Sitting of 7 May 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wandsworth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BESSARABIA.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have yet ratified the Treaty recognising Rumanian sovereignty over Bessarabia; and whether this Treaty is legally binding upon those countries which have ratified it, or whether it will have to be ratified by all the signatories before it will become binding upon those who have already ratified?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The French law of the 9th April, 1924, authorises the President of the Republic to ratify the Treaty, but I have not yet heard that the President's ratification has been actually deposited. The Treaty becomes binding when all the signatories have ratified.

  SAAR VALLEY.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is a British Consul in the Saar Valley; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing one, with a view to obtaining authoritative information on conditions in that area?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but the matter is at present under consideration.

  MEMEL.
  Mr. JOHN HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations held in March last, a settlement was reached upon the protracted dispute concerning the port and harbour of Memel; that, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the President of the Council formally asked the representatives of the Allied Powers sitting at the Council whether, on behalf of their respective Governments, they were prepared to accept the Convention; that each representative then in turn declared that he did so accept; and, seeing that certain members of the Ambassadors' Conference are now seeking to make amendments to the Convention, whether he can give an assurance that the British Ambassador will resist any attempt to incorporate amendments which may imperil the acceptance of this Convention?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the fourth part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the 7th April to the hon. Member for Acton.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why has this got to be approved by the Ambassadors' Conference?
  Mr. PONSONBY: There are some drafting amendments which had to be seen to.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is my hon. Friend going to permit the Ambassadors' Conference to upset the settlement of a problem which has been arrived at now, and which they themselves could not settle?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think that any question of upsetting a settlement arises.

  MEXICO (BRITISH NEWS-LETTER).
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the publica-

  399
  tion in a Mexican paper of an official news-letter of a party character, which it is stated has been received at the British Legation, and released for publication; whether it is the custom now for the Foreign Office to issue party propaganda for publication in various countries; and, if so, whether this innovation has his approval?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Darwen on 9th April. The articles are not an innovation and have been issued for the past six years. With regard to the particular article, a copy of which has been sent to me by the courtesy of the hon. Member, it consists mainly of a summary of the findings of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee. It contains a passage praising the brevity and lucidity of the Report, but it was not meant as, and cannot well be considered, party propaganda.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these articles are not used, as undoubtedly has been the case in the present instance, for the purpose of advertising the merits of the present Government, to the discredit of the former Government?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think that there is any intention of using these articles for propaganda in any way, nor that there can be that construction of this particular article.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CRUISES CONSTRUCTION (BARROW-IN-FURNESS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the construction of a cruiser has been allotted to Barrow-in-Furness; and when he anticipates that the work will be commenced?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): Yes, Sir. I understand that the contractors expect to begin work very shortly, but I have no information as to the exact date.

    OFFICERS (PAY AND PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
    400
    Admiralty whether the proposal to reduce the pay of naval officers by 5½ per cent. as from 1st July next applies to the pensions as well as to the pay of naval officers; and, if so, what is the authority on which this reduction of pensions is based?
    Mr. HODGES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, as far as payments from naval funds are concerned, if by pensions the hon. and gallant Member refers to what is technically, under the Naval Regulations, called "retired pay." In the Fleet Order announcing the new rates of pay in 1919, it was specifically stated that the new rates both of pay and of retired pay were to be subject to revision according to the changes in the cost of living. So far as the question relates to officers paid by the Ministry of Pensions, the matter is one for that Department to deal with.
    Sir C. YATE: On what is the cost of living based?
    Mr. HODGES: It is based upon the Board of Trade index figure.
    Sir C. YATE: Has consideration been given to all the increased expenses incurred by officers on rent, rates, schools and other things?
    Mr. HODGES: I have no doubt that all these things have been taken into consideration by the Committee.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Was it not understood when these reductions were proposed that marriage allowances would be given to officers in the Navy, and will the hon. Gentleman undertake to suspend the reductions until these marriage allowances are granted?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Does the hon. Gentleman rely on the decision of the Committee or on his own personal investigation?
    Mr. HODGES: One must be supplemented by the other. The hon. Member will agree that that is what is generally done. One is bound, however, to be influenced by the decision of the Committee on the facts.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Mr. HODGES: I would like notice of that question.

    ANTI-GAS COURSES (PHYSICAL EXERCISES).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether officers and ratings over 40 years of age may be excused performing the physical exercises whilst undergoing anti-gas courses?
    Mr. HODGES: The exercises in question are for the purpose of enabling officers and men to wear their respirators without inconvenience during periods of considerable physical activity such as would be experienced in a ship in action. It is not possible to exempt officers and men over 40 years of age from the exercises, which are introduced in order to ensure that they are capable of performing their duties efficiently in action.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it a great hardship that these men should be compelled to play football for 20 minutes and to run 440 yards in a gas mask?

    PAYMASTER CADETS
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sons of naval warrant officers are considered to be included in the Regulations contained in paragraph 2 of Regulations respecting the entry of paymaster cadets, shown on page 2350 of the Navy List; and whether the sons of naval warrant officers are considered eligible candidates generally for entry as paymaster cadets?
    Mr. HODGES: The sons of naval warrant officers are eligible, under the prescribed conditions, both for the service nomination for paymaster cadetships and as candidates generally.
    Sir B. FALLE: Will the hon. Gentleman say why so very few are chosen?
    Mr. HODGES: Many are called, but few are chosen.

    LUNATIC RATINGS (DEPENDANTS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why pensions are withheld from the dependants of lunatic ratings of the naval service who are eligible for life pensions under the Naval Regulations who are discharged to the Royal Naval Hospital, Great Yarmouth, and there maintained
    402
    at the charge of naval funds; and what happens to the pensions earned by these ratings?
    Mr. HODGES: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 29th April. The Regulations do not provide for the free maintenance of pensioners in naval hospitals with payment of pensions concurrently, and the pensions are, therefore, withheld and appropriated towards the cost of the maintenance.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that case the wives and dependants have to go on the guardians?
    Mr. HODGES: The wives and dependants are in receipt of and become in receipt of certain payments from the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is that so in all cases?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed in the City of Westminster when the Government took office, and what is the actual number now?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): The number of persons on the registers of the Westminster and Great Marlborough Street Employment Exchanges, the combined areas of which coincide approximately with the City of Westminster, was 2,747 on 11th February, 1924, and 2,222 on the 5th May, 1924.

    JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT (LONDON SCHOOLMASTERS' ASSOCIATION).
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSasked the Minister of Labour why he has refused the London Schoolmasters' Association representation on the committees dealing with juvenile unemployment in London; is he aware that this organisation represents 50 per cent. of the men working in the elementary schools in London; and will he therefore take steps to secure the co-operation of these men in a matter which so vitally affects the welfare of the boys they teach?
    Mr. SHAW: Four members of the London Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment and two members of each of the local Juvenile Employment Com-

    403
    mittees in London are appointed as representatives of teachers in the public education service. I regret that, owing to limitations of number, it has not been possible to appoint representatives of the London Schoolmasters' Association or of a number of other associations which have asked for representation.
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to secure that representation?
    Mr. SHAW: I understand that there is a possibility of this question going outside the region of consideration, and I prefer to remain as I am until I see the result.

    INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if he can now state when it is proposed to proceed with the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill?
    Mr. SHAW: I recognise the importance of proceeding with this Bill, but am afraid it will not be possible to fix a day next week.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister as to the great desirability of getting this Bill into Committee as soon as possible, so as not to run us up to the time of the exhaustion of the existing benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: I have already made such representations and I am now in consultation with the Deputy-Leader of the House, who has promised to give the earliest possible day for the Bill.

    BENEFIT AND POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour if any information or figures are available which will indicate the approximate proportion of those drawing unemployment benefit who are compelled, on account of the inadequacy of the amount, to supplement the same by application to the Poor Law guardians for out-relief?
    Mr. SHAW: Periodic statistics are not kept of the number of claimants to benefit who are also in receipt of poor relief. A special analysis of a selection of 10,000 claims to benefit taken in November last showed that at that date about 10 per cent. of the male claimants, and
    404
    about 1 per cent. of the female claimants whose claims to unemployment benefit were analysed were also in receipt of poor relief.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman issued through his Department a statement that 500,000 of those receiving unemployment benefit are also receiving Poor Law relief?
    Mr. SHAW: Yes, based on the statement, I think, that if the proportions remained the same, that would be the number.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: If the proportions were the same, would not that give us an unemployed figure of 5,000,000?

    VOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice of his Department to pay unemployment benefit after six weeks to a man or woman leaving their employment voluntarily of their own accord?
    Mr. SHAW: Under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, disqualification for benefit for a period of six weeks is the maximum penalty that may be imposed for voluntarily leaving employment without just cause. Payment of benefit would be made after this period if the applicant was then able to satisfy all the conditions, in particular the condition that he is unable to obtain suitable employment. If he were claiming uncovenanted benefit, the fact that he had voluntarily left employment would be an important factor in deciding whether he was entitled to receive such benefit after the expiration of the six weeks' disqualification.
    Sir C. YATE: Is it the case, as has been stated, that men who leave their employment voluntarily are entitled to this benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: The man who leaves his work voluntarily without just cause, after six weeks is entitled to make a claim, but he must satisfy the conditions before payment can be made.

    ALIENS.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Minister of Labour how many aliens are now receiving uncovenanted benefit and unemployment benefit as a result of the Ministerial Circular of 13th February, 1924?
    Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey on 16th April last.
    Sir L. LYLE: Are the figures not different now?
    Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member refers to the answer he will see that that question involves a discussion.
    Sir L. LYLE: Would it not be better to get rid altogether of these aliens?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 51,948 aliens who were given leave to land in this country during January, February and March are in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: The information desired by the hon. and gallant Member could not be obtained without very heavy expenditure of time and labour, and this I do not feel justified in incurring. It is clear, however, that it is very unlikely that any of the aliens in question have been able to satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when I asked a question a month ago with regard to aliens, he said it was not necessary in his opinion to get the information; and is he aware that hon. Members on this side of the House and voters in the country are desirous that the information should be obtained in order that they may know the actual facts of the case?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is is not a fact that aliens landing here have to give an undertaking that they will not take up remunerative employment—
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. I am not asking as to that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These supplementary questions do not seem to arise out of the Question on the Paper, which was merely a request for figures. We cannot proceed to argue on every answer that is given.

    RELIEF WORKS.
    Mr. MASTERMANasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state what schemes for providing work for the unemployed are now proposed or in operation in addition to the schemes of the late Government; how many persons it is calculated
    406
    will be employed on these schemes; and what is the estimated cost?
    Mr. SHAW: These are not matters which can be dealt with adequately within the limits of question and answer. I hope to have an opportunity to deal with them fully when the Vote for my Department comes up for discussion.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Will the right hon. Gentleman say succinctly whether he has put into force any positive scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In view of the general anxiety in the country about this question, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the Prime Minister or the Deputy-Leader of the House that we shall have an opportunity of moving a reduction of his salary as early as possible?
    Sir H. CROFT: And also in view of the anxiety on this question, will the right hon. Gentleman consider what measures he can produce to alleviate possible suffering in the clock and watch, the film, the musical instrument, and the motor industries?

    BENEFIT PAYMENTS (ABUSES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of a married man who was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour on 24th April for stealing a bicycle; whether he is aware that it appeared in evidence that the man, who was in receipt of 38s. a week from the guardians, had done no work for three years and spent his time principally in backing horses and taking bicycle rides; and whether, in view of the wastage of public funds caused by fraudulent cases of this kind, he will state what action the Government propose to take to prevent such habitual abuse of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. and gallant Member states that the man referred to was in receipt of 38s. a week from the guardians. The question of abuse of unemployment benefit does not therefore arise. If he can give me particulars of any case of abuse in connection with the Unemployment Fund, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

    RELIEF (BOSTON).
    Mr. ROYCEasked the Minister of Health if he will inquire whether an understanding exists between the guard-

    407
    ians and the borough council at Boston by which unemployed married men are being engaged for three days a week at 6s. per day, getting at the end of the week only 18s.; and whether, if it is found, as alleged, that this is the case, he will take steps to provide adequate relief for the unemployed in this area?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I understand that some of the men who were working at the dock under an arrangement made between the guardians and the Boston Corporation and Harbour Commissioners have recently been on short time, earning a net wage of 18s. 10d. per week, but that Poor Law relief has been granted to all the men who applied for further assistance.

  LACE TRADE, NOTTINGHAM.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour how many persons of all ages there are employed in the auxiliary lace trades in Nottingham, and the numbers unemployed or on short time, respectively?
  Mr. SHAW: I regret that there is no information in the possession of the Ministry of Labour showing separately the number of persons employed or unemployed in the auxiliary lace trades in Nottingham.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any calculation as to how many persons now unemployed in the lace trade would be employed if the recommendations of the Board of Trade Committee were carried out?
  Mr. SHAW: I do not think that that arises out of this question.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the demands of the trade unions, in this connection to give protection to the lace trades in Nottingham?
  Mr. SHAW: The question of how many are unemployed in Nottingham has nothing to do with protection at all.
  Mr. HAYDAY: In signing on at the Employment Exchange, is not the designation of the trade or occupation part of
  408
  the entry, and, if that be so, is it not possible to give the information which is asked for?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In order to determine the policy which should be pursued with regard to lace, ought the right hon. Gentleman not to find out the proportion of unemployed to employed?
  Mr. SHAW: The proportion of unemployed to employed in the lace trade is well known, but the proportion in the different sections is not known.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation representing those interested in all parts of the lace trade, and to get from them the information?
  Mr. SHAW: I am prepared to receive any deputation that can give me useful information, and I shall be glad to receive it.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of lace out-workers resident in Nottingham who are not insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Act; and how many of this number are totally or partially unemployed, respectively?
  Mr. SHAW: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Is the Minister not aware that these statistics were taken out some time ago, and that a proposal was made to include the outworker in the Unemployment Insurance Act; and are not these statistics still available to show the number employed as outworkers in the lace industry?
  Miss LAWRENCE: Has the Minister consulted the local trade board on the question of the number and state of unemployment?
  Mr. SHAW: The investigations that took place previously are no indication as to what is the actual position now, and we have no figures showing whether uninsured persons are employed or not.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Are we to understand that the Minister has turned down the unanimous recommendations of the Lace Committee without any further inquiry into the facts?
  Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make such investigation to show the number of outworkers?
  Mr. SHAW: Yes, I will consider that question.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. SHAW: That question has no reference to the question on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper, he will receive an answer in the ordinary way.

  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  Major Sir C. MORRISON-BELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of agricultural workers now employed on the land in England and

  —

  1908.

  1913.

  1921.

  1923.

  Regular Workers.

  Males

  …

  …

  508,000

  508,000

  612,000

  566,000

  Women and Girls

  …

  …

  68,000

  43,000

  73,000

  59,000

  Casual Workers.

  Males

  …

  …

  114,000

  78,000

  131,000

  104,000

  Women and Girls

  …

  …

  32,000

  22,000

  53,000

  43,000

  Total

  …

  …

  722,000

  651,000

  869,000

  772,000

  Note.—The figures for 1908 and 1913 do not include members of the occupier's family; those for 1921 and 1923 do not include the occupier and his wife, but include other members of the family working on the holding.
  Returns of the number of workers employed on agricultural holdings have not been collected by the Ministry in other years.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE, SOUTH-EASTERN DIVISION.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain discharges are now being made from the local accountant's office of the South-Eastern Division at Howard's Hotel; that amongst those under notice is an ex-officer, married, who enlisted at the outbreak of War, was sent abroad, gained a commission, and has had 4½ years' approved service in the Ministry of Labour; that in the same branch two
    Wales as compared with the totals in 1900, 1910, 1914, 1920, and 1923?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have been asked to reply, and as the answer is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Baronet's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1922?
    Mr. SMITH: I think that the hon. Baronet had better see the full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The number of workers employed on agricultural holdings above one acre in extent, in England and Wales, as returned by the occupiers in June, 1908, 1913, 1921, and 1923, was as follows:—
    other employés, single, are being retained, suffering from war disabilities aggravated by Army training in this country, inasmuch as they neither of them went overseas; and whether he will look into these cases?
    Mr. SHAW: The facts are as stated in the question. The retention of the disabled men in preference to the non-disabled ex-officer referred to is in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Lytton Committee.

    APPRENTICESHIP SCHEME (EMIGRANTS).
    Captain RAMAGEasked the Minister of Labour if any provision can be made for the continuation in the Colonies of the apprenticeship scheme for ex-service men who, through trade depression, have been unable to complete their training in

    411
    this country; and, failing such provision, if any grant can be made in such cases by way of compensation to assist these men who emigrate to the Colonies?
    Mr. SHAW: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the Scheme for Interrupted Apprenticeships. The practical difficulties in the way of extending this scheme to training in the Dominions would be too great even if such an arrangement were admissible in principle; and, as regards emigration, I am afraid this class of ex-Service man could not be selected specially for the grant of compensation for the loss of opportunities in this country.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that there are a number of ex-service men employed in Employment Exchanges with four years' service, and who are also qualified book-keepers, he will now allow them to be rated as permanent hands without their requiring to pass any further examination?
    Mr. SHAW: The question of the permanent establishment of temporary ex-service staff in Government Departments is now under consideration by Lord South-borough's Committee. I am, unable, therefore, to deal with the hon. Member's suggestion until the Government have had an opportunity of considering that Committee's recommendations.

  TRADE BOARDS.
  Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Labour how many trade boards for distributive trades are set up and functioning; does he contemplate forming further trade boards; and how-many boards will be set up to cover the distributive trades?
  Mr. SHAW: The Trade Boards Acts have already been applied to the milk distributive trade and to the grocery and provisions trade. There are boards for England and Wales and for Scotland respectively in each case. Minimum rates of wages have been in operation for some years in the milk distributive trade; in the grocery and provisions trade reconstituted boards will, I anticipate, meet at a very
  412
  early date with a view to the fixing of minimum rates. I am now examining conditions in the drapery and allied trades and in the meat distributive trade with a view to deciding whether the Trade Boards Acts should be applied to these trades. I cannot, at this stage, form an opinion as to the number of trade boards which might be required.
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has instituted any inquiries to discover whether unemployment has followed the setting up of the Trade Boards under the Act?
  Mr. SHAW: That is quite a different question, but I have no information that unemployment does follow the setting up of these boards.
  Mr. ROBERTSONalso asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered how far it may be advisable to adopt certain recommendations of the Cave Committee on Trade Boards which do not involve legislation?
  Mr. SHAW: As the recommendations in question cover a wide field, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations of the Cave Committee which need legislation?
  Mr. SHAW: I have no immediate intention of introducing legislation of the character referred to.
  Following is the reply:
  It is presumed that the recommendations of the Cave Committee to which reference is made in the question are those concerning (i) the establishment of district boards for the distributive and retail making-up trades; (ii) expediting of machinery; (iii) the reduction of the number of appointed members to three on any one board; (iv) the limitation of the proportion of officials appointed to membership of boards without practical experience of the trade in question to 25 per cent.; (v) the basis on which learners' and apprentices' rates should be fixed; (vi) the presentation to Parliament of an annual report on the working of the Acts.

  (i) I am not satisfied that in general this recommendation should be adopted.

  413

  (ii) The following steps have been taken to remove the difficulties under this head to which the Cave Committee drew attention:

  (a) Consultation with boards between the proposal and fixing stages enables the Minister to transmit his decision on the question of confirmation within fourteen days of the receipt of notification of the rates.

  (b) A regulation has been made dating the period of objection from the publication of the notice instead of from the date of its issue to the trade.

  (iii) The opportunity has recently been taken to reduce to three the number of appointed members serving on the Grocery and Provisions Trade Board (England and Wales); the possibility of effecting a similar reduction in the case of the one other board in question will be considered when that board is next reconstituted.

  (iv) The proportion on the existing boards is in most cases considerably less than 25 per cent.; discretion must be retained for the treatment of each case on its merits.

  (v) These recommendations have been put into practice by several boards.

  (vi) A Report on the administration of the Acts from 1st January, 1922, to 31st March, 1923, was published in October last, and it is proposed to publish a Report annually.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (WAGES RATE).
  Mr. EGANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is not paying the full rate of wages to men employed on work for which the Ministry has granted financial assistance; and will he advise the board to do so in accordance with the Ministry's recommendations?
  Mr. SHAW: The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is carrying out certain work with the promise of financial assistance from the Unemployment Grants Committee. In respect of works carried out by direct labour the condition imposed by the Committee requires that
  414
  the rate of wages paid must not exceed the local authority's rate to its own workmen on similar classes of work, or the recognised district rate (where such exists) if that is lower. Within the limits imposed by that condition the local authority has discretion as to the rate to be paid. The question of the rate to be paid by a contractor is also one for arrangement between the local authority and the contractor. I am unable to intervene in either case.

