live. It has not been so destroyed. A few days ago I was in a bad slum not very far from here where there was some of the most dreadful housing imaginable; where families were living on landings without a single water-tap in their single apartments; where conditions were as bad as they could be. Yet the human side had not been broken. There was only, so far as I saw, one tragic manifestation of it in the not altogether successful attempts at rearing flowers in window-boxes. That is the proof that the people of this country who live under those conditions are worth saving yet, and I think we ought, without any disagreement on the question of finance, to agree that the House will devote its undivided attention to developing those shreds of spirit that still exist among the people and make the people living in those slums to-day worthy of the capital city of the greatest Empire the world has ever known.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Young): I am now going to call Amendments. The first Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson)—In paragraph (a) to leave out the words
  1334
  "of the type and size mentioned in Subsection (2) of Section One of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923," and to insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with approved schemes"—is out of order, because it extends the scope of the financial arrangements.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: On that point. May I respectfully suggest to you, that the words of the Amendment do not necessarily—do not at all—extend the finances of the Bill. The 1923 Act was preceded by a Financial Resolution which specified the grant to be given to houses of a certain type and size. When that Bill went upstairs to Committee, the Chairman of the Committee allowed a variation in the size provided in the Bill. That being so, I submit that a mere variation of the size of the houses does not increase the financial demands of the Bill, and, on that reasoning, I submit, with all respect, that this Amendment does not increase, any more than the Amendment last year increased, the financial claims of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: It may be quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that it would not necessarily increase the charge, but there is the possibility of an increase, and it is my duty to see that nothing is put into the Resolution which could in any way open up a possibility of an increase in the charge.
  Mr. THOMSON: I bow to your ruling, of course. I am sorry the Bill has been so drafted by the Government that it is impossible for this Committee, and impossible for the Committee upstairs, to take into consideration those vital points as to the conditions under which this vast sum of money shall be granted. I submit that our deliberations upstairs will be very largely useless so far as the conditions—
  The CHAIRMAN: I call on the hon. Member to move the second Amendment. I cannot allow him to discuss my ruling.
  Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "houses," to insert the words "with not less than three bedrooms and coming within the limitations."
  I am sorry. I am not discussing your ruling. I was accepting your ruling, as I always do, and I was expressing regret that the Government had so sub-

  1335
  mitted the Financial Resolution that it was necessary for you to give that ruling. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, if he cannot see his way at once to accept this Amendment, to consider the desirability of withdrawing the Financial Resolution in its present, form, and submitting one of such a character that it will be possible for this House, and for the Committee upstairs, to enable houses to be built which will be worthy of the effort which the Minister has at heart. I do not know whether this Committee realises that, under the Financial Resolution which I am seeking to amend, it is possible to erect houses which the Minister himself described as brick boxes unworthy of the people of our country. The limits of the Act of 1923 are as low as 500 superficial feet, and to agree to a Financial Resolution for the building of 2,500,000 houses, and to sanction the expenditure of a huge sum of money for the erection of houses of only 500 superficial feet, is not worthy of the House, and is certainly not worthy of the Government. I appeal in all seriousness to the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider, in the interests of his housing scheme, whether he should not withdraw this Financial Resolution, and allow another to be submitted which would enable an Amendment to be made by this House on the lines which he advocated most eloquently from those benches in 1923.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment the hon. Member is moving is of a very different character and deals with three bedrooms and three bedrooms only.
  Mr. THOMSON: The object of the Amendment is to raise the standard of the houses.
  The CHAIRMAN: The object of the Amendment is to insert the words "not less than three bedrooms."
  Mr. THOMSON: I was under the impression that a house of three bedrooms was of a higher standard than a house which had only two. I submit that it is very essential at a time like the present that we should not spend public money in putting up houses which are not going to be worthy of the name of homes. We already have in this country in every industrial town a large percentage of one-room and two-
  1336
  roomed houses. We have more houses with two bedrooms in the working-class districts of our towns than are necessary for years to come, and during the next 15 or 20 years, if we do not build a single further house with less than three bedrooms, we shall have a sufficiency of these houses of smaller size. I appeal to the Minister to see that public money is spent in putting up those houses which are most needed, houses which provide decent moral accommodation for the industrial workers of our large towns. In the town which I have the honour to represent over 70 per cent. of the working-class houses have two bedrooms or less. That is to say, there is not more than 30 per cent. which have proper accommodation for a family which is growing up. You must at least have three bedrooms where you have a family which is growing up. It was all very well in the early days, but we should not in the future provide for an increase of those smaller houses or houses which have an insufficiency of bedroom accommodation. The problem to-day in many of our towns is that you have the herding together of the sexes and you have no decent accommodation, and I am anxious that this public money should be spent in providing for the needs of those whose needs are greatest.
  Mr. LINFIELD: I want to support this Amendment. I was rather surprised that the Minister should have made no provision for this class of house. I hope my hon. Friend will not resent a little bit of criticism, because I remember the criticism offered when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) introduced his Bill last year, and I have in my hand some of the criticism which was showered upon him. I think it was not resented. Indeed, I think we always get the best from a free criticism of all the measures that come before this House. We had an excellent exhibition by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who entered into this discussion without any heat, any bias or any party feeling. I hope my right hon. Friends will not consider it unfair criticism if I suggest that last year they themselves were pressing very strongly that this should be done. I have a quotation from a speech of the Minister of Health in which he referred to "houses that will never he homes, and to "houses that will very

  1337
  soon be slums." I want to save my right hon. Friends from perpetuating such a system as that. We are of opinion that the better class of house, we can get for the working-classes the better it will he for the country. It is solely on that account that we are proposing this Amendment to-day. The President of the Board of Trade last year criticised the proposal of the right hon. Member for Ladywood and called attention to the smallness of the houses. He warned the Government what would happen in the future.
  I would remind the Minister of Health that there are about 3,000,000 people living in slums to-day. We do not want the slums perpetuated. I propose voting for this Money Resolution—as we all do on these benches—but I would like to warn hon. Members, in view of the fact that we were told just now, "no money, no houses," that it is quite possible to vote much money and to get few houses. While I am in full sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do, I suggest that he ought to be very careful not to put his name to a proposal likely to perpetuate slums in the future. I sincerely hope the Minister of Health will accept this Amendment in the spirit in which it is moved. We do not want to be tied up by this Money Resolution so that we cannot make the houses better. I am exceedingly surprised that there should be any objection whatever to the Amendment from this side of the House. I thought all would be quite ready to accept it.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no alternative, I am sorry to say, but to ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. If I were to deal with the Amendment on its merits, I do not think it would require much by way of reply. It deprives the local authorities altogether of any discretion in determining the kind of house to be erected in order to meet the requirements of their particular areas. An appeal has been made to me to make pro vision for three bedrooms within the scope of the Bill. That provision is made in the 950 feet houses and even in houses of less than 950 feet dimension. There is no proposal in the Amendment to increase the 950 feet, or in any way to interfere with the dimensions. Perhaps the House will allow me, in order to save time, to make
  1338
  a few observations on the general question of the size of houses. I stated yesterday that, in my negotiations with the local authorities, they insisted strongly on the provision in the 1923 Act on this point being maintained, and that they should be allowed to determine within the dimensions the kind of house that should be erected. When that proposal was made to me, I took steps to ascertain the size of the houses that were being erected since the 1923 Bill became an Act of Parliament, and I found that few, if any, houses of less than 700 feet had been built in England and Wales, and that the average dimension—I have not confirmed the figure I gave yesterday—was 870 feet.
  Much play has been made with the criticism that was showered on the proposals of the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) when he introduced his Bill. May I remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day that as a result of those criticisms the dimensions were increased by 100 feet. The principal objection put up by the local authorities is one which I think will fit in with the general scheme of Government policy. They said the object of our proposals was to provide houses for the working-classes and if we extended the size of the houses the money would be spent in subsidising the builders all over the country to build houses for people who could quite well afford to provide houses for themselves. In asking the Committee to vote this money, I think I am justified in appealing to it to support me in saying that the money, if it be the limit, and I am accepting it as the limit of our resources, shall be used entirely in providing houses for the people most in need of assistance in obtaining healthy housing accommodation.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in line 6, to leave out the word "thirty-nine," and to insert instead thereof the. words "twenty-seven."
  An hon. Member, in a characteristic speech just now, said that the Amendment indicated that my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) wanted to reduce the programme from 15 years to three years. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that, speaking

  1339
  from that box some time ago, I said that I, on my own behalf, and I thought on behalf of my hon. Friends around me, would warmly approve a 15 years' programme, and would abide by it if it were produced in a reasonable form. We are moving this Amendment in order to get a clear statement as to what is the length of the programme referred to in this Money Resolution. Of course, if one uses the word "programme" in the sense in which it appears to have been used by the Parliamentary Secretary, as a sort of pious hope, I admit we have got a 15 years' programme, but, if one uses it in the sense that Parliament, by passing this Resolution, is committed in any way beyond the three years, that the Minister of Health is committed in any sense beyond three years, that the local authorities are committed in any sense beyond three years, or that the building trade is committed beyond three years, it seems to me to be an absolute misuse of an ordinary term of the English language.
  We are always told now-a-days that we shall never get an increase of labour without a guarantee. In all these discussions, it has been said that the programme is a guarantee. I want to ask in relation to this Amendment—and it has never asked before—a question with regard to a specific point, and I think if I put the question exclusively it may conduce to a clear answer. The question is how much of the building trade agreement which dealt with the 15 year programme and dealt with the guarantees to be given under the 15 year programme, remains at the present day? It has already been pointed out the local authorities have refused to guarantee that they will give orders for a definite number of houses even during the first three years, let alone during the 15 years It has also been pointed out that the whole apprenticeship system proposed by the Committee in this Report was based on the proposal that it should be a condition of every contract for houses under the scheme that the contractor should employ this labour on the work. The local authorities have not given any undertaking or guarantee of that kind. Perhaps I ought to justify myself for cutting the period down to three years, because it may be said that even during the first three years there is no guaran-
  1340
  tee. The local authorities are not obliged to order houses, and, unless the Minister contradicts me, I assert the building trade is not obliged to provide those houses. There is no obligation on any side. There is no arrangement made between the parties as yet. There is no agreement; there is nothing which business men would regard as a contract.
  I have taken three years, because that, at any rate, covers the only definite thing in the scheme before us, namely, that the Minister is obligated by this scheme during the course of three years to pay a subsidy of £9 on any house winch he may approve. The Minister may stop approving houses if the cost goes up, or if the requisite number of houses be not delivered. He may in such circumstances stop approving houses, but, so long as he does approve of houses during the first three years, that approval carries with it a subsidy of £9. That is the only thing we are doing under this Resolution—absolutely the only thing, so far as I can see. If we are doing anything else, I hope the Minister will tell us in what sense there is an obligation or, indeed, a programme in any concrete sense beyond those three years. I am quite prepared to admit that during the first three years the programme may offer a sufficient inducement to the building trade to produce the number of houses required, because, at any rate, during the first three years they are more or less assured that the local authorities will order the number of houses stated in the scheme. For instance, in 1925 the maximum number of houses that are to be built is 90,000, but the trade only guarantee 60,000. The trade knows that in 1925 90,000 houses will be ordered by the local authorities. Why? Because 85,000 of them are ordered already under the Chamberlain Act, in addition to the houses under construction, or completed. Your paper programme of 90,000 houses for next year is already on paper. Therefore, the building trade have got, more or less, a guarantee. Beyond that time, what guarantee have they got? The Minister of Health said yesterday that, while he could not give an absolute guarantee, the guarantee he could give was that if half the local authorities went on operating the Act that would take up the whole of the available supply of labour and material, but if over half the country prices go up to an extent which

  1341
  the Minister does not think desirable, he may stop building in that half of the country.
  The Minister said that he could not give any definite figure as to how far prices must go up before he would stop building. Can he give any idea of what is in his mind? We have had an increase, apparently, in the last few months of from £385 to £500 a house, an increase of £115 a house or slightly less. I do not know whether those two figures are strictly comparable. Is that the kind of increase that would make the Minister stop building? What is the arrangement, if any, that has been made, and how far is this a definite programme? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we ought to meet the building trade as we meet foreign envoys, with bunting and cheers, and that we ought to meet them at the railway station. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am quite ready to do so if I know exactly the business they have come on, and if I know exactly what the arrangement is. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) instead of handing out the bunting said he wanted the people to realise that private industry had not played the game. That is how the Minister of Health's colleague hands out the bunting. What is all this about? What is the actual proposal? How far are we really committing ourselves? If it is only a commitment for three years do let us say so. Let us, at least, in a housing scheme get away from anything which might even appear to be like eye-wash. I do not suggest that the Minister of Health intentionally is trying to throw dust in out eyes, but I do wish to be sure that this is not eye-wash, that it is not merely the substitution of one paper programme for another. If it is, do not let the House of Commons be a party to it. Let us say just what we mean, and only what we mean, and not hold out hopes which the building trade may find neither the Minister of Health nor any Member of this House really meant.
  Sir K. WOOD: I would like to put a few questions to the Minister of Health, because I should not like my attitude to be misconceived. If the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at a 15 years' guarantee with the building trade I will support him. In this Resolution, all that
  1342
  I want is to have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I am in some doubt, and probably the right hon. Gentleman is himself in doubt as to where he stands. I well remember that the first document that he produced in connection with this guarantee—"guarantee" was the word which he used yesterday—was the Report of the building industry. In that Report, on page 10, it is stated:
  "The Committee is unanimously of opinion that the demand for such assurances"—
  that is, on the question of guarantee—
  "is a reasonable one, and recommends that Parliament should be asked to sanction the expenditure required"—
  I want the Minister to pay attention to the following words—
  "for a definite and continuous programme extending over 15 years for the erection of an inclusive total of up to, approximately, 2,500,000 houses upon a basis of cost to be agreed."
  The next document that we had was a letter which the Secretary to the Minister of Health wrote to the local authorities, and it seems to me that this letter very seriously affects the guarantee which the building trade has asked for. The letter is dated 12th May, 1924:
  "The Minister understands that the representatives of the local authorities wish to have recorded his views on certain Resolutions framed by them and submitted to him, and he desires me to make the following comments on these Resolutions."
  The first comment is this—and the Committee will note the following statement in the light of what the trade has asked from the right hon. Gentleman:
  "That in carrying out any building programme under the proposed legislation, the local authority should retain full power to fix the number of houses which it will build in any period, subject to the limitation of a maximum number by the Minister of Health, and also full power at its discretion to suspend building operations for any reason whatever, at any time, and that such suspension should not involve the imposition of any burden upon the rates, or other penalty."
  Therefore, it is fair to say that as far as the local authorities are concerned they are in no way parties to this guarantee, and they have taken the right, at any time, for any reason which shall be good to them, and no one else, to stop building operations. The next document was the Financial White Paper which was presented to the House a little time

  1343
  ago. In the White Paper we have this statement on the question of guarantee. Paragraph 13 says—and this is the conclusion which is apparently arrived at by the Minister of Health:
  "It is proposed that the Exchequer contributions should be fixed in the first instance for houses built during the first three years only, and that before the end of that period the position should be reviewed and, after consultation with Associations of Local Authorities, that the contribution for houses built during the next period of three years should be reduced, if the cost of building and other conditions warrant a reduction."
  Certain words relating to Scotland follow, and the final words are:
  "A similar review will be made every three years during the continuance of the scheme."
  Paragraph 10 of the same document says:
  "In the event of non-compliance with any of the special conditions attached to houses in respect of which the increased Exchequer contribution is payable, the annual contribution may be discontinued or suitably reduced."
  We ought to be perfectly plain as to the exact position. I confess—it may be my stupidity—that I cannot reconcile these statements, because when we go back to what it is that the building trade asked for, it was not only that they should have a definite and continuous programme, but there was a second condition, which I should think they regard as equally important, namely, that it was to be
  "upon a basis of cost to be agreed."
  The Minister of Health, and I am not complaining of it, has taken power to stop his Exchequer contributions if two-thirds of the houses guaranteed are not built, and, secondly, an equally important condition, that the cost of providing houses by the trade is reasonable. That is a very difficult condition to interpret. I do not know whether in the future we shall have considerable argument as to what is reasonable. At any rate, in this document the right hon. Gentleman is not fulfilling the undertaking which the trade asked for.
  After the right hon. Gentleman received this document from the building trade, and after he had sent the letter to the local authorities agreeing that they should discontinue building houses at any time they liked, did he go back to the building trade, and have they agreed, in the light
  1344
  of the statement by the local authorities, and the statements in the White. Paper? Have they been put into the position of reviewing exactly what the Minister of Health has done, and the conclusions the local authorities have come to, and are they, notwithstanding these facts, in complete agreement with the Minister of Health on the proposals he is now making? If they are, and they like to call that a 15 years' guarantee, I have no objection as to the exact phrases which are used.
  But in order that we may not be accused in this House of bad faith hereafter, it is very necessary, in the interests of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that we should be perfectly clear as to the arrangements we are making to-day. If this arrangement is made in the full light of the facts, I desire honourably to fulfil, as far as one can, any arrangement that has been made with the trade. I regard it as a most important matter for the trade themselves that there should be an exact agreement between the Minister of Health and the trade, and that there should be no doubt hereafter as to the terms and conditions which have been agreed. The Minister of Health may say, "This is a 15 years' guarantee, and the trade are in agreement with me. I hope he will say that. Inasmuch as we are going to pass this Financial Resolution, I should like to know what exactly is the arrangement that the right hon. Gentleman has made with the trade on the other side.
  I have read carefully and heard every statement made by the Minister of Health on this matter, and I do not understand what part of this building trade report he has accepted and what part he has refused. All that the Minister of Health has committed himself to, as far as this is concerned, is to call this a very valuable report. But nowhere in his speech or in any document have I seen what part of this report he agrees to and what part he refuses. Therefore I want him to tell us exactly what is the arrangement between himself and the trade and what he is going to give them and what they are going to give him.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) made an appeal to the Committee for us all to say exactly what we mean, and I think that the position is one about

  1345
  which there should not be the slightest doubt. I can imagine nothing more unfortunate than that an impression should be left on the minds of either the operatives or the manufacturers that this Committee was not intending to honour its pledge. The basis of the Government's agreement with the building industry is the delivery of so many houses per annum. The pledge of the Government, to the industry is for fifteen years up to the number of 2,500,000 houses. If they honour their side of the agreement, Parliament will honour its side of the agreement. I said in the course of my negotiations that when we reached this stage in the discussion I would ask Members of the House of Commons who were not prepared to give that 15 years' pledge to the building industry and to honour it after it had been given, to go into the opposite Lobby and indicate to the country that they do not intend in future to honour their pledge. But I want it to be clearly understood to-night that if the building industry will deliver these houses to the number laid down, and on the conditions of supply laid down, this country is prepared to accept these houses for 15 years. I do not need to say anything else. The Amendment, if adopted, would destroy the whole basis of our policy and we would withdraw the proposal. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Withraw!"
  Captain ELLIOTT: I am not going to be shouted down. I have 4,330 reasons in my majority for what I wish to say.
  Mr. SUNLIGHT: I would like to have your ruling, Sir, as to whether, after Minister has replied upon the Amendment, a private Member can rise to continue the discussion. My particular reason for asking this is that I understand that, according to the agreement made last night, this matter has to be disposed of by a quarter past eight o'clock. I was hoping to be able to make a speech in the Debate, and if the hon. and gallant Member opposite were to detain the Committee that would not be possible.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
  Captain ELLIOT: I wish to put a point of great importance. There are three parties to this pledge. There are the
  1346
  building industry, the House of Commons and the local authorities. The building industry is committed, and this House is committed, and we are told that the local authorities reserve the right to suspend building operations for any reason whatever at any time, and that such suspension shall not involve the imposition of any burden on the rates. The building industry is therefore in the hands of the local authorities. If for any reasons the local authorities suspend building operations, these houses will not be delivered, and the guarantee of the Minister will not come into force. This would automatically bring about the failure of the delivery of houses, and therefore a failure of the pledge which the building industry had got, without any fault on the part of the building industry.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: If the hon. Member had followed my speech yesterday he would have heard me explain in reply to a question from the Front Bench opposite exactly what the position was. I stated that if half the local authorities who required houses were to apply during this year it would require all the available labour and material to meet their demands, that during the earlier years we would learn who the defaulting local authorities were, and that, having learned that, Section 4 of the Act of 1919, giving power to the Ministry of Health to go in and act in place of the defaulting local authorities would apply, and the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) rose in his place, with all his knowledge of the Ministry of Health and the activities of the local authorities, and asked if I was really suggesting that there was any danger of the local authorities not ordering as many houses as would fulfil the Parliamentary pledge. I told him that I had no doubt but that as we wanted a water-tight arrangement in this matter we had in the last resort the power that the State, which was giving the guarantee, could go in and build the houses.
  Captain ELLIOT: May I ask where does the statement come in that such suspension should not involve the imposition of any burden upon the rates? The Section of the Housing Act gives the Minister power to go in and execute the work at the expense of the local authority, but now the local authority has obtained a pledge from the Minister that he will

  1347
  not take any steps which will involve the imposition of any burden on the rates.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: That is in the case of a local authority that has been doing its duty, but has been compelled to stop because of a rise in prices. I have been referring to local authorities who were not doing their duty, who were not building, and in that case the State would step in.
  Captain ELLIOT: Who is to be the judge? I remember that the local authority in Plymouth were threatened by the then Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health, during the operation of the Addison scheme, that the Ministry would step in and execute the work at the expense of the local authority. Who is to be the judge whether the local authority is unreasonably dropping building operations because it does not, want to build, or justifiably dropping them because of some rise in the cost of building?
  Sir F. WISE: I would like to know whether this Financial Resolution has the full endorsement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have not seen him in his place, because I feel that if it has his approval it makes a great difference with respect to the Amendment before us. I feel that three years would be a sufficient commitment for this country to undertake at the present time. If you eliminate the subsidy entirely the actual amount of money that will have to be raised to build these houses is, on the average, £83,000,000 a year. That can only be raised out of the savings of the people. Last year, roughly, your savings were about £200,000,000 a year, and during that time the amount of money put into British securities was £65,000,000. I am most anxious that the Minister of Health should realise that the commitments which he is making carry this on for 15 years instead of carrying out the suggestion embodied in the Amendment of reducing the period to three years.
  Lord E. PERCY: This raises a very vital question. The Minister has just made a most extraordinary statement. He has written a letter to the local authorities saying that he agrees to this proposition, that any local authority is to have full power at its discretion to
  1348
  suspend building operations for any reason whatever, at any time, and that such suspension should not involve the imposition of any burden upon the rates or other penalty, and now the Minister says that in order to carry out his pledge to the building trade he will be obliged if the local authorities, for reasons which he does not think good or the building trade does not think good, suspend building operations to an extent which interferes with the programme to go in and build for the local authorities, and charge it on the rates. With whom are we going to break faith? With the local authorities or the building industry? Here are two absolutely incompatible arrangements?
  Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order, or rather on a point of procedure. I was under the impression—perhaps I am wrong—that this two days' Debate was agreed to on certain conditions, and now we find repetition after repetition taking place.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has been reading a letter.
  Mr. PALMER: Seeing that this Amendment deals with the period of years, is it in order to traverse the whole Debate again?
  Lord E. PERCY: I have not been traversing the Debate, I only want to safeguard this Committee. I do not want to embarrass the Minister or the Committee in coming to a conclusion, but I do say that unless the Minister can, when he brings the Bill before the House on Second Reading, give a clear explanation of this inconsistency, it will become a question for every hon. Member who values his pledged word to think very carefully whether the Minister is asking him to do a thing which is honest or dishonest. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Neil MacLean.
  Mr. SUNLIGHT: Is my Amendment out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I propose to select is that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Govan.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in line 6, after the word "thirty-nine," to insert the words,
  "and which are let at the rents which normally obtained for houses of that type on

  1349
  and prior to the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
  8.0 P.M.
  I have put down this Amendment to be definitely assured that certain things were unlikely to arise if the Housing Bill under this Financial Resolution were passed by this House. I move this Amendment in order to get an assurance from the Minister that the passing of this Resolution and the Bill based upon it is not going to stereotype or standardise, for the 15 years that the guarantee is to be given, the increased 40 per cent. on rents which are at present paid for houses of a particular type. If I get that assurance and am told that there is an early possibility of revising the increased rents that are paid, I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I move the Amendment in order that the public outside as well as ourselves may have an assurance of that kind.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: If I were to accept the Amendment, I would be actually going out of the way to charge a higher rent for the houses than the Government propose to charge. We do not propose to take comparable houses as the basis of our rents. We want to provide for the working class better houses than they are occupying to-day, at the same rents as they are paying for those inferior houses. The Amendment will defeat my object.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "paying the same rent as they are paying for inferior houses." Are we to take it that the rents which these people are to-day paying for the inferior houses, with the 40 per cent. increase added, are to be the rents charged for the houses built under this Financial Resolution? Will the Minister answer?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have nothing to add to my statement.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir GEORGE McCRAE: I beg to move, in line 18, after the word "provision," to insert the words,
  "in the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices."
  I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, because it is calculated to strengthen his hands. There can be no doubt that the crux of the housing question is in the supply of labour. The
  1350
  Minister told us yesterday that, compared with 1921, there was a deficiency in bricklayers to-day of 25,000. The number of bricklayers in 1914 was 73,000, and in 1924 it had fallen to 53,000, showing a shortage of 20,000. In 1914 the plasterers numbered 19,400, and in 1924 the total had fallen to 13,900. If we take Scotland alone, there are to-day 60,000 fewer men employed in the building trade than were employed in 1913, and at the beginning of this year there were actually 8,000 fewer men employed on horsing schemes in Scotland than were employed a year ago. We are all agreed that something must be done to augment the supply of labour. We have the proposals which have been made by the House Building Committee, but these are entirely inadequate, because the House Building Committee reports that, after effect has been given to them, only some 50,000 additional houses can be erected in the first year, having regard to the labour supply. The Report, to which I have referred, says that special provision was, however, to be given to applicants who have had previous experience of the trade, i.e., building trade labour. I ask the Minister specifically what assurance he has as to the number of men that we are likely to get from this source. Apprentices will not help us in the present difficulty. Have any figures been given to the Minister as to the number of men who are likely to be taken on by the trade from the source I have mentioned?
  The consequence of all our difficulties is that we have had to restrict our housing schemes. I am sure that the Minister has made strenuous efforts to find a good housing policy. The provisions that he has presented to the House are a profound disappointment, not only to himself, but to all those who are interested in housing, because all the additional houses that can be got out of this scheme are, for the first year 50,000 and for the second year 70,000. The building committee estimate that there will be 50,000 the first year, then 60,000 and 70,000. What is the position? We have been talking about 200,000 new houses being required each year. We know that Scotland is included in this, and, if we deduct the figure applicable to England, we find that in Scotland under the Wheatley scheme we are to get for the three years only about 8,000 houses a year, or less than we were getting under the Addison

  1351
  scheme. There is one further point I wish to emphasise. Having regard to the supply of labour at present, I am sure that this increased subsidy will not give us any more houses and that, as under the Addison scheme, the subsidy will go simply in increased cost. With regard to material, I defy the Minister to have any system of control which can prevent prices going up, because the prices apply not only to houses, which are a small part of the building trade, but to all the other work connected with the building industry, apart from houses.
  Mr. VIVIAN: I formally support the Amendment.
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): With the permission of the Committee, I rise to draw attention to an understanding that was reached yesterday. Members of all parties are always ready to observe the conditions of an arrangement made, particularly when, as in this case, there will be numerous opportunities later on of discussing the subjects covered by this Resolution. Yesterday, in announcing an extension of the time for the consideration of this Resolution, I stated that to-day would be given up to 8.15, and that instead of seeking a Division last night at 11 o'clock—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. We wish to break no arrangement. If the Minister of Health will be good enough to reply and accept the Amendment, there will be no more proposed. If be does not accept the Amendment, we will have a Division, and then he can get the Resolution.
  Mr. CLYNES: I rose not without cause, but I am glad to observe the willingness which is just announced. It was universally accepted by the House that the decision on the Main Resolution would be taken to-day.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I am not at all sure that the Amendment adds anything to the Resolution. If hon. Members desire to make additional arrangements for the scheme coming to an end, there is no reason why that point should not be brought up on the Bill, but I can assure them that the Amendment will add nothing to the Financial Resolution
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Why not accept it?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is no time to discuss it now.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
  Sir G. McCRAE: No. I had hoped that the Minister would accept it.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "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, in the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices, 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 there-to or connected therewith."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  AFFORESTATION.
  Mr. FREDERICK MARTIN: I beg to move,
  "That this House urges upon the Government the desirability of extending the operations of the Forestry Commission and, generally, of promoting the interest of Afforestation, as a means of increasing the capital assets of the country, providing employment in a healthy and remunerative occupation, and, particularly in the Highland and certain other Scottish counties, facilitating the settlement of smallholders on an economic basis."
  I should, in a sense, apologise for interrupting the very important discussion on housing, but I think there is some appropriateness in the subject of the Resolution. I am inviting the House to turn its attention for some time from the problematic houses of the future to the traditional habitations of our progenitors, and I venture to suggest that the housing shortage must have begun when our progenitors forsook the tree-tops and took to the caves, and that it has been getting more and more troublesome ever since. The Resolution covers the field adequately, and I hope it will have the unanimous support of all parties in the House. I feel indeed that I am forcing an open door, because I recollect that both the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) spoke of afforestation a few days ago as a subject demanding immediate attention and one which, if properly tackled, would help to solve the unemployment problem. In my short experience, however, I have learnt to be very suspicious as to the fate of any project which is described as not being a party question. I think it will be found that when a matter becomes everybody's business it becomes nobody's business. For a long time this has been the case with afforestation. I do not believe any great reform was ever carried in this country until it had become a vital party question in which the credit, the reputation, and perhaps the whole future of one of the great parties was involved. The party system is, for the time being, in a peculiar state, and I think this is an opportunity for all parties to co-operate heartily on a matter in which there is nothing to divide them.
  Some years before the War and before the State was taking any interest in afforestation those most keenly anxious to advance forestry, in Scotland at all
  1354
  events, were mainly hon. Members belonging to the party opposite, and I think it due to them to say that the great landowners in the Highlands showed a very public-spirited example to the nation in the way in which they themselves tried to advance afforestation, while they also preached the advantages of afforestation to the whole country. The question at the moment is in a very favourable position. The Forestry Commission which was set up after the War is, I believe, one of the few remaining parts of the great machinery of reconstruction which was started at that time. The Commission is a statutory body and in a sense is not under the direct control of the House of Commons, but fortunately it is very ably represented in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), and I hope he will have an opportunity in the course of this evening of informing the House as to the activities of the Commission. I say at once that I am not an expert in forestry, because I feel certain that if I did not say it the House would understand it before I finished. But I have for many years taken a deep interest in this question, particularly from the point of view of its effects in relation to land settlement in Scotland as well as other parts of the country.
  The Commission has, I believe, been handicapped in its activities through lack of money, and I would ask the Ministers responsible to bear in mind that in dealing with a question like afforestation they must take a very long view. A system of annual grants varying in amount from year to year is of no use in this matter. There must be a policy laid clown and stuck to courageously over a long period of years. That is of the essence of the finance of afforestation. A vast amount of the forest in this country is the property of private individuals, but it is no longer possible for the State to look to the private landowner entirely to finance and manage afforestation for the benefit of the State. It may be that in this matter we shall have to embark upon a very large scheme of land nationalisation and the purchase of certain lands by the State. For myself, I am not at all afraid of that process, because I believe that the true Liberal point of view in the matter is that we regard nationalisation, not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of expediency. I think that if