  MOTOR INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the motor industry in this country in 1914; and what is the number employed at the present time?
  Mr. SHAW: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir F. HALL: As the answer is to be circulated with my permission, may I say I take exception to that course. I only want the figures in two cases—1914 and 1923—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce them.
  Mr. SHAW: The number of insured contributors under the Unemployment Insurance Acts recorded as engaged in the construction and repair of motor cars, motor lorries, motor omnibuses, motor cycles, pedal cycles, and aircraft in Great Britain at July, 1923, the latest date for which statistics have been obtained, was approximately 193,100. No statistics are available as to the numbers engaged on construction and repair of pedal cycles or aircraft, included in this total, or as to the corresponding total in 1914. The number given includes unemployed insured persons, but excludes certain classes of persons, for example, juveniles under 16 years of age and non-manual workers whose rate of remuneration exceeds £250 per annum. It also excludes workpeople employed on the manufacture of tyres and motor components and accessories in establishments not engaged in the construction and repair of motor vehicles, etc.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only question I have

  415
  asked and the only reply I desire is as to the number of people engaged in the motor industry in 1914 compared with the number in 1923? I did not ask about pedal cycles. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce the figures for which I have asked and I will repeat my question on this day week.
  Mr. SHAW: It is my desire to communicate all the information at my disposal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I apologise if my willingness has imposed an unduly long answer upon him.

  HOUSING.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement concerning the negotiations with the local authorities in relation to the Government's housing proposals?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this point.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is there any truth in the statement which appeared this week in the "Daily Herald" that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to introduce this Bill, and also deal with matters in relation to the local authorities, within a fortnight?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not seen the statement.

    RENTS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rents charged by the London County Council for houses erected outside their own area are considerably higher than the rents charged for similar accommodation by other local authorities; that since the rents of these houses were fixed in accordance with the Housing Regulations 40 local authorities in London and Greater London have reduced the rents of their houses, but the London County Council have made no reduction; and, in view of these facts and the growing dissatisfaction of London County Council tenants in Outer London, he will draw the attention of the London County Council to the fact that their rents are no longer in accordance with the Housing Regulations?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the replies already given to the questions addressed to me by the hon. Member regarding each of the points referred to in this question.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that these exceedingly high rents were fixed by the London County Council in accordance with the instructions of a former Minister of Health; and, if so, has he taken that fact into consideration?
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the Ministry is responsible for the deficit; and is the right hon. Gentleman therefore not responsible for seeing that the right rents are charged?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I think this is a case where, if any steps are to be taken, the first one should be taken by the County Council.

    WORKING-CLASS HOUSES.
    Mr. ERNEST SIMONasked the Minister of Health what is the best available information as to the total number of working-class houses completed by all agencies in each of the calendar years 1921, 1922 and 1923?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not possible to state the total number of working-class houses completed by all agencies in each of the calendar years in question, as figures are not available showing the number of houses erected by private enterprise without State assistance over the whole period. The numbers of houses erected with State assistance were:

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    …

    86,669

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    …

    88,999

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    …

    19,185

    During the year ended 30th September, 1923, it is estimated that over 39,000 houses of not more than £26 rateable value in the provinces and £35 in the Metropolitan Police district were completed.
    Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until we have had these figures giving the total number of houses built in each year, we have no basis of comparison as to what increase in output is offered in the Building Industry Report? Cannot he make another effort to get them?
    Lord E. PERCY: May I ask, for the purposes of clarity, whether it is not a fact that the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given are the figures for England and Wales alone, and do not include Scotland?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: These figures are for England and Wales alone. With regard to the first supplementary question, I wish to say that the figures mentioned in the Building Industry Report are figures which relate to houses of a subsidy type and are to be compared with the figures of houses of that type I have given here, and it is not suggested that the number of houses of a larger type which have been produced in the last year should be reduced in future.
    Lord E. PERCY: Is it not a fact that in the Report of that Committee there is a specific statement that if private enterprise builds more houses, the number of houses proposed in the Report will be correspondingly reduced?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many houses he anticipates will be completed under his own Act for 1924?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman get complete figures for all houses built from the reports of the medical officers of health every year, and cannot he, therefore, get the complete figures asked for in the original question?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Hon. Members are inclined to confuse two sets of houses. Take the year for which we have not detailed information, the houses erected without assistance from the State are houses which, on the information we have were not built for letting, but if they were for letting the smallest would be let at net rates of from £32 10s. to £45 a year. There are not the class of houses which it is generally assumed that people with incomes of less than £3 a week can afford to occupy.

    LARGE FAMILIES (RENTS).
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the period of the life of a working-class family when the children are growing up is the period when house room is most urgently needed and is also the period when, owing to the cost of maintaining the children, the father can least afford the
    418
    rent of an adequate house; and whether, in view of this, he is prepared to consider granting any new housing subsidy in such a form as to give an abatement of rent to fathers of large families?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have carefully considered the suggestion made by the hon. Member, but I am unable to adopt it as a basis of the housing subsidy.

    BUILDING (WAGES AND PRICES).
    Mr. SIMONalso asked the Minister of Health the average percentage increase in the present rates of wages of skilled and unskilled labour in the building industry over the rates in 1913, and in the present prices of the materials used in building workmen's houses over the 1913 prices?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The average increase in the present prices of the materials used in building workmen's houses over the prices ruling at the end of 1913 is estimated to be about 85 per cent. As regards the rates of labour, the percentage increase varies in different localities. The reply will, therefore, involve a statistical table and be somewhat long, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of building trade workers in London last week earned less than £1 a week owing to wet weather?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: That statement is not correct.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that there has been a variation in the increase in the cost of building materials in various localities, and if the right hon. Gentleman can give an average percentage increase for building materials, what is to prevent him from giving the average increase in building trade wages?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The price of building materials does not vary to the same extent in localities as do the wages paid to the workers.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that different materials vary very considerably?
    Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has the average figures there, and cannot he give them to the House?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not a fact, and I do not think that suggestion was justified.
    Following is the reply:
    The increases in the rates of wages of building trade operatives have varied in different districts and in different occu-

    Town.

    Percentage increases in hourly rates of wages between the end of 1913 and 7th May, 1924.

    Bricklayers.

    Carpenters and Joiners.

    Painters.

    Labourers.

    London

    …

    …

    74

    74

    100

    100

    Newcastle

    …

    …

    95

    95

    117

    119

    Manchester

    …

    …

    86

    86

    105

    127

    Birmingham

    …

    …

    95

    95

    117

    111

    Derby

    …

    …

    105

    117

    144

    146

    Lincoln

    …

    …

    129

    129

    144

    168

    Chatham

    …

    …

    89

    100

    143

    132

    Reading

    …

    …

    100

    100

    143

    132

    Southampton

    …

    …

    79

    79

    100

    96

    Cardiff

    …

    …

    105

    105

    129

    127

    As the normal weekly working hours have been reduced since 1913, the percentage increases in weekly full-time rates of wages are less than those in hourly rates of wages, given above, but the information available as to the number of hours worked is insufficient to enable precise percentages of increase in weekly wages to be calculated.

    BUILDING TRADES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. BLACKasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the urgent need for houses, he will press the various building trade unions to permit unemployed ex-service men and other unemployed men to be employed in the various trades at the risk of the building employers?
    Mr. SHAW: I have been asked to reply. The subject of the augmentation of the number of building trade workers is under consideration in connection with the report recently prepared by the employers' and workers' organisations. In this connection, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I will take into consideration any practicable method of absorbing men at present unemployed.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his colleague as to the desirability of reviving the proposal to train fit ex-service men?
    pations. The following table shows the percentage increases, between the end of 1913 and the present date, in the recognised hourly rates of wages of bricklayers, carpenters and joiners, painters, and builders' labourers in 10 towns, of varying importance, in different parts of the country:
    Mr. SHAW: I will consider with my right hon. Friend any practical proposal for increasing the workers in the building trade, in agreement with the employers' and workers' organisations.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House now how many men, since the Government have been in office, have actually been diluted, and what actual increase there is in the number of men?

    EVICTIONS, LIVERPOOL.
    Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Health the number of evictions in the Liverpool County Court district for the eight months prior to 1st August, 1923, and the number during the eight months subsequent to that date; and can he say how many cases were due to unemployment?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Forty-five warrants of possession were executed in the eight months prior to 1st August, 1923, and 57 in the eight subsequent months, in the Liverpool County Court. It is not possible to state how many cases were due to unemployment.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Is it the case that there are over 200,000 houses in this district?

    RENTS.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Health whether, in deciding to fix greatly reduced rents for the houses to be erected under the new housing scheme, consideration was given to the case of occupiers of similar houses built under previous State-aided schemes, who will thereby be placed in a disadvantageous position in the matter of rent; and whether, seeing that the anomaly thus created will cause difficulties in administration, he will reconsider the whole position?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think that the proposals which I hope to make will have the prejudicial effect which the hon. Member apprehends on the houses built under existing State-aided schemes.
    Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his proposals are going to be in this respect, and will these men be treated on the same level?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: There is no doubt I will tell the House in due course.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that practically none of the State houses built in London are rented at 9s. and under, and that they are all very much over; and will he consider the question of those rents, because the loss will have to be borne by the State?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer, in view of the fact that in London at present there are three-roomed houses being built at a rental of over 14s. a week? Why should they pay 14s. a week if the occupants of new houses are to pay 9s.?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: These are all questions which will have to be determined by Parliament.

    RURAL AND SEMI-RURAL AREAS (SURVEY).
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representation from rural and semi-rural areas as to the number of houses required in such areas; and if an early survey will be undertaken by him?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am aware of the need for additional housing accommodation in the rural and semi-rural areas, and the Government is giving particular
    422
    attention to the problem of housing in these areas. The question of a further survey is under consideration.
    Mr. BROWNalso asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed, in advance of the new housing proposals, to make an accurate and detailed national survey of the condition of existing houses and of the need for new houses, and to give the authorities concerned ample time for the preparation of such information?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I propose to give further consideration to the possibility of obtaining such a survey as the hon. Member has in mind, but it would clearly be impracticable, and in my view is not necessary, to obtain such detailed information in advance of the new housing proposals.
    Mr. BROWN: Is it not the fact that nobody knows what number of houses is required, or where they are required, and would it not expedite the carrying out of a big housing programme if a new return were obtained, as the 1919 return is absolutely useless for this purpose?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The Government are wholly satisfied that as many houses will be required as can be produced next year.

    WOOD AND CONCRETE HOUSES.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Health whether he has inspected types of working-class houses built of wood and concrete; if so, how many different types has he inspected; and of how many he approves?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: For the purposes of the 1919 Housing Scheme large numbers of special methods of construction in wood or concrete were examined and approved. Houses were erected in accordance with about 50 such methods.
    Mr. BECKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department in favour of building wooden houses on the American plan, if they be cheaper than brick houses?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of these other forms of construction are anything like so satisfactory as brick?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I think there are many criticisms, and some people even criticise brick.

    BRICKS (PRICES).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health the amount of the increase in the price of bricks for house-building since the present Government took office?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: As the answer includes a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take to prevent an increase in the price of bricks?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not the fact that even within the last month the price of bricks has risen 15 per cent., and is it not the fact that the present supply, including the stacks of bricks now burning in this country, have already been ordered; and how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase building construction, unless he himself secures the supply of bricks that may be anticipated, in view of the action by the ring at present controlling bricks?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The information for which I am asked this question is the amount of increase in the price of bricks for house building during a given period, and I have promised to give all the information in my possession, but as it

    District.

    Description.

    Price per 1,000 December, 1923.

    Price per 1,000 March, 1924.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Willesden

    …

    Common Bricks (Flettons)

    …

    59

    3

    61

    3

    Facing Bricks (Picked Stocks)

    …

    97

    0

    99

    0

    Birmingham

    …

    Common

    …

    55

    0

    55

    0

    Facing

    …

    110

    0

    110

    0

    Bristol

    …

    Common

    …

    60

    0

    62

    6

    Facing

    …

    65

    0

    67

    6

    Leeds

    …

    Common

    …

    45

    0

    50

    0

    Facing

    …

    55

    0

    60

    0

    Leicester

    …

    Common (Flettons)

    …

    56

    0

    56

    0

    Common (Sileby)

    …

    57

    6

    57

    6

    Manchester

    …

    Common

    …

    55

    0

    56

    0

    Facing

    …

    73

    6

    74

    0

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    …

    Common

    …

    55

    0

    58

    0

    Facing

    …

    104

    0

    104

    0

    Swansea

    …

    Common

    …

    59

    0

    64

    0

    Facing

    …

    68

    0

    70

    0

    Hampshire

    …

    Common

    …

    80

    0

    80

    0

    Facing

    …

    100

    0

    100

    0

    Dundee

    …

    Common

    …

    58

    4

    58

    4

    Facing

    …

    80

    0

    80

    0

    Edinburgh

    …

    Common

    …

    55

    0

    55

    0

    Facing

    …

    68

    0

    68

    0

    Glasgow

    …

    Common

    …

    44

    6

    47

    6

    Facing

    …

    110

    0

    110

    0

    will occupy some space, and, therefore, would take some time to read, I have promised to circulate it.
    Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a direct answer in this House, seeing that, undoubtedly, there has been a very large increase in the price?
    Mr. PENNY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a general idea of the increase that has taken place?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Undoubtedly, an increase has taken place, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am not responsible for it.
    Following is the statement promised:
    The price of bricks necessarily varies in different districts, and it is impossible to give one figure which is of general application.
    The Committee appointed to survey the prices of building materials therefore selected 12 centres in England, Scotland and Wales which could be regarded as representative of general conditions, and their Reports for the months of December, 1923, and January, February and March of this year, which have already been published, show the following brick prices:
    Although the prices quoted for the same district are comparable, the prices are not comparable as between one district and another, as apart from the different quality of the brick used, some prices are "at yard," while others are "delivered on the site" or "free on rail at the nearest railway station."
    The April Report is not yet available, but the Returns so far received show the following further changes in price:

    Manchester: common bricks, 58s.

    Swansea: common bricks, 67s. 6d.; facing, 75s.

    During April an increase of 4s. 6d. per 1,000 has been announced in the various grades of stock bricks.

  POPLAR GUARDIANS (AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the Auditor's Report in relation to the accounts of the Poplar Guardians; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The Report has not yet been received. The Auditor has been obliged to adjourn the audit for two months in order to afford the guardians time to investigate the details of certain cases in respect of which he has given notice of surcharge.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing his best to expedite this audit in order that he may proceed to carry out the law?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes. In a very short time I have had the audits for three periods completed, whereas my predecessor could not get one in 18 months.
  Sir K. WOOD: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking with regard to the Returns which he states are ready to hand; and is there any evidence in those Returns that any portion of the law is being broken?

  VIVISECTION.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health what payment from public grants is made for experiments on living animals at the present time; and whether it is proposed to continue these grants?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: As the answer is necessarily somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Animal experiments are a necessary part of the research work done by or for several Government Departments. No separate provision for such experiments is made in the expenditure from public funds and it is impossible to analyse the expenditure on research in such a manner as to isolate the expenditure involved in this particular class of experiment. Annual Returns furnished to Parliament by the Home Office give the names of persons licensed by the Home Secretary to perform these experiments, together with the number of animal experiments performed and a list of the laboratories approved and registered for the purpose. In reply to the second half of the question, I do not see any ground, in the present state of scientific knowledge, for discontinuing expenditure from public funds on such experiments.

  INFIRM OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the cases of infirm old age pensioners who in many cases are without any relatives or friends to assist them and are living under conditions harmful to themselves and their neighbours, and that, unless such persons apply to the Poor Law guardians for relief, the latter have no power to deal with them; and will he accordingly take action to provide proper care for such infirm and friendless pensioners?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I shall be glad to consider any practical suggestions that may be made to me for dealing with these cases.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider making proposals to the Governments of the United States of America, France, and Japan, for the calling of a Conference of those Powers, together with ourselves, to consider a further limitation of naval armaments, especially

  427
  with regard to cruisers and submarines which are outside the scope of the Washington Agreement?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I need hardly assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am most anxious for further steps to be taken for the limitation of naval armaments, but I can at the present stage only refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris) on the 30th April.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman observe the rider passed by the United States Senate to the Naval Appropriation Bill, asking for such a Conference, and can he do anything to meet that request?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I have observed that they have repeated their rider; that they have not only done it once but done it twice, and I welcome it as a manifestation of their desires.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Could the right hon. Gentleman not give the House an opportunity of passing a Resolution in a similar sense?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad to do so, and perhaps an opportunity will be found in the course of the Estimates or something else which will at any rate amount to that.

  IRON AND STEEL WORKS.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any indication of what is being done to re-organise industry in the United Kingdom; and whether he has considered the calling of a conference of iron and steel works owners for the purpose of bringing all such iron and steel plant up to date?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I have been asked to reply. The subject raised by my hon. Friend is too large to be dealt with by question and answer in this House. In the iron and steel industry, to which my hon. Friend specially refers, very substantial reorganisations and improvements have been made in recent years, and I do not think a conference of the kind suggested would serve any useful purpose at present.
  Mr. HOPE: Would it not be a mockery for the Government to ask the steel makers to improve their plant when they do nothing to secure them a market?
  Mr. WEBB: I am afraid I am not aware that it is any part of the duty of the Government to secure a market for particular manufacturers.
  Mr. HARDIE: Since the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that they had no Department for dealing with this question, and since he says that this is not the place to do it, and since I have tried every other avenue, can he tell me now in what way I am to approach the Government to get anything done in order to reorganise industries in this country?
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Surely it is the first duty of the Board of Trade to look after the industries of the country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Industry is not nationalised yet.

  ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.
  Sir L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement to the House regarding the position of the Anglo-Russian Conference, and particularly whether any decisions have been arrived at on the subject of finance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Sir L. LYLE: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of telling the Russian delegates that, under no circumstances, will he consider giving British loans until they have paid their just debts to this country?

  EX-BANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a Report from the Committee investigating the case of the ex-ranker officers; and whether he will state the substance of the findings and recommendations of this Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Report has been presented in dummy, and is now being printed. Copies should be in the hands of Members within the next few days.
  Mr. HARRIS: May we take it in the meantime that the forecast published in the "Times" of this morning is fairly accurate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen it.

  GASH RIVER.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to Italian activities on the Gash river which might result in depriving Kassala of water required for irrigation purposes; and whether he has any statement to make?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Though the official reply of the Italian Government has not yet been received, I have been assured that the Italian Government accept in principle the British suggestion that the control and utilisation of the river should form the subject of an agreement. I am informed that the Italian Government have in mind that the Governor of Eritrea and the Governor-General of the Sudan, accompanied by their experts, should arrange to meet together to consider the problem, and should either effect a solution themselves with expert advice or should delegate a committee of experts to propose a solution. His Majesty's Government are consulting the Sudan Government in regard to these proposals, which they are disposed to welcome.

  MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Mr. PERRYasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of appointing a representative of the National Veterinary Medical Association of Great Britain and Ireland on the Joint Committee which has been set up to advise his Department and that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on matters concerning the production, handling, and distribution of milk and dairy produce, including questions relating to education and research, and any legislation, Orders, and Regulations which may be under consideration?
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have been asked to reply. The Committee is primarily a committee representative of various
  430
  branches of the industry, and my right hon. Friend considers that if expert advice on veterinary questions either for the Committee, or for the Ministers concerned, is desired, it will be best obtained from the expert veterinary officers in this Department.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (PARENTAL POWERS).
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health if the Government proposes to introduce legislation amending Section 1 (1) of the Poor Law Act, 1899, by substituing 21 years for 18 years as the limit of age of vesting of parental powers in the guardians where the guardians consider that, in the interests of the person with respect to whom a resolution of vesting is passed, the extension of the age limit is necessary or desirable?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: As at present advised, I am not aware of any sufficient ground for introducing legislation for this purpose.

  POOR RATE (EQUALISATION).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health what steps the Government have taken, and what further steps they are prepared to take, towards the equalisation of the poor rate given in relief of unemployment in different parts of the country?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 16th April, and to the reply given him by the Lord Privy Seal last week.
  Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the replies given still leave the difference of 5d. in the £ in some districts and 10s. in the £ in other districts? Does he consider that an equitable system of rating?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am quite aware of this unfortunate difference, but the circumstances have not altered since the replies were given.

  COUNTY OF DERBY (MATLOCKS URBAN DISTRICT) ORDER, 1923.
  Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Minister of Health (1) whether

  431
  he has confirmed the County of Derby (Matlocks Urban District) Order, 1923; and, if so, what matter of importance has influenced his decision, considering that 98 per cent. of the people living in two of the areas concerned have petitioned against the Order;
  (2) whether he has any evidence that any improvement in administration can be effected by the application of the County of Derby (Matlocks Urban District) Order, 1923; and why the precedent of Birkenhead has not been followed in this case?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have announced my intention to confirm this Order, and I am sending the Noble Lord a copy of the letter to the County Council stating the reasons for this decision.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling in the district about this, and, before he rides rough-shod over small communities, will he receive a deputation?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: A decision has been made, and consideration was given to the feeling referred to.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question later.

  WASHINGTON MATERNITY CONVENTION.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Minister of Health whether he intends that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on National Insurance will allow for consideration of the possibility of the ratification by this country of the Washington Maternity Convention of the International Labour Office?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the terms of reference given in my reply to the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), on the 1st May, would enable the recommendations of the Washington Maternity Convention to be considered as regards applicability to the insured population of the country.

  HEBREW CEMETERY, FINCHLEY.
  Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Health (1) what are the conditions he has laid down in sanctioning a burial ground for the East End Hebrew community just off the Great North Road in the Finchley area; and if the traffic congestion caused by so many funerals proceeding along the Great North Road to the many cemeteries there already was considered at the inquiry;
  (2) if he is aware of the unanimous disapproval of the residents in the Finchley area to the proposed provision of a Hebrew cemetery in that area; that Finchley already has three cemeteries within its borders, namely, those of St. Pancras, Islington, and Marylebone, containing a total area of 214 acres; that the residential population is 50,000; that these cemeteries are most prejudicial to the development of the area; that this new proposal of a Hebrew cemetery for the East End will still further hamper housing and other developments; and will he give due weight to all the local objections before he finally approves the application?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I can assure the hon. Member that all the facts in this case and all the objections were carefully considered before the case was decided. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the letter setting out the conditions subject to which approval was given.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Is it not the fact I that the district is unanimously opposed to the extension of cemeteries in the area, and what can we do to protect ourselves against such a decision contrary to the public opinion of the district?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am afraid I cannot give a general recipe which would result in cemeteries being unnecessary.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask whether the letter that was sent by the right hon. Gentleman—and of which he has been good enough to send me a copy—did not put the matter largely on questions of health; yet why was it that he has allowed part of the land to be used which obviously could be equally healthfully used, and another part not used which obviously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question in print.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall ask the permission of the House to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow evening.

  MILK.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Minister of Health whether the Reports of his inspectors show that the public can rely on the high hygienic quality of the large quantities of milk described on sale as nursery, invalids, or guaranteed; and, if not, whether he will consider how the public may be safeguarded in the matter?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: According to the information in my possession the answer to the first part of the question is "No." I will consider what steps it may be practicable to take to safeguard the public in this matter, but in the meantime I think the consumer would be well advised not to place too much reliance on descriptions and designations implying special hygienic qualities other than those authorised by the Milk (Special Designations) Order.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Will the Minister of Health consider making a definite Order safeguarding these people?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman act upon the advice of the Report of the Astor Committee?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I shall certainly consider what further steps can be taken to safeguard these people.
  Viscountess ASTOR: That would suit me.

  PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES (SALARIES).
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many local authorities are paying to trained nurses engaged in public health work salaries as low as £130 per annum; and whether he will take steps to ensure them an adequate salary, in view of the importance of health-visiting in the prevention of infant mortality, and the long period of training and other qualifications which candidates for these appointments are expected to hold?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: According to the information in the possession of my
  434
  Department, payment of a rate of salary as low as £130 per annum is exceptional. I fully appreciate the importance of the work of health visitors, and the question of their salaries will continue to engage my attention.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in three months there have been several specific advertisements for nurses at salaries of £130 and £150?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no reason to doubt the information in the supplementary question, and I will bear it in mind.

  MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS (BOROUGH VEHICLES).
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, during the recent May Day celebrations in Hyde Park, vehicles the property of the ratepayers in certain Metropolitan boroughs were used for the conveyance of political propagandists and adherents to and from the park; whether any charge was made to the political organisations using these vehicles; and whether the auditors have received any instructions as to the course of action they are to take in dealing with such hirings?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no information as regards the first two points, and no instructions have been issued, but if any expenditure for the purpose is charged in the accounts of a Metropolitan borough council, it will be open to the district auditor at the audit to review it.
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: If the right hon. Gentleman consults the files of the illustrated papers, he will see the vehicles I have described in the question. Supposing no charge is made, will he find out why no charge is made?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for many years past local authorities and private firms have been in the habit of sending their vehicles and the horses to May Day shows in London?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Mr. LANSBURY: To show them!
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of

  435
  vehicles bearing the name of the Borough of Poplar, carrying advertisements of the "Daily Herald," and containing children with flags waving on behalf of Labour, were present, and will he inquire whether the wages of the men in charge of these wagons were charged to the ratepayers of Poplar?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Any information that I have on the subject goes to indicate that this is not the first occasion on which this has taken place, and while, as I have said, I have no information as to the latter part of the question, I will be guided in the matter by my auditor.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the vehicles be available for mass meetings of the Primrose League?

  TREATY OF LAUSANNE.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Canadian Government has now telegraphed to the other Dominions to inquire whether any of them objects to the publication of the correspondence between Great Britain and Canada regarding the negotiations, signatures and ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne, and whether His Majesty's Government have, in accordance with the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman on Monday undertook to consider, have themselves telegraphed to the other Dominions in support of Canada's view that the correspondence between Great Britain and Canada should be published immediately?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): As regards the first part of the question, I have seen a Press telegram to the effect indicated, but no official communication has been received from the Canadian Government. As regards the second part, I think it would now be well to await the result of the inquiries which are being made by the Prime Minister of Canada.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House when the further Report stage of the Financial Resolutions
436
will be taken, and whether any day has been agreed upon for the discussion on the McKenna Duties?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): In view of the decision of the House last night on the Budget Resolutions, we propose to put down the remaining Resolutions for consideration at 8.15 o'clock on Monday night.
That will necessitate us putting down the McKenna Duties Resolution for the following day, Tuesday. The other business for Monday will be announced in the ordinary course to-morrow.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ensure the discussion coming on at 8.15 on Monday?
Mr. CLYNES: It will be arranged through the usual channels.
Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose on Monday at 8.15 to move the Adjournment of the Debate on any other Question that may be pending?
Mr. CLYNES: We shall take any step within our power to secure a discussion of the Resolutions, and, as I understand it, that time is about the latest that can be taken in compliance with statutory requirements.
Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, no!

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Major HORE-BELISHA: May I, Mr. Speaker, with great deference, ask your ruling on a matter which affects the rights of Members to cross question Ministers on a matter of importance to this House? It may be within your recollection that I submitted at the Table a question relating to the prolonged absence from this House of the Solicitor-General, and that that question was ruled out of order upon the ground that it had previously been put. I have looked through the records, and I can find no evidence that the question has been put, at any rate, since the Easter Recess. As the matter is one which concerns a continuing grievance in a matter of great constitutional importance, I shall be very grateful to you if you would give a ruling as to what period of time, in the case of a continuing grievance, must elapse when a question has been put upon the subject before it can be put again?
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot lay down any hard and fast rule, and I must be guided by the facts of each particular case. The hon. Member in this case was informed that in a fortnight's time he might repeat his question.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that, during the Bonar Law Government, a question as to the absence of the Lord Advocate was put every week?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think this question has been put every week up to a certain point.
Mr. HOGGE: If we are to be limited to periods as you suggest now, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend should put down his question in a fortnight's time and as that is a period of a month, may I draw your attention to the fact that the Solicitor-General, who is not in this House, made an important speech in Leeds in which he referred to the organisation of the British Fascisti, and he said the Law Officers of the Crown were going into the question carefully with a view to deciding whether a prosecution should take place, and if that Member of the Government is not here, are we not to be allowed, as and when we like, as Members of this House, to put down questions on the Paper to responsible Members of the Government to secure his presence?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member must not impose upon me the necessity of reading all the speeches made in the country by Ministers. I have dealt with the matter concerned, and I can give no further answer. I must decline to lay down any hard and fast rule. My endeavour is to give equal opportunities to all Members of the House.
Major HORE-BELISHA: May I submit to you. Mr. Speaker, that it has always been within the competence of Ministers to refer Members to previous answers and many questions are put several times, and it imposes a great additional burden upon Members if we have to search through the records. The advantage of putting these questions is obvious. Yesterday I put down a question regarding the non-appointment of the Paymaster-General, and this morning I see that one has been appointed.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be substituting himself for the Prime Minister and for myself.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of afforestation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. F. Martin.]
  IMPERIAL TRADE.
  On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of Imperial trade, and to move a Resolution.—[Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft.]
  COAL INDUSTRY.
  On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of coal, its uses, and miners' wages, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Hardie]

BILLS REPORTED.
London and North-Eastern Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in

  439
  respect of the Local Government (Removal of Disqualification) (No. 2) Bill): Sir Philip Richardson; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Rankin.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Rotherham Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the County Borough of Hastings to construct additional waterworks and to execute street improvements; to make further provision in regard to the water and electricity undertakings of the Corporation; to make further provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the borough; to consolidate the parishes and rates of the borough; and for other purposes." [Hastings Corporation Bill [Lords.]
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I beg to move
  "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Education (Scotland) Superannuation Act, 1922."
  This Bill, which I rise to introduce, proposes to extend until the 31st March, 1926, the operation of the Education (Scotland) Superannuation Act, 1922. The circumstances which have rendered the Bill necessary are already familiar to the House, and there is, therefore, no reason why I should take long to explain them. A very short time will suffice. Between 1912 and 1919 there was in operation in Scotland a superannuation scheme for teachers which required contributions from three sources, namely, the teachers, the education authorities, and the Exchequer. The scheme had worked admirably, and it would, there is no doubt, have been in existence to-day but for the fact that in 1918 the Government then in power, without, I fear, fully counting the cost, instituted a more generous and non-contributory system of pensions for teachers in England and Wales.
  What Parliament had done for England and Wales it was bound to do for Scotland, also with the result that the Scottish scheme of 1912 became obsolete, and had to be amended to bring it into line with the new English system. This was in 1918. Three years later the very same Government that had passed the Acts of 1918 and 1919, found that the financial load was growing too heavy. They accordingly decided to reintroduce a contributory principle, and to make it applicable to both countries. The considerations involved, however, were so complex that immediate legislation of a permanent character was impracticable. Two distinct steps, therefore, were taken. In the first place, Acts were passed for each country requiring the general body of teachers to pay a sum equivalent to 5 per cent. of their salaries as a contribution towards their superannuation benefits.
  476
  In the second place a Departmental Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Lord Emmott to examine the whole problem thoroughly and to make definite recommendations. The duration of the Acts I have mentioned was limited to two years, this being considered a reasonable period to allow for the Committee's labours, and for the establishment of the permanent scheme. The Committee, in point of fact, reported in less than 12 months after their original appointment. They went into the matter very carefully and reached certain important conclusions which were quite definite and also unanimous. In ordinary circumstances the way would have been clear for further action. The change of Government has, however, led to unforeseen and unavoidable delay.
  4.0 P.M.
  The temporary Acts of 1922 are due to expire on 31st May. The interval is too short to admit of the Committee's proposal being thoroughly discussed by Parliament. A further postponement has thus become inevitable. It will be within the recollection of the House that a Bill extending the operations of the English Act of 1922 has already passed its Second Reading. The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce is a corresponding measure for Scotland. Except in one particular, to which I will refer in detail before I sit down, the two Bills follow identical lines. We propose that the temporary arrangement sanctioned by Parliament in 1922 shall be prolonged to a date not later than 31st March, 1926. In both cases, however, a plain hint is given that it may come to an end at an even earlier date than the one named in the Bill. I should be wanting in frankness if I did not at once admit that, while I regard this Measure as necessary, I regard the necessity for it as regrettable. So far as I understand the feeling of Scottish teachers in this matter—and I think I may claim to know it fairly well—I sympathise with it entirely. They have had experience both of contributory and of a non-contributory system. They are by no means insensible to the attractions which the latter offers. If they were not they would not be Scotsmen; indeed, they would not be human, for after all everyone of us likes to get the best bargain possible. On the other hand, if I interpret their attitude aright, they have taken to heart the lesson of

  477
  1922. They recognise that, if a non-contributory system has advantages, it has also dangers. So long as the beneficiaries have no vested right, there is no effective guarantee that they will really enjoy the benefits which they have been promised. A properly devised contributory scheme will at least give the teachers the security and stability which they themselves are so anxious to obtain, and which, I feel, every Member of the House would like them to have.
  This Bill, then, continues the principle of contributions. That, however, is not in itself enough. It does not continue it in what seems to the Scottish teachers a satisfactory way, and here, again, I may say that they have my personal sympathy. They urge that they are really not getting the security and stability which their contributions ought to give them, and, further, that they will not get them unil a proper pensions scheme has been established and until the money which they are paying is laid aside to meet the liability which it is nominally intended to cover. At present, it is being used as an appropriation-in-aid of current expenditure. That is a plan which I do not think any Government would be likely to propose, or any House of Commons to accept, unless it were merely, as I am seeking now, to bridge over a temporary difficulty. It is my earnest hope, and from the memorandum prefixed to the Bill the House will see that it is the earnest hope of the Government also, that the bridge may be a very short one, and that we may reach solid ground in the very near future.
  If Scotland stood alone, we might go further at once. But, for a reason which I will mention in a moment, we must await the permanent Measure for England and Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members will keep quiet for a minute, I will explain. I see no reason why that should be unduly delayed. Whatever view may be taken of the Emmott Committee's Report, everyone will admit that it has great merits, it is based on a most painstaking investigation of all the possibilities, and it puts the issue in a perfectly clear-cut form. The problem with which it deals is complicated, but it advances it to a stage when it is ripe for discussion by this House. In view of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has already accomplished,
  478
  there will be general agreement that he is not the man to be daunted by difficulties, real or supposed. I have every hope that a final settlement may be reached well in advance of the extreme limit indicated in this Bill.
  I come back now to the question why Scotland cannot go forward alone, and here I answer my hon. Friends' question. The Scottish teachers are ready, and so are the Scottish Education Authorities, to whose breadth of view on this particular problem I should like to pay a word of tribute. But it would be in the highest degree imprudent to attempt independent legislation. I hope that none of my hon. Friends on either side of the House will be unduly sensitive about the one country being tied to the chariot wheels of the other in this matter. In regard to superannuation, a policy of separation could only be disastrous. The two countries must move together in step. Unless they do that, reciprocity—the free interchange of teachers between the two countries—becomes impossible Not long ago the House had from one of the Members of the Scottish Universities—a Member who speaks with something like unique authority on all matters relating to the superannuation of teachers—a few illustrations of the hardships that exist at present. If Scotland were to venture forward alone now, these hardships would certainly be perpetuated. I will go further and say that they might be very seriously aggravated, a result which I am sure every Member of the House would deeply regret.
  I have only one thing to add. The Bill contains a Clause to which there is nothing in the English Bill to correspond. I should like to explain why. As the House is aware, the pensions and allowances of Scottish teachers are met, not by the Exchequer directly, but by the Education (Scotland) Fund. In terms of Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Superannuation Act, 1919, there is annually paid into this fund—as the Exchequer contribution towards the superannuation of Scottish teachers—a sum equal to 11/80ths of the corresponding expenditure in England. The obvious intention of Parliament was that Scotland should receive actually 11/80ths. But it is fairly certain that during the next two years the produce of the 5 per cent. levy on the salaries of the Scottish teachers

  479
  would amount to more than ll/80ths of the corresponding sum which is raised in England. As the moneys so obtained are to be used in Appropriations-in-aid—or, in other words, to reduce the gross total of the Votes—the effect would be that, unless there be some adjustment, the net amount that Scotland would receive would fall short of the ll/80ths which was guaranteed to her by the Act of 1919. It is true that the deficiency will not be large, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that, however small it may be, it ought to be made good. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the fund shall receive compensation from the Exchequer for any adverse balance. We estimate that the figure will not be more than £20,000 in either year, and that it may possibly be less.
  It may be of interest to the House to know the exact reasons that are responsible for the adverse balance. The average salary of the Scottish certificated teacher is no higher than the average salary of his English colleague. It is, indeed, slightly lower. But, firstly, owing to the more developed state of higher education in Scotland, the proportion of teachers who are doing secondary work and earning corresponding salaries is larger. Secondly, while there are practically no uncertificated teachers in Scotland, a large proportion of the English primary teachers are uncertificated and are therefore not being paid salaries at the full Burnham rate. And, lastly, there are in England 13,000 or 14,000 supplementary teachers who have no counterpart in Scotland and whose qualifications are not such as to entitle them to the benefits of superannuation at all, with the result that they pay no contribution. The House will not fail to note that the same causes which make the proceeds of the Scottish levy proportionally larger are bound also to make the Scottish outlay on pensions proportionally higher. That is all the more reason why the House should be ready to accept Clause 2 and so make certain that the arrangement come to in 1919 is fully implemented. I hope that this Bill will not occupy an undue time of the House, but that my colleagues in all quarters representing Scottish constituencies will give it their support and let us have it in as short a time as possible.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: We might, perhaps, have raised some difficulty upon the way that this Bill is being introduced. We have had references to a certain Memorandum and to certain Clauses of the Bill about which we really know nothing. But I am not going to raise any difficulty, and I am not going to pretend that I do not know what are the proposals of the Bill and what are the real points to which we raise objections. Whether we raise these objections on the First or on the Second Reading is, perhaps, of less importance. I know the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is faced. I know that he must do something in the way of legislation, or the whole of the present system will break down at the end. I think, of this month. Of course, he is in a difficult position, and I am further disarmed by the very frankness with which he has damned his Bill with very faint praise indeed. He has shown us perfectly plainly, with that frankness which we are accustomed to associate with him, the objections to this Bill—that he is trying to build up and continue what he knows to be a thoroughly rotten system, which has created great hardships in Scotland. He lamented the fact that we had to be dragged at the tail of England, and it reminded me of what occurred during the Second Reading of the Bill to which he referred, which was moved by the President of the Board of Education. That Bill had absolutely no support except, I am sorry to say, from ray right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), who preceded the present President of the Board of Education. I am sorry not to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon in his place, but I am afraid I must say frankly that I think his support was very largely caused by the fact that he had become involved in official prejudice and timidity which he had derived from the Board of Education—a very unsound and unwholesome attitude. I greatly regret that my right hon. Friend should have supported that Bill of the present President of the Board, to which we take very strong objection.
  During that debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon turned round to me and said that he was very glad that this time England was not to be drawn at the tail of the Scottish chariot. It would have been a great deal better in that and in other things if England had, in

  481
  education, been drawn at the tail of the Scottish chariot. It was we who first introduced free education, and showed the way in a great many ways in higher education to the more dilatory officials of the English Board of Education. Have we not, long before this, been led into errors and difficulties by this false lead of the Board of Education? It was in 1918, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, that a most extravagant and thoughtless scheme of superannuation was foisted upon the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Herbert Fisher), who was then President of the Board of Education. The House was then in a son; of orgy of spending money. A few of us at that time did our best to point out the great difficulties of that scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), Sir Philip Magnus, who was then Member for the University of London, and various others, pointed out that we were proceeding on a most dangerous course. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced that extravagant non-contributory superannuation scheme calculated that its cost would be a little over £2,000,000 a year. I told him then that it would be, but a very short time before it reached £9,000,000 or £10,000,000, and, before it had gone on very long, it was perfectly plain that that would be the cost to the Exchequer within a very few years. Then came the Geddes Committee, with its very drastic—as some of us thought, too drastic—schemes for cutting down expenditure, and this superannuation scheme was condemned utterly. What happened to Scotland? Something had to be done to undo the evils that had been done in that scheme, against the advice of those in Scotland and of many Members in this House. I make no bones at all about saying that I know the Scottish Education Department attempted most vehemently to oppose that rash scheme.
  What did that scheme do for Scotland? It upset a sound, thoroughly well established, thoroughly well founded and well considered contributory scheme which was already in existence, and which was worked by the National Debt Commissioners for Scotland. The War prevented the taking of the actuarial balance in the year 1919, but the Emmott
  482
  Report points out what is perfectly true, that, although that balance was not taken, it was a matter of notoriety that the fund was entirely solvent and in a most satisfactory condition. It was completely destroyed by what was done then. The Government found that this rash scheme which they had carried in spite of protests and in spite of opposition from the country and from many in this House, had to be undone, and they produced a timid and temporary Bill establishing a contributory system. Under pressure they decided that it should not be permanent, but only temporary. It left the whole position fluctuating and uncertain, full of hardships upon teachers, full of doubts for the local education authorities, and full of all sorts of financial defects which were apparent to everyone. We tried to check the prolongation, after a certain number of years, of that temporary scheme, but without effect.
  Instead of making a permanent system, the Government established this scheme only for a year or two, but they satisfied us by saying that they would appoint a Committee, under the presidency of Lord Emmott, and that a large scheme of satisfactory superannuation for both countries would be evolved. That was done, and I join with every word that the Secretary for Scotland said in praise of that Report. It is very seldom that you can have a Report drafted with such thorough knowledge, and going with such thorough and careful investigation into all the financial and actuarial points. In that Report there was presented a basis for legislation that any Government ought to have been bold enough to face, seeing that it was only by such boldness that they could put an end to very great injuries and hardships to the teachers, and the very grave doubts of the local authorities. That has not been done. I cannot understand why the officials of the Board of Education will not face this difficulty and will not firmly grasp what it is their business to grasp. They talk of great difficulties, great trouble, and vast expenditure, and they repeat this till one is tired. I was a civil servant myself for five-and-thirty years, and I know that, if a civil servant is worth anything, he ought to find his greatest pleasure in trying to solve the difficulties which are placed before him in the course of his work. There is nothing that need