  1355
  nationalisation can be proved, as applied to any industry, to serve the interests of the State better than private enterprise, I, as a Liberal, should heartily welcome nationalisation.
  In case there be, on the other side of the House, any prejudice against nationalisation at any cost, may I remind my hon. Friends opposite and others that the case was very explicitly given away by a spokesman of that party in a debate in this House only a very few weeks ago. We had a debate here one evening, raised by my hon. and gallant Friend and colleague the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood), on. the question of the resumption of small holdings, and we were very anxious that the process of resumption should be stopped by legislation, and from the other side the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson), who was Solicitor-General for Scotland in the last Government, and who presumably spoke with authority, said, quite truly, that if you were to prevent resumption entirely, you would render many estates unsaleable. Therefore, he was rather of the opinion that in those circumstances the only fair thing would be for the State to acquire the small holdings and to become itself the landlord, and his views on that subject were very ably supported by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl), so that apparently nationalisation is a good thing when it suits your own particular interest, and I am glad to welcome that as a concession to the Liberal point of view, which is that nationalisation is not to be opposed when it can be justified on the ground of the welfare of the State.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: What I think said was that, as the State had given the smallholder security of tenure, the State should help the smallholder to purchase his holding at a fair valuation.
  Mr. MARTIN: I accept the correction, but I am pretty certain that at all events the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen suggested that the State should acquire the holdings and should then either few them to the small landholders or help the small landholders to acquire them. At all events, the State was to become the landlord in the meantime. On the question of afforestation, I think State purchase will be necessary in some cases. In Scotland, at all events,
  1356
  if you will examine the record of the Forestry Commission, you will find that the amount of land which was intended to be purchased on the lines of the Acland Report has not, in fact, been reached. The Treasury, I understand, is not at all favourable to the purchase of estates by the Forestry Commission. On the other hand, in Scotland a very large number of landowners are not in a position to feu their estates, but if you are to hand the management of the estate for afforestation over to a public Department, then they are prepared to sell outright. So I hope that one of the things that the Government will consider in this matter is the giving of powers to the Forestry Commission—or, if they choose to set up a new Department, to whatever Department they entrust the work—to purchase the land, in Scotland, at all events, if there is no other way of getting it.
  The important thing, of course, is to get the land planted. There is an idea abroad—and I rather thought the Prime Minister adhered to it the other day—that you can plant all the mountains of this country with trees. I do not know that he deliberately meant to convey that impression. I think he was probably rather carried away by his poetical language at the moment. But while that is so, while there is a large amount of land that cannot be planted with trees, there is a large amount, millions of acres, in this country which produce nothing now, but which could be turned into profitable woodland. I remember, a good many years ago, when this superstition that the mountains could be planted was in vogue, that a certain Scottish nobleman took a party of very strenuous advocates of afforestation over his estate, and I fancy that he managed to convince them that not even the most courageous tree of any description would grow on the top of some of the mountains there. But leaving that aside, there is still a very large amount of land that could be planted with trees. There are large tracts of land which at present carry a few sheep, only one sheep to the acre, which could certainly be turned into profitable woodland.
  But I will leave the details to other speakers who know more about the subject than I do. What I want to base my case upon is the importance of afforestation as the necessary complement to the

  1357
  solution of the small landholders' question in Scotland and in England. The small holding in Scotland—and I know something about it, and I daresay the same is the case in England—in many cases is not a profitable proposition. It involves on the part of the small landholder very severe work, and the living that he gets out of it is very meagre indeed. There are, of course, specially favoured places, where the soil is good and the markets are readily available, where the small holding can be made into quite a profitable undertaking, but there are many other places, where the land is not so good, where the markets are out of reach, and where for other reasons the fact is that the small holding by itself is not attractive and is not profitable. The scheme which I venture to think the State ought to pursue generally in respect of afforestation, both by the encouragement of the private woodland and by the purchase or feuing of land on its own behalf, is to plant trees only in such parts as will grow nothing but trees, and wherever possible, where there is an arable patch of whatever size, to leave it as arable ground, whereon the small landholder can have his place erected. Providence has so arranged matters that the work of the woodland has to be done in the winter time, when the work on a farm is light. If you can provide this subsidiary occupation for the small landholder, you are going to make all the difference to him between a life of hard work and poverty and a life which offers the prospect of an adequate reward for his labour.
  There are many reasons—military and others—why we should pursue this policy of afforestation, but, after all, the most important crop that the country districts produce is the people who are reared on the land. There was at one time, as I remember, an idea that if you pursued afforestation properly, you would be able to take the unemployed from the cities and plant them on the country in ideal sylvan conditions. I do not want to put the case nearly so high as that, because it is true, of course, that a great many of those who have, been brought out of the towns are unfitted for rural occupations, and, as we say in Scotland, they would probably not be able to make "saut to their kail" if put on the land. There is another very large section in the towns who have drifted in from the
  1358
  country, men who have been attracted into the towns for various reasons, who, if a decent living were offered to them in the country, would be very glad to go back after the glamour of the town had worn off. While I do not say that afforestation will provide work for the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed in the towns, I do think that, if properly managed, it might attract back to the country a large number of those who, for one reason or another, were foolish enough to leave the country for the town in their earlier years.
  The small holdings problem has been studied very closely during the last few years, and particularly in the light of the settlement of ex-service men on the land. I am convinced—and many who know this problem much better than I are also convinced—that unless you do something in the way I am advocating of running afforestation and small farming together, you will not be able to make an economic success either of the ex-service man's small holding or any other small holding. The action and reaction of the two things are greater than might be expected at first sight. If you supply the smallholder with an occupation for his spare time in winter, you will also enable him more efficiently to work his holding. I believe on the Continent, for example, small landholders are able to equip their holdings comparatively better than our own people, because, for instance, they can afford to keep a horse, which they can hire to the State during the period of work in the forest, and then they have the use of the horse for the work of their own farm. In that way you very much increase not only the remuneration of the small landholder, but increase his sense of independence and security, which is a great matter.
  There is one aspect of the resettlement question which I should like to bring before the House. I think the time has come when it might be advisable to grant to the Forestry Commission, or whichever body may be charged by the new Government with this duty, powers to erect forest holdings. They would be very small holdings, where there would be enough land, perhaps, for a man to keep a, cow and raise such vegetables as he required for his own house, but perhaps not enough to sell. His main occupation would be afforestation, but if you give a

  1359
  man a house and a small piece of land, you would really be introducing a new class of holder we have not got at this moment. A comparison between the raising of sheep and the raising of trees is very interesting. I believe Professor Somerville pointed this out. In certain districts one acre of land supports one sheep, and 1,000 acres of land support one shepherd, Properly dealt with in afforestation, and properly planted, 1,000 acres would support 10 men instead of one man, but if you imagine this scheme going on properly, and many thousands of acres being planted, you could increase the population on the soil not by 10 to one, but in a much greater ratio, because you would have all the subsidiary trades, the saddler, the blacksmith, the baker, and all the other people whose services would be required. So that as it went on, and forestry developed, you would have a very much larger population on the soil than can be proved by statistics, or problematical statistics on paper, before the work has been commenced.
  With regard to the Forestry Commission itself, I have learnt during the past few days that a certain number of people are very critical of that Commission. I daresay that the experience of many hon. Members is the same as mine, that when you put down a Motion on the Paper you find that there are a large number of people throughout the country of whom you have never heard before, who are very anxious to put their services at your disposal, and to give you a free course of education by correspondence. I should like to mention two things that have come to my notice, and which might be dealt with by someone who knows in the course of the Debate. On the matter of forestry education, the criticism is made that the Forestry Commission is training people at three or four schools in the country, while there are skilled foresters unemployed. If that be so, I think it ought to be seen to, and while industries are in the state they are at present, we should be careful to employ all the skilled labour that exists before training more labour that we cannot absorb. I do not know what is the position with regard to the higher education of the scientific foresters, but I have had one complaint from a gentleman whose acquantance I had not made before, to the effect that he under-
  1360
  took scientific training because he thought forestry was to be a. very great thing in the immediate future, and he has been unable to obtain any kind of situation, although he possesses the necessary scholastic qualifications. That is a matter, I think, that might he looked into.
  On the general question, I think there must he complete agreement that this is a matter that has been greatly neglected in the past, and the lesson of the War is that we must go on at once. The Forestry Commission, I believe, has in view the bringing of afforestation to such a pitch that in case of war we should have three years supply of standing timber in this country, and it is almost unnecessary, I think, to remind the House how vital is an adequate timber supply to a country in time of war, and of the extraordinary difficulty of bringing timber to this country during war, because timber is a very bulky article. If you put the case of food as represented by one sheep on the acre, against the number of trees that might be grown, you find that if all the afforestable land in Scotland were planted, and the necessary sheep abolished for the time being, you could, in time of war, repair the shortage of mutton by, I think, four or five shiploads coming in from abroad, whereas if you had growing timber on the land that you would otherwise have to import in war, 400 or 500 vessels would be required to bring it to this country. So that there is really no quarrel between the sheep and the tree, so far as the national interest is concerned. I am sorry to say the sheep has not a look in in a comparison of that sort. The woodland crop is vastly more important, and when it comes to the question of the afforestable portions of deer forests, of course, the case in favour of the tree is stronger than ever.
  I remember, just before the War, a friend of mine who was very greatly interested in forestry, and was engaged in it as his daily work, brought to this country one of the most eminent authorities on forestry in Germany, and took him all over the Highlands of Scotland. The opinion of this eminent authority was that for the growth of certain kinds of useful timber this country had advantages over any of the Continental countries, where trees, in fact, were profitably grown at an altitude where the winds were higher and colder than in parts of this country. He

  1361
  was shocked at the amount of land that we had lying waste in this country. During the War, of course, we discovered an interest in the subject, and we got to know a great more about afforestation than ever we had known before. I do not think many of us before that realised how extremely valuable the woodlands were to this nation. Let me mention a case which, I think, will appeal to all of us, especially after the discussions that we have been having as to the cost of new roads, up-keep of the roads, the high cost of the new houses, and rent and rates, and so on. In one district in France, namely Bordeaux, where the woodlands are publicly owned, the revenue from the woodlands is sufficient to pay the. local rates—that is, the rates for education, for the upkeep of the roads, and so on.
  Undoubtedly it will be a long time before we arrive at that state of affairs in this country. Already, however, the municipalities are doing a certain amount of afforestation. This is another direction in which encouragement should be given by the State. Some of the municipalitites do own land which is afforestable and which they require for the purposes of their water supply. They could plant these areas, and in some cases are doing something in that direction. They might be encouraged in this by the House of Commons. In course of time, if these municipalities go on, they may be in the happy position of the people of Bordeaux and be able to live minus rates for education, roads, and so on. It is for us to apply ourselves to the discussion of the practical details of a measure to effect what I have been advocating. I consider myself very fortunate in having this opportunity for bringing this matter before the House. As I have suggested, it is a matter in which we can all co-operate without doing any violence whatever to our own political predilections. As to how far and in what way the State should help in this matter. It would be possible to draw a very rosy picture of Scotland under such a regime; but I forebear. I do, however, think it is a matter on which we have lost a good deal of time already, and I do hope the Government will keep in its mind the fact that this is a thing which must be done, and at once!
  1362
  A long view is necessary. If you are to make provision for unemployment those in charge of the Forestry Department ought to know what you are prepared to do at the very beginning of the year. They should also have the necessary financial support. In that case they would be able to do a considerable amount of work during the winter season. It is no good doing the thing by fits and starts, or taking it up at short notice. It is a subject on which, as I say, we can all co-operate with the Government. I hope that as a result of this Debate, the Government will take its courage in both hands in this matter, because, although they have only been in a few months, this is one of the obvious directions in which there is a partial solution of the unemployment question and one which ought to have been taken in hand at the very outset. I am quite certain that if the Government will embark upon a courageous policy in regard to afforestation they will have the support of people, both inside and outside this House, who have the welfare of the country at heart.
  Sir COURTENAY MANSEL: The words which fell from the Prime Minister on the subject of afforestation in last Thursday's Debate left no doubt in the minds of his hearers that the Government fully appreciate the importance of afforestation in connection with unemployment and resettlement. Of course it is the agricultural smallholders who will carry out the necessary work in afforestation schemes. The task of the permanent afforestation staff will merely be of a supervisory nature. That, of course, has always been so. The evidence given before the recent Royal Commission said:
  "That there are no permanent forest workmen in Germany. Work in the German forests in the greater part of the country is done in winter, and they are the same men who cultivate the land—smallholders. In a great part of Germany and France the same men who do the work in the forests in the winter work in the fields in the summer."
  Our condition in regard to afforestation at the present time is really a disgrace to a great country. We have per head of the population less forest land than any country in Europe. We are more denuded of forests than any country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark and Greece. We obtain 95 per Gent of our supplies of timber from abroad. We pay £100,000,000 per year for foreign

  1363
  timber. Other countries do not enjoy the benefit of our mild, insular climate, and consequently their climates produce most serious consequences. They have devastating floods in the wet season, and droughts in the dry season. We are saved from that by the good fortune of our insular position. But bad as our position is, however, there are some compensations. We have got our feet in the right path, and I think our feet have been in the right path ever since the Royal Commission was constituted.
  Afforestation is no longer the waif and stray, the neglected Cinderella of the other Ministries. It has now in charge of its interests men who are certainly experts, and who view the whole problem with knowledge and sympathy. I hope, however, they will not fail to urge upon the Government the necessity of a proper survey of the land for afforestation before the work is undertaken. I am afraid from an answer to a question on the subject of an ecological survey, that that point is not sufficiently appreciated. I am sure it is an essential preliminary to any scheme of afforestation. I desire on this very important subject to address myself to one point in particular, and that is the financial aspect on which afforestation is undertaken. I am far from thinking that the financial side is the most important aspect of afforestation. Important as it undoubtedly is, I should consider even more important the safeguarding of our supplies of timber. Important in time of peace this is possibly vital in time of war. I should consider even more important the re-settlement of our rural areas. I should consider even more important still the proper, full and economic use of the land.
  I should not urge that purely financial reasons should be allowed to over-ride agricultural reasons in the administration of an afforestation scheme. For example, I do not think shorter rotations should be adopted in accordance with the theory of indicating percentages, because the rate of interest has gone up, and I think the species of trees should be carefully selected in accordance with the sylvicultural capacities of the land to be afforested, and not on estimates of the state of the timber market at the end of a rotation. Many hon. Members of this House are also business men, and I think some good reasons can be put forward
  1364
  showing the real value of capital invested in afforestation. I hope hon. Members will look at this problem with a long vision of the kind which was shown when we bought the Suez Canal shares. I hope they will be able to look upon a great afforestation scheme as an economically sound sinking fund for a portion of the great National Debt that is weighing our country down.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) rather astonished the public by stating that he paid his election expenses out of capital. From the point of view of forestry, the whole world is living upon its capital, and it is existing in a thoroughly spendthrift manner. A work on the forestry resources of the world, recently published under the authority of the United States Forestry Department, estimated the world's income in timber at 38,000,000 cubic feet and the expenditure at 56,000,000 cubic feet. What is the natural result of this spendthrift kind of policy? It is that the world's position is materially affected, and the prices of timber as the supply goes down are gradually rising. They call in evidence the testimony of Mr. Alexander Howard, who says
  "Within my own experience I have known the rapid change from the extravagance of wealth to the leanness of poverty, which is shown by a comparison between the imports of timber from the Baltic 40 years ago and those received to-day. At that time it was possible to produce 75 per cent. of 9-inch and 11-inch and the remainder only in smaller sizes, whereas to-day it is hard to get 25 per cent. of 9-inch, hardly any 11-inch at all, and the remainder in smaller sizes, since the trees are not large enough to yield any bigger average. Gone also are those supplies of beautiful walnut, yellow pine, white oak and poplar which came to us so abundantly from North America."
  Perhaps it will be said that although the resources of foreign countries which supply us with timber are diminishing, yet the British Empire possesses inexhaustible stores of timber. Let us take the case of Canada because that is undoubtedly one of the countries of the world that is rich in timber resources. The United States at the present moment is taking 72·6 per cent. of Canada's exports and we take 24·2 per cent and the other countries of the world 3 per cent. The consumption of timber by the United States is extraordinarily large. They

  1365
  use not only more wood than any other country in the world, but more than three-quarters of the whole world's consumption. They are beginning to feel the pinch and they are getting alive to the danger of the situation. Their experts have reported upon the growing scarcity and mounting price of timber in the United States, and they say:
  "It is obvious that the present situation cannot continue indefinitely with consumption so much in excess of growth, and no provision whatever for subsequent timber crops on the greater part of the cut-over lands. More adequate measures must be adopted to increase the amount of growing timber, the rate of consumption must be cut down to a small fraction of the present rate, or the United States will have to import enormous quantities of wood. It is probable that all three thing will happen in some degree. The surplus of exports over imports has been steadily dwindling for several years, and is likely to give way to a surplus of imports within a very short period. Imports of soft woods will come from Canada while hardwoods in ever-increasing quantity will be brought from tropical America, Africa and Asia."
  9.0 P.M.
  We are told by the United States authorities that our supplies of timber from Canada will be cut off and the United States will require all those great quantities of timber produced in British Columbia. I will now take the casse of Australia. You have there only the coastal areas with timber resources. She was never rich in soft woods, and they are now exhausted, although she still possesses very valuable hardwoods. In New Zealand, with only a population of 1,200,000 people, we find a very good example set to this country. I believe the rate of planting, under the present scheme on which our Forestry Commissioners are operating, is about 15,000 acres per annum, or 150,000 acres in 10 years. New Zealand plants 14,000 acres, and her resources are very great as compared with ours, and yet she is proposing a scheme of afforestation almost as great as our own at the present time, and she has realised, at any rate, the growing famine of timber that is threatening the world, and though they estimate that they have a stock of timber for 30 more years in their country, they have recently imposed legal checks on the export of timber, and it is now impossible to export timber from New Zealand without a licence from the Government. I do not think it is an exorbitant demand to ask the Government of this country to
  1366
  show as much prudence, determination, and foresight in defence of our interests and in adding to the assets of this country as the Government of New Zealand have done in defence of the interests of that country.
  Colonel COURTHOPE: I wish in the first place to congratulate the hon. Member who moved this Motion upon the admirable way in which he did so. Both the Mover and Seconder have advocated their proposal from two quite distinct and both quite admirable points of view with which I think we can all agree. He took the position of the smallholder as his main reason for advocating afforestation; and the Seconder of the Motion took a rather wider aspect, namely, that of finance. I want, if I may, to take a rather wider aspect still, and to ask the House to look at this question from the point of view of the urgent necessities of this country during the next, we will say, 50 years, rather than from the point of view of the smallholder or any other local point of view, though I entirely endorse what has been said upon those points. One of the best of the official publications which we have had in this country on the subject of afforestation is that which bears the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), and is commonly known, not only in this country, but by foresters throughout the world, as the Acland Report. It is an exceedingly valuable document, and it is upon that Report and its recommendations that the present—perhaps I should not say policy so much as authorisation—of the present Forestry Commission was founded.
  I only want to say two things about that Report, and I think it is important that the House should realise them. One is that, at the time that Report was drawn up, we were in the comparatively early stages of the War, and that, since that Report was drawn up, the best of our timber in this country was felled for war purposes. We had, at the time that the Acland Report was printed, nominally some 3,000,000 acres of woodland in this country. I say "nominally" with deliberation, because we all know that that figure includes very considerable areas which, although they might be woodlands in one sense, were not commercial woodlands at all; and we all know that, speaking in quite round

  1367
  figures—I am not going into statistics—one-third of that total, or about 1,000,000 acres, and the best 1,000,000 acres in the country, was more or less stripped for supply the needs of the nation during the War. I want, therefore, to make this point, that, if when the Acland Report was published there was urgent need for a certain minimum policy of planting in this country, the need when the Armistice was signed was many times greater. I do not think that that will be disputed by anyone.
  The Acland Report was based upon the assumed need of independence of imported supplies of commercial timbers during three years of war. We all hope, though none of us are prepared to assume, that we have not to face three years of war in the immediate future, and for the purpose of my argument to-night I am going to the other extreme, and am going to say, let us ignore the possibility of war, and consider what the future has in sight for us if we have 40, 50, or 60 years of peace. Last year there was held in Canada the Second Imperial Forestry Conference, the first having been held in 1920 in London, shortly after the conclusion of the War. I can recommend any hon. Member who is interested in forestry, and who has not already studied it, to read with care the Report of that Second Imperial Forestry Conference, held in Canada last year, and in particular those parts of it which deal with the world's supply of commercial soft woods. The hon. Member who seconded this Motion said with perfect truth that what we are concerned with are soft woods. I am not going to argue to-night with reference to the tropical hardwoods of the world. There are great quantities of them, at present we hardly know what; but. I cannot fancy the Minister of Health being so encouraging and optimistic about his housing schemes if the building operatives of the country were compelled within the next 20 years to use, not the commercial soft woods to which they are accustomed, but tropical hardwoods for the structural timbers of houses. Therefore, I am going to rule tropical hazdwoods out of my argument for the moment, and to consider commercial soft woods only. If one studies the Report of the Forestry Conference, one finds some very
  1368
  alarming figures—figures put forward by men whose right to speak on those subjects cannot be disputed—about the exhaustion of the commercial soft woods of the world.
  Mr. STURROCK: That is not a point in this Debate.
  Colonel COURTHOPE: I am making this point, and I think that you, Sir, will correct me if I am wrong.
  Mr. STURROCK: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me, may I put it that we are not discussing the particular qualities or kinds of wood, but the whole question of afforestation?
  Colonel COURTHOPE: If the hon. Member had exercised a little patience and self-control he would have realized—
  Mr. STURROCK: There is not the time available.
  Colonel COURTHOPE: I do not think I ever take up the time of the House unduly My point is, and if you, Sir, will allow me, I am going to make it, that the exhaustion of the timber supplies of the world is very rapid indeed, and, because it is so much more rapid than this House in the least realises, the hon. Member's interruption proves that he is entirely ignorant of it. It is so mach more rapid than the House realises, that the importance of this Motion is even greater than is represented by the urgent need of establishing smallholders in this country. I think that that is a reasonable point to take. If hon. Members will study the Reports of this Conference as to the rate of exhaustion of commercial soft woods, they will find that in the whole of North America the present rate of exhaustion of commercial soft woods will completely wipe out the virgin forests of Canada and North America within 25 years. I do not say that there is nothing coming on, but there is nothing to take the place of the virgin forests, and there will be a great hiatus in point of time between the exhaustion of the virgin forests, if the present rate of consumption goes on, and the maturity of the young forests which are coming on to take their place.
  But we have soft woods in other parts of the world than North America. Let us look at Europe. There are only three countries in the whole of Europe where the rate of exhaustion of commercial soft

  1369
  woods does not greatly exceed the annual increment of the forests. Those three countries are Sweden, which is an important one, Finland, which is fairly important, and Montenegro. I do not think we need bother much about Montenegro, but it is a fact that in every other country in Europe the exhaustion of commercial soft woods far exceeds the annual increment, that is to say, the growth of the forests. Taking the whole of the soft-wood forests of Europe together, on the best estimates that the best experts in those countries can make, it will take seventy years, at the present rate, to wipe out the commercial soft woods of Europe. What have we left? We have already heard with truth that there are no soft woods to talk about in Australia. There are soft woods in Asia, but not in parts of Asia which are accessible, and in fact I think I am not overstating the case when I say that outside Europe and North America the supply of commercial soft wood is so negligible as compared with the demand that we could ignore it altogether.
  What is the outlook? What does this mean for this country? We are great importers of commercial soft-wood timber. It is probably of greater importance to us that the world supply should be maintained than it is to any other country in the world and we shall be the first to feel the pinch when the shortage becomes acutely felt, as it must within a very few years. Country after country that we have been accustomed to look to for our supplies will be restricting their exports. The United States of America are doing it now. Not only are they sitting rather tight on their supplies, but they are importing a very large proportion of Canada's output and they are already beginning to compete with us in the Scandinavian market for commercial soft-wood timbers. I think we may practically rule North America out of the picture as far as our supplies in future are concerned. I do not mean to say that we shall not get a certain amount of expensive timbers from them, but for ordinary soft-wood commercial timbers we can rule North America out in a very few years time. I do not know where we are going to look for our supplies unless we succeed in finding some method of handling tropical hardwood or some products of the tropical forests, which admittedly are vast, to enable them to
  1370
  take commercially the place of some of the soft-woods which are used to-day. I do not fancy our people taking kindly to the handling and utilisation of tropical timber in place of the soft-woods they have at present. I hope I have not wearied the House by taking this rather wide aspect of the subject. I know I have annoyed one hon. Member, but that I cannot help. I hope the House will feel that it is of importance that the danger that faces the. world, and this country in particular, in respect of this very important essential of life should be brought to their notice. I feel myself that this danger is the strongest possible argument that can be advanced in favour of the Motion, which I am very pleased indeed to support.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: In supporting the Resolution I think, so far as the Debate has gone, we should be right in concluding that it will go through the House unanimously. I sincerely trust, if that does happen, that the Government will, as speedily as possible, give effect to the desire of the House, for two reasons. The question of re-afforestation dovetails into the problem of unemployment. We are on all sides of the House anxious to do something practical—at least, I presume that is correct—for dealing with the unemployed problem, and by re-afforestation we shall be doing something very effective in dealing with the problem, some of the hardships of which must be mitigated as speedily as possible. Therefore I trust that if the Resolution goes through unanimously, as I believe it will, the Government will do everything possible to help the Forestry Commissioners. I am very interested in this question, because I represent a constituency in which hundreds of acres of land have been denuded of trees during the period of the War. I have had a very favourable reply to a question I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton as to his anxiety to help us in all directions possible to get that land which was denuded of trees once more re-treed. I hope the Government are going to help me, at least, as one of their supporters to provide for those who are unemployed the work which can be provided in connection with re-afforestation in that part of Scotland. No one suggests, on this side of the House, that the whole of the mountains of Scotland are available for re-

  1371
  afforestation, but a Royal Commission sat in 1909 dealing with coast erosion and re-afforestation. It is reported that there were 9,000,000 acres of land available for re-afforestation in Great Britain of which approximately 5,000,000 acres were in Scotland. The Commission suggested the re-afforestation of 150,000 acres per annum. Under the Coalition Government we had reached a stage when they were doing their best to re-tree 10,000 acres per annum, but in the sacred name of economy expenditure in that direction was cut down, with the result that we reached a point when we were only dealing with approximately 5,000 acres per annum.
  We had the promise of the Prime Minister in dealing with unemployment quite recently that the desire of the Labour Government is to go in for afforestation to the extent of 30,000 acres per annum. The Afforestation Committee pointed out, as the result of the evidence they heard, that 150,000 acres per annum would provide work for 18,000 men annually, and that 18,000 men would also be occupied in incidental and subsidiary occupations and that there would be provided permanent employment for one man for every 100 acres which came under the scheme, rising to 90,000 men when the scheme was completed. Every 100 acres will provide work for 12 men, and if we really went in for a scheme of re-afforestation of 1,000,000 acres, it would provide permanent employment for 120,000 men directly. The indirect result would be that there would be subsidiary occupation for another 120,000 men, which means that by a really long-sighted scheme dealing with re-afforestation we should be able to provide employment permanently for 240,000 men. It will be quite a paying speculation. This is one thing in which we may go in for a scheme of nationalisation without interfering with the sacred ideals of hon. Members opposite who are so anxious to defend private enterprise. To go in for reafforestation means that you have to expend capital, and it may be 80 years before you get a return. As most of those who believe in capital want an immediate return, and as most of them will be dead in 80 years, this is a scheme which would greatly benefit our children and our childrens' children. Therefore, I suggest
  1372
  this is a scheme which lends itself to nationalisation.
  There was a report issued recently, and copied in the "Glasgow Herald," dealing with sylviculture in Germany, and in the evidence given before the Royal Commission we find that in 1908 no less than 74,662 were engaged in the State forests in Germany. In the evidence before the Royal Commission in connection with afforestation it was found that the forests of Germany provided employment for 1,000,000 men. That meant that men were engaged in producing something. Surely if we could apply the same principle here, it would be better than paying millions for men doing nothing. If a scheme of afforestation was necessary in 1909, it is more necessary now. If there were 9,000,000 acres available for afforestation in 1909, surely more acres are available now because of the acres that were denuded of trees because of our necessity during the War. In the county which I represent, not an acre of land is owned by a Labour individual. Very few acres are owned by Liberals. Most of the acres are owned by Tories, and if the Conservatives are anxious to prove their real sympathy with the unemployed, as they made us believe during the Debate on unemployment, then if those who own land privately refuse to place it at the disposal of the State and to allow us to get on with afforestation, it is up to the Government to take that land in the interests of re-afforestation in that county.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The question of afforestation is not exactly a woman's question, but as I come from a part of the world where a great deal of afforestation has been done over a good many years—for the past 100 years there has been a great deal of afforestation in that area—and as I have had occasion to see what afforestation can do for unemployment, particularly in regard to employing unskilled workers, I should like to say I very heartily support this Motion for several reasons:—from the point of view of increasing a very valuable and necessary asset to the country; from the point of view of giving the smallholder subsidiary employment which is so necessary if he is to make a fair living; and for the very urgent reason of providing employment for our unemployed workers.