  483
  try even the brains of the officials of the Board of Education in carrying out thoroughly and promptly the scheme that is foreshadowed in the Emmott Report.
  What is the alternative? It is all very well to say that you are only putting it off for a year, but think what you are doing. In the first place, you are leaving, to say no more, a very grave doubt as to whether the idea will be carried out of those—a minority, and I think a minority not worthy of much consideration—who still leave us in no doubt that they are hankering after a non-contributory scheme. That is not represented in Scotland, and I should be very sorry to think that it is represented to any large degree in official or other circles in England. You are also raising very grave difficulties for the teachers themselves. There is no proper reciprocity. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, perfectly truly, that an attempt to distinguish between the two countries, to establish two different systems, is a fatal one for both. I quite agree with him in that. What is happening now, because the two systems of pensions are not the same in the two countries? Teachers who have served to a certain extent in England and to a certain extent in Scotland find themselves, in respect of their different services, under totally different rules, and the rules of the English Department sometimes tell exceedingly hardly upon Scottish teachers. The rule is that in the case of teachers, male or female, the pension is on the average of the last five years of their service. If the earlier part of the time has been spent in Scotland, the Scottish local authority contributes towards the pension on the basis of the highest payment in the latest year; but if the earlier years have been spent in England, the English local authority allows a pension on the basis of only, perhaps, £120 or £150 a year. A very heavy loss is, therefore, incurred by those who have spent their earliest years of work in Scotland. That is only one instance. There are many others where at present there are discrepancies and want of proper organisation, and the teachers really do not know where they are. The cases of hardship that have been brought to my notice are very considerable indeed.
  484
  The fatal consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out of a difference between the systems of the two countries are fully realised in actual fact, and the financial position is much more serious. The right hon. Gentleman says we must continue the contributory system for a year or two longer before we establish a permanent system, but is he really continuing the contributory system? A proper contributory system is one which takes certain payments from the teachers and from the local authorities and contributes them to a central fund. That does not exist now. There is no central fund, and, instead of these payments being really contributions, they are only sinking into the sand of the vast annual education expenditure, never to be identified again. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think that this is a very small point, but do they know that the total contribution from the teachers over the whole country cannot fall very much short of £3,000,000 a year, and that that is being entirely lost as regards the useful function that it ought to exercise of serving as the foundation for a sound contributory system on a good actuarial basis? That is the wrong that is being done. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman being led, I am certain against his own will and judgment, by the bad example of the English Department, not only is he postponing a satisfactory settlement, but he is allowing the continuance of very great hardships to the teachers, and of a vast loss which is annually accruing to the contributory system.
  This is not a small matter at all. People think that pensions are a matter of no interest except to the teachers themselves, but I would point out, in the first place, that we have spent freely and have worked hard to rescue the teaching profession from an unsatisfactory position which was a disgrace to the country, and, having done that, let us see that that work is not done away with by a wrong course of procedure on the part of the officials concerned. There is no more important part of the teacher's conditions than a satisfactory arrangement with regard to his pension. You cannot have such a satisfactory foundation if you leave a man constantly occupied with the sordid care as to how he is to provide for himself at the end of his service. At present he is uncertain and in doubt, and

  485
  this matter of pensions is, therefore, of the very first importance to the country. Even from the financial point of view, I would ask hon. Members to consider that it is not so small as they may think. When you begin to touch the question of a well-established system of pensions, you must, somehow or other, establish a fund which will in a very few years yield an annual revenue of something like £20,000,000. I do not think you can count on much less—I am speaking of the whole country all round. It is not, therefore, a matter of small importance, or one to which so little regard ought to be paid by this House as was paid to it when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) introduced his very rash and fatal scheme of non-contributory pensions, which has done so much harm to the teaching profession and to education generally. We ought also to remember that we cannot, until we have a thoroughly satisfactory system, of pensions, have a really sound system of administration. There are three people who must contribute to these pensions—the teacher, the local authority and the central authority. If you attempt, as that fatal scheme of 1918 did, to put the whole burden of the pensions on the central authority, which does not appoint the teachers, which has no control over the teachers, which does not dismiss the teachers, and which does not pay the salaries of the teachers, you are following an absolute will-o'-the-wisp, which will lead you into endless difficulty.
  I am not going to raise captious difficulties in the way of the right hon. Gentleman in proceeding with a Bill which I know, even apart from his own frankness, that he does not himself like in all respects; but I would urge upon him to do all he can to induce his colleagues to take a bold, prompt and courageous step forward in establishing a sound contributory system, and not to continue the hardships which the present uncertainty is causing, and the interference which is being caused with the whole system of educational administration and organisation. I urge him to be bold, and quickly to establish a real contributory system, under which the teachers will not feel that they are mixed up with all the red tape of the Civil Service, but will feel that they are an independent profession,
  486
  and will be able to reckon with certainty upon a certain amount of pension—that they will have established by their own contributions, helped by those of the local authorities and of the State, a fund that is really sound actuarily, from which their pensions are to be paid, and for which they have to be grateful to no one but themselves. It will be their right as soon as they can get it established. If the right hon. Gentleman will only urge upon his colleagues to be bold enough, in spite of all official and bureaucratic hindrances that may stand in the way, to establish this system as quickly as possible, he will do a very great deal, not only for Scotland, but for England also, if England will be wise enough again to follow at the chariot wheels of Scotland.
  Mr. D. M. COWAN: I should like to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on the admirable fashion in which he has put before us the facts of the case which he wished to present. I congratulate him also on the great skill with which he has avoided many considerations which are very important in discussing this Measure. Obviously he does not like the Bill, but apart from this he has not made a good case for proceeding with it. Had he been on the Opposition Benches, as he was in 1922, the conclusion of his speech would have been very different from what it was. I should think from observation, thought I cannot speak from experience, that the Front Bench affects the mind as well as the bodily attitude of its occupants. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I agree with much that he said in criticism of the Government's attitude, but I do not agree with him that the Government in 1918 made a fatal blunder in passing a non-contributory scheme. It is not the passing of the non-contributory scheme that we object to. It is the passing of the 1922 Act and its proposed continuation here. The right hon. Gentleman made an apology for the length of the extension which he proposes. He expressed the hope, too, that it would not be necessary for the Bill to run to the extreme limit, but that is a hope which is in all probability most unlikely to be fulfilled. Government Departments are human, and they are likely to avoid trouble so long as they can, and it is heavy odds that by 31st March, 1926, if

  487
  this Bill goes through, not only will the scheme not have been finally put in form but we shall have a proposal to continue this for a still further period. Although the Government has the good will of every Member of the House, even it may come to a termination long before March, 1926, and its successor will then be in a position to say, "We must continue this because we have not been long enough in office to make any permanent arrangement." I hold, then, that it would be very much wiser if the Government were to put in the date 1925 instead of 1926. Then we should have a sort of earnest of what they meant to do. But this extension for about two years is simply putting off the evil day and leaving it for someone else to deal with when it comes. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the finance of the Bill is entirely bad. Using for current expenditure money which ought to be put aside to meet future liabilities, is the worst form of finance you could possibly have.
  The Secretary for Scotland came very near to saying something, but he did not quite say it. He extolled the virtues of a contributory scheme, but he did not tell us whether the Government had resolved, when they make a permanent scheme, to take a contributory or a non-contributory basis. We have a right to ask for a plain statement as to whether or not the Government have decided on a contributory or a non-contributory basis for the permanent scheme which they have in contemplation. That is a straight question, and I hope it will have an equally straight answer. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) has referred to some extreme cases of hardship under the existing schemes both as regards England and Scotland. If this Bill is to go through it means the continuance of these hardships for another two years. For some of them the Act of 1918 is responsible. No fair-minded Member of the House would allow those injustices to continue if he could possibly have a hand in putting them right. I have privately intimated to the Secretary for Scotland that I was going to ask these questions. The Department for which he is responsible must have been aware for years back of the existence of those hardships and injustices with regard to teachers who have transferred
  488
  from England to Scotland. He spoke of reciprocity. There is no such thing as reciprocity in existence at present. I put this further question to the right hon. Gentleman, hoping for and expecting a perfectly definite and straight answer. In the course of the last three or four years, during which the Scottish Education Department has been made fully aware of the existence of those injustices, has any representative of the Department put the case before the Board of Education or the Treasury or the Cabinet with a view to having it remedied? If the Scottish Education Department has not done that I hold that it has failed very signally in its proper duty.
  But there is another side. All the injustice does not arise from the shortcomings of the Act of 1918. The Scottish Education Department and the Government are responsible themselves for many great hardships. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give special attention to this. It is a legacy from the last Government, who were the authors of the 1922 Act. Under the English Act of 1918 a teacher who had given 30 years of service retires from active work with a right to pension when he or she reaches the age of 60. That is quite a wise provision. It takes out of the profession men and women who are done, although they are not sufficiently ill to qualify for a breakdown of health. Under the Scottish scheme a teacher may give 39 years of service, and if he Or she is compelled for any reason other than ill-health—it may be from family corcumstances—to retire the day before he reaches the age of 60 not one single penny allowance of any kind comes to him. For that the Scottish Office is primarily responsible. It might, by laying a Minute on the Table of the House for four weeks, remove that injustice, and if it allows it to continue I hold that it is a sufficient ground for this House to reject the Measure altogether. I ask, then, for a straight answer to this question. Will the Secretary for Scotland, if we allow the Bill to go through, takes measures to put that great injustice right?
  I put the question to the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Munro) when the Bill of 1922 was in Committee, and he said this certainly was a matter which would be taken up by the Committee which was to be appointed—that is, the Committee

  489
  which later on became the Emmott Committee. It was taken up by the Emmott Committee, whose conclusion is quite definite. It says a teacher who has given five years of service beyond the age of 50 should then be entitled to retire with pension rights at 60. One of the most distinguished members of the Emmott Committee was the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department. That report was unanimous, and therefore we have the head of the Scottish Education Department saying, as a member of that Committee, that he believes it to be right and just that a teacher who has given five years of service beyond 50—not quite so good terms as under the English Act—should be allowed to retire with pension rights at 60. Does the Scottish Education Department mean to put that in force, as it can quite well, without legislation? The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a contributory scheme. The Emmott Committee Report says 5 per cent. is the maximum contribution to be asked of teachers, I agree that 5 per cent. is far too much, but at present the Government are taking that 5 per cent. and at the same time they are depriving the teachers of Scotland of a benefit which the Emmott Committee Report says they are entitled to. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman is he going to allow that to continue or is he going to bring in a measure as as Amendment of the present Scottish scheme which would remove this rank injustice. I received a letter yesterday which is typical of many. I have received hundreds of them in my time. The number has not been so great of late because they expected this permanent scheme was to be brought in soon and they could remedy all these things. This lady writes:
  "Like many others who have taught for more that 30 years, we have been hoping and praying that a permanent Bill would come into force this month. Not ill enough to get a breakdown pension, yet finding the strain of teaching these days so great, we must either struggle on till we are 60 or give up without any hope of a pension. In our school"—
  This has a nice bearing upon the return of the size of classes given us the other day—
  "In our school the classes are all large. Mine is 66 on the roll and for a month I had to tackle, with that number, my neighbour's class, too she being ill, and no substitute having been found. Other schools have had the same experience.
  490
  What a boon that would be, to have the right of retiring at 55, to not a few tired out Scottish teachers."
  That is what is going on now. That is one of my objections to the continuance of the Bill, that it continues all these injustices. Scottish Members would be failing to do their duty if they did not protest against this state of affairs being allowed to continue when it could quite easily be remedied by a few strokes of the pen by the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers. I mean to test the opinion of the House if we do not get some definite answer to the questions I have put.
  Another point I should like to mention is that the right hon. Gentleman says, forgetful of Bannockburn—remembering Flodden, I suppose—that it is impossible for Scotland to go on unless England marches at the same time. When did he discover that?
  Mr. MAXTON: We ought to have that speech on Friday.
  Mr. COWAN: The hon. Member has anticipated what I was going to say. Apart from that, I agree that it is advisable for the two countries to act together if possible, but at the same time if the right hon. Gentleman cannot make such an arrangement with the Board of Education or the Treasury as to remove all those injustices to which I have referred, and if at the same time he does not see his way to alter the existing Scottish scheme, I would beg him to take into careful consideration the question, and get into touch with the Scottish education authority and the Scottish teachers and see, rather than continue this state of affairs, if we cannot get a satisfactory scheme of some kind. I hope, as the questions which are raised here are questions affecting the daily life of men and women who have given long and faithful service to the country, we shall not be put off with a statement that this or something else may happen some day.
  The last point to which I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention is one which I am sure has the sympathy of the whole House. Sympathy has been expressed with it time and again. This also is a matter for which the Scottish Office is wholly responsible. I refer to the condition of the pre-1919 retired teachers. They have put their case before the Scottish Office, before successive Secretaries for Scotland, and before the Education

  491
  Department, and they have been promised time and time again that it will receive sympathetic consideration. Time and time again they have got nothing. If ever there was an opportunity now is the opportunity. In the second Clause of this Bill we are told provision is made for a certain sum of money, representing the overpayments of Scottish teachers, to come back to Scotland. I suppose in strict justice that money ought to go to the individual teachers who paid it. That may not be possible, but it will be nothing less than a scandal if the pre-1919 teachers have not further provision made for them as soon as possible, either out of this money or out of other moneys which are available. They are dying off fast. Every return we get is showing 50 or 100 less and so on. If the matter is delayed for a year or two more it will be too late to do anything. I do not know that it is necessary to move the rejection of the Bill, but the feeling of the House should be tested unless we get a very straight answer to some of these questions. I move formally that leave be not given.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will vote against leave.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I did not desire to intervene in the Debate but for the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, that it was not desirable to introduce a superannuation Measure for Scottish teachers until the English Education Department had introduced their Measure. I think I can claim to know something about the feeling in the minds of the education authorities of Scotland, and I am speaking for my colleagues when I say we can, and will, bring in a Superannuation Act dealing with Scottish teachers without any consideration as to what English Measure is to be introduced. I certainly feel that my right hon. Friend has helped our case on Friday when we come to argue for Scottish Home Rule, particularly in relation to educational administration. It is certain that this Measure will have to go through in the interest of the teachers. It is a temporary Measure to extend a temporary Measure. Temporary Measures which will have the effect of being unfair to some sections of those who are affected by temporary Measures, have the unhappy knack of being extended too long as temporary Measures until they become almost
  492
  permanent. While I agree that the Bill must go through as a temporary Measure, I see no reason why the date should be 1926. We have had two years of the temporary Measure. We have had two years of injustice to Scottish teachers. We have had two years in which, not only have the teachers had to pay the 5 per cent. in connection with superannuation, but the authorities have had to pay 2 pet-cent. The total amount which has been paid in connection with the scheme for Scotland will be approximately £300,000 to £350,000 a year, and despite that enormous payment, it will not be costing any more in connection with superannuation than approximately £100,000 a year. [Interruption.] I may be exaggerating, but it does not matter whether it only cost £100,000 or £200,000. If £350,000 is being paid for a particular scheme, the money ought to be used for that and not for general education purposes, and whether you are stealing £10 or £1,000 does not make the theft any the less so far as morality is concerned. Therefore, I lodge my objection to continuing the scheme longer than there is any need.
  I say the date ought to be 1925 believing, as I do, that between now and 1925 we could frame a scheme of superannuation for Scottish teachers, and if it takes England as long to prepare her scheme I am satisfied that we could give them a good lead. If a speedy settlement were come to there would be no delay in getting an arrangement between the Scottish teachers and the Scottish education authorities so far as a contributory scheme is concerned, but if there is to be delay until 1926 both the education authorities and the teachers reserve the right to make a claim for a non-contributory scheme, and possibly to alter our opinions in connection with the-scheme we have in mind at present. I would press upon the Secretary for Scot-laud to agree to 1925 being the date in the Bill instead of 1926, to get a move on so as to avoid the injustices to teachers that are taking place at the present time, and to remove the worries, anxieties and the lack of security as far as pensions are concerned in relation to the teachers in Scotland.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the pre-1919 teachers. I hope it will be possible at an early date to do something more for

  493
  them They are a very dwindling band. I suppose that most of us have been interviewed by them in our constituencies during the past few years, and it is absolutely certain that their numbers are decreasing at a very rapid rate. I know that the Scottish education authorities have done considerably more for the pre-1919 teachers than has been done in England, and one must pay tribute to them for that. Notwithstanding, the case of these teachers is very hard, and I desire to reinforce what has been said by other speakers as to the necessity for early legislation on the lines of the Emmott Report.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland would like to put the year 1925 into his Bill. He indicated pretty clearly that that was his view, and I should think that he might get reinforcement on this point from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has taken a deep interest in Scottish education. I feel sure that the views of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will coincide with what I believe are the real views of the Secretary for Scotland, and that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that he gets all the help he can from the Treasury. As the Emmott Report points out, the present position is bad from the point of view of national finance. It may be all right for the immediate future, but taking the long view it is a thoroughly unsound policy. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to enlist the very hearty co-operation of that important individual in national finance, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in getting this matter settled, making it certain that in the spring of 1925 we shall have a Bill dealing permanently on a contributory basis with this question. I admit that the General Election and the change of Government have made it impossible for the problem to be dealt with. I think it was in October last that the Emmott Committee reported. Obviously, nothing could be done this year, but there is plenty of time to consider the problem and have a scheme ready by next spring. I, therefore, press my right hon. Friend very earnestly to see that the procedure is adopted. He will find that all sections of opinion in Scotland are behind him in pressing for a permanent settlement of this question.
  494
  As the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who has had such a long experience of education in Scotland, pointed out, the present system, with its uncertainty, is very bad for all connected with education, and it is our bounden duty, as early as may be, to put an end to it by a permanent settlement of the question. I know that our native country is very far advanced in matters of education compared with England, but in this matter we must have complete reciprocity. It is no good moving in this matter apart from England. If hon. Members look at the Report of the Emmott Committee and see the hard cases that arise owing to the differences of system between one country and the other, they will realise the extreme hardship that is experienced in certain cases and that it is necessary for the two countries to move along on the same lines. These hard cases will be perpetuated unless the two countries in this matter can march along together.
  Surely, it is for the benefit of England that enterprising teachers should come south of the Border and, perhaps, at a later period, return to their native country. People who have spent their educational career in that way should not be penalised by any difference of system that may exist. I am quite certain that the Secretary for Scotland has the sympathy of the Treasury in this matter; they must wish to have a final settlement. Keeping that in view, and keeping also in view the fact that he has behind him the support of all his colleagues in Scotland, whatever their political views may he, I hope that he will press most earnestly for a settlement of this question by 1925.
  Mr. A. YOUNG: I also press upon the Secretary for Scotland the advisability of taking off one of the years and fixing the period as 1925. I speak with some knowledge on this matter. The teachers in Scotland complain of insecurity, and not knowing, as it were, how to lay out their lives, because they do not know what is going to happen. I was in that position, and I retired somewhat earlier from my profession than I ought to have done, simply because I was not sure what was going to happen. There are many other teachers doing the same thing to-day. Therefore, Scotland is losing a number of eminent men from the teaching

  495
  profession, some of whom are coming into this House, which they find rather quiet after the exciting times they have had in wielding the tawse in Scotland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.
  We all realise how much we owe to our Scottish teachers. It would hardly do for me to flatter my own profession, but we do recognise that it is entirely due to the education we have had in Scotland that Scotland stands where it does to-day We do not want to follow at the heels of our sister country. We would rather show her the way, as we have done for the last two or more centuries. There is one matter in regard to which Scottish teachers seem more sensible than their brothers and sisters south of the Border, and that is that they are willing to pay the 5 per cent., or it may be less, and are willing to have a stake in the business instead of expecting a non-contributory scheme. We, as a profession, preferred the old method, which dated back to 1898, when we were paying 4 per cent. of our salaries into a superannuation scheme, but we did not get much out of it. Now we are agreed as a profession to give the 5 per cent. that is being asked for by the Government. I congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on making such an excellent case of such a bad case. I know that his heart is with the teachers in this matter. I do not want to give numerous illustrations of the poor old teachers who have fallen on evil days, the pre-1919 men and women, although I could give many cases which are heart-breaking. I hope they will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. F. MARTIN: I want to support the plea on behalf of the pre-1919 teachers. My excuse is that as a member of an education authority I have had a good deal of experience on a sub-committee dealing with these cases. I should like to remind the Secretary for Scotland that time is of the essence of the matter. It may be possible, and it seems inevitable, that we must wait two years for the establishment of a full contributory scheme, but if the pre-1919 teachers are to be neglected for two years they are practically being neglected for all time. The hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson)
  496
  has said that they are a dwindling band. I remember that when these pre-1919 teachers came before the authority of which I am a member, they had as their Spokesman a very eminent schoolmaster from the North of Scotland, and between the time when we received that first deputation and the time when we were able to consider the case presented by him, the leader of the deputation had died.
  The authority, of which I am a member, has had great sympathy with these cases, and we have, as far as possible, made up the difference between what they got from the superannuation scheme and what they would be entitled to had they been in receipt of the higher salaries which came into operation in 1919. I understand that has also been done by other authorities, notably in Glasgow. We felt, however, that in doing this we were coming within reasonable distance of incurring the displeasure and disapproval of the auditors, and we have felt it necessary to inquire very closely into the particular financial condition of each pre-1919 teacher who became an applicant for an increase in superannuation. We feel that this is putting these teachers through an ordeal which is extremely unfair. They bore the heat and burden of the day in times when the salaries of teachers in Scotland were disgracefully low. They never had any advantage from the very large increase of salaries which came into operation in 1919, and many of them are suffering extreme hardship. I dare say there are a good many of them who, rather than go through the ordeal of having all their finances gone into, put up with the hardship. If the thing has to be done, it must be done at once. It is five years since the new scale of salaries came into force, and there can be very few of these pre-1919 teachers under 70 years of age now. If it is at all possible to find a way of bringing into operation at once a system of allowances, giving these pre-1919 teachers superannuation on the scale to which they would have been entitled if they had been in active service when the increased salaries came into force, I trust that will be done.
  Mr. FALCONER: I am not competent to enter into the technical side of this discussion, but I wish to say that this subject-has appealed to me from the point of view of the teachers, especially those who