  1373
  When one begins to consider what land should be afforested, there are certain difficulties one meets in the way. I think I may claim to have acquired for some years past the habit of never passing what appears to be a waste or un developed piece of land without wondering whether trees could be grown there, and I very often find, when I pass on that idea, that that land is already being occupied for sheep grazing, and that brings one to one of the real difficulties in the way, that a great deal of the most suitable land for afforestation is providing very good summer grazing for sheep. Although there may be people who would gladly see such land afforested, sometimes the sheep farmer does not quite see it from the same point of view. That is one difficulty. I think the solution is that where lower sheep grazing has been taken for small holdings, every effort should be made to secure the higher adjoining land for afforestation in the interest of the smallholders, but sometimes it is not easy to do at once everything one feels desirable. I also agree that the lower slopes of deer forests could be afforested. It has been rather a comfort to me to hear from hon. Members opposite that they recognise that certain parts of deer forests could not be suitable for that purpose. Personally, I have only too vivid a picture in my mind of trees some 50 years old grown at an altitude of 1,200 feet which do not come much above my waist. That is perhaps not very encouraging to people who wish to afforest above 1,000 feet. It is generally recognised that afforestation is not economic above that level. Another difficulty is the question of the soil. So much of our waste land in Scotland is peat, and you cannot grow trees on peat soil. I understand that the Forestry Commission are making experiments in this respect. If they can succeed in discovering any way out of that difficulty, it will be of great advantage to Scotland. That is one of the very real difficulties which stand in the way and which we must not forget.
  Of course also from the point of view of the private owner who wishes to carry out afforestation, there is the question of expense. The expense has risen considerably since the War, and it is a very difficult matter for many landowners to do as much planting as they would wish to do to replace the trees cut down during
  1374
  the War. They have necessarily had to face very much increased taxation. There has been an abnormal rise in the rates in many rural parts of Scotland, and the expense of planting, which now is about £12 an acre, is more than many landowners can afford, especially when they have to remember, as the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) reminded the House, that the planter may have to wait 80 years for his return. There is also the question of Death Duties having to he paid on the timber when it is cut, and that is very apt to wipe out any profit of say 3 per cent that otherwise might be made on the timber. I should like to suggest to hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that one way in which to help to encourage afforestation by private individuals would be if the land on which the timber is grown and the timber itself could be exempted from Death Duties. That would undoubtedly give a stimulus to afforestation through private initiative. Private afforesters may not be able to bring to bear on this subject all the scientific knowledge that the Forestry Commission no doubt can bring to bear on it Still there are many admirable men with practical knowledge as foresters, admirable foremen, and head foresters up and down Scotland, whose knowledge in this respect is of very great value to the State, and who are worthy of all encouragement.
  Another great difficulty which stands in the way of afforestation by private individuals is the question of railway rates. It is, unfortunately, too true that it often costs less to import timber into the country than to transport it to our coalfields. It is a very serious handicap to the private individual who wishes to afforest. I feel that if private owners could he given any help such as I have suggested, by way of exemption from Death Duties, it would he a very great help and stimulus and, after all, we want to get trees planted in any way we can. I am sure we recognise that this question is much too important to he treated only on theoretical grounds, and I am only too glad to know that the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles did not treat it in that sort of spirit. He seemed to welcome trees from whatever source they might come. That is my own view also. I am too anxious to see afforestation to mind whether it comes through

  1375
  private owners or the Forestry Commission. I want to see the trees planted. I should also like to support the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, (Mr. F. Martin), in regard to the question of continuity in this matter. Anyone who plants must necessarily take a long view, and for that reason I think that if an owner shows public spirit in planting, obviously it is essential for the State to have a clearly defined and continuous policy. The hon. Member opposite was rather inclined to suggest that there might be a sudden expansion of afforestation. I would like to submit that the expansion should not be too sudden or too violent. If you expand too suddenly you have no trees to plant, nor skilled foremen to superintend operations, and if you suddenly draw in your horns, then you are left with a whole lot of trees unplanted and with a loss of time and money spent on clearing the ground. Therefore I say this matter is one which requires very careful thought and continuity of policy. It is a matter of great importance to the country that not only should we repair the great loss in timber which had to be cut down during the War, but also that we should prepare for a possible famine in America and other parts. We also desire to provide the utmost possible employment—and healthy employment at that—for those who are unemployed, and for these reasons I hope the Government will do all they can to encourage afforestation by private individuals as well as to develop the work of the Forestry Commission.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I would like to draw special attention to one aspect of the policy especially referred to in the Resolution, and that is the manner in which the settlement of smallholders may be facilitated in connection with afforestation schemes. The House is no doubt acquainted with the admirable Report, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) on this subject, a Report which dealt in special terms with the policy of land settlement and held out rosy prospects in the future for facilitating the creation of small holdings. I would like to quote these words from that Report:
  "Forestry opens a new vista for the small holdings policy. It makes the creation of
  1376
  small holdings not only possible, but necessary in districts where the cost would otherwise be prohibitive."
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Report anticipated developing the policy of small holdings in such a way as would eventually settle on the soil a very large number of people. The figures given in the Report represented something like 120,000 persons, and, as one of my hon. Friends has just pointed out, a very much larger number might easily be settled under a well-thought-out scheme. The Committee also reported that they were
  "of opinion that the increase of population under such healthy conditions and with continuity of steady employment would in itself be a national asset of no mean value."
  I am sure the sentiment will be shared in all parts of the House. I was one of those who, when the Afforestry Commission was appointed, felt rather jealous that the forestry interests in Scotland were to be handed over to a Commission which was to deal with the whole United Kingdom. I felt that we in Scotland had a special interest in this matter and were entitled to have a special say in regard to the reafforestation of our country. Some of my doubts have not yet been altogether removed. Whether it was a wise thing to take from the Scottish Board of Agriculture the powers which it at that time possessed in regard to afforestation was I thought doubtful, in case it might be more difficult for the two bodies to carry out a joint policy of land settlement. I hope my right hon. Friend will be in position to reassure us on that point. I would like especially to urge that there should be an effort to develop the original policy of increasing the resident population in rural districts. That should be the permanent policy. There are difficulties with regard to employment for, although a large number of men and boys are employed during certain seasonal periods, the employment given is not of a permanent nature, and we have not seen these holdings rising up which we had hoped to have secured in various parts of the country.
  May I ask my right hon. Friend how it is that although such a large area of land has been acquired in recent years, and there must be a very considerable quantity which is unplantable and which is still fitted for forming small holdings, the Commissioners have not found it

  1377
  possible to use a portion of that land for small holdings. I drew attention last year to that matter and put a. question or two with regard to the actual number of individuals who had been settled on the land under afforestation schemes. I was told in reply that no holdings had been settled by the Board of Agriculture on lands absolutely acquired by the Afforestation Commission, but that on joint schemes of land settlement and afforestation entry had already been given to 40 new holdings and 11 enlargements up to the 3rd July, 1923. That seems to me a very small number for the period In another question which I put as to the number of dwelling houses erected by the Forestry Commission for occupation by their employés I was informed that only 20 had been erected and that the number of employés now settled with houses was only 50. That, too, seems to be a very small proportion of the number of men to be permanently settled in connection with these afforestry schemes. I would urge that it might be possible by some co-operation between the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Forestry Commission to enable schemes for the settlement of small land holders to be brought into operation in the various districts where afforestry operations are being conducted.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us an undertaking that more regard will be paid to the permanent settlement upon the soil of men who have been trained in forestry, and who are fit to take up permanent work as forestry officers, also that, at the same time, the smallholders, many of whom are anxiously awaiting settlement may be encouraged to settle in forestry districts, and that communal settlements may be established, with great advantage to the forestry schemes in regard to the supply of labour. May I also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the work that the Commission is doing, that the educational facilities should not be starved I notice from the last report that there has been a reduction in the number of apprentices at the forestry schools. Only 45 received training during last year, and one school has been closed. I hope that does not mean that there is less effort being put forth in the direction of training apprentices for forestry work.
  1378
  Finally, I would ask that we in Scotland, having a well-equipped forestry school of our own, and well-equipped university courses, should not be prevented by any action of the Forestry Commission from having our graduates getting their post-graduate forestry course in Scotland which will fit them for appointments abroad. I understand that the Forestry Commission have made it clear that the post-graduate course at Oxford is to be regarded as the finishing course which is to equip applicants for appointments abroad, and that the postgraduate course in Scotland is not regarded as adequate. I hope that graduates from Scotland will not have to go away from the country, but that they will be able to get their training through our own admirable forestry courses, which will equip them for appointments all over the world.
  Mr. REMER: I should like to join in the chorus of opinion demanding that there shall be the fullest co-operation of all political parties upon this subject, in order to find whether we can have a continuity of policy and an understanding which will avoid the possibility of rash expansion or rash cutting down of our forestry policy. I approach this question as one engaged in the industry. I have heard several hon. Members refer, as is done in the Resolution, to the suggestion that this industry can be placed upon an economic basis. I have heard hon. Members say that the growing of timber is profitable, and they have spoken of the woodlands of Bordeaux and Germany, where large profits have been made out of the growing of trees. It is just as well that we should examine why it is that afforestation is not profitable, as a general rule, in this country, while in other countries abroad it is profitable. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) has mentioned the very important question of railway rates. On round timber the rates are just about double the rates on sawn timber. If you import timber in a sawn condition from abroad, the railway rates are just half what they are on round timber. That is an important point, which should be brought to the notice of the House and of the railway companies, so that the matter may be rectified.
  A further difficulty in regard to round timber is that of the loading facilities on

  1379
  the railways. The loading of timber at railway stations is most primitive in this country. For example, you may have trees in Carnarvonshire which you want to take to a country station in that county. The railway company will send a travelling crane from Chester, leaving at 8 o'clock in the morning, and after having been shunted at various places in order to allow expresses to pass, it may arrive at about half-past eleven, and at 2.30 it leaves, and you never see that train again for six weeks. The result is that the timber is on the station, depreciating, and interest on the money represented is running on, so that it is utterly impossible for the owner of the trees to get the full value out of them which they should secure.
  There is also the question of the extraordinary traffic on the roads. The Noble Lady has referred to the question of Death Duties being paid on standing timber, which is a very important point. This standing timber also pays rates. Surely after having grown the trees, the grower should be allowed to bring them along the roads, having paid rates on the trees, without having the local council or county council coming upon him to pay damages for the extraordinary traffic which is caused through the haulage of the trees over the roads. There are many other ways, besides the removal of the disabilities to which I have referred, by which we could secure a profitable growing of trees in this country, and a greater acreage of trees under cultivation. We must remember that the natural resources of this country. are not such as would allow trees to be dealt with as cheaply as in other countries. We have not the great rivers in this country down which we can float the timber, as they do for many hundreds of miles in Canada, the United States of America, Riga, Latvia, and other great timber countries. In those countries, trees are floated down the rivers for two or three hundred miles.
  I approach this question as a national question, and I hope that all parties will be got together and adopt a national scheme. Though I am in opposition to nationalisation in principle, I realise that the great thing is to grow the trees, and am not very much concerned whether they are grown by the Forestry Commission or by private enterprise. If we can
  1380
  approach this matter from the national standpoint and try to find a means by which the national emergency of which we have heard can be averted, it will be all to the good. As a practical man, however, I do not place much reliance on what professors say as to the future position of our timber supplies in this country or in other countries. Twenty years ago I was told that in ten years there would be no more ash trees in the whole of the United Kingdom, but in the greatest demand that this country ever had for ash, during the War, for aeroplane purposes, we were able to meet the demands. Today we are cutting down English ash trees to a very considerable extent. I hope this Resolution will be passed and that we shall approach the matter from the national standpoint, and that all parties will combine to bring about the growing of trees.
  Mr. G. BARKER: It gives me great pleasure to support the Motion. I come from one of the most beautiful counties in England—the Country of Monmouthshire, a county which, during the War, was denuded of much of its beauty by the remorseless removal of trees. There is a great deal of unemployment in this county and it would be an excellent means of reducing the number of unemployed if the Government would replant these vacant sites, and add to their beauty and utility. I am gratified to know that something is being done in this direction, but I hope that the Government will increase the number of men whom they have engaged in this pursuit. There is another point. The Motion refers to remunerative employment, but does not say anything about the wages. This is a Government business, and we expect the Government to set an example to private employers in paying, at any rate, a living wage to those whom they employ. It is a disgrace that a rich country like ours should employ men and not give them a reasonable living wage. This matter has been brought before the House by myself on previous occasions. In the County of Monmouthshire 16 men are employed by the guardians on afforestation work at 35s. a week. There is no man who to-day can keep a house over his head and pay his way on such a wretched pittance as that It is not a credit to this Government or any other Government to pay such wages. There

  1381
  are two men employed at 37s., and there are two who are only getting 24s. 6d. I hope that, after this Debate, this disgrace will be removed and that these men will be paid, at any rate, a reasonable living wage. My reason for interposing in the debate was to call attention to two points, namely wages and unemployment, especially in the Blaina and Abertillery districts where there are unemployed over 1,000 men who could very well be employed on afforestation. I hope the Government will see that these men are employed, and that they are paid a wage that will enable them to maintain their families in decency.
  10.0 P.M.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: The discussion to-night has been mostly about Scotland, and I would like to say one or two words for England, but before I do so I would like to express agreement with what the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) said regarding the peat lands of Scotland. On the moors and peat lands in the North of Scotland we find the roots of ancient trees showing that at one time they were under forest. Wherever you cut peat you find the roots of trees. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Arland), and the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. Forestier-Walker), as representing the Forestry Commission, backed up by the Minister of Agriculture will find out some means of planting the peat lands in the North of Scotland. If trees were once there I see no reason why they should not be grown again. So I hope that attention will be given to this matter. With regard to forestry education, I have been during my life associated with forestry in India, and I hope that we shall have as good a Forestry Department in this country as has been created in India. I can remember that when I first entered the service all our Indian forestry officials had to go to places in France and Germany to be taught what forestry was. In India we have long since made ourselves independent in this matter, and we have as good a school of forestry as there is in the whole world, and good scientific men as forestry officers. I was sorry to hear one hon. Member state that the forestry trained man could not get employ-
  1382
  ment in this country. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that the training given will result in employment being found. Encouragement must be given to private individuals to afforest their land, and for that reason I support the suggestion made by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth with regard to encouraging private individuals to plant by the abolition of the Death Duties on timber. Something must be done to induce people to plant in this country. In India we have got many kinds of woods which have been hitherto unknown in this country. At the Wembley Exhibition there is a magnificent collection of woods grown in India, and I hope that the supplies from that country will continue to increase.
  On the subject of forest lands in England I would ask the Forestry Commission and the right hon. Member for Tiverton and the Minister of Agriculture to look at the report of the Midland Afforestation Association which was held in Birmingham the other day. The Earl of Dartmouth is the President. The report stated that the three principal objects were to show that their design of growing timber on pit mounds was both reasonable and practicable, to set up local committees wherever there was work to be done and to plant and keep on planting. I would ask that consideration should be given to this report to see what can be done to help to carry on the work. I do not know what the Forestry Commission has done. When we think of the enormous number of pit mounds which are in the country at present, and are not only derelict but an eyesore, and realise that the land could be acquired at a nominal price we should agree that that land ought to be made use of for this purpose. I know one firm which planted sixty acres of pit mound the other day as an economic proposition on their own account, and I remember during the War hearing of one proprietor who supplied his pits with pit wood during the whole War almost entirely from the pit mounds that he had planted years before. These pit mounds are giving no return whatever at present. Surely the Forestry Commission and the Minister of Agriculture working together can manage to take over these old disused pit mounds and plant them.

  1383
  Another thing which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the necessity of the Forestry Commission doing something to increase the supply of food in the country. I would like them to take in hand the planting of apple trees. There is no finer food for men and animals than apples, and I want to see apples grown all over the country and made so cheap that poor people, instead of having to pay 3d. or 6d. per lb. for apples, will be able to get them at almost a nominal price. Year after year since I have been in this House I have been urging Ministers to try to come to soma arrangement with the railway companies to plant apples on all the waste lands lying along their lines. There are great stretches of land along the railway lines yielding nothing whatever. This is all enclosed land, and it will be an economic proposition to giant these waste lands which would ensure a large supply of apples all over the country and facilitate the distribution which is now almost prohibitive owing to the high railway rates.
  Mr. PALMER: Get them to slow up the trains at the right season when the fruit is ripe.
  Sir C. YATE: Quite right. This land might be used in that way and we could get fruit much cheaper than we can get it now. Municipal and other local authorities should be urged to do what is done in France, namely, to plant the roads with avenues of apple trees. In France you see the apple trees growing all along the roadside. Will the Minister take that into consideration? New arterial roads are now being made. Cannot they be planted with something that will give some return? [HON. MEMBERS: "The boys would steal the apples!"] For Heaven's sake let the boys steal them it would be jolly good food for them! We want to increase the supply of food in this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask the local authorities who may wish to move in this matter to send representatives over to France to look at the roads there. If, after Whitsuntide, I put a question to him on the subject, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me a satisfactory reply on both the points that I have raised.
  Mr. HUDSON: I would like to join in this Debate, not as a Scotsman, but as an Englishman. In the last important Report that we have had on the subject, there is evidence that in England, as well as in Scotland, there is abundance of opportunity for the production of timber. I think that the figures were 5,000,000 acres available in Scotland and 4,000,000 acres available in England. What is wanted is bigger faith, a more scientific and determined approach towards a solution of this problem. The last speaker reminded us that in many parts of Scotland, in the peat lands, there are evidences of timber having been produced in the past to a considerable extent. I have seen peat lands in England which could be used for the same purpose. I refer to the moss land of the Manchester district. The famous Chat Moss actually produces timber at the present time. If there were a determined, scientific approach to the subject, backed by concentrated effort—not by the spasmodic effort of a landlord who tries now and gives it up, and another landlord who tries again later—I am certain that the peat land throughout the country could be made extremely productive of timber. All through the North of England centuries ago there were extensive forest lands. Many of the local names still remind us of that fact. There were the Rossendale Forests in Lancashire, where you can see hardly a tree now, and the Pendle Forest that surrounded the Pendle Hill. You can find the same traces in Yorkshire. It is a remarkable fact that as you travel up the dales of Yorkshire you can find trees growing far up the hillsides at a point higher than that mentioned by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), that is to say, above the 1,200-foot line. Above that height timber is now successfully grown there.
  The same problem is seen in South Wales. An hon. Member has referred to Monmouthshire. We might go further West in South Wales. There is all that wonderful valley, the Neath Valley, the valley above Swansea, which comparatively recently produced timber to a large extent. Much of it was cut down during the War. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the whole of those valleys, or the upper ends of them, could he set aside for the production of timber, if we eared to organise the business on a

  1385
  large scale. This matter is important, not only because of the employment that it would provide immediately, but because, if the thing were organised effectively, we would ultimately get all sorts of openings for rural industries. I am not sure whether the million people who at one time were employed in Germany in connection with the production of timber were actually engaged in direct afforestation processes. I suspect that many of them would have to be included among the manufacturers of toys, the wood carvers, and those engaged in other industries closely associated. Such a development would be equally likely here. It is not a matter that becomes immediately important, but, taking into account the trouble of regularising employment in the future, it is extremely important for this Government or any Government to try to make an arrangement whereby timber could be produced on a much greater scale than the present.
  Another factor particularly interested me in this Debate. It was referred to very lightly by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who said he did not care very much whether it was the Forestry Commission or private enterprise that enabled us to reach a solution of this problem. From the Labour Benches we heartily congratulate the hon. Member, who is not usually found expressing any sort of sympathy for communal activity in this or any other matter. The trouble at the moment is that private capital, as has been said, is not prepared to wait for the long period which must pass before a profitable return can come. Private capital tends to leave to the State those industries which can yield a return only after long patience and the passing of many years. If it is good for the State to step in in cases of that sort, I expect that before we have done with this matter and followed the argument to its logical conclusion, we shall find that we are making out an infinitely stronger case for the application of State activity to other industries as well. We are glad to begin this course of instruction by getting the hon. Member for Macclesfield to admit the necessity of the community coming in, at any rate in some cases, and of the social management of this great industry of afforestation. I am quite sure, in view of the sympathetic attitude shown in every part of the House to-night toward this proposal, that
  1386
  an effective lead given by the present Government would be backed up by all parties, and I hope in the immediate future the Government will he able to announce a very effective and complete scheme for the development, of afforestation in this country.
  Mr. ACLAND: I think everyone will already have congratulated, in spirit if not in words, the hon. Member who introduced this discussion. We all admired the cheerfulness, the good feeling and the understanding displayed in his speech, which I think was a very good start for our discussion to-night and will, I am sure, have useful results. I desire to tell the House clearly what is the present position with regard to the prospects of a programme of forestry such as I think we all desire, and I believe a clear statement on that point at this stage will help us. I am quite certain my right hon. Friend who is going to reply to the Government will not object if I state what has been happening since the Government came into office with regard to This matter, which they quite certainly have at heart and which they desire to help. I happened to be in the Chair of the Forestry Commission this winter for a few months while the Chairman, Lord Lovat, was abroad, and almost on the day after the new Government came into office my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—who was and is interested in this matter-- asked me what proposals I could make to assist in the extension of employment through forestry. At later stages the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary for Scotland have shown themselves equally anxious to get in touch with the representatives of the Commissioners in order to find out the position and to see what were our ideas of expansion.
  When I was asked about it by the Minister of Education I said the position from the point of view of the Commission was a very simple one and that the programme laid down by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside was still that which we desired to carry out. That programme if finally carried out will result in the afforestation of 1,750,000 acres of land in this country, and we were very desirous of carrying out the scheme for the first 10 years which was a programme of planting 150,000 acres with coniferous timber. Although we had a

  1387
  flying start and for the first three years planted more than was contemplated in the Report of the Committee, we were cut short by the Geddes Axe and narrowly escaped complete extinction. I remember now with what gratitude I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was then Prime Minister, say that he had repealed so many Acts which he had passed only a short time previously, that he had to draw the line somewhere and therefore the Forestry Commission, at any rate, would be allowed to continue. We were, however, cut short when we got to a certain point, and though for three years we had been planting about 10,000 acres a year the arithmetical increase under the scheme of my Committee has been stopped. We want to get on with it again and to go ahead doing more every year until in a few years we get up to the figure of 30,000 acres per year, which I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say he would like to see planted.
  You cannot rush it all at once, because of the difficulty of planting. You must have your schemes clear in front of you, and when you sow your seed which will be planted out three or four years later, you must know where you are going to sow it, and therefore we cannot rise suddenly in one year from 10,000 acres to 30,000 acres in the next. We want to be able at any rate to accomplish that which we set out to accomplish, and which we can accomplish within the money which Parliament then laid aside for us, namely, 150,000 acres of planting in the first 10 years, which will put us on a basis of 30,000 acres a year, which we are to continue for the next 30 years, that is, building up the 1,750,000 acres which we ultimately want. We put all that together on paper, which the Government received in a very friendly way, but they said they would like to consider the matter through a Committee. My ears have been tingling by the references made this evening to the Committee of which I was Chairman, so far be it from me to think that no Committee could do good. It will only be about the seventeenth Committee which has considered forestry in the last 20 years, and so it may do good, and, therefore, I will raise no objection to the appointment of a Committee.
  1388
  But Committees delay things, and so the next thing was that I asked the Government whether, in view of possible expansion and of our desire to be able to climb up and make good the check we had had from the Geddes Committee, we might sow some more seed this year, buy some more seed, prepare the ground for planting it, and actually plant it, to all of which they said, "Yes," and the extra seed has been bought, the seed beds have been prepared, and the teed has been sown. Everything, therefore,. seemed to be going, and, I think, was going, very well, and there was this expansion, apparently, fully agreed upon, or at any rate regarded favourably. At that time —I think it was about then in March—the Chairman, Lord Lovat, returned, and picked up the position as he then found it. He was very glad to hear how well the Government were apparently, regarding us, but I think he entered a necessary caveat, and said that if we were really to expand we must he able to acquire more land, and that if this Committee that the Government were going to appoint drifted on over the summer, we should miss all this year in negotiating for land, and so on.
  Clearly, it takes some time to acquire estates, whether by lease or purchase. It takes some considerable time to clear the areas of scrub and all the rest of it that have grown up since they were cleared in the War. If we are to be ready for the expansion which we hope will take place, not in the next winter, but when the seed which is now corning along begins to be ready, say, in the winter after, if we cannot do something pretty quick in the way of trying to get new land, then, with the best will in the world, our schemes of expansion will be checked, and we shall not do what we can. Therefore, I think he made a sort of suggestion that if the Government were still determined on a Committee, it should have some simple terms of reference, such as whether forestry can do more than it is doing to settle men on the land and to give employment, and, if so, how, and he expressed the hope that, if it were appointed, it should be appointed at once, that it might perhaps be instructed to report quickly, and that we should have got the. Report out by now. I think 15th May was the date he named, but he hoped that, one way or another, things would be decided so that we might

  1389
  know whether or not we should go forward.
  The Government have been extremely busy, the Committee is not yet appointed, the terms of reference are not yet settled, and we are now certainly being held up. We have been refused permission to acquire land, and without fresh land we really cannot get forward. If you over-plant the land you have, and plant more than the proper proportion each year, you set up a sort of wave motion. You plant up all the estates you have cleared quickly, the employment conies to an end, and there is none till the thinning stage begins 10 years later. That is not economical, and it is not the way in which to settle people on the land. You ruin your working plans. As I must repeat, if we are to have a real chance of getting more planted, not next winter, but the winter after next, we must begin getting round and clearing necessary land now. There is another thing. Looking only at this next winter, the Government may clearly want to have an unemployment scheme, and to employ people in country districts in things like scrub-clearing, which mean no expenditure to the nation and pay for themselves; but if we are to do that satisfactorily, we must be looking out our scrub areas now, arranging with the owners, arranging for the accommodation of the men who will do the clearing, and making contracts for the scrub, and so on. You cannot improvise in October or November. I am not suggesting any real blame or criticism. I know the Government have had an extraordinarily busy time, but I do hope they will give the word "Go." All I am asking for now is leave to go forward within what Parliament decided four or live years ago, and within the money. Not an extra farthing is wanted, but we must have leave to get forward within our scheme, or it will be too late.
  Then I want to say a word about the suggestion made cy the Prime Minister, as I understood, a night or two ago, which was that he might feel it necessary to promote legislation to put the Forestry Commission under one or other of the existing Departments, and to take away from it the position of modified independence which it has at the present time. There is this to be said. We are, of course, quite definitely under the Treasury, and we have been pulled up
  1390
  time after time again by Treasury Regulations and instructions. For instance, there is the matter to which one of my hon. Friends referred, namely, that we are only allowed to pay wages which compare pretty narrowly with the agricultural wages current in the district. That is the Treasury Regulation, and I should be very glad to have it relaxed. That is one of the rules we are under. And, of course, we are under Parliament—and quite rightly, too—and it is in the power of any part of the House, when it comes to its turn, to put down the Forestry Estimates for review. We are under the direction of Parliament in as immediate a way as any other Government Department, but we are not under any of the ordinary Ministries. We are not split up under two Ministries of Agriculture. That appears to the Prime. Minister—as, indeed, it is—rather anomalous and rather special. My position is special in practically answering for the Government, but not being a member of the Government. There is a reason for it. The Government and everyone else concerned came to the definite and deliberate conclusion that the only way to secure certain and steady progress was to have somebody responsible for getting that progress made, without having the chance of its policy being pulled up by the roots, by the possible vicissitudes of changes of Government, and that sort of thing.
  First of all, it is clear that if we were split up under two existing Departments, it, would be the Departments of Agriculture. There you have two Departments, two staffs, two policies and a good deal of waste in consequence of having two Departments instead of one. And there is always this—and it was the experience both with the English Ministry of Agriculture and with the Scottish Board of Agriculture—that inevitably, when you have got certain money only to spend, and when you have to choose between ways in which you will get fairly equal results, like encouraging land settlement, and experiments, and so on, with regard to crops and stock, like encouraging co-operation and credit where your return would come if it does come, within three or four years at latest—when you get these things with a comparatively quick return on the one hand, and forestry on the other hand, well, forestry, with its long-delayed return, will

  1391
  take the lower place and a back seat, and it is only human nature for a Department to prefer a thing that brings in a quick return than to take things which require very long views I think that was the reason why for years, and years, and years, and under all sorts and kinds of Committees, actually very little got done; it was not done until you had an authority whose duty it was to concentrate or forestry and nothing else.
  You must really have a uniform policy for generations so that when the seed is sown you may know what is likely to happen, and when you plant trees know how the proceeding is likely to develop. The temptation ought not to be left to the Minister to pull up the timber or to sell the produce to balance his estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be allowed to cut down the timber before it is really ripe. Though I do not care to repeat what I have said, or quote what I have said or written, there are one or two sentences in this report that I think are as true now as when we drafted them on the subject of permanence in policy and which I should like to read to the House. We say:
  "The afforestation policy of the State, once embarked upon, should be as little as possible liable to be disturbed by political changes or moulded by political pressure. We cannot, and do not, claim that it should be independent of the control of Parliament, but when Parliament has once adopted a policy of afforestation the decisions that have to be taken as that policy develops ought not to be taken by politicians, and if grievances and difficulties arise they should be adjusted in an atmosphere in which forest policy and not political expediency is the deciding factor."
  Again we say:
  "Independence is important also in regard to funds. An clement of control is, of course, essential, and it may well be strictly enforced. Parliament must be informed of the cost and the result of each year's work. The public, in fact, will want to know and will have a right to know that they are likely to get value for their money. This, however, ought not to be incompatible with an arrangement under which tile authority will have, during its early years at any rate, a greater degree of certainty as to the funds which it will administer than is generally produced under the system of submitting annual Votes to Parliament. If there were a power to pull up the authority by the roots to see how it was getting on the results might almost be as serious as if a similar process were performed upon the trees that it had planted."
  1392
  That is perfectly true, and I hope the Minister will consider these arguments before he brings in any legislation to break up the authority which has been established. After all, we have certain assets. We have made mistakes of course. It is an asset if we have—as we have—the goodwill of the landowners. It is an asset that we, through the Imperial Forestry Conferences which have been held, have been the means of expanding and encouraging afforestation all through the Empire. Hitherto, in our expenditure, it is true, a larger proportion of what we spend goes actually in the wages of labour than is the case in any other public Department. It is something that we have been able to keep a steady line, and hitherto to carry out, in spite of the Geddes axe check, pretty well what we set out to do at the time we were appointed. After many of the things we set up, only to see them fall by the wayside, it is something to he alive and kicking, and so be going the straight way we were told to go.
  Let me now say something on one or two points which have arisen in the course of the Debate. First let me deal with the position in Scotland. It is true that we have not granted so much in Scotland as in England and Wales, and as we expected to. The proportion has been for some years something like 3 to 2. I think that last year they were 7 to 3. That is partly because we have, found a very great deal of land—very good planting land, and very deep land—in England. We have found that. it was easier to get hold of land in England, because the English holder is more willing to lease, the Scottish owner not often being able to feu his land, but requiring it to be purchased. We have had no difficulty in ourchasing, but we have often had to spend a good deal of money in fencing the land. for protection against deer and rabbits, which often costs more than the freehold of the land itself. In Scotland we have found that if we are to acquire more land we must buy outright, and the Treasury has put as much check on the policy of purchase as they possibly can. This is not wise in the long run because, if you take a long view, if you go on leasing, say, for 100 years, you will find you have spent in the end five times as much by paying rent every year as you could have bought