  497
  are approaching the stage when they may have to retire. I have unbounded sympathy with the anxiety which fills the mind of such a teacher as to what his future is going to be. I have met many of these teachers, and I have a very high opinion of the work they do and the way in which it is being done, and I agree with what has been said as to the importance of relieving the minds of these teachers from anxiety in regard to being able to meet their obligations, meagre and humble as they are, if we want to get any intelligent work from them. There is no worse economy that could possibly be practised than to put a teacher into a position of that kind.
  I cannot help thinking that the Secretary for Scotland, warm-hearted as he is, and humane as we all know him to be, does not realise that there are homes that are anxious, and that the putting off of the Act for two years is going to do a great deal to add to the anxiety which has been possessing the minds of teachers in Scotland during all the years when these negotiations have been going through. I am not satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason why the Government should not deal with this matter now. Certainly he has given no reason for putting it off for two years. The views expressed by my hon. Friend behind me are shared by all of us who are given anxious consideration to this matter. We all feel strongly that unless what can be done is done it would be better to see this Bill defeated at the present stage as a protest. One thing which the teachers are entitled to know is what is to be the nature of the scheme to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman, with all the art that he possesses, led us to believe that it was to be a contributory scheme. The teachers are entitled to know definitely whether it is to be a contributory scheme or not. I was not impressed by the main reason which he gave as to the desirability of securing reciprocity before any scheme is to be put into operation.
  I know of no reason why that cannot be done, if the Scottish scheme were carried through. The President of the Board of Education in England is a member of the same Government, and it should be possible for them to settle a scheme of reciprocity which would be fair to teachers on both sides of the border and
  498
  to the education authorities in the two countries. One would imagine that they were negotiating with some foreign Power, and that the two Departments could not meet to settle such a simple business question as that. Of all the teachers in Scotland, there is not one who could not devise a scheme in a couple of days which would establish reciprocity on reasonable terms between the two countries. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will take the matter up in a different spirit. I have a great respect for him, and would willingly work with him and give way to any wish of his, but if we mean to help the teachers of Scotland we have got to make ourselves felt, however much we may appreciate the difficulties which surround the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all regard as our friend. The interests of the teachers is by far the biggest consideration, and it requires to be dealt with as quickly as possible. So far as I know, all the Scottish Liberal Members are entirely in accord with the views expressed from every quarter of the House upon this question.
  Mr. BARCLAY HARVEY: I would like to impress on the Secretary for Scotland the extreme desirability of ante-dating this Bill. All those who have spoken have been unanimous on this point. In no quarter of the House is the date 1926 viewed with any approval. We realise, as has been already said, that the change of Government has made it difficult, and has necessarily put off the introduction of the main Bill, but the main Bill should be proceeded with at the earliest possible opportunity. This Bill should be limited, at most, to one year. While I have the greatest possible sympathy for the point of view of the teacher, which has been so well expressed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), we have also got to look at the question from the point of view of the people who are being taught, and unless the system from which the Scottish teachers are suffering at the moment is brought to an end at an early date, we are not going to get the kind of education which members of all parties representing Scottish constituencies so earnestly desire.
  We cannot expect the teacher who has got this uncertainty hanging over his head to be able to put his very best into the work which he is doing. I do not

  499
  suggest that the teachers are failing in any way in their duty, but I suggest that the Government and the Scottish Board of Education are failing in their duty to the teachers if they do not remove all this sense of insecurity and injustice under which teachers are labouring at the moment, and thereby enable them to concentrate on what is the only thing that matters—that is getting the pupils properly taught. It is no use talking about reducing classes and spending large sums of money unless you can insure that the teacher will be in such a state of mind that he would be able to give his very best when he is teaching. For that reason I protest against any prolongation of the present Bill, further than what is absolutely necessary. Mention was made of financial difficulty. I do not enter into that except to point out the extraordinary disadvantage of leaving the financial question in its present unsatisfactory position. It is not fair from any point of view that you should be collecting money from teachers ostensibly for one purpose and then applying it to something else. Under this Bill you are merely putting off the teachers, and making the difficulties greater when you come to settle the question of proper superannuation. Therefore, I urge the Government to give way to the House in this respect, and to let us have the date altered.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Education is a subject upon which the people of Scotland feel very strongly, and before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to impress on him that the feeling of the House, is that we should have the proposed Bill ante-dated to 1925. The whole policy, particularly on its financial side, of the Board of Education at present is unsound. The so-called contribution scheme is based upon a so-called contribution which is really a tax. The teachers in Scotland are anxious to know what exactly is the permanent scheme to which the Secretary of Scotland has referred. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) has said, that if you create uncertainty in the minds of the teaching profession you are going to do a great deal of injury to the teacher himself and to his household, and also to the pupils whom he is called upon to teach.
  500
  In the old days the teacher in Scotland had to be satisfied with
  "passing rich on forty pounds a year."
  It was almost impossible for him to give his best teaching to the pupils under his charge, because, if the teacher has got an anxious mind as to domestic supplies at home, naturally he is not in a position to give of his very best. All Scottish Members are glad that under the Act that was passed the salaries of teachers were increased in Scotland. That is all to the good, but salary is not everything. Equally important, in my judgment, is the question of pension, and there ought to be as much certainty with regard to pension as there is with regard to salary. My right hon. Friend has had it made plain to him to-day that this uncertainty for another two years is not beneficial to anybody concerned. The right hon. Gentleman cannot give a guarantee to the House of Commons that we shall not at the end of two years have a Secretary for Scotland coming forward with exactly the same plea as that with which he is coming forward now, and this may go on endlessly. There may be a guarantee that my right hon. Friend will be at that Box in a year's time. If that be so, would it not be much better for him now to buckle to with the Department and prepare a clear, definite scheme and come forward with it to us in April, 1925? That would satisfy the teachers of Scotland and the Members of this House.
  While dealing with the pensions of existing teachers I wish to reinforce the appeal made in all parts of this House for better provision for the pre-1919 teacher. There is not a single Scottish Member who does not recall with the greatest affection and regard the old teachers in the country districts of Scotland. They were men who had not much of the world's goods, but what they could give for the advancement of their pupils they gave unstintingly, and it is a crime and a tragedy to feel that these men in their declining years, when they see the present teacher so much better off than they ever were, should be kept in almost abject penury. Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend to re-assure us that something is going to be done for these pre-War pensioners. I would like to associate myself with the two hon. Friends who have spoken from the benches behind. None of us wish, in any way, to handicap my right hon. Friend in his desire to get his

  501
  Bill, but two or three points are quite clear, and as to these I think I may speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House.
  First, it is our desire that this Bill should not be a two years' Bill, but that it should be a one year's Bill. Secondly, we are anxious that everything that can be effected administratively under the Emmott Report shall be effected at once. My right hon. Friend cannot say that he has got to wait for a general scheme to do this, that or the other thing. The most important things which have been advocated in the Emmott Report are things which could be very well done administratively, and we wish an assurance from my right hon. Friend, before we can pledge ourselves to give him his Bill to-day, that he will do his level best to carry into effect all those administrative points contained in the Emmott Committee's Report. I know that he is anxious to help us and I am convinced that if he sot himself to do what is necessary, and to do it now, he would be able to satisfy the teachers and to satisfy the House of Commons. I am convinced that no good is done by continuing this uncertainty. Unless my right hon. Friend guarantees to us now that he will give effect to everything to which he can give effect administratively, we shall feel bound, though we regret it, to oppose the First Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. MAXTON: I want only to add my word to what has been said from every quarter of the House in urging the Secretary for Scotland to revise the period of the operation of this temporary Measure, end to make it one year I can recollect from my early boyhood the whole problem of superannuation discussed among Scottish teachers. I can remember the anxiety in my father's home in connection with this subject, as far back as 1896 and 1897, and I have never known a period since, in the history of Scottish education, when the position with reference, to superannuation has been in anything like a settled state. Always there was this feeling of unsettlement. I believe that before my time, before there was public education at all, before there was a public State service, when the parishes were responsible for education, the parish schoolmaster, away back in the dark days, had much more comfortable conditions
  502
  as regards pension than we have in these enlightened and progressive days.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Act of 1861 laid an injunction on those concerned to pay pensions.
  Mr. MAXTON: This is the point that I am making—that the teachers of Scotland have not yet reached the position, so far as superannuation is concerned, that they were in over 60 years ago, which was even before the time of the right hon. Gentleman who has just intervened. I do not want to harass the Secretary for Scotland at all, but I would be indeed proud if I could have the privilege of going back to Scotland and telling the people of Scotland, and particularly the teachers of Scotland, that it had been left to a Labour Secretary for Scotland to put the educational service of Scotland and the teaching profession in the position that his great predecessor, John Knox, intended that it should occupy. It would be a much greater pride to him than anything else that could happen to him in his life, that his name should be coupled in history with the great founder of Scottish Presbyterianism. At the moment, as a small step in the direction of that niche in Scottish history which I am preparing for him, he can get the support of all the Scottish Members of the House by merely altering the date "1926" to "1925." I urge him now to give us that promise, so that there may be no necessity to divide the House on the matter.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I want to thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for the kindly nature of their criticism, and I wish to deal briefly with some of the points which they have raised. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) said, as did other speakers, that it was about time we had a proper scheme in operation for Scottish teachers. Like all who have spoken, I regret very much that we have not had a proper scheme in operation before now. I feel just as strongly on that point as do my colleagues from Scotland, and if it is possible for me to do anything to hasten the day when such a scheme will be put into operation, I am ready to do what I can. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities put forward very forcibly his ideas as to the scheme. He said that we ought to have a contributory

  503
  scheme, because he believed that that would give stability to the scheme. I am not sure whether the other hon. Member, who also represents the Scottish Universities (Mr. D. M. Cowan), wanted a contributory or a non-contributory scheme.
  Mr. COWAN: I addressed a question to the Secretary for Scotland, and asked whether the Government had made up its mind. Unfortunately, on this question, the position rests with the Government, and not with me.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I repeat that I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wanted a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. I agree that he put a very pointed question as to the Government's intention. Notwithstanding his pointed question, I do not think that he expects me to be in a position to give him a straight answer. The best indication that I can give at this stage is the fact that we propose to renew the temporary arrangement on the basis of a contributory scheme. I think that is as clear an answer to the question as he can expect.
  Mr. MAXTON: My right hon. Friend has not made that point quite clear, at least to me. The fact that the temporary scheme was being continued on the basis of the existing arrangements was not so much an indication of what the future arrangements were, far the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the reason for a temporary measure is that he wants to know what is going to happen in England; he wants to wait until the English position is quite clear, so that there may be reciprocity and all the rest of it.
  Mr. ADAMSON: That is just one of the points for consideration and discussion. I have answered as clearly as it is possible for me to answer now. Another point which has been raised related to the difficulties in connection with teachers passing from one country to another. The difficulty is that the English conditions are prescribed by Statute, and nothing but a change in the law can put them right. That is why the Government and myself, in the interests of the teachers, thought that it would be better to have the two schemes running together than to have a Scottish scheme passed now, and possibly a different scheme for England and Wales later.
  Mr. COWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a short amending Bill, which would meet with practically no opposition in this House, could be brought in to put these matters right? On the Scottish side it could be done administratively. There is no difficulty.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I do not agree that the difficulty can be so easily straightened out. It happens that for the moment I am responsible for dealing with these difficulties first-hand, and I can assure my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House that in suggesting that we should have the schemes running together I was acting in the interests of the teachers of Scotland and from that point of view alone. I had no other object in view. Another point which has been raised referred to the period of operation of this Measure, whether it should operate till 1926 or only until 1925. That is a point which can be dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. FALCONER: Will you leave it to the Committee?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I would have to discuss it with the members of the Committee, and I will discuss it with them only from the point of view of the interests of the teacher.
  Mr. FALCONER: And not put on the Whips?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have already assured hon. Members that it is purely from the point of view of the teachers that I discussed that question.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Committee stage is not the next stage.
  Mr. ADAMSON: No. A further point related to the condition of the pre-1919 teachers. Everybody sympathises with them. May I suggest that the House is shortly to have before them a Pensions Increase Bill, which may help in dealing with the position of the pre-1919 teachers. I had recently the privilege of discussing their position with their own representatives, and I was very glad to learn from them, that negotiations are in progress with the education authorities which may result in further steps being taken to relieve their hardships. I hope the Bill and the negotiations which are presently going on between their representatives and the representatives of the education authorities, will tend to relieve the hardships

  505
  suffered by this very deserving body of men. I think I have, to a large extent, covered all the points.
  Mr. COWAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to one of the most important questions put in the course of this Debate. Is he going to allow conditions to hold whereby teachers in Scotland can give 38 or 39 years' service and then retire without a penny of recognition? Does he not know that in England a teacher can retire after 30 years' service with pension rights at 60 and, further, does he not know that the Emmott Committee Report said 5 per cent. was ample—which 5 per cent. the Government has taken—and that the scheme would give to all teachers pensions at 60 provided they gave five years' service? Does the right hon. Gentleman leally mean that the present iniquitous state of affairs should continue? May I remind him that it can be dealt with administratively?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I am sure that the hon. Member realises, as well as I do, that this is only a Bill dealing with temporary provisions and carrying over this quetion of superannuation.
  Mr. COWAN: It is carrying on the present system for two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the teachers are paying for it!"]
  Mr. ADAMSON: The Scottish teachers were always paying. But what I want to say is that I am as strongly against the Scottish teachers being placed in an inferior position to the English teachers as it is possible for me to be, and any thing that can be done as far as I am concerned—
  Mr. COWAN: Administratively?
  Mr. ADAMSON: Anything that can be done will be done. Now I think I have touched on all the points which have been raised, and I trust hon. Members will give me the opportunity of introducing the Bill.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with interest as one who, though an alien, has the honour of representing a Scottish constituency and who has had the honour of having been returned more than once for that constituency. I admire the geniality of the
  506
  right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest to him that every single Scottish Member who has spoken in this Debate has asked him to make the date 1925. That request has been made by members of all parties. I presume that on Friday next the right hon. Gentleman, in common with many of us, is going to support a Bill which is to be introduced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Why cannot he put into practice two days in advance the principles which he proposes to support on Friday and make this concession which is demanded by members of every party sent here from Scotland. Knowing that there is complete unanimity on the point of this date is it possible that the right hon. Gentleman is going to call up English Members in order to vote down Scottish Members? If he does so does he really consider that he is giving even a measure of support to the cause in which many of us believe, namely, the cause of a greater degree of self-government for the race of which he is an able representative.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to add my words to those of my colleagues upon this matter, and particularly with regard to the pre-1919 teachers. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has referred to the geniality of the Secretary for Scotland, but in my view the right hon. Gentleman's geniality is somewhat dangerous, and it is difficult to realise how much he does mean by statements and how much he tries to cover by what is not meant. I think we could have had from him a much more definite assurance on the points which have been urged. The men whose cases have been put forward are steadily dropping off, and their situation is such as should make an impression on every receptive heart. Five years have been allowed to elapse and we are still talking about trying to do something. It seems to me that the machinery of Government and administration requires some more stimulation if it is to deal with this matter properly and from the humane point of view and get something done straight away. References have been made to the possibilities of opposition to the Bill, and we can quite understand there is a reluctance to press the matter unduly. Personally, I feel that Scotland does not get a look-in here, but we shall have an opportunity on Friday of expressing our views more

  507
  emphatically on that subject. The illustration which we have had from the Front Bench to-day, coming as it did from such a sturdy type of Scotsman as the right hon. Gentleman, is not at all encouraging for the movement which we are anxious to further in order to secure an opportunity of pushing on the interests of Scotland. We are quite confident those interests could be looked after if left to the hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: You are safe in our hands.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Well I think those representing Scottish constituencies here, if they had charge of Scottish affairs, would probably propel matters at a more rapid pace if we were freed from the burden of Empire, and from the slavery of this allegiance to England.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise to ask, is the right hon. Gentleman representing the Scottish Office going to press for English support on this Measure, as against the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), in order to provide my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on Friday next with an added excuse for putting forward his nationalist and parochial Bill?
  Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922," put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adamson and Mr. James Stewart.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL,
    "to amend the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

  WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.
  Order for Third Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not propose to detain the House at any length by moving
  508
  the rejection of this Bill at this stage, but wish to afford the Colonial Secretary an opportunity of dealing with a point which was not sufficiently cleared up during the discussions on the earlier stages of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to provide what was termed an all-British cable route from this country to the West Indies, and £400,000 was stated to have been left aside in order to achieve that purpose. I understand the original proposal was made as far back as October last, and my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is not responsible for the proposal, although he is responsible for the various stages of this Bill and for what is now being achieved. The hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) and I, in the earlier Debates, drew attention to a circumstance which we have now finally proved right up to the hilt, and it is that, whatever may be said by the parties concerned, the money which the British Government has left aside for this purpose is being lent to companies which are entirely—I use the word quite advisedly — entirely controlled by American capital and by directors of companies who hold their positions in the employment of those American companies. The hon. Member for Acton gave the names of these people during the Committee stage, and I personally gave the Colonial Secretary a good deal of further information in support of the point which we were making.
  I do not think there is any doubt at all that the money which was provided for so-called British companies is, in fact, being provided for the Commercial Cable Company of the United States of America who direct and control these cables and who will direct and control them. It is part of the policy of that great American cable company to get control of these cables. That is quite natural, because there is a strong geographical reason why they should do so, and they have, from time to time, either bought up or got rid of their competitors until they are now in direct control. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been used already, but, before we part with the Bill, I desire to have a statement from the Colonial Secretary as to whether our contention is right that, in spite of the fact that the directors may have British names, they are in the employment of these American companies, and that the money

  509
  originally dedicated by the last Government for this purpose, which is now being officially provided by this Bill by the present Government, is being handed over to our competitors on the other side of the Atlantic. If so, I do not believe it is right. My objection to the Bill, as a matter of fact, does not rest chiefly upon that point. I do not believe in the future of the cable as against the future of wireless. I think it obvious that the cable has no future as against the remarkable increase and progress which has been made in wireless. I think we are throwing money away in extending cable systems when we have the wireless at our disposal. That, however, is by the way, and I raise the particular point which I have mentioned, in order that the Colonial Secretary may have an opportunity of making the position clear.
  6.0 P.M.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If this Bill were being introduced for the first time, and no money whatever had been spent, I believe that I would find myself in a somewhat different position from that in which I am, for this reason, that whatever may have been the experience in regard to cables, it must, I think, be admitted that all experience tends to show that the remarkable possibilities in the development of wireless are such that very careful consideration should be given before a large expenditure was made in any other direction. But it is only fair to say to the House that that is not a question that the late Government had to consider in this connection, because they were faced with the possibility of no communication with these islands unless some immediate action was taken, and this Bill was ready for introduction last year, and it was only the General Election that prevented the Bill being introduced. Therefore, the present Government were compelled to assume the responsibility and to go on, and, indeed, did go on, and rightly so, or the whole thing would have been in chaos. That is the first point. The second is, that the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is absolutely true. While it can be argued, and while I am in a position to say, as a matter of fact, that arrangements are
  510
  being made for the transfer of sufficient shares to make the controlling interest in the hands of British subjects, the fact also remains that they are nominally the servants of the American company.
  Mr. HOGGE: Therefore, it is also true that the shares transferred to that nominal Chairman would be re-transferred from his name, if he left that post, to the next servant of the United States Cable Company?
  Mr. THOMAS: I daresay that would be so, but while admitting that, and while it is equally true, I suppose, that American interests are anxious to get this control, it is only fair to observe that these cables might have been British Government property, because I am informed that they were offered to the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain before the Americans bought them, and that they were refused. Whether or not that was a wise decision then I cannot argue, but it is the fact. What it is important to keep in mind is this, that the advantage of this Bill is that it enables us in future to send our cables and our messages without crossing foreign territory in any part whatever. In other words, the difference is, that hitherto we crossed foreign territory two and three, and in some cases five times, and that is obviated by the present scheme. Therefore, these advantages, it will be seen, outweigh the drawbacks. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] At this stage they do, for this reason: What earthly purpose could be served by rejecting this Bill? You have to face facts. Supposing this House rejected the Bill; all that they would have done would have been to have wasted public money, and no matter what our views may be, no one, in any part of the House, would subscribe to any policy of that kind. Having put the situation quite frankly, and having also explained the circumstances and the necessities of the late Government to go on then, and, above all, in view of the fact that the money has been spent, I hope the House will now give us the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I thank the Colonial Secretary for his statement, and I know that he is just as anxious as I am to see an All-British cable established, but, at the same time, I must say I wholeheartedly endorse every word which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has said on this subject. The