  1393
  the estate out and out for at the beginning.
  The immediate economy is the lease, and it may be inevitable on account of the system that we have not been allowed to purchase, but unless we can extend the policy of purchase we cannot go ahead in places where by going ahead we should be of the greatest service to those who want to live on the land. The mere fact that land was once under trees is no evidence that it easy to put it under trees again because it needs much drainage, and you have to get rid of the acidity due to the decay of vegetable matter be-fore you can make a great deal of the peat land plantable. These things have prevented us making the progress in Scotland we want to make.
  With regard to what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) said, we should welcome any closer working with the Scottish Board of Agriculture which would increase our joint power of getting land settlements in connection with forestry. Last year we had an idea of setting up a sort of Standing Committee which we thought might be useful, and I hope to be able to take up that idea again, because the closer the two Departments can work together the better it will be from every point of view. One or two other points about education have been raised. If I could hear of one or two really thoroughly competent foresters out of a job I believe I could put them into jobs which I think they would take on. I think, however, when there are so many men out of employment we should not tempt men to leave private employment. If there are some really good men out of employment I believe I know of one or two cases where they could be employed. We have no policy which tends against the employment of thoroughly experienced foresters.
  With regard to the higher centre for forestry education, I would like to have a special conference with some of my hon. Friends from Scotland with regard to training forestry officers, and so on. The Commission has worked at it very exhaustively, but if you put together the claims made by all the universities and the extension of forestry schools, it means art expenditure of about £300,000, which is impossible at present for us to meet out of our limited grant. If hon. Members can get us more money, good and
  1394
  well. With regard to the question of a higher centre, I have no objection whatever to having a higher centre in Scotland, but, at any rate, let us get one really first-class higher centre established to begin with; and it is difficult for us, in this connection, to go behind the unanimous recommendation of the Imperial Forestry Conference, which consisted wholly of fully-trained officers trained in all sorts of different places in the Empire, but mainly in this country at Edinburgh, Cambridge, Oxford and so on. Their recommendation was that we should all concentrate on inaugurating a central institution for forestry training and research at Oxford University, and pushing on with that. I do not in the least say that if we get that, that should be the only one, but I do say that one centre where the very highest training can be given is of very great and pressing importance.
  May I end by saying a few words about the question of employment—as to what you can do and what you cannot do in giving employment in forestry? I should like to run very briefly through two or three of the cases whore a change has been made by operations for which the Commission has been responsible. There is the estate at Shobden, in Herefordshire, where there were 1,800 plantable acres, consisting very largely of scrub, providing no employment at all when we acquired it in 1921. The number that we have employed since then has averaged 53, in addition to the employment given to farmers and their horses in hauling the scrub we have cut down. Fifty-three instead of none is an improvement. Again, at Downham, in Suffolk, there were 5,000 acres on some of the light land there, which had gone out of arable cultivation when we acquired it, and was overrun by rabbits. The farm cottages were unoccupied, and only six men were employed on the whole 5,000 acres. Today, five farmhouses with 520 acres of land are let to tenants, because we have cleared it of rabbits; 21 cottages are occupied which were all unoccupied and deserted and derelict; and forestry employs steadily 22 men in summer and 100 in winter. That is an improvement. At Inchnacardoch, in Inverness-shire, there were 4,000 plantable acres when we acquired it in 1920, which only employed five men. That number has now gone up to 35, and we have put up additional

  1395
  accommodation for six married and 14 single men.
  I might go on with many other illustrations. As a matter of fact, I have not time for the most conspicuous of them, the Rendlesham estate in Suffolk, where we are really steadily expanding into something which, if we can go steadily ahead, will make that part of the country something rather like the Landes district in France, turning a district of almost barren and unproductive sand into a really flourishing estate, with a real society of men established upon it. You can steadily increase employment by forestry by giving work in winter to men occupying small holdings and so on in districts where very often, without that winter work, they could not economically live. That is so in parts of Scotland, and it is so in parts of Wales: and that will help and develop. With our limited funds we have not been able to establish forest holdings or to house the men as we should like, but we have put forward schemes to the Government asking them to allow us to do both these things, and automatically, as forestry expands, that work will expand. One point I want to make, however, is that, to the extent to which you use forestry for preventing men from drifting into the towns, for keeping them in the country, for giving an economic life to smallholders, you cannot at the same time use it as a stream into which you can turn unemployed people from the towns. I think if we can to a considerable extent use forestry to keep men in the country who would otherwise have gone into the town we shall be doing a great thing, and you cannot ask too much. When we get up to 30,000 acres of planting I reckon that what with annual planting and what with the people permanently settled we shall in the ten years have actually settled 6,000 families in permanent employment who would otherwise not have been so settled. It is not a great number hut it helps. With regard to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) and the hon. Member who preceded me, I will either see them or communicate to them the notes I have in writing, so as not to encroach further on the time.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The right hon. Gen-
  1396
  tleman is a Forestry Commissioner, and he speaks, as it were, with Ministerial authority. No one else is responsible for the conduct of the Forestry Commission. It is not responsible to any other Department except in connection with its finances. I am not versed in the work it does. I am all the more gratified to be allowed to say a word on the question, because there are few things which can give more pleasure than the actual planting of trees. The Government are very glad to notice the increase which is taking place in the interest in afforestation, and view it certainly not only as a question of provision for war, bat decidedly also as a national investment and as a means of settlement. If the House likes to pass the Motion in the form suggested, the Government certainly do not oppose it, but I should like to urge that it ought to be construed in a very broad sense. Schemes take time to mature, and they need long views.
  The Cabinet has been exploring the question from the very earliest clays of its existence, and the matter is now in the hands of a Cabinet Committee, in spite of what my right hon. Friend said. That Committee is collecting material. When I look at the words of the Motion I see it is easy to make a declaration in such terms, but I am not satisfied that a good scheme can he drawn up on the basis merely of extending the work of the Forestry Commission. A simple declaration of that kind is not quite so easy to implement. We ought to study the manner in which land settlement can be associated with forestry, and in this sense. I am not satisfied that the work of the Commission; is it is would he adequate for the purpose. There are other bodies which have now a great body of experience in regard to land settlement, and it needs to be considered whether, as suggested in the Motion, the Commission itself should be charged with land settlement or whether it should be carried out in some other way. This is not for a moment a fault of the Commission, which is, I think, unduly limited by the conditions imposed upon it. The Prime Minister has already said no one appreciates Lord Lovat's work more than he does, but there are restrictions on their work in connection with land settlement.

  1397
  I am told there are great areas in Wales which might be made profitable and economic for afforestation. A great authority was telling me only to-day that some of the hills are not growing trees. They have fairly steep sides which might be very good planting land, and in connection with them on the lower ground there might be, as has been suggested, forest holdings where the sheep would be in winter and they would be run on the tops right above the wooded belt in summer.
  Mr. ACLAND: The common rights are awfully difficult there.
  Mr. BUXTON: That leads me to the next point I was going to make, the question of acquisition. The subject of powers of acquisition was raised by the Prime Minister the other day and that would have to be considered. Legislation may be necessary.
  Mr. ACLAND: We have full powers to acquire compulsorily.
  Mr. BUXTON: I know that. I think the Commission has the same powers as the Development Commission, but those powers may be very slaw to put in force in certain cases, and you have also very complicated questions of title which require to be taken together with the effects of the Development Commission's acquisition system, which may require further legislation. We recognise that ancillary employment is of the greatest importance to smallholders. There are many holdings in the Highlands where forestry is the principal supplementary employment. The Boards of Agriculture for Scotland and the Forestry Commission have co-operated with good effect, but I am told there are many difficulties, especially in the North. In the Highlands there is good land, but very often it is intermingled with the hind suitable for afforestation, and extensive fencing must be erected to protect young plantations from livestock, and this makes it a very costly matter. A number of holdings have been provided in Scotland. The land, as I see it, has been bought extraordinarily well. I am full of admiration for the success of the Commission in buying this land. The main difficulty about any very great scheme still might prove to be one of powers, as I have just stated. If legislation is needed, the Government will propose it. It is very
  1398
  regrettable that the Geddes Axe, though it failed to stop planting, did cause a certain delay and kept the acreage down to 10,000 acres.
  I thought of giving some of the general statistics, but my right hon. Friend has given them in large measure, and they come better from him than from me. 70,000 acres have already been planted. The State has planted 38,000 acres on purchased or leased land. Unemployment relief schemes brought about by grants to private owners and local authorities have covered 31,000 acres. They have been about £3 an acre. The present Government did add to unemployment grants to the extent of £30,000 in addition to the. £50,000 that had been allocated before. The Commissioners have acquired about 120,000 acres of plantable land. Seventy-five per cent. has been leased, and the land bought last year was at the price of £ 17s. 6d. per acre. I would like to say a word about the status of the Commission. My right hon. Friend has instanced the delay which he thinks might have been avoided in the last few weeks. One suggestion to my mind, without committing myself or anybody else, is that it might have been an advantage to hint in having a responsible Minister to come to whose business it was to see that the views put forward went along the proper channel in a normal way. We propose to consider very carefully the relations of the Forestry Commission to other Government Departments. We suggest there should not be interruptions snore than are necessary, and that the independence of the Commission should be maintained as far as possible. But, after all, there have been interruptions. There were interruptions caused by the Government appointing the Geddes Committee. There are also interruptions because the Commission is obliged to go to the Treasury for confirmation of the grant it receives each year, and that brings them to a state of dependence on the Government of the day. We hope before very long to be able to report the decision of the Cabinet as to whether legislation will be wanted to deal with this question. The Government ought to have the power to impress its ideas on the Commission. I think that is all I have to say on the Motion. The Resolution represents an ambition which T hope we all share. To sure up, I may say the Government are

  1399
  not losing time, and the delay implies that their deliberations will be thorough. But we are fully alive to the high importance, of the matter.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: It is not possible to say in a few minutes what one would wish to say on this topic. I am sure we must consider that afforestation is one of the most useful things that can be done, and if the Government will act wisely and not unnecessarily incur a large additional expenditure, then I think their action will meet with general support. I believe that one of the most successful schemes which has so far been adopted is that of the Manchester Corporation in connection with their water works. I think it is fair ground for inquiry how far this work of afforestation can be pursued in connection with the great water undertakings of the country. I noticed that that idea received support on the Labour benches the other day, and I hope that when the matter is gone into the afforestation side of the question will not be lost sight of. I hope that all that can be done will be done by the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That this House urges upon the Government the desirability of extending the operations of the Forestry Commission and, generally, of promoting the interest of Afforestation, as a means of increasing the capital assets of the country, providing employment in a healthy and remunerative occupation, and, particularly in the Highland and certain other Scottish counties, facilitating the settlement of smallholders on an economic basis."

  SUPPLY.
    REPORT [12th MAY].
    Resolution reported,
    REPORT [12th MAY].
      CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

        CLASS V.
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith, including British Representation be-
        1400
        fore the Permanent Court of International Justice; also for a Grant in Aid of Relief of Distress in Albania."
        Resolution agreed to.

    REPORT [28TH May].
    Resolutions reported,
    REPORT [28TH May].
      AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924–25.
      1. "That a, Supplementary Funs, not exceeding £350,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will Cane in emirs, of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1925."
      CEVIL SERVICES SUPPLOEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

        CLASS II.
        2. "That a Supplementary so in, not exceeding £150,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays and of Marine Superintendence, also for Loans to Herring Fishermen for the Purchase of Drift Nets."
        First Resolution road a Second time.
        Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move to leave out "£350,000," and to insert instead thereof "£300,000."
        During my membership of this House I have made it a salutary rule never to speak after 11 o'clock. That is a rule which has conduced to the health of the House as well as my own comfort. The speech which I shall deliver now is not the speech that I should have delivered had this Vote come on at an earlier hour today. That speech will rest in the archives of my family. I could not, however, allow this Vote to pass without making a protest. The record of Government Departments in connection with this question of airships has been one long story of vacillation. We had airships in the war and they were turned down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Yes. The Zeppelins were turned down. They were stopped during the war and. as showing the inadequate war staff training we had, they were turned down on the ground that the Germans could always outnumber us in Zeppelins. It does not seem to have occurred to the Admiralty at that time that three Zeppelins associated with the British Fleet were worth 12 Zeppelins associated with the German High Sea Fleet, because of team work.

        1401
        The Air Ministry turned them down in April, 1922, and the Admiralty protested. It is entirely due to the indomitable energy of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut-Commander Burney) that this question has been kept alive. It was only after the Air Ministry found that the Admiralty were taking up the Burney scheme, and there was a danger of the airship falling under the Admiralty, that the Air Ministry began to take an interest in the matter. My hon. and gallant Friend faced no fewer than seven Committees, all of which reported in his favour. Now the Air Ministry has come down with another scheme which, to my mind, represents a Bologna sausage which is bad in all its parts. In the first place, they are going to recondition one military airship, and they are going to build a military airship and a commercial airship. The Admiralty—the only Department which can make use of these vessels—say that they are perfectly satisfied with the commercial airship and do not want anything beyond that. Yet our Under Secretary of State for Air proposes a military airship and to recondition another military airship, and the Socialist party and perhaps the Liberal party support it.
        Then they are going to build a shed in India, which is not required, for the purpose of experimenting to find out whether a mercantile line can be run. The Air Ministry know that they themselves sent the military airship "R.38," which was not built for long distances, all the way to America and back, without even a mooring mast at the other end, but now mooring masts have been invented, and if they do erect a shed in India they will find probably that the shed is in the wrong place. Then they are going to take their air base, and restore it for the sole purpose of building one airship, a military airship which may be not used afterwards, for all we know at present, if the thing is not a success, and they are reconditioning this base at the public expense. It would be easy to save at least £50,000 on the Vote this year. All the Admiralty ask for is plenty of merchant ships. The beginning of war-ships were merchant ships in the old days. The Admiralty want to be able to take up commercial airships, and in that way they will get plenty of scope when required. The Burney scheme did give us a chance of that.
        1402
        This scheme will not give us nearly as good a chance of doing so.
        I would ask the Air Ministry 1vbether they intend to do what was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)? The Red Star Line is monopolised. They might call the suggested new line the "Red Tie Line"—the "Red Tie Nationalised Line," which would have just a short a life as the hon. and gallant Member's red tic. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull went on to argue, from the disasters to military airships, that the airships were no good. No argument could be more suicidal. Military airships, Zeppelins, were built with no margin of safety. They were designed to carry as many bombs as possible. They were built for short, and not for long distances. They were built before an outer envelope had been invented, and we have got possibilities in helium gas now. It is true that the only helium gas at present is in the United States, but Canada, which contributes nothing to our Imperial defence, might make a real contribution by searching for helium gas. Then we have invented engines which deal with heavy oil, instead of the lighter oil, so that the danger from fire is lessened. There also is a great gain. Mooring masts have been invented or very much improved. So that the safety of these vessels is very much increased from what it was formerly.
        I am a thorough believer in mercantile airships, and I believe that it will not be twenty years before the bulk of the passenger traffic will have been captured from the ordinary mail steamers. I protest against the present scheme of the Ministry to give us two military airships, which are not required, and giving us much less possibility of mercantile airships, because the mercantile airships will be, like Mahomet's coffin, hung between heaven and earth. It is very unlikely that the Burney group will buy back the ship for £150,000. I am not a whole-hearted supporter of the Burney scheme. It went by stages. It proved itself successful at every stage until it reached a point where it was to run six ships and a bi-weekly service to India. When it gets to that point, I do not see why it should require another £250,000 a year to finance it. That part of the scheme was bad. But it did give us the kind of thing that we

        1403
        wanted—the mercantile airships. Why, in the contract, is a speed of only 70 knots required? At this time of day you might very well ask an airship building company to give you a speed of at least 85 knots. I think that within two years we shall be talking of 120 knots. Speed is the most important factor of all in the airship if it is to be used at all for military purposes. The scheme which was outlined by the Under-Secretary is a scheme that will lead to fresh and fresh demands. I do not think that that was the case with the Burney scheme. If the hon. Member's forecast be true—that a Labour Government will still be in power in two years' time—he will be, in less than that time, at that Table, like the daughter of the horse leech, asking for more and more.
        Captain Viscount CURZON: I beg to second the Amendment.
        One thing I have noticed about the Socialist party in matters relating to aviation is its steady advance towards militarism. It is a very remarkable fact. Under a Socialist, nominally a pacifist, Government, civil aviation has steadily declined until to-day it is almost at a standstill, and military aviation is making rapid strides. I am surprised that Members on the, Socialist benches who have served in the Air Force—like the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) — should remain silent. One would have expected him to have raised his voice. We do not hear even a twitter from him on the subject.
        I want to know whether the Government have any policy at all with regard to airships. The Government propose to build a purely military airship. Have the Government thought out the use to which they are to put this airship? They have a vote here for airship development and airships generally. It does not say whether there is any expenditure in respect of bases. It is obvious that the chief use of airships and the chief use of the military airship will be in connection with the Fleet. Is it not desirable, before setting up bases in India or elsewhere, to find out what the plans of the Navy are likely to be? It is all very well to go to a particular place and say, "We will have an airship station here, with mooring masts and all the gas-making paraphernalia." It will
        1404
        probably be desired to base that ship at Singapore, and we shall probably then have the hon. Member for Harrow and others advocating an airship base in Iraq or Palestine. The fact remains that these ships must work with the Navy in time of war, and before going in for any expenditure on bases we should know whether we are passing a Vote for Singapore or India. Before putting up the shed, the Air Ministry should adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and move a monitor about, stationing it at various places likely to be used by the Fleet, and see what use can be made of the military airship in connection with the Navy.
        I think the re-conditioning of old airships is a great mistake on the part of the Air Ministry. It must be recollected that these old ships have been in cold storage for about two years. What sort of staff has been employed on their maintenance during that period? They are probably half rotten. Many hon. Members of this House had the opportunity on one occasion of flying in one of these airships, and it was perfectly evident to all who went up that airships required great care ii they are to be kept in efficient and serviceable condition. I should like to know what sort of care has been given, to their upkeep since they passed out of commission? Further, how many of these old ships are to be brought into commission, and to what use are they to be put? If we are going to re-condition old airships, we are taking grave risks. Airships have been set back a good many times already by the very serious disasters which have occurred from time to time, and we cannot afford to risk another disaster in connection with airships. If the Government do so, and if a disaster occur, the whole country will be against them. It will be said that airships are no good, and probably the clock will be put back again. In the interest of airship development, and of the crews who will man the airships, as well as those who, it is hoped, will travel in them. I ask for an assurance that no undue risk will be run. Otherwise, it will be almost impossible to advance the cause which we have all at heart.
        I cannot understand the reasons which have led the Government to turn down the scheme presented by the hon. and

        1405
        gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). They have not really explained to the House on what grounds they have turned down this well-considered scheme, which has been exhaustively inquired into in the past; and before all the investigations of the past are thrown overboard, it should be made quite clear to every Member of the House what are the reasons for so doing. I listened to the Debate, not only here, but also in another place, and I am as much in the dark as ever as to the exact reason why the scheme has been turned down. This country cannot possibly afford to run airships on a military basis, which, apparently, is to be the basis, or, at least, the partial basis, of this scheme of the Government. The scheme provides for one ship on a commercial basis and for the other on a military basis. I say that we must rely on them being run on a commercial basis, with their crews very much on the lines of the Naval Reserve, namely, men who would be able in time of war to serve in those ships, possibly on a military basis. What we have to contemplate, if these ships are to be any good at all, is not one ship or six ships in commission, but hundreds, and, therefore, I am anxious that this service should be on a commercial basis.
        I do not like the idea of a Supplementary Estimate like this, "for technical and warlike stores." I should have thought that all the hon. Members opposite would be up on their toes at a Vote "for warlike stores." I should have thought it would not appeal to them, but apparently it does, including even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. I hope we shall have futher information on this subject of the Government's intentions in regard to airships. Let us be told exactly to what use the Government are going to put these airships. It has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone that it is very uneconomical to lay down one ship at a time. What you have to contemplate is a steady programme of airship construction, if airships are of any use, which we hope and believe they are. That was contemplated under the Burney scheme, but the Government have washed out the Burney scheme, and they are putting the building of airships on a most uneconomical basis. Two ships are to be built, one by the Government, at perhaps an immense cost, and what is to happen to
        1406
        the personnel of that ship when that first airship has gone through? Are they to undertake the making of light castings for the housing programme, or on to what work are they likely to be put? They may he turned on to making motor cars, or something of that sort. I have no doubt that that would be popular among hon. Members opposite. I think the country has a right to know whether we are going to get these airships on the most economical basis possible. I am not at all satisfied that we are, and I think there is grave danger, with so large an expenditure, that we shall get all too little return for it. In these days of economy and high taxation, I submit that that should be the first care of the Government, unless, as is probable, they wish to go in for large expenditure, in order to pile on the taxation and still further prove that private enterprise is no good, and that the only thing to do is to do away with capitalism and have capital levies. I do not want to see that state of affairs arising at all, and I wish f n be sure that we are not going to waste money in connection with these airships.
        It has been said that airships are only gas-bags, that they are of no use. Hon. Members opposite, perhaps, have not had the opportunity of studying the uses to which they were put during the late War. I can remember at least two occasions on which the Grand Fleet was unable to get at the German Fleet, solely because of the use of German airships in the North Sea, and on two definite occasions, when I happened to be serving in the Fleet, they saved the German Fleet by giving information as to our whereabouts. That shows the extreme importance of airships at sea. That is only one use to which they can be put at sea. I think that one of the great problems the Navy has to face in the future is that of aircraft carriers. Surface aircraft carriers suffer a great disadvantage in that they have to head towards the wind, which may mean that they have to steam directly towards the enemy in order to release their aero-planes. Again, the chief danger to a fleet from aircraft, or one of the greatest dangers, is undoubtedly that of a dawn attack, and in such a danger it is impossible to have your aircraft in an aircraft carrier when you can send only one off in every three minutes; whereas, if you could have your aircraft carried, as the late Air-Commodore Maitland said,

        1407
        in an airship, they would be at fighting height, able to make full speed and give effective protection to a fleet from hostile aircraft.
        The points which I have endeavoured to put show the extreme importance of the uses to which airships may be put, and I have stated these facts in order to show that the chief uses to which these ships must be put will be in connection with the Navy. Another point arises. We want to know who is going to provide for the cruising ships, and how the airship with the Fleet is going to be manned. Is it to be by Air Force ratings or by Naval ratings, or a. combination of the two—70 per cent. of one, and 30 per cent. of the other? I submit that the one service which has experience at sea of airships is undoubtedly the Naval service. The Navy made much use of airships during the War; the Army little use at all. I think the manning of these ships is an important point. It is important that you should get for the manning of these ships men who have experience in the use of them. Is it the, intention of the Air Ministry to employ the ex-Naval officers and ex-Naval ratings who had so large an experience in the handling of these ships in days gone by? In view of the use to which these ships are likely to be put at sea, it is important that they should be manned by officers and men experienced at sea, in navigation over sea, and of working with the Fleet. It is obvious that there are grave dangers from people serving in these airships if they have not had experience of working with the Fleet.
        It is very necessary that the officers and men who work the Fleet should be able to work the airships f or us, and be able to tell in what formation the enemy are in, and roughly, what their course is likely to be. The need for that was proved many times in the course of the late war; and we have the lessons of the mistakes that have arisen in manoeuvres in days gone by. I should like, therefore, to submit to the hon. Gentleman that the manning of these ships is a most important point. I hope that he will be able to tell us whether he is prepared to bring back into the service the officers and men who manned the airships in days gone by, and on what basis the military ship is going to be manned? I should
        1408
        also like to know where the bases are to be placed; and also can we know whether the Air Ministry have got any definite ideas as to how the military ships, or even the commercial ships are likely to be used?
        There is one other point: What of the bases? Is one to be set up in India, with possibly an intermediate base, and how are the airships going to be organised, on a military or commercial basis? Who is going to be responsible for the ground staffs employed? Are the Ministry making any effort to develop the aero-plane service, so that it may work in conjunction with the airship service when it gets going. That is very important. I should like to knew how far matters have gone in these cases, and to know something of what has been, and is to be done, in connection with various technical matters included in the experimental research services.
        Rear-Admiral SUETER: I disagree with a good deal said by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). I think the policy that the Government have laid down for us on airships is very good indeed. It is better than the Burney group scheme, as I said the other evening. That scheme gave, a monopoly to a firm, which is undesirable, and also did not supply an airship shed in India or facilities for the proper housing of the big airships. The hon. Member for Maidstone, I think, has not a great knowledge of air-ship work. I speak with all deference to him, because he is an expert on naval matters. He talks airily about airships being tied to mooring masts. I should like to ask him, Does he suppose that if you have two or more damaged gas bags, one at the fore end and the other at the after end of an airship, you could shift them when tied to a mooring mast? You might possibly shift one, but it could not possibly be done with two or three. Neither could you repair a large portion of your outer cover if stripped off. You might make repairs in small places, and that would be about all. You must have a hangar for your airship to refit when she has carried out a long voyage. The policy of the Air Ministry is a perfectly right one in this matter, for masts are the natural auxiliary to an airship station, and should only be used by themselves as temporary bases.
        Another point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone. He

        1409
        said it would be easy to put an inert gas round the gas bags. The only experiment that has ever been made in this direction was to insert the exhaust gases from a petrol motor round a small gas bag. These gases are carbon monoxide and carbon di-oxide. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sulphuretted hydrogen !"] No, not sulphuretted hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon di-oxide. These are heavy gases; and how is the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone going to circulate them round the ring space of an airship higher than this Chamber? Then the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone went on to say that the speed of your airship might be anything within the region or 120 knots. It may be true that in the future that speed may be obtained, but we are not there yet. I happened to be in the Navy when the Admiralty had control of the airships, and they bungled them from start to finish. If the Sea Lords had listened to their airmen, we should have had Zeppelins all the time operating in the North Sea during the late War, and also have had Zeppelins at the Battle of Jutland. It was the Sea Lords who turned the airship scheme down in the first instance, and even when they had the management of the airships, they made the biggest possible bungle of them. In future I hope all air development will be left to the Air Ministry, and I trust that there will be both military and civil or commercial airships.
        I agree with what has been said by the Noble Lord (Lord Curzon) about reconditioning an old airship. I wish to point out, however, that in her construction an alloy called duralumin is used. All aluminium alloys are crystallisable, and the result may be that a great many of the girders may have been stressed during the period she has been laid up. When they get her into the air and begin manœuvres, putting the rudder hard over, etc., you may get torsional stresses imposed upon the structure of the airship. Whenever you suspend the airship without gasbags in her, you may stress the material badly, and one day you may have an accident. Although when you have reconditioned this old airship, she may look perfectly all right from an ordinary superficial look, when you come to test her in a long flight, you may get these torsional stresses set up, with the result that you
        1410
        might cause the structure to fracture. I hope you will only use these old airships for mooring and aerodynamic experiments, with only short flights, and not attempt to send an old airship to Malta or Egypt. Otherwise I am in full agreement with the policy of the Government in regard to airships.
        Mr. MAXTON: The point I wish to raise I will approach in a more serious frame of mind. I regret the spirit of jocularity which has prevailed so far in this Debate. Perhaps the hour and the day may be taken as contributory causes to that result. This is a very large sum of money that we are asked to vote for research in aeronautics, and I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary that regard will he had to the safety of the men engaged in this work. I raise this point, because it has come to my cs that within the last few days, in the research which the Air Ministry have been conducting with reference to the so-called "death ray" that was offered to them, there was engaged probably the highest expert in the service of the Air Ministry—presumably a valuable official on whose training much time and money had been expended, and one of the men, probably, who would be asked to be responsible for the work in connection with these airship experiments. I understand that among the tests as to whether this "death ray" could actually destroy men, ships, and so on, at a distance of several miles, as claimed by its inventor, was one in which this expert of the Air Ministry was placed within 10 yards of this "death ray," and exposed to its action. My information does not go beyond that point, a veil of secrecy haying been drawn over the proceedings, but I am disposed to think that, if the claims of the inventor were anywhere near being justified, this man must have been destroyed, and his body, perhaps, disposed of in some evil way—the Air Ministry has many resources at its disposal for such a crime—or, perhaps, he has suffered some severe injury. I want the Under-Secretary, first of all, to relieve my mind as to this expert, and also to give a guarantee that in the future this valuable staff of the Air Ministry will not be used in reckless experiments of this description.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): I think I ought to

        1411
        answer first the very important question addressed to me by the last speaker. It is true that the expert of the Air Ministry who examined the tests provided by the inventor of the so-called "death ray" seems to have been of a rather sceptical turn of mind, and that he actually placed himself in the path of the ray as part of the test to which he desired that it should be subjected. It is also true that, as I am very glad indeed to be able to assure my hon. Friend, he is doing well, and, when I last saw him, he displayed no evidence of any injury having occurred to him. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has really provided me with the last remaining necessary excuse to justify the scheme which the Government are submitting, and for which this Vote is being asked. In the course of a rather boisterous speech, he laid the greatest emphasis upon the need for a vast amount of research work, in order to secure the safety of this experiment, and to preserve the lives of those who would be engaged in this airship venture, should it succeed, and to ensure that no repetition shall take place of the accidents that airship developments have made us rather painfully familiar with in past years. That is the key-note of this scheme. We rejected the previous scheme because it was on too big a scale, apart from its financial demerits, and we are going to direct our energies precisely in the channel the Noble Lord asks, and precisely for the purposes which he and I regard as being of so much importance.
        May I say a word or two in regard to this question of the speed of the airships it is proposed to build? The stipulation put upon the contractor is that he shall produce an airship which shall travel 70 miles per hour. This stipulation applies to the contract ship, and he is under rigid penalties for failure to achieve that 70 miles per hour. In case it cannot get past 67 miles per hour, he is liable to a sacrifice of some £40,000. This is an experiment. The ship is going to be more than twice as large as any yet built in this country. It may be that he will get 75 miles per hour. If he does, it will be at least 15 miles faster than any ship we have built. We do not want to place too many difficulties in the way of the contractor. With regard to our own ship, to
        1412
        be built at the Cardington Works, its final design is not yet settled. Therefore its maximum speed is not yet settled. Research may reveal methods of increasing engine power without having too much weight or subtracting too much lifting capacity. I do not know what the possibilities may be in this direction. I should like to promise 85 or 90 miles an hour, but I could not honestly do that. Certain it is that we should improve considerably on all our previous schemes. It is true that ours is a service ship, but it must not be supposed that it is of no use for civil purposes. Obviously, it will conform to many civil purposes. It will be able to carry passengers, goods and mails, and be able to do long voyages oversea. It will have unprecedented lifting power. We are also thinking in terms of transportation of troops and naval reconnaissances. We are also permitting ourselves to think of aircraft carrying and all that is involved in that. We want to try out these ideas, and we believe Cardington is the place to which we can look for them to be tried out. We provide an Indian base. It will be our property, just as the civil base at Croydon is now our property. We provide an intermediate stopping place with a larger Cardington shed. All these are items of capital expenditure. We estimate that they will involve £420,000. They will give us one ship, two mooring masts, two gas plants, and other numerous assets.
        The hon. and gallant Gentleman the member for Hertford (Admiral Sueter) has answered many other criticisms to which I should have been called upon to reply, and he has probably answered them even more efficiently than I should have done. I acknowledge that his experience and knowledge of lighter-than-air ships and of the whole of the business of building them and the need for care, the need for research, and the need for more safety is in a remarkable degree his special knowledge. We are indebted to him for the help which he has given to us by his speeches in regard to our proposals, and I can assure him that we shall take very careful account of his suggestions and of the precautionary measures he has advocated.
        Question, "That '£350,000' stand part of the Resolution." put, and agreed to.
        Resolution agreed to.
        Second Resolution read a Second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: On this Resolution I merely wish to make a few criticisms on points of detail. In the first place, I would say that in the Secretary for Scotland we have a very good friend who has thrown himself heart and soul into helping these fishermen. But I would say about this scheme that any words such as "an act of generosity" do not apply to it. The scheme is a business proposition, and a very favourable one for the Treasury. The idea is that you are going to give these men a loan of 50 per cent. of the money necessary to buy their gear, and they are to pay 5 per cent, and repay the money in three years. That is a very favourable business proposition for the Treasury. But, in addition to that, there are other great advantages which will accrue. A great impetus will be given to all the ancillary trades, the trades which handle the fish from the time they are taken out of the boat to the time they are landed in the markets in this country or in Russia or Germany. You will also have a great additional quantity of fish, which will thus cheapen prices to the whole community. My suggestion to the Secretary for Scotland is that if he confines his loan to 50 per cent. of the amount required a great many of the poorest class of fishermen—those fishermen to whom the Secretary for Scotland referred to so eloquently—will be unable to avail themselves of the scheme. That being so, the other advantages of the scheme, such as employment being given in the ancillary trades, and the benefit to the fish supplies of the country will be lost. Therefore, it would be a good business proposition for him to make it easier for the very poorest class of fisherman to get sufficient credit to enable him to purchase the necessary nets and gear.
        I would also suggest that these men deserve something a little better. The Secretary for Scotland helped agriculture in the Highlands only this year. The men had a bad harvest and they were in dire distress. In response to the appeal made to him then, the Secretary for Scotland let us have seed potatoes and seed oats at prices greatly below the market prices. In the same way these men deserve not
        1414
        less well of the country and of this House than the smallholders and farmers of Caithness and the Highlands of Scotland. Just as we provide for the latter a scheme which enables them to get their seed oats and potatoes very much below market prices, so we ought to give an opportunity to the fishermen of Scotland to obtain the nets and gear they require in order to prosecute their calling. We have to overcome the difficulties which these fishermen will also find in obtaining the other 50 per cent. of the money needed. For that I suggest we should approach the net industry. Perhaps some scheme could be devised on the lines the House adopted in regard to its housing proposals when it approached the building trade employers and employed to get them to participate. The net industry might well be asked to give some help to the fishermen in getting the nets and gear required. I understand that if prices go up, the Secretary for Scotland is not going to take any steps to bring them down again, but the fishermen are to suffer and will only get the loan stated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that arrangements will lee made to prevent the fishermen suffering in that way from causes altogether beyond their control. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the nets are to be given to each individual sharing in the gear of the boat. That will mean about sixty nets per vessel. We are now in the summer fishing season. It is absolutely necessary to get these schemes going at once. The plan is already somewhat belated and I trust we shall have an assurance that the schemes will be brought into operation, if not this week, at least next week at the latest.
        Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I want to enter my protest against the exclusion of English fishermen from the benefits of this scheme. A very considerable amount of jealousy has been engendered by this preferential treatment for Scottish fishermen.
        Mr. M. H. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Is not this a Scottish Vote?
        Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): I do not understand the hon. Member's point.
        Lieut.-Colonel WARD: It seems to me that the English fishermen have to a certain extent made out a good case for

        1415
        similar treatment. One cannot get away from the fact that this estimate, to a very large extent, means subsidising Scottish competition against the English fishing industry. It is much worse than that. The English fishermen feel that they are paying taxes a portion of the receipts for which are used by the Government to subsidise competition against them.
        Mr. E. BROWN: Why do you not push the English claim?
        12 M.
        Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am doing
        so now. A great deal of jealousy has been aroused, and I have received many letters from English fishermen on the subject. I will read one.
        "I saw your question in the House with regard to what is being done for the Scotch fishermen and what ought to be done for the English trawling trade. The Government are lending money to the Seotchmen. I should like to put my case before you, as an example of what we suffer here in these hard times. In 1909 I was left four sailing trawlers. with mortgages and liabilities of £2,000 on them. By dint of careful management and hard work I wiped this off by 1014. Then the war broke out and I lost the whole of my possessions, including my business, my money, and my son, and at the age of 52 I am unable to get a living for myself and my family. If I could be treated the same as the Scotsmen, i.e., by a loan of money to get another trawler. I should be able to get a living, as the sailing trawlers are a paying proposition for one who knows his business, and I was horn to it."
        Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Trawler! This Vote is for fishing gear, not trawlers.
        Lieut.-Colonel WARD: It is a Vote for fishing gear, which is more or less the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] From the taxpayer's point of view, I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland what security he is getting for these loans. We heard from the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) that it was a cast-iron security. It is our duty to do our best to safeguard loans of this kind. We all know that Scotsmen are generous when it comes to disposing of other people's money. As this is English money that is being voted, it is my duty to inquire as to the security.
        Lieut.-Colonial Sir J. NALL: Can the Secretary for Scotland tell us what is the position in regard to these loans? I believe that every year we have been
        1416
        asked to vote money for herrings. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money has already been advanced to this industry, and what is the total indebtedness arising from all the grants which have been advanced in the last few years? A claim of this kind could be put forward by several English fishing ports with no less force than it is Out forward on behalf of certain Scottish interests. The herring industry is becoming an annual feature in our Votes, either for nets or some other kind of gear. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what security there is for the ultimate return of the sums advanced, and can he assure the House that there is any prospect of these sums being refunded?
        Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I am pleased to have the opportunity of supporting this Vote. The Minister in charge and Scottish Members will agree, that I am not inconsistent as an English Member in doing so, because I have on previous occasions, when the matter was debated, supported these claims, principally on the ground of unemployment. But I cannot understand why Scottish Members in making these claims, should seem to have such remarkable preferential treatment over English Members when they making somewhat similar claims. Whether it is that they are very boisterous in their demands or not, I do not know. But I think that it is about time that we English Members took a leaf from their book. I do not know whether this particular scheme could not be brought in under an extension of the Trade Facilities Act. Under the Trade Facilities Act you are allowed to replace a derelict ship, but you are not allowed to replace derelict factories. Scottish Members put forward the argument that, if these loans are granted, they would help to get going, for the making of nets, factories which are at present stopped. That is a very desirable object butthere areother factories stopped also besides those for making nets, and if the Government are prepared to make their assistance so elastic to factories for making fishermen's nets, they ought to do the same with regard to other factories which are now' derelict in Lancashire. That would give as much employment, if not more than this. I hope that Scottish Members will give us the same support when we ask for it, as

        1417
        English Members are prepared to give to them to-night.
        Viscount CURZON: Like my hon. Friend, I rise to support this Vote. I have consistently in the House of Commons done what I could to support the interests of the Scottish fishermen, and for this reason: I happen to belong to the National Lifeboat Institution, and we depend upon these same Scottish fishermen for some of the finest of our lifeboat crews. There is a strange and unaccount able delay on the part of the Government in arriving at a decision on this matter. It took many months of questioning and efforts by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) to get the Government to do anything in the matter. I listened with amazement to the Secretary for Scotland, whom I recollect before Easter giving the House an impression that the Government were coming to an immediate decision. Here we are half-way through the fishing season and the Government have only just brought this particular Vote before the House. I think that the Members interested particularly in this matter have a just cause of complaint against the Government for their extraordinary delay. One would have thought that the interests of the working classes would have been their first consideration. So far from that being so, there have been no particular efforts to bring this Vote before the house at an early date.
        The Government are going into this fishing business. They are going to help the Scottish fishermen. When they do that, the Government and the country as a whole will have to take very much more interest in the fishing industry than they have done up to now. It is no use the Government making a loan to these fishermen unless there is some prospect of a return. Two things vitally affect the possibility of repayment of the loan. The first is that the fishing grounds are becoming "worked out." That being so, it is the duty of the Government to arrive at some international agreement which Hill prevent the North Sea being over-fished.
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that that subject is in Order on this Vote.
        Viscount CURZON: Then I must proceed to my other point in connection with the protection of these fishermen from the depredations of foreign trawlers. Foreign trawlers have been in the habit of poaching very largely in territorial waters.
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must also rule the hon. and gallant Member out of Order on that question.
        Viscount CURZON: I submit that foreign trawlers have been in the habit of coming into English territorial waters and places where there are in use the drift-nets for which a loan is being asked. The foreigners have been in the habit of charging straight through our drifters, and that has affected the livelihoods of the men in the industry. If we make a loan to these fishermen, surely we should ensure that they have more protection from such depredations? Otherwise we shall he placed in another year with a further Vote.
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has been ingenious, hut he is still out of Order.
        Viscount CURZON: If I cannot pursue the topic now, I do not know on what Vote I can raise it. I would urge that the Government should not give preferential treatment to one section of the fishermen along our coasts. The English fishermen deserve help just as much as the Scottish fishermen. They provide the same fine type of men and they find it all ton hard to earn a living. The matter should be treated on a purely national basis. The Board of Trade should consider whether it is not possible to take similar steps in respect of English fishing interests.
        Mr. HARBORD: As the representative of the premier herring-fishing port of Great Britain, I desire to support this Vote. At the same time I regard it as a piecemeal method of procedure, because the case made out for the Scottish fishermen applies with equal force to the men in the fishing ports elsewhere. There is much anxiety now existing and there has been much anxiety for some years past, especially in the two sister ports of Lowestoft and Yarmouth and the men there are entitled to the same consideration as the Scottish fishermen. I feel sure I shall have the sympathy of the House when I say that for three or four years,

        1419
        the fishing voyages—of which there are three in each year—have all been absolute failures with one exception. The industry has been carried on but with financial loss to those engaged in it, and some assurance should be forthcoming from the Government that the consideration and financial assistance which is being given to the Scottish fishermen will be extended to English fishermen. I am glad the House has afforded me the opportunity of saying a few words on behalf of these deserving men who did so splendidly for their country in the great War.
        Mr. FOOT: I join in supporting the Vote, but I want a distinct understanding that the Scottish Members who have secured the first slice of the pie will not regard this Vote as the completion of their work for the fishing industry. I ask them to give us some help in obtaining a similar concession for other parts of the country and particularly the West country. There, the position of the fishermen is in some respects worse than it is in Scotland, because of the loss of nets in the Channel and they are hampered in their work by wrecks which lie upon the fishing grounds. Many of the fishermen are in distress and I hope the Scottish members who have had their way in this matter will feel themselves in honour bound to support similar claims for distressed fishermen elsewhere.
        Mr. REMER: Though I do not represent a fishing constituency I support the Vote. I represent a Midland town where the only fishing is fishing for perch in the canals but I think the fishing industry is important from the national point of view and I wish to supplement what has been said about the value of the fishermen to this country. I feel the Minister responsible has been seriously neglectful in not going into the matter with more promptitude, because it has only been after the most persistent efforts that this Vote has been secured. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), with whom I have little sympathy in most matters, is to be congratulated on his success in this respect.
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating arguments which have already been used.
        Mr. REMER: I was not aware that paying a compliment was an argument. I
        1420
        strongly condemn the Government. I feel that they have been negligible in not bringing this matter forward with greater promptitude. For those reasons, I desire to give my support to this Estimate.
        The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. W. Adamson): I think that one speaker has answered the other. While, on the one hand, we have been criticised for not having made this apply to English and Welsh fishermen as well, on the other hand we have been blamed for not having brought in this Estimate before. I think the least said by me to-night will be soonest mended, and I hope, therefore, that I shall now get the Supplementary Estimate.
        Lieut.-Colonel NALL: On a point of Order. Am I not to get a plain answer to a quite serious question?
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken.
        Question put, and agreed to.

    WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) (NO. 2) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: I do not want to delay the House, but I think there is one question which ought to be raised before the Bill passes. When the Ways and Means Resolution was passed on the 8th April, the intention was to give legal validity to charges of three kinds:—
    "either on, or in connection with, the grant of licences or permits … or in connection with the control of supplies or of the prices of certain commodities, or for cervices rendered."
    At the time of the Resolution this House inserted the words "other than milk" after the words "certain commodities." The intention of the House was that the Bill should exclude milk from validity under the Act, but, as a matter of fact, this object has not been attained. In the Preamble of the Bill the Orders referred to are of three kinds, specified as (a), (b) and (c)—(a) are those Orders imposed "on, or as a condition of the grant of licences or permits"; (b) are those "in connection with the control of the supplies

    1421
    or of the prices," etc.; and (c) are "for services rendered." Then, further on in the Preamble, the exclusion of milk is only in connection with
    "charges imposed by way of payments required to be made in connection with the control of the supply or of the price of milk."
    These milk charges were made by the Food Controller in connection with licences and permits for the purchase and sale of milk in the four South-Western counties of England. The charges were not made in connection with the control of supplies. Nor were they made in connection with the control of prices; but the charges were definitely made at 2d. a gallon for the licences issued to do business in milk in those four South-Western counties.
    For that reason, I hold that the Bill now before the House does not carry out the intention of the Ways and Means Resolution. The intention of the House was that milk should be entirely excluded from the Bill, but in the Bill as it now stands milk is not excluded. Milk is not in the schedule to the Bill, and is therefore excluded from the operation of the Bill, but in the Preamble of the Bill the charges are described as "certain charges, including the several charges specified in the Schedule to this Act," that is to say, the charges in addition to those specified in the Schedule may come under the operation of the Bill. The intention of this Bill is to validate certain charges which were reasonable at the time they were made. These charges in respect of the licences for milk were intended to form a fund which was to be used for the benefit of the public. The Food Controller's words at the time were that this fund should be used for the benefit of the consumer. It was not the intention of the Government to take the money and put it in its own coffers—it was the intention of the Government to take the money for the benefit of the consumer. The only reason for charging these twopences for milk in the four South-Western counties was because it was found that the cost of production for milk in those counties was twopence below the rest of England. I suggest to the Government that it would be quite reasonable to allow the Bill as it is, but in its operation to collect these twopences and use the slim, amounting to £250,000, for the benefit of the dairy industry by applying it to some system of
    1422
    research. That is the representation I make in connection with the Bill.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr, Webb): I should have been glad to agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken to secure the validation of the levy of these milk twopences and apply them for the benefit of the dairying industry. It was, in fact, in order to secure the validation of this charge that the Resolution was originally drafted in that form in the first place and submitted to the Committee of the House, but the Committee, by a majority, insisted on inserting words excepting the charges. I pleaded with the Committee, and pointed out that the effect was not any validation of the milk charges at all, and consequently they would remain illegal and would have to be repaid in accordance with the House of Lords judgment. I begged the Committee to let the Money Resolution be passed and reported to the House and the. Bill introduced; then they could discuss in Committee an Amendment if it was desired to do something else. But the Committee, in its wisdom, insisted on putting in the words to exclude milk charges; consequently the Bill had to be drafted omitting any validation of the milk charges. Now the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. H. Simpson) asks at this, the last stage, the Third Reading, that something should be done. All the Government can do, the Government will do—that is to say, to make representations as has already been suggested, that this windfall should be devoted to some purpose for the benefit of the dairy industry. With regard to the technical argument, I think the Bill is right as drafted, and that it does not validate this milk twopence. If the Bill did do that, it would have been ruled out of order in the previous stages. We cannot change it at this stage, but we will use our best endeavours to induce the persons who have a legal right to receive these twopences to devote them to public purposes.
    Mr. FOOT: I welcome the statement that has been made by the President of the Board of Trade, but I am confident that there is something in the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. H. Simpson). The Money Resolution clearly referred to the control of supply, and the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton is that this is covered by the Preamble to the Bill.

    1423
    The only suggestion we have to make is, that if a mistake has been made, advantage might be taken of that mistake in order that the whole sum might be vested to the development of the agricultural industry. Between this time and the consideration of the Bill in another place there will be an opportunity for the Government and the Government draftsmen to consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton.
    Mr. SIMPSON: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask whether at this stage it is competent for me to suggest that the Bill is not in order, that the Bill is not drafted in accordance with the Money Resolution. The Resolution is perfectly clear. It was the intention of the Committee that milk should not be affected by the Bill at all. These charges the President of the Board of Trade has applied were made in connection with the control of the supply. I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The charge was made by the Government for licences to deal only in milk, either as a manufacturer in that area or as an exporter from that area. It was a charge made for the licence; it had nothing to do with the prier. I ask, therefore, whether, as the Bill stands, it represents the intention of the Committee as expressed in the Resolution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point which should have been taken, if at all, on the Second Reading. It is now too late to
    1424
    take the point. Further, I think the hon. Member is placing too much reliance on the Preamble. The Preamble is a preface or an introduction: it is no part of the legislation.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask for guidance whether it is a fact that if a Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, is at a later stage found to be out of Order, can he taken, if, by inadvertence, one of its stages has already been taken.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Second Reading is certainly the right time and the only time at which that point can be taken, unless, of course, something irregular has been done in Committee. Then that would hp brought to my attention on the Third Reading, and I should deal with it. Nothing irregular has been done in this case.
    Question, "That the Bill be read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before One o'Clock.

  SHERIFF COURT OFFICIALS AND PROCURATORS FISCAL.
  SHERIFF COURT OFFICIALS AND PROCURATORS FISCAL.
  PBLIC TRUSTEE (AVERTISEMENT).
  PBLIC TRUSTEE (AVERTISEMENT).
  TOWER OF LONDON (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  TOWER OF LONDON (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (POLICE PENSIONERS).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (POLICE PENSIONERS).
  UNIVERSITIES (GOVERNMENT UBLICATIONS).
  UNIVERSITIES (GOVERNMENT UBLICATIONS).
  OFFICIAL REPORT (PRICE).
  OFFICIAL REPORT (PRICE).
  KENYA COLONY (NATIVES).
  KENYA COLONY (NATIVES).
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (RUBBER EXPORTS.)
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (RUBBER EXPORTS.)
POST OFFIC.
  AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEAND MAILS.
  AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEAND MAILS.
  WIRELESS PATENTS.
  WIRELESS PATENTS.
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (SALE).
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (SALE).
  NIGHT TELEPHONE SERVICE (POSTMASTERS' REMUNERATION).
  NIGHT TELEPHONE SERVICE (POSTMASTERS' REMUNERATION).
ROYAL. NAVY.
  SAILOR'S ESTATE (WIDOW'S CLAIM).
  SAILOR'S ESTATE (WIDOW'S CLAIM).
  POST OFFICE STAFF.
  POST OFFICE STAFF.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  GENERAL MESSING SYSTEM.
  GENERAL MESSING SYSTEM.
  VICTUALLING AND MESSING ALLOWANCES.
  VICTUALLING AND MESSING ALLOWANCES.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TUBERCULOSIS (DEATHS)
  TUBERCULOSIS (DEATHS)
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (E. STEVENS).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (E. STEVENS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MIDWIFERY SERVICE.
  MIDWIFERY SERVICE.
  TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).
  TRAFFIC NOISE.
  TRAFFIC NOISE.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DRAINAGE SYSTEM, HANWELL.
  DRAINAGE SYSTEM, HANWELL.
  CENSUS RETURNS.
  CENSUS RETURNS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM.
  ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS.
  ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS.
  HOUSING (PREMIUMS).
  HOUSING (PREMIUMS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES, MIDLAND COUNTIES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES, MIDLAND COUNTIES.
  WAITERS AND WAITRESSES.
  WAITERS AND WAITRESSES.
  FOREIGN WAITERS.
  FOREIGN WAITERS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL (CHILDREN)
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL (CHILDREN)
  INSURANCE (STATE CONTRIBUTION).
  INSURANCE (STATE CONTRIBUTION).
  BENEFIT (J. BULLEY).
  BENEFIT (J. BULLEY).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  Moron VEHICLES.
  Moron VEHICLES.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  MARRIAGE LAW.
  MARRIAGE LAW.
  MERCRANT SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  MERCRANT SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  CATERING ARRANGEMENTS
  CATERING ARRANGEMENTS
  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
  MESSRS. J. LYONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED.
  MESSRS. J. LYONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED.
  WAGES
  WAGES
  TRANSPORT (GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH ROAD).
  TRANSPORT (GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH ROAD).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
Read 2a.

CENTRAL LONDON AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, with reference to this Bill I have received, and I dare say others have also received, a Petition from the inhabitants of Fulham assembled at a public meeting in the Lecture Hall, West Kensington, on Saturday, March 22, 1924, showing that this Bill has recently been presented to the House of Parliament, both companies asking for further powers. The Petitioners urge that such powers should not be granted until, and unless, the Metropolitan District Railway Company have reserved out of the twenty-one acres of surplus and derelict lands at Earl's Court a proper and suitable open space and recreation ground for the public health and recreation.
I do not, for a moment, intend to press this proposal upon your Lordships. I do not think it would be wise or right. But at the same time, as founder and chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which has been instrumental in opening since 1884 over 120 parks and playgrounds within the Metropolitan area,
848
your Lordships will not be astonished if I ask you to join with me in expressing a hope that these powerful companies—who apply to your Lordships under this Bill for further powers, including, as I understand, that of erecting workshops on the twenty-one or twenty-three acres of surplus and derelict lands at Earl's Court, which is claimed by the Metropolitan District Railway—will recognise the responsibilities of landownership in a crowded city like London and will voluntarily set apart, and place at the disposal of the local borough authority, some portion of these twenty-three or twenty-one acres (for I do not think it is accurately calculated which it is) to be maintained by that authority as a playground or open space for the benefit of the railway employees and the public generally. The Fulham Borough Council has already expressed its willingness to approach the London County Council and assist in the maintenance, should the railway companies see their way to grant this favour to the public.
Your Lordships may like to know that these vacant lands, which are at the junction of several railways, are alleged to have been originally common lands, subject to the public right of sports and pastimes. I should remark that if I make any errors it is not my fault because the Bill was only put into my hands yesterday evening and, moreover, I have had no time to look into the legal position. Therefore, you will see that I am not asking anything from a legal point of view; I am assuming that all that they claim is just and right. In the year 1914, when the war broke out, the Metropolitan District Railway, the Midland Railway and other railway companies claimed the right to be lawfully in possession of, and to own, certain surplus railway and derelict lands called and known as the Old Exhibition Grounds of Earl's Court of about twenty-three acres in extent, and they let them on lease in that year to the then Government at the enormous rental of £14,000 a year so as to enable the Government to find a home temporarily for the Belgian refugees who came from the theatre of war to this country for safety.
On November 11, 1918, when the Armistice was declared, the Belgians returned to their own country, but nevertheless the Government continued, most extraordinarily, to pay this enormous rent

849
until September 29 last, when the waste of public money thereby entailed was brought to the attention of the Government by the inhabitants of Fulham. It is now stated that an offer of £17,000 per annum has been made by a dancing hall company to the railway companies for a twenty-one years' lease of these grounds—but here, again, I cannot vouch for the truth of this, though I have clone my best to find out, and I believe it is so. But whether this be true or not, it is evident that the value of the land is great, or the Government would not have paid the railway companies £14,000 a year for so many years for twenty-three acres of derelict land. The railway companies may well, therefore, be generous in these circumstances.
It may be a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that the population of Fulham is 160,000, whereas in 1891 it was only 91,000. It is a more crowded area than that of Poplar, of which we have lately heard so much. There are 93 inhabitants to the acre in Fulham, whereas there are only 70 to the acre in Poplar. To-day I visited all the three grounds, which are divided by the railways. The one called the Western Gardens is surrounded on two sides by small houses, and would appear to be most suitable for a recreation or playground. The nearest open space to these derelict grounds is over a mile distant, and two are over two miles distant. These are Bishop's Park, given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and South Park, given by a Miss Sullivan. If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and a private lady have given such a generous lead, I have little doubt that the railway companies would not turn a deaf ear if your Lordships drew their attention to this opportunity of showing the world that the popular opinion in regard to companies is erroneous. It would redound to their honour if they showed that if companies do not possess bodies they at all events have souls.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down said that your Lordships would not be surprised at his having called attention to this matter. He must permit me to express some surprise at the course that he has followed—anyhow, as regards myself. Your Lordships are, of course,
850
aware, and the noble Earl is aware, of the usual procedure in regard to all Private Bills. The Chairman of Committees moves them pro forma. When there is any opposition to them he does not move them. It is left to some Peer who is more particularly interested in the Bill to father it, whereupon it becomes my duty to give your Lordships House such advice as I can as to what I consider to be the most convenient procedure to follow. The noble Earl, having given no notice in this case, leaves me in the position of having to defend it. I am very glad to see that owing to a fortunate accident my noble friend Lord Ashfield is here and he may perhaps feel called upon to address your Lordships.
In the meantime, I wish that the noble Earl had raised a Second Reading objection or suggested some instruction for the guidance of the Committee to which this Bill will be referred. I think it would have been very much more convenient had he given me due notice, in order that we could have been posted as to what the intentions of himself and his friends were in calling attention to this matter. I think I ought to tell your Lordships that a Petition has been deposited on the lines of the desire expressed by the noble Earl. This Petition, of course, is of no value to your Lordships. The Standing Orders, which give ample time for the deposit of Petitions, state certain hours by which Petitions must be deposited. Any Petition against this Bill ought to have been deposited before three o'clock yesterday. The Petition which I hold in my hand was deposited this morning, and therefore is of no value to your Lordships, though it is of some value to me as I shall quote it in a moment in connection with the merits of this question.
The noble Earl referred to what is familiarly known as the Earl's Court site—the site of the old Earl's Court Exhibition—and desires somehow to bring about the setting aside of this site as an open space. There is nothing in this Bill, I can assure your Lordships, that affects the Earl's Court site in the least, and if any Amendment was made in the Bill affecting the Earl's Court site, it would be outside the Parliamentary Notice and therefore very wrong. More than that, the Bill is promoted by the Central

851
London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies. The Petition specifies the particular five acres of the Earl's Court site as those which the noble Earl has stated a desire to see made an open space, and I am assured that that portion of the site does not belong to these railway companies at all. That being so. I cannot imagine a more unreasonable thing, or indeed a greater waste of your Lordships' time, than to discuss whether a certain site which does not belong to the promoters should be made an open space or not. I sincerely hope therefore that your Lordships will allow this Bill to be read a second time and to proceed through your Lordships' House. There are a number of other points which I could bring before your Lordships, but I think I have said sufficient to elucidate the matter and need not say more. The noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, is present, and I hope that he will correct me if anything that I have said needs correcting. Subject to that, I feel that the only course before your Lordships is to allow the Bill to proceed in the ordinary way.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Read 2a.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack what will be the extent of our holiday this Whitsuntide?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in answer to the noble Marquess I may say that, after consulting the opinion of a number of members of your Lordships' House, I do not think we need sit to-morrow if there is no business. In that case we should adjourn to-day, and I understand that it is the general opinion that we should adjourn until Tuesday, June 24.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STRAT-FORD-UPON-AVON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BENEFICES ACT, 1898 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given Notice to move that the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment), Measure, 1923, the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, and the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powders Act, 1919. His Grace said: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships to consent to three successive Resolutions which bear upon one another in a certain sense, but are entirely independent as regards your Lordships' decision about each of them. It would probably be right before I move them, which I shall do seriatim, that I should say a few words to remind any one of your Lordships who may for the moment have forgotten what is the procedure we are following in this matter, how far your Lordships are acting upon adequate advice already given, and how far the matters which will be brought before you have been the subject of adequate consideration and inquiry.
May I remind your Lordships that what we are doing to-night, if we pass these Resolutions, is the fifth stage in the consideration of the particular Measures which are specified in the Resolutions. When a Measure is going to be introduced upon Church matters it comes, or it can come, first before the Church Assembly, as we call it, for discussion. That Assembly can discuss it in detail, first in the Assembly as a whole and then, as is done almost always, in Committees of one kind or another which look into details. Afterwards it is discussed in what we should call here a Committee of the Whole House before it receives what is described in our Assembly Regulations as the final approval of the Assembly. When it has received the final approval of the Assembly it passes through a second stage. It goes to what is called the Legislative