  511
  point which I think urged one to discover information was as to the reason why the House was not told of all these things when the Bill was introduced. If I may say so, we have had to drag it out at each specific stage. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh and I have spoken on each occasion on which this matter has been brought forward, and each time we have found out a little more, and I cannot help thinking that the Colonial Secretary has not been treated fairly in this matter by his advisers. I am convinced that he gave us all the information that he had, and that information was not quite as satisfactory as it might have been in view of what he has just said to the House. On 8th April I put specific questions to him from the point of view of British control. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to press their influence wherever they can all over the world, but we, in our turn, and particularly when we are dealing with British possessions overseas, are, I think, even more entitled to see to it that over an All-British Red Route we have British news and British influence first. In that connection, I am sure that those who know the West Indies and who have been there must have heard many times, as I have when I have been there, grievous complaints of the fact that the news which does come in from different parts of the world is seen through American glasses. I have heard it in every one of the islands, as well as in British Guiana. Where does this news come down from? It comes mostly from Halifax, and it is nearly all from the Associated Press, that great association of the newspapers of America, and it is of necessity American-coloured. In a report which was made to the Empire Press Union, which was presented only a few months ago, this matter is referred to two or three times. It states:
  "The subsidised service of the Direct West India Cable Company appears to be the principal source of telegraphed news throughout the British islands. … but it is obviously designed primarily for American readers."
  That is from one of the islands, and from British Guiana the statement is made:
  "Press bulletins for the West Indies and British Guiana … are compiled from American sources. These messages are, in consequence, almost entirely American coloured, while they give undue predomin-
  512
  ance to American domestic society, politics, and Congressional happenings, to the exclusion of Imperial and inter-Colonial events."
  That is the disquieting side of this business, and we are handing over £400,000 to strengthen this splendid American service. I think the House ought to have been told of this information, which we have now elicited, earlier in the proceedings, for, referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 8th April, when I put some specific questions to the Colonial Secretary as to any Americans on the Board, or American control in the way of capital, the answer I got from the right hon. Gentleman was as follows:
  "I have made specific inquiries and have got an answer, and the answer is a very clear one … It is untrue to state that the Halifax and Bermudas Cable Company and the Direct West India Cable Company are companies which are controlled by the Commercial Cable Company. With the exception of one American director resident in New York"—
  and at first I was told there were no American directors—
  "who has never taken any part whatsoever in the management or control of these companies, the directors have always been natural British born subjects who have retained their British nationality. The companies' cables all land in British territory. The companies are managed in every detail by a London board. The staff in its entirety is composed of natural British born subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1924; col. 349, Vol. 172.]
  That sounds all very specious and illuminating, but they did not add what I think they ought to have added, and that is the fact that every one of the directors is either connected with or, in most cases, a paid employé of, this great American Commercial Cable Company and that the bulk of the capital was held in American hands. I think the Colonial Secretary ought to have been furnished with that information. I think it was only fair that he should have had it, so that he, in his turn, could impart it to the House, and I cannot help feeling that the House has been very badly treated indeed. Had it not been for the efforts of one or two Members, neither the Colonial Secretary himself nor the House, I suggest, would have learned these facts, and they are facts that ought to be known. We all wish to see a cable established which will disseminate as rapidly and as far as possible British news throughout these splendid little

  513
  patriotic possessions of ours in the Carribean Seas, but if this is to continue, and if this news, as up till now, is to go largely through American sources and hands, the effort which the Colonial Secretary is making, backed up by the House of Commons, to spend this large sum of money to continue this service will, I am afraid, be somewhat fruitless. I appreciate immensely the answer given by the Colonial Secretary. He has been very straightforward in telling us to-day that the information that we had gleaned in various directions is absolutely correct. I will conclude by once more saying that I do not think he himself has been treated fairly by his own advisers.
  Mr. E. BROWN: My mind is uneasy about this matter. Could the right hon. Gentleman, before the Bill comes back from the other Chamber, make an arrangement whereby our British rights in the shares shall be safeguarded from transfer?
  Mr. THOMAS: I will certainly consider any question that arises. I am informed that not one penny of the £400,000 goes to the Bermuda Company, and, of course, as I explained before, the Pacific Cable Board will manage and control our cables; but a new point is now raised, namely, What guarantee is there that the so-called nominees who constitute the majority of the capital, shall not, without the knowledge of the Government, or otherwise, transfer the shares back? That is a new point, and I will certainly go into it.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is introduced pursuant to a pledge, given not only by this Government but also by the preceding Government, to remedy the very genuine and very real grievance which exists to a very large number of people employed in the administration of the County Courts. I very much hope that this Bill will prove
  514
  to be non-controversial in any sense, and, in so far as I can meet any objections which have already occurred to me, I propose to try and meet them in the few words that I have to say this afternoon. The principles underlying the Bill are largely technical, and I do not propose to go in any detail into the technicalities, but I think it will be desirable that I should, in a few sentences, try to make plain to the House the ills which this Bill seeks to remedy, and the method which it proposes to adopt in order to effect those remedies. There are two classes of persons who are mainly affected by this Bill. They are the higher and the lower officials of the County Courts, and, as the House knows, the work done by the County Courts now is of the very greatest importance, but, unfortunately, the method of appointment, of remuneration and of regulating employment is not only very unsatisfactory, but it has become chaotic. In 1919 a Committee was set up by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, and presided over by Mr. Justice Swift, with a view of ventilating these grievances, and seeing what remedy could be suggested to meet them. The Committee reported in 1920, and the Bill before the House to-day is mainly based upon its recommendations.
  I propose, therefore, to say, first of all, what are the evils underlying the position of the superior officials, and amongst those I include the Registrars of the County Courts; and, secondly, the evils and grievances which are being suffered by the minor officials, such as the clerks and others. The whole principle underlying the appointment and remuneration of these servants and officials is based upon the old County Courts Act, 1888, and the evils which have been pointed out are mainly these. Registrars are divided into two entirely different but purely arbitrary classes—namely, those in Courts where there have been more than 6,000 plaints lodged in one year, and those in Courts where there has not been that number. The distinction has become quite academic, and quite valueless, and there is no reason at all for its maintenance. County Court Registrars have been appointed hitherto by County Court Judges, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, a method which has been found, on the whole, to be very unsatisfastory, in so far as it is eminently desirable that these

  515
  officials, who are of great importance in the administration of the County Courts, should be appointed from a central source, and it is obviously desirable that that should be the Lord Chancellor's Department itself.
  Having been appointed in that way, there is a most unsatisfactory method of remuneration. Taking County Court Registrars to-day, generally—and I hope the House will not think, because I do not go into minute details of the remuneration, that there is any desire to keep anything back—there are many different ways in which they are remunerated, but the real, fundamental method of remuneration in most cases is this: It depends largely, if not wholly, upon the number of plaints which are issued in the respective County Courts, and the result is that every County Court Registrar may be said—and if not said, may be thought, which is as bad—to be interested in the amount of litigation in his own Court before he arrives at his own remuneration. And it has another obvious disadvantage. There may be cases in which a particular County Court Judge may be, rightly or wrongly, thought to be favourable to the issue of judgment summonses, and the more plaints that are made, the more the remuneration, which is eminently undesirable. In addition to that, another great grievance was that there was no superannuation for registrars. There was no method under which they could receive pensions. As I say, the methods of their appointment were unsatisfactory, their remuneration was unsatisfactory, and the absence of superannuation was eminently unsatisfactory.
  That is largely from the public point of view. But there was, in addition, a very serious grievance on the part of those officers themselves, because, supposing for some reason there was a serious loss of work, either in one Court or generally, practically the entire remuneration of the Registrar might disappear. In fact, the Committee reported that there was a drop in the War period to such an extent that a Registrar who previously got £1,100 only received £230. That is obviously most unsatisfactory, particularly as it became part of the duties of the Registrars to pay out of their own salaries the salaries of the clerks and officials whom they had to
  516
  employ, and it happened, I believe, on several occasions that the amount payable by the Registrar was not sufficient to enable him to pay the amount due to his clerks. That was a very serious state of affairs so far as the Registrar was concerned, but so far as the clerk was concerned, it was really infinitely worse. The principle under which the clerks work in the County Court is really exceptionally hard and exceptionally undesirable. In most cases the clerks were paid by the Registrar. They were paid in an intricate manner, partially by an allowance, which was allocated to the Registrars by the Treasury, although there was no restriction imposed on the way in which the money was expended, partly by a percentage of the fees which the Registrars got out of the Court, and partly by-allowances by the Registrars themselves. The result in innumerable cases has been—and I think I can satisfy the House—that they have been woefully underpaid. I am anxious to lay blame on no individual. I do not want it to be thought I am blaming the Registrars, particularly as an arrangement has been come to between all parties concerned, and I want particularly to guard myself against any such suggestion. It has been difficult to say whether they ought to apply to the Treasury or the Registrar. Whatever the fault may be, the position of these clerks cannot, I think, be better described than in the words of the Report of Mr. Justice Swift and his Committee. This is what they say about the clerks and their remuneration:
  "In some cases clerks with several years' experience are now paid less than the wage at the present day of an unskilled manual labourer. Such men cannot afford to retire, and they are kept on from motives of charity, after they have passed an age when they can render any efficient service. These men cannot, or will not, retire so long as they can walk or be carried into the Court."
  I am told that that is not an exaggeration, and that there have been cases where some of these public servants have had literally to be carried into Court, because too old or too ill themselves to walk, and they have not been in a position to retire. I say that is a state of affairs that we ought not to allow to continue. In addition, there was no pension for these men. At the end of their service—some of them are now 80 years of age—they do not get a penny when they retire. They are not

  517
  civil servants, and, in fact, their state is one which, I believe, will receive the sympathy of every Member of this House.
  I want to say a word about what has happened since this Report came out. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury got into communication with the Association of Registrars and the association of the clerks and minor officials, of whom I have been speaking, and an agreement has been made which largely carries into effect the Committee's Report. It is one which has been accepted by the Treasury, the clerks, and the registrars, and it is the wish of those who are responsible for the Department over which the Lord Chancellor presides that some public recognition should be made of the loyalty—the unswerving and honourable loyalty—with which the clerks in particular—and I am not minimising our obligations towards others—have loyally stood by the agreement which was made, and was ready to come before this House in 1922. There are these old men, some of whom, I am told, have literally died in the street, through poverty and distress, since the time that the agreement was reached. They were told that the only thing that prevented their legitimate grievances coming before the House of Commons was the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time. In spite of their grievances, they have loyally held to the agreement they made. They have said, "We have made it, and we will go on without raising any protest or striking, trusting that the House of Commons will give effect to the agreement." I do not think anyone will desire that men who have suffered as these men have suffered, who have loyally kept to their agreement, should have their claims any longer deferred. I may say they have come to this building almost pleading for time to be found for a Bill to be passed through the House as quickly as possible. This Bill proposes, in regard to the registrars, that in future they shall all be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and shall all be subject to superannuation.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Does that include a widows and orphans' pension fund?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Those are details, and are all matters of a scheme which has been agreed to between the registrars, the officials, the clerks,
  518
  the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor, and, in as much as it is a matter of agreement, we feel bound, as far as that is and, inasmuch as it is a matter of agreement to which they have come. I hope no one will desire to criticise the agreement which has been made voluntarily by all of them. The principle underlying it is that there shall be a superannuation fund, and that the terms of it shall be subject to agreement between the various parties. Generally speaking, they are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. They are to be entitled to pensions. As far as possible they shall not be permitted to have private practice. They are to be paid a regular salary which shall not depend upon the work done, so that no person who is interested in County Court procedure and litigation can say that in any way the officers of the Court are being affected by the amount of work that is being done.
  As far as the clerks are concerned, it is the intention that in almost every case in future they shall be permanent civil servants, that they shall be paid by the Treasury, that they shall all of them be put upon terms of having pensions, as in the case of the Civil Service, and, in fact, they shall be spared the old terror which haunted them of being unable to know-precisely who was their master and the terms of their appointment, and that they shall have some provision made for their old age. There is the case of those men at this moment of 80 years of age, and so on, whose pensions would be a difficult matter of arrangement. They have come to an agreement which, I think, is beneficial to all of them, that when they are retired, as they will be as soon as this Bill is passed, they shall be given a gratuity of a very substantial nature, which, I know, they will wholeheartedly welcome as removing the fear of poverty for the few remaining years of their lives.
  I have purposely avoided going into the technical details of the scheme. I do not believe it would be the wish of the House that I should do so. It is the broad principle of the scheme which one wants to have clearly in mind. I think I am right in saying this, in a way, is as much the Bill of the party opposite as it is ours. I am told it was approved by my predecessor, and I am equally hopeful those below the Gangway will support it,

  519
  because we do want to get it through. These people are waiting patiently for it to pass, because, unless it be passed, none of the reforms they desire can be carried. Those are the two points of the Bill.
  There are in the Bill two or three subsidiary matters about which I just want to say a word. The first of these subsidiary matters is referred to in Clauses 6, 7 and 8. Clause 6 is one which deals with certain fees in the County Court, particularly in regard to workmen's compensation cases. The object of the Clause, and it was intended to be so drafted, was to lessen, if possible, the amount of expenses and fees that might have to be paid by workmen in workmen's compensation cases. There is to my mind in the Clause very great ground for doubt as to the real meaning of the words, for instance, in Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, which repeals portions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906, and that portion of the Schedule which provides that no fees shall be payable upon the application for an award. May I just say to the House that I shall be glad if hon. Members can see their way to accept this, because it is my intention that nothing at all shall go into this Bill which shall have a prejudicial effect upon workmen under the law. I am told by the draftsman that this paragraph was intended to have directly the contrary effect.
  Personally, I do not think that it is carried out, but it is my intention, if the House will accept it from me, that if Amendments are put forward in relation to these paragraphs, I shall be prepared to consider them—Amendments from all sides, for I am in no way bound, nor is the Office of the Lord Chancellor in any way bound, to the Clause which we have here. I hope that it will not be thought necessary to have any undue discussion upon the principles underlying Clause 6 to-night, because the matter can be fully debated in Committee, and there will be nothing permitted to remain, and no Amendment will be opposed by me—and, indeed, will be accepted by me—with the object of ensuring that no additional liability or risk of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is imposed by any part of this Bill. I will go further and say that I will take Clause 6 out rather than anything should hamper the
  520
  passing of the Act, although I hope I shall not be pressed on that point. We want to get the Bill through.
  I make a similar observation about Clause 7, because there is some technical objection to certain provisions relating to the old County Court Act in regard to actions for ejectment or for obtaining possession. These are highly technical; and in regard to Clause 7, I may say that I am not wedded in any shape or form to it. When we get into Committee, which I cannot help thinking will be the better time for discussing it, there will be no reason at all to suppose that this Clause cannot be amended so as to get rid of any special difficulties which occur to me or are brought to my notice. These are matters subsidiary to the main object of the Bill; but I do not want the House to think that these Clauses have been introduced hastily. They were in the original Bill introduced by the Coalition Government, and in the Bill ready for passing by the late Government. My view has been that it was far better to bring the Bill in in the form substantially agreed, which can be put right. Having regard to the promise I have given I hope the House will see its way to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: I would congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appearance on the Front Bench after his recent illness. Perhaps it is also a coincidence that he should present a Bill of this sort at this moment. Those who, like the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and myself, know something of the conditions—as I do intimately—under which the County Court officials have continued to work for many years, their devoted service, and the inadequate remuneration which they have received, know that there is some need for reform. Their conditions have not always been the fault of their immediate masters. Very often the conditions were that the registrar or the high bailiff has been in the past dependent upon commissions upon the issue of plaints, and the return has been so meagre, especially in the smaller country districts, that it has been impossible to maintain the requisite staff; thus these men were paid what to-day would be regarded as an inadequate living wage. Therefore I am sure that all practitioners who have known these officials so long,

  521
  and who have been brought into daily contact with them, will be pleased to think that a limit is now going to be put to the period of their sacrifices. They are exceedingly capable people, well versed in all the rules of County Court procedure, and are worthy of a salary which a professional man should command in a profession.
  The Bill recognises, I am glad to see, the undesirability of continuing payment by commissions upon plaints. I hope that in the future justice will be done to those officers who have been dependent upon such a special method of remuneration—the senior officers. I trust that in Committee we shall take care that due protection is given. I am told that the head bailiff in one of the important Metropolitan Courts, unless protecting words can be put in, stands permanently to lose. In this particular Court the plaint issue in 1922 was nearly half a million, that is, 449,783, less than in 1913—that was the effect of the War, while the fees paid to the Treasury in 1922, the highest ever earned in a year, were £517,417. It would be more equitable to add 5 per cent. to provide for the increased work that is going gradually to return than to take that percentage off. Therefore I hope that in Committee a proviso will be added that, at any rate, these officers who made great sacrifices during the War to maintain their clerks will be secured in receipt of a sum not less than they have received during the year which has just closed. If that be done, substantial justice will have been done to them; otherwise they stand to be permanently penalised.
  I do not wish to prolong my observations now, but I congratulate the House that they have got this Measure before them. All parties are agreed as to the need of a remedy for what undoubtedly has been the state of things prevailing for many years past. To a very large extent this has been unavoidable. It is not a question of sweating, but because of the conditions which obtain among County Court officials who for long in many Courts in the Metropolis and the larger towns have been wholly employed. There is no reason why these officers should not be paid a reasonable sum. All their work is done for the Crown. The results of their labours go directly to the Treasury, who are responsible for the maintenance of the buildings in which they work.
  522
  Under these conditions I am glad to say that at least they are going to be released from the uncertainty which has faced them in the past. I give the Bill a very hearty welcome, and I hope it will be rapidly passed through Committee and the House.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: This Bill is a subject for congratulation, and I congratulate the Attorney-General upon introducing it. This is the type of thing and the sort of revolution that the Labour party wants, in so far as it is going to do good where it has been long overdue. There is one point I should like to put in connection with what the Attorney-General stated, and which I should like cleared up. He stated that the older servants in the County Courts, if this Bill were passed, would receive a gratuity. It was not made quite plain whether in addition to that they would also be in receipt of a pension. I am not quite sure about it, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it clear.
  Mr. BIRKETT: I desire to bring to the notice of the House two points which seem to me not unimportant. I have had an experience which most Members of the House have at one time or another, and that is my first point has been put more clearly, perhaps, than I could have put it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. Therefore, I only desire to say on that that I endorse very cordially every single word which fell from my right hon. and learned Friend under that head. Clause 2 will require careful revision, because as I read the Clause—whilst the old system of payment is to be condemned on almost every ground—I am not at all certain that the principle in Clause 2 might not in the future perpetuate similar difficulties. There is, I am informed, a great amount of apprehension; or shall I say that if the Clause remains unamended that apprehension may widen into discontent? The Clause itself merely says that payment of the registrar and high bailiff shall be such as the Lord Chancellor may, from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, direct. Upon what basis is that payment to be made? Is it to be upon some form of commutation of the varying salaries paid to these officers? Is it to be a commutation of that kind based upon a certain year. The

  523
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) has described the difficulties of these servants, and if this Clause remains in that form it is a matter of practical certainty that many of these servants will suffer a great injustice if a year is taken for commutation which is unfavourable to them.
  The Attorney-General referred to the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Swift. That Committee reported and recommended that there should be paid a bonus upon the salaries, and that bonus has never been paid, although some grant has been made in respect of the heavy losses these officers suffered. As far as Clause 2 is concerned, I endorse what has been said as to the necessity of inserting a proper proviso in that Clause to safeguard the rights to which these servants are entitled. In the Act of 1888, under Section 45, to which the Attorney-General referred as the basis of payment, there is at the conclusion of that Section a proviso which reads:
  "Provided that no such Order shall be made with respect to any registrar appointed before the passing of this Act without the consent of such registrar."
  That might form a good precedent for the proviso to safeguard the rights of these men. My other point is one which may have received the consideration of the Attorney-General, but I raise it because if it has not received his consideration, he may deem it worthy of consideration now. Under Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 it is provided that
  "The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries, appoint in connection with any Court such assistant registrars, clerks, bailiffs, ushers and messengers as he may consider necessary for carrying out the work of the Court."
  In Clause 5, Sub-section (1), it is provided that
  "Subject to the provisions of this Section employment in Court service shall, in the case of a person as respects whom a direction in that behalf is given by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, and whether the employment commenced before or after the commencement of this Act, be deemed to be for all purposes employment in the Civil Service of the State."
  Then under Clause 1, Sub-section (5) of this Bill, there is the following provision:
  "Where after the commencement of this Act a vacancy occurs in the office of high-bailiff
  524
  of a Court no person shall be appointed to that office, and thereafter the registrar of that Court shall by virtue of his office be the high-bailiff of the Court."
  As I understand this Bill, it provides that the present office of high bailiff shall be continued, and the present occupants of that position shall be continued, but as and when a vacancy occurs, then the registrar of the Court shall become the registrar and the high bailiff, and in course of time the office of the high bailiff shall disappear. Section 35 of the Act of 1888, which is not repealed in the new Bill, will require some Amendment, because the concluding paragraph of that Act provides that the high bailiff shall be responsible for the acts of those appointed to assist him. It is not very desirable that in those circumstances the high bailiff shall be responsible for the acts of people he does not appoint and who are, in fact, civil servants. Those are the points I wish to raise.
  With regard to the remainder of the Bill, very possibly there are one or two matters which may require to be discussed at a later stage. I am not so sure that it is wise to deprive the local County Court Judge of all his interest in the appointment of registrars. Many of the local County Court Judges have a good knowledge of the locality in which they preside over the Courts, and their legal knowledge and intimate personal knowledge of the people in the locality may be of the greatest service in selecting suitable registrars for those localities. Although the power now is given to the Lord Chancellor, and practically the County Court Judge is now deprived of all interest in these appointments, it may very well be that it would be of great service to the administration of justice in the local County Court if by some means the interest and personal knowledge of the local, County Court Judges were placed at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor in making those appointments.
  The other matter I wish to raise would, in a Bill of this kind, involve too large an area to include, and if any redress is needed I think that we ought to have a proper County Courts Bill making provision for an increase in the remuneration of County Court Judges. When you are making provision to protect the registrars and the high bailiffs may I point out that not one penny would come out of public funds, because the fees