853
Committee of the Assembly. That is a body consisting of Bishops, clergy and laity, with a preponderance of laity. That, body considers the whole question and formulates an account of it, specifying its purpose and describing its provisions in some detail. This Legislative Committee, which consists at present of 31 members, is an important body.
When that Committee has drawn up its report it transmits it to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament which, as your Lordships will remember, is a body of 30 members, 15 of whom are nominated by the Lord Chancellor from your Lordships' Ho use and 15 by the Speaker from the House of Commons. That body considers the whole subject afresh, with the report upon it which has been submitted to it by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, and that is the third stage. Then the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament makes a Report upon the subject to Parliament which is laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. But before submitting the Report to Parliament it sends it back again to the Legislative Committee of the Assembly, in order that it may there be considered to see whether any modifications are necessary or whether anything has been inadequately understood.
That is security against inadvertent misrepresentation or mistake of any kind. But the Ecclesiatical Committee has to report in the end whether it is expedient or not that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. That is the purport of their examination. If they recommend that it shall receive the Royal Assent, and that is also agreed to by the Legislative Committee of the Asembly, the stage comes which we have reached to-night. Members of either House of Parliament are requested by the Legislative Committee of the Assembly to introduce in this House a Resolution in the form in which the Resolutions are before this House now.
With regard to the first of those Measures, the Motion is: That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment) Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. What your Lordships have to do to-night
854
is to say "Yes" or "No" to that Resolution—not to consider the Measure in detail, or at all events not with the power of amending it in detail. I venture to remind your Lordships that it is impossible to devise any manner of procedure which would more thoroughly secure that a matter as to which your Lordships are asked thus to vote whether or not it should be presented for Royal Assent, should have, been considered by those qualified to consider it. The Church, in a gathering which is preponderantly lay, considers the whole question in detail. It then goes through all the stages that I have mentioned, and it comes to your Lordships to say, to-night, whether or not you desire, as all these bodies have up to this point desired, that the Measure should receive the Royal Assent.
In regard to the three Measures in respect of which I am about to propose Resolutions there is practically no difference of opinion existing. A report has come from all these bodies in favour of the Royal Assent being given, and I shall have to ask your Lordships to give it in each of the three cases. I have thought it right to remind you of the procedure in a general way before coming in detail to the Resolutions which I have to propose. The first which I propose relates to the Benefices (Amendment) Act, 1898. This is a Measure with a perfectly simple intention and purport. It is really to abolish the sale of advowsons, as such, not at once but after a little time. I do not think any of your Lordships who have been familiar with Church controversy, and even controversy outside Church regions, during recent years, will doubt that among the so-called blemishes, or even scandals (for that word is sometimes used) that attend a certain part of our Church administration in connection with the State the possibility of the sale of an advowson, as such, has been found to be a stumbling block, a difficulty and a blemish upon our life which we have long been anxious to remove. By this Measure we propose to abolish in future days the recurrence of that which has caused so much anxiety, so much pain, and, occasionally, so much actual wrong in regard to the possession of advowsons.
But in making the proposal that that system shall before very long come to an end, we do it with what I venture to think

855
is perhaps even over-scrupulous care lest we should, by rapid action, be doing harm to anybody, or inflicting a wrong where we did not intend to inflict it, or unfairly injuring what are called the rights of property. We make provision in this Measure that any private patron who has now the possession of an advowson—that is, the right to nominate to the Bishop for institution to a benefice a duly-qualified clerk—shall be able to exercise that right not once but twice after this Measure becomes law before his power to sell the advowson actually comes to an end.
Liberty is also given, and given for the first time, to the person whom we call the owner of the advowson, to divest himself of that power of sale. Your Lordships may, perhaps, be hardly aware that at this moment any of you who are in that position—and I know some of your Lordships are the owners, as we say, of advowsons—cannot while retaining the patronage divest yourselves of the power of sale without very elaborate procedure. If this Measure becomes law you will be able to declare at any time, in a way that here specified, that you do desire to divest yourselves of that power of sale, and then the benefice will fall into what is called public patronage. When a benefice becomes one that is in public patronage it gains, because at present some of the benefactions which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others give to particular benefices can only go to those which are in public patronage. Benefices the advowson whereof may be sold do not get those benefits. This is in order to prevent the augmentation of what might vulgarly be called a marketable commodity. We are all desirous of securing that a benefice which is to be augmented from public funds, must not be a saleable commodity. Under this Measure, any owner of such a benefice will have the right to divest himself at once of the power of sale, and then the benefice will become public patronage, and will be eligible to receive that kind of help or benefaction to which I have referred.
I think I have told your Lordships all that is necessary in regard to this Measure. It will be years before it will come compulsorily into operation. With regard to any lay patron it will not be until two vacancies have taken
856
place that that can happen, unless by the voluntary act of the patron himself he resigns his right of sale in the way that I have described. What I am anxious to make clear to your Lordships is that this Measure, if it becomes law, will not in any way, in the sense of abolishing or restricting, interfere with the existence of private patronage of advowsons. Some people think and have spoken of it as though it were a Measure for putting all advowsons into public hands—into the hands of the Bishops, or the Crown, or someone else. That is net so at all. What it does is to prevent the advowson being something that may be sold; but it will equally remain in the power of a man, though he cannot sell it, to exercise it as a private patron. We are not interfering with private patronage, but only with the rights of sale. I ought, perhaps, to mention that the Measure is drawn so as to be applicable to, and to include, even the rights of the Crown. The Lord Chancellor will, I hope, be able to assure us that no difficulty need arise on that account, but in the rare case where any question could arise with regard to the rights of the Crown in the matter, this Measure places those rights in the same category as the rights of other patrons.
If your Lordships pass this Measure it will be a very real gain to the Church in two ways. It will prevent wrong things being done, things which I deplore as much as any one can, and which have done untold mischief and harm in every sense. It will also prevent the exaggerated account of those things which is current, and which makes some of them appear a great deal worse than they really are. The grievance, though real, is not on the scale that it is sometimes said to be. It is spoken of as if there was a traffic on an immense scale in advowsons. That is not so. Some years ago it was more extensive than it is now; at the moment it is very restricted. It should be done away with. I have advocated this for many years, and I esteem it a privilege to be able to ask your Lordships to give the coup de grâce to a system which has been mischievous, and to do so in a manner which gives the fullest consideration to, and treats in the tenderest way, the existing rights of individual persons. I have

857
purposely avoided going into minute details. I could do so if it were necessary, and I am perfectly prepared to answer any questions that may be asked. I hope I have made the purport of the Measure clear. It is quite simple, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Resolution which I now move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices Act, 1393 (Amendment), Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I crave your indulgence in intervening thus early in the debate, but I have to be elsewhere in a few moments. The most rev. Primate has given a clear and succinct account of the procedure which is necessary with regard to the Resolutions he is moving, and it is probably convenient that general observations should be made on the first Resolution. I should like to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of everything His Grace has said. I should like to go one step further and say that under the Church Assembly Powers Act it is intended that Resolutions moved in your Lordships' House and in another place should be real Resolutions, carrying, if they are passed, the independent judgment of both Houses of Parliament. It would be a great misfortune if such Resolutions were regarded as being something in the nature of pro formâ Resolutions, or if this House were to say that as five or six inquiries have been made by the Church Assembly and the matter thoroughly thrashed out there, when a Measure conies before Parliament Parliament has no clear and independent say in the matter.
It may be urged that the Ecclesiastical Committee have already approved of these Measures and have therefore saved Parliament the trouble of making a personal and individual examination of the Resolutions on each occasion. I do not think there could be a greater mistake or disaster than to say that because the Ecclesiastical Committee has recommended the passing of this or that Resolution, Parliament should therefore be silent. There are many cases in which there is a happy borderland between Church and State; where Church and
858
State can unite their forces for the benefit of the citizens of this country, and I deprecate any attitude in this House by which the Ecclesiastical Committee are considered to be the final arbiters in such matters.
It will be remembered that during the debates on the Church Assembly Act it was difficult to find any satisfactory method that would combine the spiritual independence of the Church with the rightful powers of Parliament in dealing with matters that concern us as citizens as well as Churchmen. Much time was spent in hammering out a satisfactory way by which the rights of the Church, on the one hand, and the rights of the State, on the other, should be safeguarded and united together in the common cause of righteousness. It is, therefore, exceedingly important that each item in that procedure should have full and constant value given to it Hitherto, the Measures proposed have not been of a very grave or formidable character, and where a Measure is merely of a technical nature this House might well act upon the mere recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Powers that are never exercised tend to fall into desuetude, and when an important group of Measures comes before this House then is the occasion for your Lordships to recognise what those powers are, and not stand by and say that, just because these matters have been passed in the Church Assembly and approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee, they should there and then be passed.
I am not speaking against this particular Resolution, or against the next two Resolutions on the Order Paper. I am merely pointing out the principle. Before now it has been made quite plain how useful this House can be in the progress of Church legislation. One of the Resolutions to come before your Lordships this afternoon will be found to be based upon discussions in this House. It is merely the development of decisions at which your Lordships have already arrived. That appears to me to be a singularly happy instance in which righteous forces have combined. When we have these important Measures before us, then is the time to emphasise that this House and the other House of Parliament form the last link in a long chain. It should be recognised as being a definite

859
link on the road to legislation, and it would be a grave mistake if it was thought that because the authorities concerned had given their approval this House should, therefore, necessarily and without discussion, signify its assent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, before I indicate the general attitude of the Government towards the particular Measures which the most rev. Primate has brought before your Lordships' House, it is right that I should say something on the wider aspects of the question to which he, and also the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken, alluded. The Church Assembly Act of 1919 is a very sweeping Measure in two respects. In the first place, it was so drawn that it was impossible for us in this House to discuss in detail the constitution of the Church Assembly. In the second place, it endowed the Church Assembly, supervised no doubt by the Ecclesiastical Committee, with the power of passing, by mere Resolution if it could get the assent of both Houses of Parliament, Measures which this House could not amend, and which it must take or reject as they stood. When you add to that the fact that the powers given to the Church Assembly by that Act were such as to enable the Church Assembly, in connection with any matter concerning the Church, to repeal the Statute Law and repeal the Common Law unlimitedly, and deal with questions affecting the Constitution of this country without restraint, you realise that it was obviously a very formidable Measure. I, for one, opposed it to the utmost of my ability at that time, but a large majority of your Lordships decided to pass the Act, and it also passed the other House.
As the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken has observed, the only opportunity that is given to Parliament to intervene is in the event of a Resolution being brought forward that the Royal Assent be given to one of these Measures which has been passed by the Church Assembly and sanctioned by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and which comes before Parliament in a form in which Parliament has no power to amend it. That consideration might give rise to a very serious situation. If a serious situation did arise, in which it was sought, in the opinion of the Government of the day, to
860
alter the Constitution of the country unduly—for instance, to place the appointment of the two Archbishops in the hands of some Ecclesiastical Committee instead of the Crown, or to proceed in a multitude of other ways which I might mention—then I think the Government would have to give very close attention to the matter, and to consider what power it possesses to reject any such Resolution.
Happily, no such question comes before your Lordships on this occasion. I said, in the case of the debates in 1919, that if the measure had simply been one for enabling the Church to deal with domestic difficulties, I, for my part, should not have offered any opposition to it, but should have been in favour of it. We have seen too much of the enormous and unjustifiable difficulties which have been placed in the way of the Church in bringing about measures of domestic reform on account of the narrow minded opposition which has broken out in Parliament. This possibility was removed by the Act of 1919, which, I think, went a great deal too far the other way. But that question need not be discussed now. Regarding purely domestic matters we said at the time that if the Act had been confined to matters of that kind we should not have offered the least opposition.
Coming to this particular Measure, it is designed to prevent the sale of benefices under certain conditions. That is a very right thing to do. It falls to me to see a great many instances of the disposal of benefices; such matters come before me in all sorts of forms. I observe that there is a very reckless sense, among a certain number of owners of patronage, of their rights of dealing with patronage as if it were mere private property. The matter concerns the Crown also. It does not apply to the patronage of the Prime Minister or of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it does arise in respect of the patronage of livings which are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is prohibited by Statute from selling these livings except for the purpose of augmenting other benefices, and it is often very beneficial that he should possess that power and sell the rights of patronage in order to augment other benefices. But whatever may be said of that power being left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, the conclusion of the Government, on consideration—and it is

861
a conclusion which I, for one, heartily endorse—has been that it would look very ill if the Government sought to make any exception of themselves as distinct from the private owners of benefices.
I desire to say, therefore, that the Government are ready to advise the Crown to place its rights at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Measure. The result will be that it will no longer be open to private persons to sell their livings as they used to do, in a manner which was sometimes corrupt. The matter will be regulated in the manner proposed by this Measure, and consequently the system under which the sale of benefices used to take place will vanish, and there will be substituted for it a Measure which the Church, I think, ought certainly to be in a position to pass, and which will enable this matter to be regulated by the only body which can deal with it properly—namely, the Church itself. I say to your Lordships, therefore, that, so far as the Government are concerned, they assent to the Resolution which the most rev. Primate has proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

UNION OF BENEFICES MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg now to move, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I apologise to your Lordships for troubling you again upon the second Resolution, but it is obviously right that I should do so. The Measure to which I now ask your Lordships to assent is described in a very-clear way in the words of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, which I will read to your Lordships They say:—
"The object of the Measure is to set up permanent machinery for carrying into effect the policy long ago approved by Parliament of providing for unions of benefices where economy of endowments or of man power or other reasons makes such unions desirable in the interests of the Church of England as a whole."
This matter is complicated in its details, but not in the least difficult as regards its general principles. I will deal with general principles only, for I think it would probably be your Lordships' wish
862
that I should not touch upon the details which are both complicated and technical.
For many years everybody who has looked into the matter has been struck by the difficulties which besot the administration of the Church of England in the case of exceedingly small benefices. I have before me the case of a benefice containing forty-seven people. Up to recent times it would have been exceedingly difficult to handle this question in any other way than by letting things go on exactly as they were, and having an incumbent and churchwardens appointed with the sole duty of administering the work of this incumbency of forty-seven people, inhabiting perhaps a dozen houses and providing a congregation of, let us say, ten people, or something of that kind. The difficulties which surround administration in such a case as that are very great indeed. This is an extreme case, but there are many others in which the difficulty exists in a less terrible way.
May I remind your Lordships where these difficulties lie? They lie, first of all, in my opinion, with the incumbent himself. Very few men who are really in active use of their faculties and powers are content to be incumbents of tiny parishes, because they really get no opportunity of using their powers fully, and the work is too small to give them an opportunity for usefulness. Such men are always longing for wider scope in order that they may perform more effectively the work to which they have devoted their lives. But it is not merely the man who suffers. No doubt he suffers by deteriorating, if he stays in the position in which he is placed, from the very lack of opportunity for active service. But the parish also suffers enormously. It has, in the first place, a less fit man than they might otherwise have, because a man who consents to take such a post is often worn out, or else a man who for some other reason is not likely to do his work with any great originality or thoughtfulness. In the next place, the loss to the parish of esprit de corps and vigour of any kind in a corporate sense is perfectly obvious, when we are thinking of tiny parishes of that sort.
The number of very small parishes of the size I have mentioned is, happily, few

863
but your Lordships will be surprised to learn that in one-fifth of all the parishes in England there are populations of under three hundred people. It is therefore no small matter that we are thinking of when trying to deal with the union of small benefices, so as to give more work to the worthy incumbent and more spirit and life to the organisation as a whole. You will get better men and more reasonable emoluments for the better men. Where you add to a benefice the work of adjacent benefices you add the income of those adjacent benefices also, and in that way you give a man a living wage for what is more nearly approaching a good day's work. That is one of the objects which most of us have in view in promoting this Measure. We believe that you will get better men, that they will be better paid, and that the work will be better done. Then we are all pressed constantly by the poverty of the clergy in rural areas, but is it to be expected that from outside sources public or private money is likely to come for increasing the emolument of a man who admittedly has not got enough to do? You are not giving a fair day's wage for a fair day's work if you give it for what is not a fair day's work, and it is not to be expected that public or private money will be forthcoming for that purpose. Therefore, for that reason, too, there is a great gain in the union of benefices.
For years past almost every public body in Church or civil life which has debated this subject has said: "Surely the way out of our difficulties is, so far as possible, to unite the small benefices," and I have been for some years in Assembly after Assembly where that has been carried almost without a dissentient voice. But if, as you leave that room, you say to one who has voted: "I am very glad you voted for that," the answer will invariably be the same, namely: "There are peculiar circumstances in my parish which would render it very undesirable. We could not do it in my parish, but I think generally we ought to do it." That shows that there will always, and naturally, be a certain amount of local disinclination to sacrifice individual entity and individual rights, even where the individual entity and individual rights are of the sort that I have described.
So, for five years past, we have had in operation an Act of Parliament, which has enabled inquiries to be made into the
864
circumstances of adjacent parishes with very small populations, or where one at least has a small population, with a view-to bringing about union where it is desirable. We have had very hard work by competent men, who have made inquiries and gone into all the facts about each particular case, and have then recommended, if they thought it desirable, the union of benefices under the Act which will now naturally, by itself, expire. The Act was a temporary measure, in order that the matter might be dealt with upon a larger scale. That temporary measure is coming to an end, and if your Lordships do not pass this Measure, and it does not receive the Royal Assent, there will be nothing substituted to take the place of the temporary Act.
Of course, some of your Lordships may say that you know what these inquiries mean—that they are mere formal matters, that the thing is a foregone conclusion and all settled beforehand, elsewhere. No greater mistake could be made. The inquiries were most careful and thorough, and by no means have the proposals always been given effect to. I believe that 452 separate inquiries have been carried on in the matter, and that out of that number eighty proposals at least have been declined as unsuitable. That is evidence which I am anxious your Lordships should consider, in order to realise that this is not a formal matter, or one which slips through as a matter of course. Where practical difficulties have proved to be considerable, or where practical objections have proved to be real, and union is considered to be undesirable, the proposals have not been approved. If you pass this Resolution and let the Measure become an Act it will do two things. It will consolidate what is a rather complicated state of things, and it will provide new machinery, or improved machinery, for doing much better the work which during these five years we have been doing. That is the principle and purport of this Measure. I would remind your Lordships what an amount of detailed consideration such a question requires, and the amount of consideration which has already been given to it.
I may interpolate a word or two to say that I rejoice in what has been said as to the recognition of the right and privilege and duty of the Houses of Parliament to exercise absolute freedom of

865
judgment on the final rejection or acceptance of Measures which come before it in this way. In no sense do I wish to regard what we are doing as a matter of formality. If your Lordships see good reason for rejecting this Measure, reject it, but do it with the knowledge of the elaborate care which has been given to it by others, and because you see reasons for departing from the conclusions that they have reached.
There is one part of the Measure upon which I wish to say a word or two. Your Lordships are aware that there already exists the power, in certain cases, of taking away a portion of the income which belongs to one parish and giving it to another parish which may have a larger population and smaller endowment, which is immediately adjacent, or in the same diocese, and which ought in the opinion of the authorities to receive a portion of the emoluments going to the richer of the two parishes. This Measure would make the doing of that at once more easy to investigate, and perhaps in some cases more easy to effect, but let nobody suppose that in doing that we are introducing anything new. Not only have we, for more than five years, been doing it with regard to certain parishes where conditions of a restricted kind rendered it possible, but it is the very principle upon which, for more than eighty years, we have proceeded in Church finance generally. When the Ecclesiastical Commission was formed in the earlier decades of the last century, arrangements were made, where it was found that the emoluments were coining in a large degree to quarters where there were not adequate means of using them, while others were in need of more emoluments, that we should be able to use what has been commonly called the "shaving" of the larger property with a view to providing for the less well endowed.
That is the principle on which the Ecclesiastical Commission took steps with regard to bishoprics, cathedrals, and canonries, and a very large number of parishes. But in this Measure we render the plan capable of being worked in a rather more regular and thorough way, and with full investigation before the action is taken. And it is only to be taken, even after this Measure becomes law, with one very
866
marked restriction. We do not touch any emoluments which have come to a parish or area in modern times. Nothing, great or small, that has been given to a parish since the year 1800, that is 125 years ago, can be taken away from it except by some special legislative enactment. This Measure would not empower us to do it. We deal only with those properties which have come down with regard to a particular parish or area from long, long ago, when circumstances may have been entirely different from what they are to-day. That is one condition which belongs to all this readjustment of income. The further condition which belongs to it is that the thing must be thoroughly investigated, and a large number of assents have to be secured both from central quarters and from local representatives, both of patrons and of people. The thing is to be thoroughly gone into by them before a consent is given.
I have purposely put it in general terms. The matter is much more technical and detailed. The Measure is a full one, which works out all these details in a consolidating way. The previous Acts would cease to operate, the new Act would come into operation, and, I believe, would come into operation effectively and well. The whole proposal is the outcome of an immensely long consideration of a very difficult subject, by most competent men who have gone into it carefully and believe that the Measure, as finally drawn, will effect what we want to do, and effect it without inflicting any hardship, while doing great good to the Church at large. I hope your Lordships will pass the Resolution.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in this case the Crown has authorised the Government to place its rights at the disposal of Parliament. These rights are affected in this instance less in the case of the patronage of the Lord Chancellor than in the case of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Crown, as your Lordships know, has large possessions under two titles—jure coronæ and jure, ducatus. In

867
jure ducatus the Crown has large patronage in the Duchy of Lancaster which will be, I think, more affected by this Measure than any other patronage over which the Crown exercises dominion. However, the view of the Government is that this is a thoroughly useful Measure.
In one respect, I congratulate the most rev. Primate on the Government under whoso auspices he brings it forward. If I were to take your Lordships through the forty-eight clauses of this Measure, you would find that it is a Measure of a highly Socialistic character. It regards the interest of the Church as a whole to the utter disregard of the interest of individuals. That is in accordance with the tendency of the time, not only in the Church, but I think in an increasing degree in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, is one of the few supporters of the old tradition of the early Victorian period, and it is enough to bring the early Victorian Peers from their graves to see such a Measure as this brought before your Lordships. Property is dealt with discreetly and wisely, but it is emphatically proclaimed that it has its duties as well as its rights. But it is not a Measure of Parliament. Now, all that your Lordships are asked to do is to give your assent to this Measure going forward for Royal Assent.
I am entirely in favour of this Measure, and I speak with some practical knowledge of it. I suppose that I have a larger amount of patronage to deal with than anybody else in the country, and what causes me pain is the number of small livings for which I have to find incumbents, where the income is £100 or £150 per year, and perhaps a large vicarage. In those circumstances cruel hardship is inflicted, and it is more cruel because very often there is a small benefice next door with which my benefice could most easily be united, but I have no power. Now it is in the hands of the Church, which, I have no doubt, will exercise its jurisdiction very fairly. I think the Measure is thoroughly useful, and I commend it to your Lordships' consideration for the broad reasons which the most rev. Primate put before your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to move, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. This Resolution deals with what we know as the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, which is of all the three, from my point of view at least, at once the most important and the most urgent. It does not affect the larger principles, but it is more important than either of the other two, and the matter is one in regard to which it is urgent that we should get something passed quickly into law. I have for over half a century been engaged, as a member of ecclesiastical bodies, in ecclesiastical discussions, and any of your Lordships who, like myself, have been in such debates will find it difficult to recall a single week of such discussions in which the dilapidation question has not figured largely. It has been the common talk of every ecclesiastical gathering, because the difficulty is a ceaseless one; the hardship and the inequality have been real, and the desire to amend it has been real, but the practical way of doing it has been found quite extraordinarily difficult.
My fellow-countrymen north of the Tweed long ago settled this question as regards the Established Church of Scotland in a much more drastic manner. They relieved the incumbent altogether of liability, either for his house or for the incidental expenses of his church fabric, and so on. The whole of this falls upon the heritors, the ratepayers of the parish, that is, and not upon the parson at all. But England has never taken that line and the burden has lain, however it has been apportioned, upon the clergy, and not upon their parishioners.
Under the present law every incumbent is liable for the upkeep of his residence, however large, and when he vacates the benefice, if he has not adequately attended to the upkeep during his tenure of it, the expense that falls upon him may be very large indeed. In order to avoid that he is given power of having an inspection made every five years, and if, in accordance with the results of that inspection, he then effects the improve-

869
ments which are necessary, he is entirely free from liability, whatever happens during the five years that ensue. But a great many clergy, with the best of intentions, find it exceedingly difficult to invite these periodical inspections and to raise the money to meet them. Therefore, without any evil intent on his part, when a benefice is vacated by an incumbent or the incumbent dies, the liability may be very large. No system could be worse than the one which at that moment throws upon the shoulders of an out-going man or of his widow (which is still worse) the liability for the expenditure, possibly, of a very considerable sum of money. We have long striven to find some mode of altering the system of this compulsory payment of large sums of money at a moment when, perhaps, that payment is most inconvenient or difficult to make.
The remedy appeared to be a system of annual payments of a reasonable amount which would ensure the proper upkeep of the house. I need not go into the reasons here and now, but it has been found extraordinarily difficult to arrange either for the proper assessment of what that amount should be, or for the enforcement of the annual payment when it became due, or, what is exceedingly important, how to start the matter by getting all the premises and houses into good order. If you are going to set up a system of annual payments you are met by the immense difficulty of starting fair, of making a beginning with the houses in good order and everything in proper condition. Until now it has been insuperably difficult to get over all those complications and to produce a Measure which would enable a payment to be made annually and to be enforceable to a reasonable amount, and to bring to an end these large payments which have to be made at inconvenient moments.
This Measure deals with that with the greatest care. We believe that we have devised a mode alike of consolidating the very complicated Acts which exist at present, and of originating new measures to meet the particular difficulties and to remove the unfair inequalities which exist between one benefice and another in this connection. We do it, roughly speaking, by setting up in every diocese a dilapidations board which will consider the whole question in each case and make the
870
arrangements prescribed in the Act for securing the annual payment of the quota by the incumbents concerned, who will, of course, in addition be liable for what is called wilful waste or gross neglect of a culpable kind. That will not fall under the annual payment. We believe that we have devised here a method, very elaborate and necessarily somewhat technical in detail, by which the thing can be done.
If it is said that we shall still leave upon the shoulders of an incumbent a burden which he will find it difficult to bear because, though the sum is a small one, it will have to be paid annually, my answer—I may be mistaken—is that once it is realised that, for a small annual payment, an incumbent who is doing his work properly can be relieved of his liability, by degrees that annual payment of a few pounds will be taken over by the parochial Church council. Nothing could be more proper than that the parochial Church council should take from the shoulders of an incumbent the annual payment of a small sum of money to keep his house in repair. But it is quite another thing to expect a parochial Church council to pay a sum of £300 or perhaps of £500 which may become due on the vacancy of a benefice when the house has been long neglected. Those lump sums cannot be forthcoming, though I believe the small sums will be.
In regard to the first stage, you have, as I have said, to start fair by having the houses put in order. There will be the difficulty of how to get over the first stage when the annual amounts paid in will be very small and the responsibility of putting things right will necessarily be very large. If this Measure becomes law it will give power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to depart so far from the ordinary application of their funds and their customary mode of expenditure as to give a sum, if necessary, of no less than £500,000 to enable a proper start to be made and to assist parishes to put their houses into order now in such a way that the annual payment may start fairly, and with past liabilities practically taken away. We do not want to relieve any one of liabilities which legitimately fall upon him now. We intend for the future to equalise them and to make them annual and not occasional, as they are now. We intend that such liabilities as exist shall still exist, but that they shall be met in a proper way. I can

871
explain more of the difficulties if necessary, but if it could be said that the last Measure, the Union of Benefices Measure, was difficult, it can be said with far greater force of this one. Be that as it may, if the Measure receives the Royal Assent I believe that we shall have rolled away one of the greatest difficulties from the path of the practical administration of the work of the Church, which has bothered and irritated the administrative side of the Church for many years past. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a subject which has troubled those who are responsible in the Church for a very long time. There are few more cruel situations than that which arises when a clergyman who is leaving his benefice, or his widow if he is dead, is called upon to pay for dilapidations. This Measure does not make any very great alteration in the law, but it enables what is necessary to be done. The Measure is a long and complicated one, and, fortunately, I am not called upon to explain it. Even my noble friend Lord Banbury would expend his ingenuity in vain in an attempt to get inside it. The Government fully assent to it as a Measure which puts the clergy of the Church of England in a better position than they are in at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly,

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I have to propose the Motions which stand in my name. Your Lordships are accustomed to agree to these Motions without going into any details, although I have them all here with me. A Committee is about to sit to deal with what I will not call the formalities but the procedure in these cases, and when next it is my duty to propose Motions of this kind it may be that I shall have to occupy more of your Lordships' time than I propose to do now.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Freshwater Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 21st May, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Urban District Council of Poultonle-Fylde, which was presented on the 20th May, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the East-Midlands Electricity District and establishing the East Midlands Electricity Advisory Board, which was presented on the 8th day of April, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
Extension of powers of Pacific Cable Board.
1.—(1) The Pacific Cable Board may, subject to the approval of each of the Govern-

873
ments represented on the Board, undertake as agents for and at the expense of the Governments of any parts of His Majesty's Dominions any work in connection with telegraphic communication, whether by means of cables or by means of wireless telegraphy, without any restriction as to the geographical limit of their operations:
Provided that the accounts of any work so undertaken shall be kept separate and distinct, from all other accounts of the Board.
(2) Any work undertaken by the Board as agents for His Majesty's Government before the commencement of this Act in connection with any trans-atlantic cable worked by that Government shall be deemed to have been within the powers of the Board.
(3) The Board, in the event of its undertaking work in connection with telegraphic communication in the West Indies, shall have power to provide and supply to the West Indies a news service similar to the news service supplied by telegraph companies at the commencement of this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had an. Amendment on the Paper to omit from subsection (1) the words "without any restriction as to the geographical limit of their operations" and to insert "in the West Indian Islands and British Guiana". The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands confers great powers upon the Government. It enables them to make cables or wireless communications all over the world, and I think I shall be able to show your Lordships later on that that is an unnecessary and dangerous power to grant to the Government. On the Second Reading of the Bill Lord Arnold said:
"It is not at present contemplated, however, that the Board should be asked to undertake any other work than cable and wireless communications in the West Indies."
The Amendment that I have put down is designed to carry into effect the wishes of the Government, but since I put that Amendment down Lord Arnold has been good enough to see me upon the matter, and he has suggested that my Amendment does not go quite far enough. I asked Lord Arnold if he could tell me what Amendment would go far enough, and he gave me these words instead of those in my Amendment:
"within their existing sphere of operations in the Pacific and Caribbean areas."
With the leave of the House I would alter my Amendment, in order to bring it into conformity with the wishes of the Government on that particular point.
I am very much obliged, if he will allow me to say so, to Lord Arnold for the courtesy which he has shown in discussing the matter with me. I do not wish to convey to your Lordships the impression that the Government intend to accept my Amendment even though it is drafted in their own words. I am not quite certain what it is they are going to do, because Lord Arnold has told me that if he accepts my Amendment it will be necessary that this Bill should be returned to another place and he is afraid there might be some difficulty and delay in consequence. He has very kindly offered to give me an assurance that the Government do not intend to go beyond the Amendment which I have just outlined to your Lordships. However, I venture to say that an assurance in this House, given by the Government in perfect good faith, though it might bind the present Government, could not be held to bind any succeeding Governments. We do not know how long the present Government is going to last, and I dare say our views as to the desirability of its length of life are somewhat different, but I think it is quite certain that any pledge given by this Government, or by any Government which is in power for the moment, could not bind a succeeding Government. Therefore, if we desire to ensure what I hope I shall be able to prove is necessary, we must have this Amendment in the Bill.
For myself I do not think that there is likely to be any delay in another place. I do not suppose that supporters of the Conservative Party in another place would oppose an Amendment coming from this side of the House, and as the Amendment carries out what the Government desires I feel certain that the supporters of the Government in another place would not oppose it. I am almost inclined to say that if I was in another place I could get this through in a very few moments. But even if there is likely to be a little delay, I might call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 1 in the Bill which says—
"Any work undertaken by the Board as agents for His Majesty's Government before the commencement of this Act in connection with any trans-atlantic cable worked by that Government shall be deemed to have been within the powers of the Board."
I do not think that is a good provision; whitewashing of that sort is not good. But if the clause is passed in the form in