  525
  received are enough to provide for that, and I suggest that they are ample to increase the remuneration of the County Court Judges, which has not been altered since the year 1888? I very cordially support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am sure the House has heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down with the greatest possible interest, and most of us agree with many of the statements which he has made. On behalf of a number of people with whom I am acquainted who are interested in this Bill, I thank the Attorney-General for the excellent speech with which he has introduced this Measure, and particularly such commendation, coming from the highest officer of the legal profession, will be greatly appreciated by a very large number of hardworking officials up and down the country. In this connection, I should like to include the services and the work of our County Court Judge. It has quite rightly been said in this Debate that, to-day, having regard to the increased cost of living, and everything else connected with the ordinary affairs of life, the case of the County Court Judges deserves very careful consideration, especially from this House, because whenever we get into a difficulty in connection with domestic problems which are constantly arising—and I have in my mind all those perplexities in connection with housing and rent restrictions—we generally leave it to the County Court Judges to make the best arrangements they possibly can.
  Even within the last few months the Bill of which we passed the final stages only the other day threw upon County Court Judges the solution of the difficult problems with which we were then confronted, and I hope the words which have been used in this connection by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Birkett) will have due weight in the proper quarter, and that the services of County Court Judges will be properly recognised. There is no institution in the country which enjoys more public confidence than the administration of justice in cur County Courts, and I know no body of men who more sympathetically and fairly carry out their duties than the Judges, Registrars, and officials of our County Courts. Speaking with some little experience, I can safely say that
  526
  you rarely find either of the parties in a County Court case saying that they have-not had a fair show. The patience of some of our County Court Judges is a worthy example for many Ministers and Members of this House. Therefore, I welcome very much the fact that at any rate something is going to be done for the Registrars and many of these officials.
  I hardly share my hon. Friend's view-that in some way or other the Lord Chancellor should consult the County Court Judges in regard to the appointment of Registrars, and I am afraid that would lead to considerable difficulty. I share the view that it is better on the whole for the Lord Chancellor to appoint the Registrars up and down the country. I think it is open to considerable misconception that the County Court Judge should appoint the officials of a Court of Justice, and especially an officer who has to work directly in conjunction with him. I think that is a very desirable feature in this Bill. There is no doubt that the method of remuneration of the Registrars and officials of the County Court is open to some objection, but nobody could possibly defend the present method, and the provision made in this respect is wrong.
  My right hon. and learned Friend below me (Sir H. Nield) made a most excellent point on the question of the superannuation of some of the older officials. I dare say he has had representations made to him, as I have, that, at any rate, some of the older men who are employed in the County Courts, and who have served very many years, would really not receive very much consideration under the provisions of this Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will be prepared to listen to the statements in regard to the position of these older officials during the Committee stage. As a matter of fact, some of these older men who (have served 20 or 30 years are not going to get more than a bonus perhaps equivalent to two years' service as a consequence of this provision. It may be that the difficulties are too great for anything further to be done, but I hope the Attorney-General will have some regard to their case when the matter comes to be considered more in detail.
  The only other observation I want to make on my hon. Friend's speech is that I do not think it is quite correct to say

  527
  that our County Courts are being conducted with a surplus at the end of each year. A very excellent Committee not long ago examined this question, and they investigated the subject as to whether there was any money being made out of the County Courts, or whether anything was going to the Exchequer. I see from the figures produced in this Report, which I have no doubt are accurate, that in the year 1922 the excess of expenditure over receipts was nearly £500,000. Therefore, my hon. Friend will have to look in another direction if he is going to help the County Court Judges.
  7.0. P.M.
  I wanted particularly to call attention to some of the provisions with which the Attorney-General rather lightly dealt. I refer particularly to Clause 6. I do not know whether it is quite intentional or not, but the Attorney-General seemed to give the impression, at any rate to me, that Clause 6 was a somewhat ill-conceived and hastily-devised Clause which had been badly drafted and did not express the true intentions of the Government. In fact, Clause 6 most correctly, if I may venture to say so, carries out the recommendation of my hon. Friend's Committee. That is a Committee which was appointed to look into the question of County Court fees, and gave very serious consideration to the position of compensation cases. As most Members of this House know, when the Workmen's Compensation Act was introduced, and when it was carried into law, one of its perhaps peculiar features, if you like so to term it, was that there should be no fees payable in respect of proceedings brought by workmen. I think there is a good deal to be said for that. An exception can be made on that account, because a man who meets with an accident of any kind, it seems to me, ought to be able to go direct to the Court and put the machinery in motion to receive his compensation without having to make a payment. At any rate, I take it that was the intention of the Legislature in 1897 when the Workmen's Compensation Act became law. Ever since then in all these proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act there have been no Court fees payable as in ordinary cases, and when a workman issues his application for arbitration he does not have to pay the ordinary Court
  528
  fees. He can issue it at the Court without depositing any money at all. I think, personally, that practice should be continued.
  But my hon. Friend's Committee no doubt had in mind the half-million deficiency on the County Courts every year, and, following the advice I think of Sir Eric Geddes' Committee, recommended that fees should be payable in workmen's compensation cases. I confess that at any rate from that point of view there is a good deal to be said for it. In this report—a very excellent report it is—it is pointed out that in the year 1921, for instance, there were no fewer than 3,962 applications for arbitration, and as stated here there seems to be no reason to anticipate that there will be any substantial diminution of this number in the future. My hon. Friend and his Committee say:
  "We think under all the circumstances and having regard to the finances of the County Court that the fees should now for the first time be introduced."
  In the schedule to this report it is suggested, for instance, that when a workman issues his summons for arbitration he should pay a fee of 10s. and other fees are also suggested in the schedule. It was further suggested that in hard cases the Registrar should be allowed to remit the fee. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend and his colleagues that in the majority of cases, perhaps, the trade unions were concerned, and he did not see why a fee should not be charged as in the case of every other summons. Clause 6 very fairly carries out that recommendation. It is not a question about one part of it being contradictory of another as the Attorney-General suggested. This actually follows out, as far as I can see, the recommendations of this particular Committee.
  It is a little surprising to me that a Labour Government should be introducing this provision. It is perhaps an astonishing act on the part of the first Socialist Attorney-General that under this Bill he should seek to impose further fines on the workmen of this country when they come to start their arbitration in court. As far as I am concerned, if I have an opportunity of voting on this matter, I think that on the whole, having regard to the fact that it is a special circumstance, a man who meets with an accident should

  529
  be able to go direct to the Court without paying a Court fee of any kind. As I gathered from the Attorney-General, when the Committee stage of this Bill is reached, he is going to delete some parts of Clause 6, because this Clause very ingeniously in the end abolishes the provision which says that no fees are payable. I am not surprised this afternoon that the Attorney-General on reflection has decided to abandon that part of the Bill.
  I want to refer also to Clause 7. It is perhaps rather unkind to the House, but we have to deal with another clause under another Bill dealing with the question of evictions. This Clause, which is rather worthy of the attention of the House for a few minutes, says that Section 59 of the County Courts Act shall have a certain effect, and certain words are incorporated in this Bill which, as far as my brief perusal of that Section tells me, is to expedite eviction orders. In this Section 59 of the principal Act, in certain cases, a defendant had one month given him to apply for certain cases to be taken in the High Court, and, as I gather, the effect of the words that are substituted, which words are,
  "Such time as may be prescribed by Rules of Court."
  is to diminish that period and make the defendant get along much more quickly in connection with proceedings against him with a view to obtaining possession of his property. That is the only reason, and perhaps there may something to be said for it. It is, of course, not indicated in this Clause whether the object of it is to make the time shorter or longer, but I cannot conceive that it is with the idea of making the time longer, and I suppose it is to make the defendant in proceedings for eviction take his choice and to come to his conclusion at a much earlier period. That no doubt can be discussed in Committee, but I hope the Attorney-General will pardon me if I offer the reflection that it is again rather curious that a Labour Government should be introducing a Clause which will have the effect of expediting the proceedings for eviction. But there it is.
  Again, I desire to recognise the statement which the Attorney-General has made when he offered to discuss this matter favourably and sympathetically in Committee. Those are the only critical observations I desire to offer with regard
  530
  to this Bill. Clauses 6 and 7, I think, are proper matters for discussion in Committee. No one desires to retard the Second Reading of this Bill because of those two Clauses which undoubtedly may be the subject of opinions on either side, but I hope personally that all Members of the House, especially those who sit behind the Attorney-General, will see that an alteration in this Bill is necessary and that matters in that connection should be put right. Speaking generally on behalf of a large body of men who, I believe, have rendered excellent service to the community which has not been recognised as much as it might have been because it is only in a humble part of life, and there is not a great deal of limelight, I believe that by the passage of this Bill the House will be doing something for a small body of hard-working individuals who deserve recognition from this House. I believe something will be done in this Bill to remedy many hard cases. One sometimes reads of lawyers' clerks in Dickens' novels. Lawyers' clerks exist in many cases to-day as they did then. A good many of them are County Court officials, men who work hard and are badly paid, and I look on this Bill as a step in this direction, and I welcome it.
  Mr. P. OLIVER: I am very glad indeed that this Measure has received such general support from all sides of the House, but I should like to support what the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has said with regard to the older servants, because it seems to me that they do not receive quite such generous treatment as they had a right to expect under this Measure. It is all very well that they should remain civil servants and that they should receive a pension, but I think the proviso in Clause 5 is not altogether fair:—
  "Provided that, except in so far as the Treasury may in any case direct, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this Section of Court service before the issue of the certificate."
  As a result of that, however long service some of those clerks may have given, so far as their pension is concerned, they will start absolutely on a level with the youngest clerk in the office. As I understand, under the Superannuation Act, you had to serve 10 years as a civil servant before you qualified for pension

  531
  at all, and then you qualified for a pension equal to one-sixth of your salary, and you had to work for 40 years before you qualified for the full pension, which is two-thirds of the salary. That being so, though it is quite true that under Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 the old servant could, as a matter of generosity, receive from the Treasury a grant equal to two years' salary, it seems to me that a large number of these old servants, who have given very long service, will receive no pension at all.
  The case of the servant in the district registry of the High Court is even harder than the servant in the County Court, because, after all, this Measure does also apply to the clerks in the district registries of the High Court. In some of these district registries, especially in those of Liverpool and Manchester, the work carried on is absolutely on a par, and in every way comparable, with the work carried on by the clerks in the High Court of Justice in the Strand. The clerks in the High Court of Justice have been, and are, regarded as civil servants, and they receive pensions, but the clerks in these district registries, such as those of Manchester and Liverpool, although they are doing the same responsible work, are not, so far, regarded as civil servants, and have not been able to qualify for pensions. This Bill will make them also civil servants, but they will not be able to qualify for pensions without considerable further service. There is one clerk of whom I know in one of these registries who has already put in some 47 years' service, but he will not be able, under this Measure, to qualify for full pension unless he puts in another 40 years' service, that is to say, 87 years' service in all. I would appeal to the Attorney-General that, if possible, more generous consideration should be given to these old servants in the County Courts, or, if that be not possible, at any rate to those in the district registries, who are doing exactly the same work as the civil servants in the High Court of Justice in the Strand.
  Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I should like to join in the chorus of congratulation to the Attorney-General on this Bill and on the manner in which he has introduced it. No one who knows the facts can doubt that the methods by
  532
  which the officials of the County Courts are appointed and remunerated call, and have called for a long time past, for reform. In the High Court the system of remunerating officers of Courts of Justice by the fees paid by the suitors was abolished many years ago. It is a bad system, which leads, or might lead, to very evil results, and no one can defend it in the County Courts. In the County Courts the system has been carried to such an absurd length that in certain cases, where an application was made to a registrar of a County Court, if he granted the application he was paid a fee, which he put in his pocket, whereas if he refused the application no fee was payable at all. In other words, the system of remuneration was such that it was to the pecuniary advantage of the registrar to grant the application. I need not say, of course, that the standard of integrity among the registrars of the County Courts is so high that no one has ever suggested that that could influence their decision, but obviously it is a very improper arrangement.
  It is an entire misconception that the County Courts pay their way. They never have in our time, whatever may have been the case in earlier days. There has always been a large deficit, and no one has ever supposed that it would be possible to extract from the suitors fees which would be sufficient to make the County Courts pay. I think I am right in saying that the Treasury has always recognised that the salaries of the County Court Judges, amounting to nearly £100,000, and the whole of the expenses of the court buildings, amounting now, I think, to something like £80,000, must be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and that it would be impossible, without imposing unreasonable fees, to get those moneys from the suitors. Up to the time of the War the situation was such that the fees did nearly meet the expenses, including the salaries of the Judges and the cost of the court buildings, but when the War came the revenue of the County Courts went to pieces, and the deficit became enormous; and one of the merits of this Bill is that it will enable the Lord Chancellor to revise the scales of fees, which I think at the present time are in many respects unreasonable and excessive. It will enable them to be modified, and will enable a great deal of the hardship that at present exists to be

  533
  mitigated, while at the same time producing a revenue more satisfactory to the Exchequer.
  I should like to say a word about the Workmen's Compensation cases. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said that he recognised, in Clause 6 of the Bill, the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. I can only say that he was more fortunate than myself, for I fail to recognise in Clause 6 what the Committee recommended, and I welcome the assurance of the Attorney-General that in Committee he will be prepared to accept some amendment of Clause 6. It was Sir Eric Geddes' Committee that first drew attention to the fact that, although these Workmen's Compensation cases occupied a large part of the time of the County Courts, no fees, or only very small fees in certain circumstances, are payable in respect of these cases. Everyone, I suppose, must agree that, when a man who earns his livelihood by a weekly wage meets with an accident which disables him from earning, and is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and when his employer refuses to pay him and he has to go to the Court to obtain that to which he is entitled, there ought to be nothing whatsoever in the way of Court fees, or in any other way, to prevent such a man from going to the Court and obtaining what is due to him. It is rather different when he is represented by a society of means, which can afford to employ a solicitor, who, I suppose, is paid, and counsel, who, after all, receives an honorarium—it is a little different when that, is the case, and it does not seem unreasonable to expect the society which has incurred that expense on behalf of the workman to pay a small fee to the Court for issuing a summons.
  That, however, is not really an important matter. The more important matter is this: When the case has been tried and the Court has decided that the employer ought to pay, it may be a weekly sum or it may be a lump sum, is it not reasonable to require the employer to pay a fee for occupying the time and attention of the Court, because, ex hypothesi, the employer ought to have paid the workman in the first place? It was because the employer refused to pay that the workman had to go to the Court. The
  534
  action of the employer has taken up the time of the Court and caused expense to the public. Is it not reasonable that in such cases a fee should be charged, which, of course, should be paid by the employer? I commend that to the Attorney-General, and I hope that in Committee that principle will be accepted. Otherwise, it means that the expenses incurred by this litigation have to be provided either by the general taxpayer out of public funds, which does not seem reasonable, or by making the suitors in other cases pay fees sufficient to cover the cost of the workmen's compensation cases. The Geddes Committee drew attention to this matter, and the Committee over which I presided considered it, and we were satisfied that in those cases it was reasonable that the employer should be required to pay a fee upon the award which the Court made against him. With regard to the workman's coming into Court, I am sure everyone will agree that there should be no hindrance whatsoever. If there is one case in which a man ought to have free entrance to the Court to obtain what is justly due to him, it is the case of a workman who has been disabled by an injury from earning his livelihood. I hope that this Bill will go through and be passed into law, and that no accident will occur to it in its passage, because it is, indeed, most necessary in the administration of justice.
  Mr. WILBERFORCE ALLEN: It is obvious that by this time the Attorney-General has got that for which he has asked, namely, the good will of this House, and its unanimous wish that this Bill may be passed on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. I do not want to repeat what others have already said, but, speaking as a practising solicitor, I should like just to underline what they have said as to the merits of the work performed by the officials in our County Courts. I think I am only expressing the feeling of the entire House when I say that the reforms which this Bill seeks to bring about are long overdue, and that there is no section of the community which more merits the assistance of this House than those who officiate from year to year in our County Courts. There is one point to which I should like to refer. If I understood the Attorney-General aright, I gather that it is the intention of those responsible for

  535
  this Bill that, wherever practicable, what we know as the half-time registrar should disappear. Up to the present it is common knowledge among those who have experience in these Courts, that there has been a large number of registrars who have been allowed to continue in private practice while at the same time carrying on their official duties as registrars. I gather from the Attorney-General, if I understood him aright, that the idea is that these half-time registrars should disappear and be replaced by whole-time registrars. At the same time, I am bound to say it seems to me, from my reading of the Bill that is before us, that nothing of that nature is exactly contemplated. If I read Clause 1 of the Bill aright, it would almost seem that the half-time Registrar is contemplated as being more general than the whole-time Registrar. It may be that that is just the phraseology that is used, and that the intention of the promoters of the Bill is somewhat different. I urge upon the Attorney-General that the object should be, so far as possible—in every case it is not possible—gradually to eliminate the half-time Registrar, and to ensure that those who hold these offices devote themselves exclusively to the functions which they are expected to fulfil. That is the more necessary having regard to the footing upon which the officials of the County Courts are henceforth to be placed. If they are to be civil servants, as we are all agreed it is more than time they should be, it seems to me to be something of an anomaly if, up and down the country, we have any large number of Registrars who are only half-time civil servants and devote the rest of their time to other functions.
  I had intended to deal in some detail with the Clause which relates to fees payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but, having regard to the appeal of the Attorney-General, I think I shall interpret the sense of the House if I do not detain it with any detailed examination of what the Bill contemplates in that connection. The only thing I do not understand, speaking as a new Member, is how a Bill comes into the House, as this one has come, containing a Clause which apparently expresses the direct opposite of what was the intention of the promoters of the Bill, for, as far as
  536
  I can gather from the Attorney-General's remarks, Clause 6 undoubtedly expresses the precise opposite of what was intended. It would be a most unfortunate thing if the principle of payment of fees was introduced in the case of applications under the Workmen's Compensation Act. So far as the last speaker's remarks are concerned, I hesitate somewhat to differ from him, but if the principle which he suggests in regard to the payment of these fees was introduced, it would undoubtedly mean the introduction of an entirely new principle in the administration of our Courts. It seems to me to be unfortunate and certainly requires some careful examination whether it would be advisable to introduce the principle that fees should be paid if one result ensues, and should not be paid where there is another result. I do not know that this is the time in which to enter into that in detail, as the actual proposal is not before us. It is only a suggestion made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, but coming from that quarter I may be allowed to make that comment on it. To introduce that principle would be an entirely novel proceeding, and one which would perhaps lead us further than is contemplated at present.
  I should like to emphasise what my hon. and learned Friend behind me has said, and to express my regret that no provision has been made in the Bill—perhaps provision could not have been made here—for dealing with the question of the salaries paid to County Court Judges. It is extraordinary that in these days, when every week almost we are adding to the duties of these Judges, they are still in receipt of the same salary they had before the War, in fact I believe the same salary they have had ever since 1888. If my memory serves me, the handsome remuneration to which they are entitled is £1,500 per annum and, although I am not myself a member of the senior branch of the profession, it seems to me to augur somewhat badly for the quality of future occupants of the County Court bench if that is to be the extent of the remuneration to which they are to look forward, with all the added responsibilities which devolve upon them—remuneration which the average member of the Bar who is a Member of the House will regard as certainly inadequate remuneration and nothing like the earnings of a great number of men who belong