875
which it appears in the Bill the Government need not be afraid of any little delay that might occur.
I have not been able quite accurately to discover the whole amount of capital invested in cable and wireless communications by private companies, but I shall be under-stating the amount if I say that it is about £30,000,000. Is it advisable to put a clause like this in a Bill which would enable a Government to start in competition all over the world with existing private companies? Suppose that an undertaking is given that they will not do it without coming again to Parliament, is not the fact that a clause of that sort is in a Bill which has been sanctioned by Parliament likely to stop private enterprise and to discourage the further development of cable and wireless communications in the world by private enterprise?
Lord Arnold was good enough to say that he would give me the undertaking that no Government should extend their operations beyond what I am prepared to give them without coming to Parliament. But may I point out to your Lordships what would happen if this Bill, without my Amendment, became law? The Bill gives sanction to the Government to make cable or wireless communications anywhere all over the world, and all that would be necessary would be to get the money. As Lord Arnold pointed out to me, nothing could be done unless money was obtained. Money would have to be obtained by Parliament. Yes, but by one House of Parliament only. All that would be necessary if this Bill became an Act would be, not for this Government, of course, if they give the undertaking, but another Government to put down a Vote in Supply authorising the expenditure of a certain sum on a cable—in competition with private enterprise very likely—and your Lordships would have nothing to say to it. It is a Vote in Supply, and this House would be debarred from expressing its opinion on what, I think, is an important matter. If your Lordships pass the Amendment that I suggest, you do not debar the Government from doing what they are desirous of doing at the present moment, but you do reserve in your own hands the power of saying, should they desire to do anything further later on, that they must bring in a Bill. That Bill would come
876
before this House as well as the other House. I shall be glad to answer any questions if I have not put the matter clearly. In the meantime I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("telegraphy") to the end of line 13, and insert ("within their existing sphere of operations in the Pacific and Caribbean areas").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): The noble Lord, on the Second Reading of this Bill last week, raised this point, and I ventured respectfully to point out to him that he had read into the Bill a good deal more than was there. As a matter of fact, he has done precisely the same thing this afternoon. On the Second Reading he told your Lordships that the Bill gave power to lay cables against private companies, to instal wireless stations against private companies, and so forth, and he has told you the same thing to-day. But that is not so. The Bill does not empower the Government to lay a single yard of cable or to put up a single mast for wireless stations. All that the Bill does is to allow the Pacific Cable Board to work any cable or system at the request of any Government of His Majesty's Dominions. In view of the conversations I have had with the noble Lord, who was good enough to give me time to put the position before him, I have great hopes that he will not press this Amendment, particularly having regard to the pledge which I am prepared to give, and which, I think, is sufficient to allay any reasonable, or I might add any unreasonable, apprehension on this matter. I am prepared to go a long way in order to meet the noble Lord.
At the same time, I am most strongly opposed to the insertion of an actual Amendment, owing to the fact that the passage of this Bill is urgently needed. Any Amendment whatever, however harmless or innocent, does involve considerable delay. The Bill would have to go back to another place and, having regard to the position of business, delay is inevitable. I have said that it is desirable that the Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment, and I will tell your Lordships why. There are many essential preliminaries to be got through before the cable can be open for the traffic in the autumn. A staff must

877
be engaged, agreements as to traffic must be made with other cable authorities, rates must be settled in the agreement with the Government or with the other cable authorities concerned. All these things take a long time to arrange and negotiate, as your Lordships will appreciate, and the Board cannot deal with them until Parliament gives it power to do so by passing this Bill. The present arrangement comes to an end in September, so that time is pressing. I submit that in the circumstances it is only reasonable to ask the noble Lord to be satisfied with a pledge instead of an Amendment. I was so hopeful of his doing so—unfortunately, this is a world in which human expectations are frequently falsified—that I did not to-day, owing to great pressure of work, see him with regard to a slight change in the words of the Amendment, not a change which will alter the sense but which would be better in an Act of Parliament.
The definite pledge which I am prepared to give is this: That the Pacific Cable Board will not use the powers under this Bill to operate any cable or wireless telegraph system outside the present area of the Board's operations and outside the Caribbean area without coming to Parliament on the subject. I maintain that that pledge is sufficient to meet any apprehensions which may be entertained. It would mean that the Pacific Cable Board would not, without coming to Parliament, go outside its present area of operations in the Pacific and outside the Caribbean area. As the noble Lord has been good enough to say that if this were inserted in the form of an Amendment he would accept it, I do not think I need take up your time in order to explain why these precise words have been adopted. At the present time there is a project for putting up a wireless station at Montserrat, which is within the area of the West Indies. It, would link up with that system and would be worked by the Pacific Cable Board. I am sure your Lordships will not think it necessary in the case of a small change of that kind to come to Parliament for a new Bill, Unless the undertaking is worded in this way—or the Amendment if it came to an Amendment—strictly speaking, it would be necessary to come to Parliament again.
I want to deal with the extremely interesting point referred to by the noble
878
Lord as to what might happen in Supply. As your Lordships are aware, before any new cable of any size could be constructed or any new wireless telegraph system put up by the Government, it would he necessary to proceed by way of a Money Resolution in another place as precedent to a Bill. The noble Lord's apprehension appears to be that a small Estimate of this kind might be slipped through in Supply. I do not think that is so, except in regard to a very small sum. Any operation of any magnitude would necessitate a Money Resolution followed by a Bill. But if that is not so, if the noble Lord is right, I submit that there is no conflict as between that procedure and this Bill. I do not think there is any substance in the point. I do not think it could be done except in connection with some very small amount. It might be done under the Post Office Estimate, but you could not put an amount of any real magnitude. For any considerable scheme you would have to proceed in the ordinary way by a Money Resolution and a Bill, which means coming to Parliament again. In any case, if it was done in an Estimate for Supply it means that the subject is open for debate in another place. I submit that the noble Lord has ample protection there.
The present arrangement comes to an end in September, and there is a great deal of work to be done before then—work which will take a long time. If there is delay, if this Bill has to go back because of a perfectly innocent Amendment, which in normal circumstances we should have no objection to accepting, there may be considerable delay. Then there is a grave risk of the failure of telegraphic communication with the West Indies, with all the resulting dislocation of business, and of administration, quite apart from private matters. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. If he does I ask the House to support the Government in resisting it.
Let me put this point. I think the Government, and the officials who have all these various matters to arrange, are entitled to some consideration because of circumstances for which they are not responsible. This Bill ought to have been introduced last autumn. It is the Bill of the late Government, and no time

879
has been lost by the present Government in connection with it. It has been pressed forward as fast as possible. In these circumstances I think the Government is entitled to support. The pledge, as I have given it, is specific and ample. It will not only bind the present Government, but it will bind future Governments. Even if it did not bind future Governments there are other safeguards in the procedure which would have to be followed. In all the circumstances, I feel compelled to resist this Amendment as strongly as I can. I would ask the noble Lord to accept the pledge as an alternative, but, if he will not do so, and presses the Amendment to a Division, we shall feel compelled to resist it, for the reasons which I have put before your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that I think the noble Lord is wrong in his description of that which will take place in Supply? A Vote in Supply has to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament. But here is the Act. Under this Bill you have power to do certain things, and all you want is the money. Consequently, if this Bill becomes an Act, all that will be required is a Vote in Supply which has already been confirmed by the Bill which you are considering to-day and which will become an Act. The noble Lord has quite frankly said that this is an innocent Amendment, and that he would be prepared to accept it if it were not that he thought that a little time would be lost. This is, in some ways, perhaps, a minor question, but it is too big a thing to reject merely because you might lose a little time in sending the Bill back to another place. In those circumstances, if I can get any one to tell with me, I am afraid that I must press the Amendment to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very familiar difficulty with which the noble Lord has presented us. He is requesting your Lordships' House to legislate under duress. Of the merits of this Bill I have, of course, no doubt whatever. The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, has said with truth that this is a Bill of the late Government, and I have no doubt of its general merits. Of the specific necessity of having better arrangements in respect of the West Indies I have personal knowledge, for I have been there and
880
know what complaints are made, and I am sure that the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, will not think that I wish in any way to depreciate the importance and value of this Bill.
The point is a very small one. It is whether your Lordships are to put in an Amendment which is admittedly a good Amendment—not only my noble friend who moved it but the Government also have said that they think it a good Amendment—or whether we should be content with a Parliamentary understanding, given with all proper solemnity by the representative of the Government. I confess that I should be very reluctant indeed to advise your Lordships to take any course which would really imperil this Bill, because I know its importance, but I do think that it is taking very strong measures to say to a House of Parliament: "This is a good Amendment, but we ask you not to put it in because the result would be that the Bill would go back to another place." If that contention were put forward, let us say, towards the end of July, then I am very familiar with the observations that would be made. Your Lordships are generally very generous in abandoning your rights towards the end of July in the interests of the country. But surely it is rather a strong proceeding to use that argument at the beginning of June. It really is a strong measure to come to your Lordships and say: "This is a good Amendment, but at the beginning of June there is a risk that the Bill will not pass into law if you insert it."
I cannot advise your Lordships to withhold your judgment in this matter when there is an enormous amount of time before the Session comes to an end. The Government have told us that the actual moment when the existing system lapses is in September. No doubt there is a great deal to be done before September, but there is a very large margin of time. I cannot say that I think it would be proper for your Lordships not to pass an Amendment (which is admittedly a good one) on the plea put forward by the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I doubt for a moment his good faith in the assurance that he gives to the House that the Government would act upon the Amendment even if it were not inserted. But the remarks of my noble friend behind me are perfectly

881
true. This Government cannot bind a future Government, and understandings are awkward things which often lead to recriminations later. All sorts of misunderstandings arise as to the exact meaning of pledges given. Although they may be given in perfect good faith, yet difficulties arise afterwards. It is better, if you possibly can, to have your arrangements in the form of an Act of Parliament. I am afraid that I cannot take any other view than that which I have ventured to put to your Lordships.
LORD EMMOTT: May I ask the noble Lord opposite whether there is to be a Royal Commission to-morrow, and, if not, what possible harm there can be in this matter being left over Whitsuntide? I have not heard that there will be a Royal Commission to-morrow. In that case there will be none until June 24 or afterwards, and there will be plenty of time for the House of Commons to deal with this Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: To reply, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, who has just spoken, I think it is only fair to point out that, even if this Bill went back to another place as soon as it could, there is no guarantee whatever that the business which has to be done and all the matters which have to be considered there would allow it to pass speedily. The Amendment might be the subject of debate and an opportunity might have to be found for it. The noble Lord is well aware of what that means, and what difficulties it often causes the Government. I certainly could not give any pledge that this Bill would come back here speedily. It might not return for weeks if it went down to another place.
I endeavoured to prove that this Amendment is not really required even without the pledge. If I may say so with respect, there is really very little substance in the noble Lord's contention, because I still maintain that practically every other project would have to come before Parliament one way or another, and. could then be discussed on its merits before there was any question of the Pacific Cable Board coming in to perform work other than that which I have outlined or outside the sphere of their existing operations. The noble Marquess has indicated that he does not see his way to support the Government. He
882
suggests that there is ample time—a large margin of time. I can assure him that that is not the case. There is a very great deal to be done. The matter is most urgent, and if this Bill is to go back to another place it is possible that the most serious dislocation to the telegraphic system in that part of the world may be occasioned. There is only one other remark which I think I need add, and that is that, if it should be the case that this Amendment is carried against the Government, the noble Lord will, I know, understand that it is subject to the actual wording being amended on Report, that being a matter which it was not necessary to determine precisely to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, In moving the Second Reading of this Bill to amend the existing law in regard to the management of the Imperial Institute, I will briefly relate the course of events which have made necessary the enactment at the present time of further legislation in connection with this institution. Early last year, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies found himself obliged, by reason of the withdrawal of certain oversea contributions and the consequent financial difficulties of the Imperial Institute, to appoint a strong Committee of Inquiry with very comprehensive terms of reference, to consider the whole question of the future of the Institute and its relations to other research organisations in the country. After a prolonged and exhaustive inquiry, this Committee, which included among others three noble Lords, Lords Islington, Kylsant, and Stevenson, recommended extensive changes in the management and organisation of the Imperial Institute and the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau. Their Report, which has subsequently been laid before Parliament, was considered by the Imperial Economic Conference in the autumn of last year, and their scheme of re-organisation was, subject to one or two modifications in

883
matters of detail, recommended by the Conference for adoption by the various Governments of the Empire.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Conference. These were, briefly, to the effect that the Imperial Institute should be re-organised, that the exhibition galleries should be closed, and that a new governing body should be established in place of the present Executive Council; that the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau should be amalgamated with the Institute in order to avoid duplication and overlapping of work on mineral subjects; that the Governments of the Empire should contribute in agreed proportions to the combined institution; and that the Imperial Institute when re-organised should be made responsible not to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as at present, but to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. Other minor reforms recommended by the Conference have already been effected by administrative action, but as regards the more important changes described above, legislation is necessary, both because the composition of the present governing body is fixed by Statute—the Imperial Institute (Management) Act, 1916—and because the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau cannot be amalgamated with the Institute until the Charter of the Bureau has been repealed.
Owing to representations from some of the Dominions it has been decided not to act upon one of the recommendations of the Economic Conference for the future of the Imperial Institute. I refer to the recommendation that the exhibition galleries of Empire resources at South Kensington should be closed. The Conference acquiesced in their closing for financial reasons, although even then complete unanimity was not attained on this point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The only point upon which complete unanimity was not attained.
LORD ARNOLD: That is so. Since last November, however, the majority of the Dominion Governments have changed their attitude. They have expressed the desire that the galleries should be retained and have declared their readiness to make the additional proportionate
884
contributions required for their maintenance. The financial situation has been further relieved by a most generous offer of the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, to furnish a sum of £5,000 for a period of five years towards the upkeep of the galleries. His Majesty's Government have decided, after communication with the Dominion Governments, that in the altered conditions there would be no justification for adhering to the conclusions of the Economic Conference in regard to the closing of the galleries. Provision has therefore been made in this Bill for the maintenance of the galleries and for the payment of the additional contributions towards their maintenance required from the Imperial Exchequer.
I do not think it is necessary for me to consider in detail the clauses of the Bill because they merely carry out the scheme I have outlined and they do not appear to call for special comment. I must, however, say a few words about the financial provisions of the Bill, because without some such explanation I cannot make the position reasonably clear. It is estimated that the cost of maintaining the institution in its new form after amalgamation with the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau and allowing for the continuance of the exhibition galleries as at present, will be approximately £44,000 per annum. To meet this expenditure, the Institute will provide from its own resources—the interest on the endowment fund, the North Gallery annuity, and fees for work done at the Institute—an estimated amount of about £6,000 per annum. A contribution of £5,000 for five years is also assured as a result of the generous offer of Lord Cowdray of which I have spoken. An amount of £33,000 therefore remains to be raised by fixed annual grants for a period of five years from the various Governments of the Empire. This sum of £33,000 will be obtained in almost equal shares from three main groups of contributory Governments—namely, the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India, and the Colonies and Protectorates. The United Kingdom's share, which will be slightly larger than that of the other groups, is estimated at an amount not exceeding £12,000 per annum, of which £9,000 will be provided for the main work of the Institute, and the remainder as a contribution towards the upkeep of the exhibition galleries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the great Dominions do not subscribe to the maintenance of the galleries? The noble Lord used the phrase "the Colonies and Protectorates." He did not say "Dominions."
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to point out that I did. I said the sum of £33,000 would be obtained in almost equal shares from three main groups of contributory Governments: first, the United Kingdom, secondly, the Dominions and India, and thirdly, the Colonies and Protectorates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was my mistake.
LORD ARNOLD: Broadly speaking, that is the present scheme. There are two forms of contribution, but I do not think I need go into details of that kind. In conclusion, I would impress upon your Lordships that the passage of this Bill is imperatively needed, because the present financial position of the Institute is precarious, and the Dominion and Indian contributions cannot be secured until effect has been given by legislation in the Imperial Parliament to the recommendations of the Economic Conference. Indeed, the Institute would be obliged to close its doors unless these contributions were assured for the current year. The Government is confident, however, that the scheme of re-organisation which this Bill is designed to carry out is one that will commend itself to your Lordships' House, because it should ensure for the Institute a future of increasing usefulness in the important work which it is intended to perform for the Empire. I think, too, that your Lordships will consider it most appropriate that the year which will be memorable for the opening of the Empire Exhibition at Wembley should also be identified with the reform of a great Imperial institution which was established to commemorate the Jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD SHANDON: My Lords, there is a matter in connection with the Bill as it stands that I think you would desire to have brought before you, and, having regard to the statement made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, it seems
886
still more desirable that I should mention it, although to a certain extent it may seem rather a technical matter. The noble Lord stated very clearly and frankly that it was not intended that these galleries should be discontinued, but that they should continue in their sphere of usefulness, with the addition of a sum to be devoted by Parliament for that purpose. I am sure that His Majesty's Government and the noble Lord intended and desired that that should be so, but he has mentioned that a very considerable sum per annum is also to be supplied through the generosity of a member of your Lordships' House—a private source.
Accordingly, it occurred to me that it would be most desirable to look carefully to see whether there may not have been, as I think there has been, a slip in the drafting of the Bill, perhaps due to the fact that it was originally drafted in one form and is now hurriedly adapted to the altered conditions of the case. Be that as it may, I should like to explain why I think that, in Committee at any rate, it will be necessary to make some much clearer declarations as to the objects of the Statute than are contained in the Bill as it stands.
The Acts under which the Imperial Institute are managed are two. There is an Act of 1902 and an Act of 1916. The Act of 1002 is the Statute which, for the most part, states the objects upon which the funds are to be used and employed. These funds, so far as I can see, amounted about 1902 to something like £140,000 in cash. There were also the valuable buildings at South Kensington. At that time I do not think the collections had come into existence. That is a matter, however, upon which I cannot enlighten your Lordships. But the scheme of that Act is set out very clearly in one section, because it is provided (and it is recited in the present Bill) that the moneys and the property are to be applied for "such other similar purposes as the Secretary of State for the Colonies may determine having regard to the commercial, industrial and educational interests of the Empire." That is a statutory enactment in the Act of 1902.
The present Bill is "an Act to amend the law with respect to the management

887
of the Imperial Institute." But it amends the law by repealing in toto the Act of 1902 and the Act of 1916, and, accordingly, if it becomes law, we are left entirely to the construction of this Bill itself to ascertain what purposes are to be fulfilled. It seems to me perfectly clear that, as the Bill stands, there would be a grave doubt whether the purposes for which these buildings and galleries have been used in the past and the purposes for which they are to be further endowed, as stated by the noble Lord, both from public and private sources, will be carried out. I think it is due possibly to an original drafting and subsequent amendment.
The old Acts having been repealed in toto, we must see now what are the purposes of the Imperial Institute. Its purposes are described by Clause 4 to be the purposes set out in the First Schedule. When you turn to the Schedule you find a number of very useful and proper purposes, but to my mind you do not find the exact purpose for which the Institute has been carried on, and for which it was originally established. The purposes are, firstly, the collection of information relating to possible uses of raw materials, markets, sources of production, the best means of increasing supplies, the best means of treating materials, and technical and scientific information bearing upon the industries of the British Empire. The purpose of the Institute is certainly not in that. Further, the Schedule states among the purposes of the Institute that it is intended to advise on the development of the resources of the Empire in raw materials, to conduct preliminary investigations of raw materials, to collect samples of raw materials, and to cooperate with other agencies within the Empire for similar purposes.
Then comes the only clause which by any construction could be held to refer to the galleries, the exhibition and the educational work carried on: "To organise, so far as practicable, exhibitions of Empire products." Obviously that is not it. That means the organisation of ordinary exhibitions of objects produced in the Empire. Lastly, there is this: "To do anything incidental" to these purposes. I hazard the view that the original intention of the Statute was to carry out, first, the Report of the Commission, and it did it very effectually, but afterwards,
888
when some of the Colonies and, I suppose, others interested in the matter, put their view before His Majesty's Government, it was thought desirable to introduce words which might cover the work which had been done previously by the Imperial Institute.
Let us see what that work was. When I say "the Imperial Institute" I mean the galleries of the Imperial Institute. First, there were exhibition galleries containing rows of bottles of products and things of that kind, which were all very interesting and useful, and were intended to be kept going. But another and far more important purpose was subserved by the galleries and that is the purpose which, in my opinion, is not properly preserved by this Bill—the educational part of the galleries. There is not one word in the Schedule about education, and you are bound hand and foot by the Schedule, because Clause 4 says that the Imperial Institute building, and all the property and all the sums received are to be applied by the responsible Minister, so far as practicable, in carrying out the purposes set forth in the First Schedule to the Bill. No matter what may have been the intentions of the draughtsman, the purposes of the Bill are perfectly clear and do not include an educational exhibition at all. The purposes of the Act are those named in the Schedule and nothing more. You cannot construe an Act by reference to a general idea that because something was done in the past you can continue it in the future. You cannot construe it in that way unless the purposes of the Act are clearly so defined. Consequently, it would seem to me to be absolutely necessary when the Bill comes into Committee that its purposes should be clearly defined so as to include the existing educational purpose for which, unquestionably, those galleries were largely constructed and have been used.
What was the nature of that educational purpose? I take an interest in museums and I have frequently gone to the Institute to see the museum. It is not a bit like anything that is in this Bill. It consists mainly of a collection of instructional material—maps, and everything which will show those who visit the museum what the Colonies are like and for what they are fitted. Above all, it impresses upon the minds of those who intend to leave this country for the

889
Colonies what they have to face, and what are the physical, geographical, and ethnological conditions and the proper productions of those places. That is not a matter of gallipots in a row. It is a question of co-ordinating the exhibits so that they can be used from day to day for purposes of practical instruction. These exhibits are used for that purpose, and anybody who takes the trouble to visit the museum on any day of the week will see parties of children and others receiving actual instruction. Those children have afterwards to show their proficiency in the acquisition of the information so given. That is the great work which these galleries are carrying out at present. I can understand that there was no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government that this instruction should not be continued. But whatever their intention was, I wish to point out that in my judgment it; is not sufficiently carried out in the Bill.
Two points may be urged against what I have said. The first is that there is in the Preamble to the Bill a general statement to this effect—
"And whereas it is desirable to empower the governing body hereinafter constituted of the Imperial Institute, in co-operation with the Governments represented at that Conference, or such of them as for the time being may be making contributions for the purpose, to maintain galleries for the exhibition of Empire products."
Maintaining the gallery for the exhibition of Empire products is certainly not what some of us are at, and I hardly think it can be what the private donor is at. The idea is to carry on this exhibition as I have described it and not merely for the exhibition of Empire products, of which I spoke just now, without any disrespect, as a row of bottles and gallipots and things of that kind. That is what it would come to. It is not commercial.
The next point is far more material—namely, that a Preamble which is in itself sufficient cannot control the clear words of the Act. As I understand the law the Preamble to an Act of Parliament can be used to construe the Act if the Act is ambiguous. If the Act is not ambiguous then there is an end of it. The only clause that seems to me to suggest that the Act might be considered to be ambiguous is the financial clause which provides that
890
"There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—
such additional sum (if any) towards the maintenance of exhibition galleries"—
and so on. In the first place, exhibition galleries are not at all the same thing as the galleries of an instructional character that have been carried on hitherto at the Imperial Institute, and, unquestionably, if it was a question of construction, I should think that the galleries which were intended to be dealt with by the moneys voted by Parliament were galleries of such a character as would carry out the purposes of the Act, and as I do not find them there I should think it is extremely doubtful whether the contribution, if any, provided by Parliament, or the provisions of the Schedule, got rid of the difficulty.
Shortly stated, that is what occurs to me. If I am right, and I think I am, it is very important. I hardly think that the Government would be unwilling to frame the clause in such a way as to give effect to what I think most of us believe was the intention after some of the Colonies had stated that they did not desire that the whole of the original Report of the Commission—I think it was a Commission should be carried out. I mention it now, and at such length, in order to show clearly what my view is, so that the noble Lord and those who advise him may consider the matter. As at present advised, I should think it absolutely necessary, if I had any support, to place Amendments on the Paper which would make the Bill perfectly clear on this point. It is admitted now that it is intended that these galleries shall be continued for instructional and educational purposes. Then let us have it in the Bill so that there may be no doubt about it.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I welcome the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in introducing this Bill and I welcome also the attitude of His Majesty's Government in reference to the Imperial Institute. I was first brought into close, connection with that organisation when I was Under-Secretary for the Colonies from 1911 to 1914. At that time my chief, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the late Lord Harcourt, was a warm friend of the Institute and it was in no danger. I think it was after he had left the Colonial Office that he carried the Bill of 1916 through the House. Under that

891
Act an Advisory Committee was appointed, and I was one of the members of that Committee. How it occurred, or why it occurred, I cannot pretend to say, but the Colonial Office, which was the Department really responsible at that time, adopted for some years a very step-motherly attitude towards the Imperial Institute, and my noble friend Lord Islington, who was Chairman of the Advisory Committee on which I sat, and the whole Committee were more or less constantly fighting the Colonial Office on largo points and small in regard to the Institute. Therefore, I welcome indeed the attitude which has been adopted by the Government, and I welcome the broad lines of the settlement which is proposed in this Bill.
I have no desire to oppose, indeed I support, the Second Reading that the noble Lord has proposed, but my experience of the treatment of this organisation in the past, and the attitude of the Colonial Office of which I was a witness, make me a little careful in scanning the terms of the actual measure which is put before your Lordships' House to-day. There are several points in it which arouse at any rate a spirit of inquiry in one's mind, and on which I think Amendments are likely to be moved in this House or in another place. After all, the Imperial Institute was built from private benefactions. The new trustees are all to be members of the Government. I cannot help thinking that there ought to be some trustees representing unofficial interests, and that the trustees ought not to be entirely confined to members of His Majesty's Government, who, with all due respect to them, are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and are constantly changing.
The next point on which I shall only say a word or two is that which has been so fully and ably dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Shandon—namely, the location of the buildings where the galleries are to be, and the use to which those galleries are to be put. There is no mention in the Bill that those galleries should be in the present building of the Imperial Institute. I think that is what the Government intend shall be the case, and I think it ought to be so stated. Moreover, the words to which my noble and learned friend Lord Shandon referred seem intended to confine the exhibits in those galleries to bottles of
892
specimens of the produce of various kinds of the Dominions. As Lord Shandon suggested, those galleries ought to be conceived on a much broader scale than that. They ought to be capable of having, and ought to set out to have, an educational effect. They ought to show something of what the Empire is. They ought to deal with the suitability of the Dominions for emigration purposes from this country. All that, so far as I can see, is omitted from this Bill, which will require amendment in the Schedule and also in the Preamble. I speak on such a matter with great diffidence, however.
With regard to the question of finance, I do not want to say very much, but I would ask whether it is wise to mention the specific sums which are stated in the Preamble of the Bill. That is a matter into which I have not had time or opportunity to look, but may I say, in passing, how deeply we must all appreciate the great generosity of my noble friend Lord Cowdray in offering £5,000 a year for the support of these galleries? I do not treat the Government as at all hostile to the views which I have endeavoured to put forward; I hope that they will favour them.
The Colonial Secretary is unwell, I am sorry to say, at the present time, although I am glad to hear that he is recovering. I think it advisable that some of those specially interested in the Institute should see him with a view to ascertain if it is not possible to amend this Bill on generally agreed lines. That would probably save time both here and in another place. The House is adjourning to-night, I understand, until June 24. That, in itself, gives some considerable delay. Before June 24 I believe my noble friend Lord Islington, who has done so much for this Institute, will have returned to this country, and I am very anxious that he should be back to take part in the Committee stage of this Bill. Therefore, the practical question I wish to put to Lord Arnold is whether he will see that the Committee stage is put down for a date which will give us time to see the Colonial Secretary and for Lord Islington to return.
THE LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in relation to this Bill, and, in the first place, to express the hope that the matters suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Shandon and Lord

893
Emmott, will receive the full consideration, as I feel they will, of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I rise merely for the purpose of saying a word or two with reference to the proposed amalgamation between the two bodies, the Imperial Institute and the Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources. I do not intend to detain your Lordships more than a minute or two.
Since the formation of the Bureau of Mineral Resources I have been a member of it, and its Vice-Chairman. The governors of that body have, I think, at least laid the foundation of very good work for the minerals of the Empire, In the first place, it is important to know—and this can be said without in any way depreciating the Imperial Institute—that the Bureau of Mineral Resources was established as the outcome of two Imperial Conferences held, I think, as recently as 1916 and 1917. We may reasonably assume that those Conferences would never have recommended the creation of an Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources for the Empire, and that the Government of the day would hardly have gone to the trouble of enacting a Royal Charter to give effect to that recommendation, if there was not a need for that body. The Imperial Institute, in other words, could not be doing what it was proposed that the Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources should do.
Be that as it may, the body was created, and we find that body working for the last five or six years with the object, in the first place, of ascertaining what are the mineral resources of the Empire, and, if possible, finding out why they are not developed—why in an Empire like the British Empire, representing probably a third of the population of the world and with all the money and the minerals that are required in the Empire, those minerals are not being developed. Take two examples only. We have all the iron required to supply not only the Empire but the whole world if necessary, yet last year, with a third of the population of the world, we produced in the Empire less than seven per cent. of the world's requirements of iron. I think the figure for copper was still lower, and it is the same in regard to other minerals.
The point I want to make is that in connection with the Imperial Bureau, and
894
as part of its machinery, we have been able to get together something like 160 experts on all the minerals that the Empire produces, and all these men have been working freely. They represent all the great mineral interests of this country, manufacturers, men engaged in mines, great professors and authorities upon minerals, and we have been able to set up a committee for every mineral—a copper committee, an iron committee, an asbestos committee, a tin committee—and these men have been working freely. That is the point I want to make. Week after week, and mouth after month, they have been making inquiries and researches and bringing the result of their work before the world, particularly before the technical bodies that influence mineral developments. I hope that the Colonial Office in setting up this new machinery, and all the other authorities concerned, will not lose sight of the importance of keeping in touch with these men who, so far, have worked without pay and without recognition, and given their splendid talents and their time to the development of the mineral resources of the Empire. It was with the view of making that point that I rose, and I trust some little attention will be given to it.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I rise just for a few moments in order to draw my noble friend's attention to what I consider is the chief blot on the Bill—namely, that the tropical parts of the Empire, especially Africa, are not in any way represented on the Governing Council. That is a matter which I should like to bring before the attention of the Under-Secretary of State before the Bill is taken in Committee, so that possibly some arrangement might be come to with regard to it. In the original proposal there were to be thirteen members drawn from the various Dominions and elsewhere, and fourteen representatives to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which would enable him to give a fair representation to the Crown Colonies, and especially to tropical Crown Colonies, on the governing body. Under the Bill as it is drawn, that power is taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State. Practically the whole of the members—fourteen—are to be nominated by the Dominions and various Departments, and ten, who are to represent scientific and commercial interests, are to be nominated by the Secretary of State.

895
Having regard to the great importance, from the point of view of raw material, of our tropical Colonies in Africa and elsewhere, there should be some direct representation of them on the governing body, and I rise only to emphasise this point. I am sure my noble friend will give it his sympathetic consideration, and I hope that when we come to Committee we shall be able to obtain more direct representation for these Crown Colonies. They are going to contribute £8,000 a year between them to the expenses, as much as all the Dominions put together; and the Dominions have a full representation. I hope the point will not be lost sight of; and that is why I emphasise it to-day.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My Lords, the particular point that interests me is the one that will ensure the galleries being retained for the purpose for which they are now used, but with increased usefulness. I see the Bill speaks of "galleries." But galleries may be anywhere, and I assume that the present galleries are intended. The Bill also restricts the galleries to exhibits of Colonial and Dominion products. That limits the purpose of the galleries. At the present time they are very educational and one goes through them with interest, learns something about Colonial life, visualises what exists in the various Colonies, and comes away pleased with the great Empire that is represented there. But if we are merely going to see the products of the Dominions shown in a more or less crude or manufactured state, then the galleries would lose half their purpose and certainly would not be anything like so useful, educationally, as they are at present. If those two points are covered I shall be content. I think they are very essential.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not assure your Lordships that I do not rise for the purpose of criticising this Bill because it is the direct outcome of a decision of the Imperial Economic Conference, a decision with which I had the honour personally to be closely concerned. Therefore, my duty is to welcome this Bill and to thank the Government for having introduced it. But I should like to say a word or two as to the course this debate has taken. Noble Lords in various parts of the
896
House have intimated their desire to suggest Amendments, and recognising as I do their great position and their knowledge of the subject, I understand quite well why they should wish to propose Amendments, and also that your Lordships may be largely influenced by their advocacy in putting them into the Bill. It may be that many of them ought to be in the Bill, but I should like to utter one word of warning.
This measure is the outcome of very elaborate discussions with the representatives of the various Dominions. When they were over here last year in conference with the Imperial Government they agreed to a certain Report. While that does not bind your Lordships, it ought to have great influence with you. I would remind the House that this agreement was come to in the face of the immense difficulties of the Imperial Institute itself. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has already brought this to the attention of your Lordships. The Imperial Institute was in great difficulties. It had failed in many respects. I am sorry to say, to fulfil certain of the purposes with which it was originally entrusted. There was also great overlapping, and the most important thing of all, the Dominions showed a very strong tendency to have nothing to do with it. That was the situation. I thought, and I think the Government to which I belong also thought, that if anything fatal happened to the Imperial Institute it would be a matter for profound regret. Not only was it associated with the name of Queen Victoria but it represented the institution of a union between the various Dominions and the Mother Country which we were most anxious to encourage in every respect.
But it was in great difficulties and in great danger—danger is perhaps the more appropriate word—and it was necessary to do all we could, and we did all we could, to bring before the representatives of the Dominions at the Imperial Conference the strong reasons which existed for continuing the Imperial Institute. They agreed, but they agreed upon terms, and although I do not mean to say that they might not be induced to reconsider certain of the terms, yet, if I were responsible for affairs, I should be reluctant to go very far in attempting to alter the settlement that was arrived at, for fear

897
the thing might break down. After all, your Lordships have to remember that, when we are dealing with these Imperial subjects and the agreement of a very large number of independent Governments is concerned, we have not really quite so free a hand as we have in respect of our own country. We have to consider their views.
There is only one very important change in this Bill from the arrangements which were arrived at by the Conference to which I have referred, and that is in respect of the galleries, to which reference has been made so often in this debate. When the Conference sat the Dominions, or at least a large majority of them, absolutely refused to contribute any more money for the support of the galleries, and we were obliged to defer to that view. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues have been more fortunate in that respect than we were, and that they have induced the Dominions— not I think all of them, but, I gather from the Under-Secretary, the majority of them——
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, the majority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have induced the majority to change their minds. One Dominion was always very strongly in favour of it, but the others were against it. That has been changed, and I congratulate the Government on having modified our arrangements to that extent. Even so, it would not have been possible but for the great generosity of the noble Viscount who sits above the gangway. Between the two they have been enabled to make this change. I assume that the Government have the assent of the Dominions to the changes which have been made in the Bill. If not, it ought, of course, to be obtained, hut assuming that this has been done I congratulate the Government on this change. With regard to the rest, I venture to hope very respectfully that the House will not disturb the main lines of the settlement. That does not affect details, as I need hardly say, for there are many details upon which it is possible to make improvements. But on the main lines I hope that there will not be any change; not that I have any power to do more than make the suggestion to your Lordships, but I think it might have a rather unfortunate effect if the result
898
were that the Dominions re fused to be bound any longer by the terms of their agreement to which they signified their assent at the. Conference and which is now embodied in the Bill.
There is only one other subject to which I will refer and that is the Mineral Resources Bureau. I think I ought to say that, so far as my information goes, I entirely confirm that which the noble Lord on the. Cross Bench [Lord Morris] said as to the excellent work of the Mineral Resources Bureau. There was universal testimony to this, and it was only the necessity of preventing overlapping which induced us to put forward a proposal for an amalgamation of the Mineral Resources Bureau with the reformed Imperial Institute, but I share with the noble Lord on the Cross Bench the hope that, in the formation of the personnel of the new body every effort will be made to secure to the country and the Empire the services of the officials of the Mineral Resources Bureau, who have shown by their history and experience that they are well capable of doing the work which they had in hand. I congratulate the noble Lord on this Bill, and hope, that it will have an easy passage.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lends, I think your Lordships will expect me, by permission of the House, to say a few words in reply before the debate closes. They need be very few. The Government appreciate the generally favourable reception—I think I may so describe it—which has been given to this Motion for the Second Reading. The points which have been raised for consideration between now and the Committee Stage, and also in Committee, are points which I think are capable of agreement to a large extent between the Government and others interested in this very important matter. The noble Lord who spoke first, Lord Shandon, made the point—and the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, also referred to it—that the objects of the Institute were rather too restricted in the First Schedule, and they desired some amendment of the present wording of the Schedule in the direction of ensuring that the galleries shall lie conducted, so far as the exhibits are concerned, in the same manner as in the past. I think that is putting it fairly.
This seems to me to be a matter upon which agreement could be arrived at, but

899
it is really one for consideration in the Committee stage. I do not think that it would be wise to put too detailed a definition of every aspect of the exhibition into the Schedule, but I am hopeful that some few words could be devised which would meet this desire, and, without pledging myself, I shall be quite prepared, for my part—and I shall, as I need scarcely say, put all these points to the Secretary of State—to consider the speeches which have been made in this relation. I do not want to be taken to he saying more than I am saying. Noble Lords, I am sure, do not expect that any additional activities on their lines will be undertaken involving considerable expenditure, because there is no money available for such additional activities. The whole financial position is still such as to require very careful consideration, but if the suggestion is that the galleries should be continued in the main as they have been in the past, I hope that we can come to an agreement on that point.
I ought, perhaps, to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess who spoke last. He said that he presumed that the assent of all the Dominions had been obtained to the retention of the galleries. I think I made it clear in my Second Reading speech that assent had been obtained from a majority of the Dominions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I explain? I understand the noble Lord to say that money contributions in respect of the galleries have been obtained from the majority, but what I intended to say just now was that I hoped that their consent to the retention had been obtained. I quite understood that only a majority were going to contribute.
LORD ARNOLD: I want to make it quite clear that only a majority are going to subscribe to the retention of the galleries. As the noble Marquess is probably aware, views have been expressed about these galleries in the past by India and South Africa, and those views have remained substantially unchanged. I want to make that clear, but it does not apply to the main objective of the organisation and of the schemes.
The other point which was raised by Lord Shandon, and also by Lord Cowdray and Lord Emmott, was that of the location of the galleries. I do not think
900
that there will be any difficulty about that, because the Government have not the slightest intention that the galleries should, either now or in the future, be anywhere else than where they are at the present moment. A point was raised by Lord Buxton about the representation of the African Colonies and Protectorates. This again is a point for consideration, and I think that under the machinery of the Second Schedule opportunities are given for dealing with that point to a considerable extent. But that also is a matter which the noble Earl will no doubt raise in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, asked that there should be ample time between now and the Committee stage, and it was a very reasonable request. There must be ample time, on account of the coming adjournment of your Lordships' House. I do not wish to postpone the Committee stage too long, and I should not like to give any pledge in that direction, but at any rate the Committee stage cannot take place until the return to this country of Lord Islington, which, I understand, will be about June 20, and probably the Committee stage can be taken a few days afterwards. I hope that this will be satisfactory, and will give time for all that is desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SPEED OF MOTOR CARS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved for a Return showing the regulations in force in the principal European countries with respect to the speed of motor cars The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Transport offer no objection to producing this Return, but in fact are very glad to do so, although it will take some time to collect the information. In the meantime, I have obtained a certain amount of private information myself, which I believe to be more or less reliable, and as the question is of some general interest, perhaps I may be allowed to give a few instances.
In France there is no restriction to the speed of motor cars on the open road, but the speed must be reduced at night and in case, for instance, of fog. In towns and populous areas the speed

901
is not allowed to exceed twenty kilometres, and is frequently reduced to a much lower figure. In Belgium the maximum speed is forty kilometres on the open roads, and fifteen kilometres in towns and villages. In Switzerland, where motor cars are not regarded with much favour, thirty kilometres is the maximum on open courtly roads, and in some districts the limit is as low as five. In Italy there is no speed limit on the open road, or regulations, and with regard to the towns and villages I am not aware of any limit. In Germany, on the open country roads, there is no speed limit, but in populous districts the maximum permitted is twenty kilometres per hour, and in many instances the maximum is not so high. These are not official statistics, but I believe them to be more or less accurate, and the countries named are those in which the circumstances are substantially the same as our own. I hope that the figures I have asked for will be forthcoming before long, because obviously they will be of considerable value. It is equally obvious we may be able to profit by the information we receive.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the regulations in force in the principal European countries with respect to the speed of motor cars.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the request for a Return, but I observe that there is a great difference between the methods of enforcing the law in the countries to which the noble Lord has referred. The speed limit is never enforced in France, it is rarely enforced in Belgium and Italy, and in other places it is not enforced at all. In this country it is enforced in places. In fact, the speed limits are a farce to a large extent, and I have always, as your Lordships know, bean of opinion that we ought to rely in this country, as many other countries rely, upon the enforcement of the law against driving to the common danger. That is a more common sense method than the mere imposition of a speed limit. As to this Return, I think it would be more valuable if the Government saw their way to include in it, besides the speed limits, the number of prosecutions undertaken in each country in certain years and with-
902
in certain limits. After all, a speed limit may be nominally on the Statute Book in France, but practically never enforced, and if you give in the Return only speed limits you may be giving a wrong impression and create a demand for a stricter enforcement of a speed limit which some of us hope will shortly be abolished.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I do not wish to east any doubt upon the figures given to the House by the noble Lord. In fact, so far as the Ministry of Transport has information on the subject, their information rather agree than otherwise with what the noble Lord has said. As I said last Thursday, they have no official information on the subject. Such information as they have is gathered, as I rather think the noble Lord's information is gathered, from private sources, and I am not in a position officiallly to confirm those figures. With regard to the Return, the Ministry regard it as a very useful proposal. They will assist it in every way they can. I think information of that sort will probably have to be derived through the Foreign Office, and the process of obtaining the details may be rather more prolonged than perhaps the noble Lord might wish, but if he thinks he is not getting his information as soon as he ought I shall be most happy to hear any remarks he has to make upon that subject in the House. Therefore, I think I may say that the official answer to his Question is that the Return will, as soon as reasonably may be expected, be obtained.
I cannot help thinking, although upon this I have no instructions from the Ministry of Transport, that the additional information for which Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked will be more difficult to obtain, but I will see what can be done at the Ministry of Transport about it. I realise the necessity and importance of what he says. In fact, it is only in relation to whether the regulations are given effect to that there is much importance in the information, because if you have information that there is a speed limit but nobody attends to it, and there are no prosecutions, you might as well do without the information altogether.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE RODEO AT BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to call attention to the announcement in connection with the British Empire Exhibition of a public entertainment of the kind known in America as a" Rodeo," in which (it appears) various operations, incidental to Western cattlefarming and legitimate and necessary therein, are reproduced under artificial conditions likely to aggravate any suffering caused to the animals concerned, and in a manner which converts such performances into displays of needless cruelty; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will use any influence or power of control which they may possess over the British Empire Exhibition and the entertainments connected therewith, so as to prevent any entertainment which is fairly open to the imputation of cruelty.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the shortness of my notice, I hope, has not inconvenienced my noble and learned friend in any way. The public entertainment to which the Question refers is not, so far as I can gather, connected in any way with the British Empire Exhibition. To the best of my belief it is one of the least desirable of the cultures of the United States. I understand that some of the more exciting incidents connected with cattle ranching are artificially got up and reproduced for the purposes of display. The sort of thing that will be done, I imagine, will be that a steer, more or less wild and scared, is roped, thrown, and after a more or less exciting struggle—the more exciting the better—exhausted, intimidated and subdued. That kind of exhibition, of course, involves the display of a good deal of courage and nerve on the part of the men concerned. Those qualities, though good, are common enough in the English people, and there is no particular reason why they should be exhibited as matters of curiosity. On the side of the animals concerned obviously a certain amount of terror and suffering must be involved, and when the thing is got up and artificially performed, day after day or night after night, with the intention on the part of the management that the performance shall be as exciting as possible, obviously, in a variety of ways, whatever suffering is involved is going to be aggravated. If, for example, a bucking horse
904
is going to play up his best day after day in the same spot, making a good show every time, we can easily make a guess as to the sort of inducement that is applied to it.
There is another side of the matter at which my question glances, and it is this. Surely, there are heaps of things that are perfectly unobjectionable when they occur naturally, but which at once become more or less contemptible and degrading when they are artificially got up to create a stir in the breasts of a lot of idle spectators. It is a matter in which lines are difficult to draw, and it is not well that we should be over squeamish or censorious, but there is one pretty easy distinction of principle of which I will give a possibly absurd, but a plain, example. Most, if not all, of us have often seen a fox broken up by hounds—I hope I may see it again—but if one can imagine people collected round a relatively small enclosure, and a bagged fox, or several, turned out in that enclosure, and hounds turned on to them to break them up for the amusement of a few curious townspeople, such an attraction as so silly a performance might possess for some minds would entirely consist in the debased pleasure of seeing a wild thing wiped out. But that would make too dull a show to draw. What I am referring to is going to be a far more exciting kind of performance. But the analogy is good enough to suggest to your Lordships the distinction which I think is to be drawn between what necessarily, naturally and wholesomely occurs in the way of sport and agriculture, and cattle raising, and the same thing when artificially performed as an attraction to a gaping crowd.
I confess I am disposed to look very critically on all public performances in which animals take part, and, when a considerable amount of struggle, terror, exhaustion, and actual suffering on the part of animals is a necessary ingredient in the performance, I think it is not Pharisaical or squeamish that we should draw the line at it. I am sure I shall be assured by the Government that these performances, which I understand are now irrevocably fixed, will be carefully watched, so that nothing is done that would justify a bench of Justices in convicting anybody of cruelty to animals. But that does quite satisfy me. I confess to a feeling, which, I think, some of your

905
Lordships will share, that all this class of performance is rather low down, and, to some appreciable extent, demoralising, and I could have wished that the Government authorities responsible had not sanctioned this particular addition to the attractions of this great and noble Exhibition. I should rather like to hope that the Government's reply will encourage me to expect that in future, where a Government Department has to exercise discrimination in some question of this kind, it will scrutinise the matter with the good judgment and feeling which most English gentlemen would apply to it.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, after reading the Question which the noble Lord has put on the Paper and after listening to the speech which he has made, I am not sure whether he is a judge of horses and horsemen, but I am sure that he has discovered a mare's nest of no usual dimensions. For my part, I confess I have never seen a Question, nor listened to a speech, so remote from the actual facts of the case. I will tell your Lordships what these rodeos or "round-ups" really are. They are competitions which are held in America, in Canada, and, not so frequently but still fairly frequently, in Australia. They are tests of skill, of courage, of strength, and of horsemanship. The horses used in these competitions are well known outlaws. They are vicious horses—so vicious that their vice has become a positive virtue—and they are kept for that purpose, and for that purpose only. The noble Lord said that inducements were offered to these bucking horses to become still more fractious. He did not say what inducements were offered. I confess I should rather like to see the noble Lord himself offering an inducement to one of these bucking horses to buck even worse than they generally do. I think the spectacle might be rather remarkable.
The cattle that are used are rounded up wild from the ranches. I submit that they undergo no more cruelty than, probably not so much cruelty as, cattle which are in the ordinary course rounded up from the plains or the ranches and despatched by rail or steamship to their destinations in other parts of the world. If there be danger in these competitions
906
it is to the men and women who take part in them. These men and women are not salaried performers; they are really amateurs. Part of their travelling expenses, but I believe only a part, is paid for them. Their expenses while they are here are paid by themselves. They may, if they are successful, win money prizes—at this particular round-up, money prizes of considerable value—and also cups and trophies. But I venture to say that the renown that they attain in their own country, if they are fortunate in winning these prizes, is a far greater inducement to them to take part in the competitions than any actual gain.
Now I come to the Question which the noble Lord has on the Paper. He speaks of displays of needless cruelty on the part of these persons. I do not know these people, but I have travelled in different parts of the world, and I know men of their type. I am sure that they are just as kindly and humane people as are to be found anywhere. I am sure also that they will bitterly resent the imputation of cruelty which is contained in the Question. I submit that it is stretching the privileges of your Lordships' House rather far when the noble Lord makes an imputation of this kind upon men and women who obviously cannot speak for themselves.
With regard to this particular competition, I understand that about forty competitors are coming from Canada, several from Australia, and fifty or more from the United States and Mexico. Among the competitors, I may mention, is one well-known rider from Canada who lately won a cup given by the Prince of Wales at Calgary. I think your Lordships know the Prince of Wales well enough to agree that he is certainly not likely to encourage a sport against which cruelty can fairly be alleged. If cruelty can be alleged against this sport, it could be alleged with equal force against racing, steeple-chasing, polo, and almost any field sport in this country.
I do not desire to weary your Lordships, but in to-day's isue of The Times there is an advertisement of the British Charities Association, who are, I believe, to receive the takings from the first day of the exhibition of this rodeo. The promoter carefully told these gentlemen exactly what it was proposed to do. They went into the matter very carefully,

907
and I think we may be quite sure that they would not have consented to take money for British charities—for hospitals or any other purpose—if it was earned by cruelty to animals. There is a further point that I would venture to make about the Wembley Exhibition. I have no sort of financial or other interest in this rodeo nor in the Exhibition itself. It is obviously to the interest of the Exhibition that as many people as possible should go to see these competitions, and I submit that we ought to be very careful not to say anything here which would prejudice the public from going to witness these competitions and the displays of skill and courage which are to be seen there. It is scarcely fair that the noble Lord, by the Question he has placed on the Paper and the speech he has made this evening, should prejudice the public against these exhibitions by statements about the cruelty and so forth which is supposed to be going to take place, before he really knows very much about it or, as it seems to me, has inquired very much into the matter.
I have two further criticisms to offer upon his speech. I submit that it is not customary in your Lordships' House to belittle or asperse sports and pastimes which are in vogue in any of our Overseas Dominions. Nor is it customary in this House to make imputations regarding visitors to our shores. The noble Lord, in his Question, has made rather serious imputations regarding men and women who ought to be regarded as our honoured guests. I have one practical suggestion to make to the noble Lord. I suggest that he might go to Wembley to see what is to be seen there and ask these cowboys to allow him to ride one of their buck-jumping horses. After what he has said I am sure that they would willingly agree. And if, most unfortunately, there was any cruelty in this particular instance, I am sure that it would not be the horse that would suffer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lambourne, who is the President of the Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has asked me to inform your Lordships that the promoters of this show have refused to allow his inspectors to examine at any time the horses or animals employed in the show.
LORD DENMAN: I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend. I would have stated that, but in the interest of time I did not go into it. What really happened was that the society approached the promoter of the show, and he said that he was very willing for their inspectors to go there.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend Lord Lambourne, who is well-known to your Lordships, tells me that the promoters of the show have deliberately refused to allow the inspector of the society at any time to examine, and have refused to give him any facilities to examine, any of the animals. My noble friend has sent me this extract which I will read to your Lordships. It is an extract from a letter which appeared in all the papers—
"It is desirable the public should know that the promoters of the 'rodeo' contests at the Empire Exhibition have definitely refused to allow any facilities to the inspectors of my society to examine the animals engaged in these contests at any time. The only reason given for this refusal by the promoters is that the attitude of the society is 'unfair,' because it has publicly objected to the introduction of the 'rodeo' contests into this country, and has not waited until the contests actually commenced before it raised any objection."
That is signed by my noble friend Lord Lambourne. It appeared, as I say, in The Times, where I saw it, in the Morning Post, and I believe in all the morning papers to-day.
Now that looks as if there was something to conceal, and as if these particular people were not desirous that the inspectors of the society should see what was going on. At this late hour I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, but I might observe—I do not profess to be a rough rider such as I am sure my noble friend Lord Denman is—that I have had experience of horses for over fifty years. I had in my charge over 3,000 horses when I was chairman of the horse committee of the Great Northern Railway. I break all my own young cart horses and harness horses, though I am not a good enough horseman to break my hunters. It is my experience that after you have dealt with a horse and had him in the stable for a certain time he becomes quiet. That is true of nearly every horse. These horses were brought from America or Canada. They were confined on a ship

909
for ten or fifteen days and probably longer, and they must have been sufficiently tractable for the men in charge to feed and water them and to deal with them. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that they are really like the wild horses which are caught on the prairie and elsewhere and mounted for the first time. I agree with the noble Lord that these excellent feats of horsemanship are all very well in their proper place, but their proper place is the country and not in a small and confined space in a town.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, although the notice is short I think that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, was well advised to bring this matter before your Lordships' House because before your Lordships meet again after the Recess the rodeo show will be in operation. In the first instance I should like to say a word in reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, because in my view, and I think I may say in the view of the Government, a great safeguard would be provided if every facility was given to the inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in order that the supervision might be as good as could possibly be obtained.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And that would end the matter.
THE LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that the noble Lord quite stated all the conditions which attached to the refusal to which the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, whom we all honour in these matters, referred in his letter of to-day. On March 21 when this matter was first brought to the notice of the people responsible for this show—who are really the Stadium Contests Syndicate, Limited—this answer was made; to Captain Fairholme, who is the Secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I will read one extract from it:—
"I should be most happy to give you any information that you desire in regard to the contests and every facility for yourself and your inspectors to see them; also to see the animals before and during the contests."
Now I understand it to be satisfactory to the noble Lord in those terms.
910
Unfortunately, that offer was withdrawn, and it is to the withdrawal of the offer that the noble Lord has really referred and to which Lord Lambourne referred in his letter.
The reply which we got, on this Question being put down by the noble Lord, was that, in the letter to which I have referred, he offered the society every facility for satisfying themselves that no cruelty would occur. Their only reply to his offer was to attack him in the Press, and he has, therefore, felt obliged to withdraw his offer. His correspondence with the society subsequent to that included another document to which I need not refer. Speaking on behalf of the Government, who do not desire in any way to interfere with a show of this kind if it can be properly conducted, I may say that we do attach enormous weight to proper supervision, and I sincerely hope that any interference of any sort with inspection by the Royal Society will be withdrawn. I do not think there could be any greater safeguard than that the society's inspectors should have access to these shows at all times, and be able to see what the condition of the animals may be.
So far as the Government are concerned, our powers are extremely limited; in fact, we have no powers of interference at all. Of course, the ordinary law applies. If animals are treated with cruelty those who are liable for such cruel treatment can be brought before the magistrate and subjected to appropriate penalties, but that, of course, is after the deed, and is not the protection that I understand the noble Lord desires. He wishes to prevent the evil, or at any rate to reduce the possibility of it to a minimum. I am representing here the Overseas Department of the Board of Trade. The only powers which the Board of Trade have under the Act of 1920, which sets out the conditions which we are empowered to enforce when the sum of £100,000 was subscribed towards Wembley, are these. We can approve the executive council and the general manager, and we can ask for the supply of information, but beyond those two points we have no powers at all.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: You have influence.
LORD PARMOOR: Subsequent Acts do not give any increased powers, but merely apply the same powers, although the date at which the show was to be held is altered. I can only say further, on behalf of the Government, that we sincerely hope that the inspection will be allowed. We think it ought to be allowed, and, so far as the Government are concerned, of course we should use our influence to prevent cruelty. The problem is: Is there cruelty? One of your Lordships took the view that there is not cruelty, while Lord Charnwood expressed a contrary opinion. It ought to be decided whether or not there is cruelty, and the proper persons to decide it are the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. So far as the Government can influence the matter they earnestly urge those responsible for this show to permit inspectors to have full opportunity of supervision.

PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words upon the present stage of this Bill. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Strachie, who is responsible for the Amendment that was introduced into the Bill, is unable to be present to-day, and he has asked me to make one or two remarks on his behalf. It really is in the nature of an appeal to His Majesty's Government. Those of your Lordships who were present when we dealt with this matter in Committee will remember that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, and also, I think, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, both insisted
912
on a point of privilege, and asked your Lordships not to consider the Amendment simply on that ground. The merits of the Amendment were never discussed at all by any speaker on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Whether the Amendment was, on its merits, good or bad really was not touched upon by either of the speakers on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think that was, if I may say so, rather a mistake.
We all know that Amendments of this kind are frequently introduced in your Lordships' House, and that a question of privilege is frequently waived in another place. Amendments exactly like this are admitted, even though there may be technical questions of privilege in the way. The real danger which will follow if His Majesty's Government, on similar Bills on future occasions, abstain from arguing the question on merits, is that a Bill will run the risk of being rejected even on Second Reading. If a Bill is rejected on Second Reading no question of privilege arises at all. If Amendments which in themselves are sound are not to be considered on their merits but are to be rejected without discussion merely on the ground of privilege, it may make legislation in this House of a somewhat summary character, because noble Lords who have Amendments which are sound, if they realise that His Majesty's Government will not consider them on their merits but will simply dismiss them without a further word on the question of privilege, will be tempted to ask your Lordships' House to reject a Bill on Second Reading. That, I think, would be a very great misfortune, and it is in order to prevent that happening in future-there is no question of it being done on this Bill—that I venture to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are instances very different from that in question here to which the observations of my noble friend would apply. This is a Money Bill, and it is well known that the Upper House cannot amend a Money Bill. Here is a case in which the question was the difference between two years and one year. The Amendment proposed to cut down the provision by one half. That clearly is a matter of money, and, therefore, the question of privilege applies.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Viscount is mistaken. Surely Money Bills come up with a Certificate from the Speaker of the other House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is another thing altogether.
LORD EMMOTT: I agree this may be a matter of privilege. That is a matter for the Speaker in another place to decide. I do not think that this Bill is a Money Bill, technically.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just sat clown is abundantly justified in correcting the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. We are very familiar with what is a Money Bill. That Bill is a Money Bill which reaches us with a Certificate from the Speaker to that effect. The noble and learned Viscount persistently declines to realise the difference of treatment, by the practice of Parliament, as between charges which are thrown upon the State in the shape of taxes and charges which are thrown on the subject in the shape of rates. He will find, if he looks at the precedents, that where it is a question of rates the House of Commons is much more accustomed to waive its privilege than to insist upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it were necessary to do so I could read a paragraph from Sir Erskine May's book to the same effect as that which I have stated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not relying on Sir Erskine May's book. I am relying on our own working of the
914
Constitution. I confess that I always find it difficult to understand Sir Erskine May's book. It is a monumental work, but it is written in such a style that it is difficult for the ordinary man to follow it. The practice of the Constitution is as I have stated: rates are treated on a different footing to taxes by the House of Commons, The noble Lord says that this is a matter for the Speaker. Primarily it is, of course, a matter for the Speaker, but it is really a matter for the House of Commons itself. I must say that I think the noble Earl is abundantly justified in pointing out to your Lordships and to the Government that if the Government run this doctrine of privilege too hard, and use it to prevent discussion on an Amendment that is otherwise quite justified, the only result is to drive your Lordships to take the more extreme step of rejecting the Bill itself. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does not wish us to do that, and I hope the Government will use their influence in another place to have this Amendment, which is a good Amendment in itself, allowed, notwithstanding that it may be a breach of privilege.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until Tuesday, June 24.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BTLL.
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Wednesday, July 2 next.
SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday, June 24) put off to Wednesday, June 25.