  537
  to the junior branch of the profession. I hope, before very long, the Attorney-General will see his way to remedy that very great defect and that we shall see that these distinguished public servants are remunerated according to the services they render to the community.
  Sir DOUGLAS HOGG: In listening to the chorus of approbation which has hailed the introduction of this Bill, I am conscious of somewhat mixed feelings, something I think of the feelings that the parent cuckoo must feel when it sees its offspring being received with favour by quite an alien crowd. I hope I shall not in any way diminish the enthusiasm which is felt for this Bill on the opposite side of the House if I disclose the fact that, although the Attorney-General has hatched, or is in process of hatching the egg into a complete Act, he is not the layer of the egg or the first inventor of the provisions of this Bill. The Bill is one which I gave notice to introduce when still Attorney-General, and it fully deserves the approval which it has received from both sides of the House. It may have a smoother passage under the persuasive eloquence of the present Attorney-General than it could have hoped for had I been in his place and he had been in mine. But we on this side try to deal with matters of this kind on their merits, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman may, I think, feel assured that, so far as the official Opposition is concerned, there will be very little difficulty in achieving his desire and translating this Bill into an Act of Parliament. But, although I claim some credit for some of the provisions of the Bill, I should not be fair to the House or to people outside the House, if I were not to recognise, as perhaps he may have done, because I am sorry not to have been here at the commencement of his speech, the very valuable work which has been done by a number of people before ever this Bill reached its present shape.
  The problems with which it had to deal are difficult and complicated ones. The position of the registrars, the compensation to which they are entitled, the change in the rights of appointment, the position of the junior officers of the County Courts, the transition period which necessarily takes place when they are transferred from being servants of the Registrar to being civil servants—all these are matters
  538
  which might readily give rise to conflicting claims which it would be very difficult to resolve. I am betraying no secret when I say that long and patient negotiations had to take place between the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is so well represented at present by the Attorney-General, between the Association of Registrars and between the County Courts Officers' Association in order that a Bill might be produced which was just to the State and at the same time fair to those whose interests were affected. It speaks a great deal for the tact and patience of those conducting the negotiations on behalf of the State on the one side and for the reasonableness of those who were conducting the negotiations on behalf of the officials concerned that the right hon. Gentleman is able to produce a Measure which is accepted by all parties as being fair and just. I think this tribute ought to be paid to those who are responsible for achieving that result.
  The main provisions of the Bill have been universally approved. I do not think anyone can doubt that a method of appointment which makes the salary of a judicial officer dependent upon the fees which his Court earns is a thoroughly bad one and ought to be got rid of as soon as possible. The provisions with regard to the clerks and junior officers make a reform which in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of most Members of the House who belong to the profession of the law, was long overdue The junior officials of the County Courts are the paid servants of the registrars. They are only too often the underpaid servants. They have no sort of security of tenure. They have no hope of pension or superannuation when their service comes to an end, and although they are working for the State, the State does not regard them or treat them as its servants. That is a matter which calls for reform and which this Bill, I hope, will put an end to once for all. It is a matter affecting a comparatively small number of people. There are, I think, 1,126 clerks and something like 1,000 bailiffs who will be affected by the provisions of this Measure, and all these people have waited very patiently for the House of Commons to find time to deal with a reform which urgently affects their position, and although it may be quite true that there are important matters of State which have presented this House or its pre-

  539
  decessors from dealing with the reform before, to these unfortunate people who were all the time working under a sense of injustice it must have been very difficult to be patient under the long delay. I am very glad indeed that now, at last, we are able to reward their patience by giving the Bill the Second Reading which it deserves.
  There are one or two minor criticisms which have been made by various speakers which I think are Committee points rather than Second Reading points, but I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. M. Oliver), who made an appeal for more generous treatment in matters of superannuation, first of all, that, as regards all existing district registrars, it is at their own option whether they will come in under the Bill or not. If they find themselves better off outside it, they have the right to remain outside it. Secondly, with regard to the registrars who are affected by the Bill, they do not come in merely on Treasury superannuation terms, because there are in the Schedule of the Bill special terms as to superannuation, one of which ensures that their right to superannuation shall begin at the end of a service of five years in all, so that, I think, the provisions as to superannuation are fairly dealt with. There was a discussion with regard to Clause 6. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) pointed out that that was largely based upon the recommendations of a Committee which bad considered the matter, I think, only last year. The object, as I understood it, of Clause 6 is not to increase the burden of fees which are to be imposed upon the workers in compensation eases, but to enable the Lord Chancellor, who will have to make a new County Court Fees Order, in any event, if this Bill becomes law, to include at the same time some provision as to County Court fees, such as has been recommended by the Committee which inquired into the matter, and which it was contemplated would ensure in the aggregate that a lighter and not a heavier burden should be placed upon the suitors in workmen's compensation cases.
  Clause 7 is the other one that has met with some criticism from the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). It is rather a complicated matter. There
  540
  are at present two different kinds of action in the County Court by which people recover possession of premises. One kind is the proper sort of action to bring when the relation of landlord and tenant exists. That is called a possession action, and comes under Sections 138 and 139. There is a different kind of action, which is appropriate when the relation of landlord and tenant is not existing, and when the owner of the property seeks to turn out someone who is a mere trespasser. That is known as an ejectment action, and comes under Section 59. There are cases in which it is a little difficult for the plaintiff, especially if he does not wish to go to the expense of employing a lawyer, to know which kind of action he ought to bring. He knows that he wants to get his house back, but he does not know under what Section to proceed. The object of Clause 7 is, first of all, to make provision which will render it possible, by rules of Court, to ensure that if by mistake a plaintiff starts under the wrong kind of action to recover possession, he shall not be thereby stopped but the case shall be transferred over to the right kind of action. That will save expense and time, and cannot possibly do any injustice to anybody.
  The other grievance which it is sought to remedy by that Clause, as I understand it, is that at present when an ejectment action is brought the defendant can, within a month, give notice that the annual value of the premises is more than £100 and therefore that the action is outside the limits of County Court jurisdiction, and must be transferred to the High Court. That gives the defendant a very long time to make up his mind, and it involves that there must be a very long time before the action can be heard, because you must wait for more than a month in order to see whether such an application is going to be made. There is no reason why, if the defendant is in possession of the premises, he should not make up his mind a little more quickly. That will save time, money and expense, and this provision will operate to shorten the period so that he may make up his mind more quickly. I do not think these are very vital matters, but they are matters which can conveniently be altered when the County Courts Act is being dealt with, and I suppose it is for that reason that this proposal is incorporated in the Bill.

  541
  There has been reference in the Debate to the salaries of the County Court Judges. Speaking for myself, and not in any sense for the party with whom I am associated, it does seem to me that there is a good deal to be said for the view that the County Court Judge is underpaid. I am not quite sure that I would not go a little further and say that there is a good deal to be said for the view that all Judges are underpaid.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Engineers as well.
  Sir D. HOGG: That may be, but, unfortunately, we are not dealing with engineers for the moment.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The lawyers see to that.
  Sir D. HOGG: At the present time the complaint is that the lawyers have not seen to it. I regard with a good deal of sympathy the view that in regard to judicial salaries which were fixed in the case of the County Court Judges as long ago as 1888 and in the case of the High Court Judges over 100 years ago, when the whole standard of living was wholly different from that which prevails to-day, these salaries might very well be subject to revision in this House; but, of course, that is a topic which involves considerations foreign to the matter which is really sought to be dealt with to-day. I suggest, however, that it would be a matter properly to be left over for future discussion rather than being embodied in this Bill and interrupting that harmony with which the Bill has been received. With these observations, I desire to associate myself with the congratulations showered upon the Attorney-General for this brilliant production, and I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I shall do my best to facilitate the passage of a Measure which does tardy justice to a very worthy and deserving class of men, and which rewards a patience which has deserved well of this country.
  Mr. FOOT: I know that there is some concern in relation to another Bill and, therefore, I shall only occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes. It is not necessary for me to join in the congratulations that have been expressed in regard to the Attorney-General. I am second to none in the warmth and welcome I give to this Bill in so far as it deals with the claims of these people. In
  542
  that respect it is a belated reform. I can speak for my friends when I say that we shall give every assistance we possibly can in carrying the Bill into law.
  There is one criticism whch has not been expressed, and that is as to the extraordinary power which will be put into the hands of the Lord Chancellor if the Bill passes through in its present form. The criticism that I am making will not touch the proposals for the relief of the men for whom we are concerned, but I do ask the House to consider what powers are given to the Lord Chancellor in Clause after Clause of this Bill. Clause 8 relates to the alteration of the County Court districts. In the County Courts Act, 1888, there was power given by Order in Council to alter the number of Courts, the boundaries of the Courts, the place of holding the Court, the discontinuance of the holding of any Court, the division of districts and a number of other matters of very considerable moment for the locality. I can imagine how a country town might be very much prejudiced if the holding of a Court was altered or the Court was taken away. That power has been exercised by Order in Council. It is now, I understand, to rest entirely with the Lord Chancellor, and I do not know what remedy is given to the district if they thought that justice was not being brought to their own doors.
  There is, further, the power that is given in Clause 1 where the Lord Chancellor for the first time is to have, as far as I can see, an unfettered discretion in the appointment of the County Court registrars throughout the country. In Clause 3 he is to have the power of appointing not only the assistant registrars but the clerks, the bailiffs, the ushers and the messengers, and whilst he is to confer with the Treasury as to numbers and salaries, the person who is to be appointed rests entirely with the Lord Chancellor. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that there are a thousand of one class and a thousand of another. It is, therefore, likely that some thousands of persons who are civil servants are to be appointed by one person in one Department with, as far as I can see, no examination. In every other Civil Service Department we have set up the principle that there shall be competitive examination, but under this Bill it is to rest with the Lord Chancellor,

  543
  without any division of his power with the Treasury, as far as the persons appointed are concerned, to appoint thousands of people who are to receive emoluments of the State. That proposal took my breath away when I read it in the Bill, and I am surprised that there has not been some criticism of it.
  The Lord Chancellor is also to decide the salary to be paid. No Estimate has been put before the House in that respect. I admit that he has to confer with the Treasury, but it is he who is to decide what is to be the salary of the messenger, the usher, the assistant registrar and the registrar and the other persons. To-day, the Lord Chancellor already exercises power which is far too much for any frail mortal. I do not think that the present Lord Chancellor is a frail mortal, but, at any rate, he is asked to exercise extraordinary powers far beyond the compass of any one man, and to give him this greatly increased power is most astonishing. It is extraordinary that the Labour Government should suggest it. I hope that when we deal with the Bill in Committee we shall see whether we cannot get some democratic control or, at any rate, more democratic control over these thousands of appointments which will have to be dealt with in one Department. We may have a wise or an unwise Lord Chancellor. This country has suffered in the past from unwise Lord Chancellors. When one Lord Chancellor died, the King said of the Keeper of his Conscience that there had not passed away so big a scoundrel in his dominions. Nowadays, we can generally trust those who occupy this high position, but it is a very great power that we propose to give to him. I do not think that we ought to have a Lord Chancellor bestriding the world like a Colossus in this way, and I am surprised that there has not been a suggestion of some check being exercised while the Bill is going through the House.
  While I am in favour of the main proposals of the Bill, I object to excessive powers being given to any person or any one Department without bringing in the salutary check which we have exercised in the last 50 years in setting up our great Civil service system and in insisting that everyone desirous of becoming civil servants should pass a competitive examination
  544
  so that they may be able to claim no advantage because, perhaps, they know the Member for their division, or, perhaps, because of their political persuasion, but that they shall take their stand with people who come from other homes, who are able to claim rights in regard to entering the Government service equal with their own.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  8.0 P.M.
  The Bill is introduced for the purpose of assisting in overcoming difficulties in connection with recent cases. It has been found less difficult to get eviction in certain cases under the Small Debt Acts than under the Rent Restrictions Act, and a considerable number of cases, particularly in the West of Scotland, have been taken under the Small Debt Act instead of under the Rent Restrictions Act. That has caused a great amount of inconvenience and hardship to a section of the community. This small amending Bill seeks, if possible, to put that right. As regards Clause 1, the position is that Sheriffs and Justices of the Peace have, respectively, discretion under the Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1837, and the Justices of the Peace Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1S25, to direct payment by instalment in small debt cases in any small debt Court. Where the debt is for arrears of rent, there is a difficulty in the way of exercising the discretion owing to the lack of power to make the concession of payment by instalments conditional upon the payment of current rent, a course which is open to be adopted under the Rent Restrictions Act. It is obvious that, without such a condition, an order for the payment of arrears by instalments would be ineffective. In the Sheriff Small Debt Court in Glasgow there has grown up, on this account, a practice of exercising discretion in cases of decree for debt which is arrears of rent, and strong representation has been made to me that

  545
  there should be a uniform practice of exercising the discretion in the large number of cases of arrears of rent which are now being taken at these Courts. In view of the hardship which may result from a decree for immediate payment of a substantial sum, the exercise of discretionary power rests with the Sheriff or Justice. This removal to another Court is regarded as an obstacle to its wider application.
  Clause 2 seeks to change the Small Debt Act in respect of the amount of money that cannot be attached from the wages of the workers. Under the Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1837, the wages of labourers regarded as necessary for subsistence are not liable to arrestment, and by the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1870, the wages of a labourer, in so far as they do not exceed 20s. a week, are rendered unarrestable. The surplus over 20s. remains arrestable as before the passing of the Act. If, therefore, it can be shown that the surplus over 20s., or any part of it, is necessary for the subsistence pf the debtor, the benefit of the exemption conferred by the Act of 1837 can still be claimed for such surplus, or part of such surplus. But inquiry is necessitated and the delay resulting is apt to involve hardship, and, having regard to the alteration in the value of money since 1870, it is proposed in Clause 2 to raise the limit of wages which are not arrestable to 35s. per week. The reform dealt with in Clause 2 of this Bill is long overdue. If it were fair that 20s. in 1870 should be unarrestable for debt, then with the change in the value of money and the increased cost of living as compared with that time, surely it is reasonable that it should be raised to the figure I have placed in the Bill. I hope that the House will give me the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, as it seeks to remedy a grievance that is imposing very great hardship on considerable sections of our people.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I do not, in any sense, rise to obstruct or delay the passage of this Bill. Indeed, having considered its terms and being aware of the difficulties which exist to-day in Scotland for many people in meeting the calls made upon them in regard to the payment of rent, I think all parties in this House are agreed that something of this kind is desirable and
  546
  necessary. With regard to Clause 1, that appears to me to be expressed in a very clear manner. But I would like to ask something about Clause 2. At first sight it is perfectly clear to most people that the fact that the amount was settled so long ago makes it certain that some alteration in it is necessary at the present time. I conclude the Government have carefully considered this matter and taken upon themselves the responsibility for this increase. I have had certain representations made to me by various interests, to the effect that the sum of 35s. in this Clause is excessive. That perhaps is a Committee point. It may well be that, when we come to the Committee stage, something further might be said on that matter. The representations which were made were, I understand, from those who are in the habit of receiving payment for goods by instalments. No doubt, it is a matter of opinion whether that system is, or is not, open to some objections. It is clear, however, that this is a matter about which some reservation of mind must be kept, and it must be considered open to those of us who are interested in this matter to raise it on the Committee stage. With regard to the general purpose of this Bill, I wish to say, not only in my own behalf but on behalf of my friends who have considered this matter, that we are entirely in favour of the reform, and will do nothing to put any obstacles in the way of the further passage of this Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: May I, in the first place, thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) for kindly supporting this Measure? This Bill possibly affects a poorer section of the community than any Bill which this House is likely to pass. The amount provided for in the Bill errs on the conservative side. It might well have been put at £2. I took the trouble to-day of looking up the Act which this Bill seeks to alter. It was passed in 1870. I found that the average workman's wage in Glasgow district then, for an ordinary labouring man, was from 12s. to 16s. To-day the average wage paid to a similar type of workman ranges from 35s. to £2 10s. Taking the ratio of increased wages, and the increased cost of living, the amount in the Bill should be increased to at least £2. Shortly after the end of the War, a case came before the Court of Session

  547
  in Scotland dealing with alimony for children. Before it reached the Court of Session, the Sheriff decided that, in view of the increased cost of living, the alimony for a child should be increased, and judgment was given for, I think, almost double the amount. That view was taken also by the Court of Session Judges afterwards. We have uniform opinion, both legal and lay, on this question. I learn also to-day that the house factors of Glasgow, to whom I have been generally opposed, state they are not going to oppose this Measure, not even the amount They think that 35s. is a fair limit. I only hope the Bill will go through. The Small Debt Court provides a sordid side of Glasgow life. It is one of the most cruel sights that one could see, and I only hope that this very meagre Measure will receive the whole-hearted support of this House, and will help to alleviate the terrible sufferings which, all Members are agreed, are far too acute at the present time.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved:
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the borough of Andover and of the rural district of Andover, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 20th day of March, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Maesteg, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 20th day of March, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Cockington, in
  548
  the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 1st day of April, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to move,
  "That this House views with apprehension the growth of National Expenditure on Public Assistance, and in particular the extent to which the several services overlap, and urges upon His Majesty's Government the necessity for the adoption of the recommendations of the Betterton Committee on Public Assistance Administration."
  During the last week or so, this House has been engaged in making provision in the Committee of Ways and Means for the public services of the year. We have been wholly concerned with taxation. To-night I propose to present the other side of the picture. It will be agreed that the opportunities given by the procedure of this House for anything like a comprehensive review of expenditure, are exceedingly few and far between. I agree that in Committee of Supply we do have the opportunity of considering the items of expenditure and the expenditure of any particular Department, but, as every hon. Member knows, that opportunity is very often turned to another and very different account. I would like, if I may, in this connection to draw the attention of the House, and in particular, if I may with great respect say so, of those hon. Members who are relatively new to the House, to the Report in 1918 of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. It is a Report on the financial procedure of the House of Commons drawn up under the Chairmanship of Mr., now Sir Herbert Samuel. I was a member of the Committee when it was drafted, and I cannot but think that it is a document of very first-rate importance with which all Members of this House should be acquainted. In that Report we drew attention to the point which I am now impressing on the House, and we said:
  "The Debates in Committee of Supply are indispensable for the discussion of policy and administration, but so far as the direct effective control of proposals for expenditure is concerned it would be true to say that if the Estimates were never presented and the Committee of Supply never set up there would be no noticeable difference."

  549
  Of course that is a very strong statement, and many Members of this House would feel themselves in a position to negative the final phrase in it, but it does point to the fact that there are relatively few opportunities in this House for anything like a general or comprehensive review of the expenditure of the year on any group of public services. For that reason I welcome the opportunity which has been afforded me to-night by the luck of the ballot. May I, in passing, say that, though I have been a Member of this House for a good many years, this is the first time the luck of the ballot has given me the opportunity of moving a Motion and I mean to use it to call the attention of the House to a related group of objects on which public expenditure is exceedingly heavy.
  I would first draw attention to the latest return—No. 26—of the present year, of the total expenditure under certain Acts of Parliament on what are now officially—I think rather loosely—termed "public social services." It is the latest of a series of returns which have been made annually for some years past and which are popularly known as the "Drage returns" owing to the fact that the first of these returns was granted on the proposition of Mr. Geoffrey Drage, who was then, I think, a Member of the House of Commons. Hon. Members will have discovered, if they have studied the return to which I refer, that the form of the return leaves a very great deal to be desired although it has been considerably improved since it first appeared. In recent years several improvements have been effected in the form of the return, but it seems to me that unless you bring very large leisure and very high intelligence to the interpretation of the return it is exceedingly apt to mislead. I do not question that every Member of the House brings high intelligence to bear on the question, but all Members have not got ample leisure.
  I want to draw attention also to the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Assistance Administration which was presided over, if he will allow me to say so, very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton), who will second this Motion, and which is known, consequently, as the
  550
  Betterton Committee. For the purposes of the discussion I define "public assistance" as comprising all beneficiary assistance from rates and taxes for which the recepient does not pay, or pays only in part. In making this Motion I desire, as a foundation, to obtain the assent of the House to four or five propositions on which I propose to base the case for this Motion. Those propositions are so self-evident that I think they might fairly be described as axiomatic.
  The first, which I do not think will be denied, is that to-day we are spending an immense amount of money on various forms of public assistance. I do not say-rightly or wrongly. I merely state the fact that the amount is very large. In the second place, I suggest that this expense has grown in recent years with a rapidity which to some of us, at any rate, is appalling, but that it is very great is beyond dispute. The third—and this is a very serious matter which deserves the close attention of all students of social problems—is that expenditure in one direction, so far from diminishing, as might reasonably be expected and was certainly hoped, expenditure on similar or cognate objects, seems rather to have stimulated it. Those propositions will not be denied in any quarter of the House. My fourth submission is that this vast expenditure, though we hope it may have done something to raise the general level of comfort, has certainly failed to diffuse contentment even among the recipients. In the fifth place I shall submit that there is a very considerable amount of overlapping in the several services, due partly to defects of administration and due, in part, to ignorance, and in some cases to fraud on the part of the recipients. And finally, I shall ask the House to accept the proposition that better results might be obtained at considerably less cost, but that such results can be obtained only after very careful and comprehensive exploration of the whole problem of public assistance, which will demand deep thought and, above all, very high courage on the part of Parliament and the actual administrators of public assistance.
  I do not think that anyone will deny my first proposition, that the aggregate amount of expenditure is colossal. In the Drage Report you will find that the aggregate amount spent during the last

  551
  year to which the return applied, generally 1922, for England, Wales and Scotland, was £371,750,000, of which we obtained from rates and taxes £277,750,000. From that sum I deduct £89,000,000, included as payment for War pensions, which ought not to be included in any return of public assistance, for War pensions belong to a different category of expenditure. That is one of the defects of the return. Making that deduction the sum left is £188,750,000. That includes poor relief, old age pensions, educational service and the State contribution (but not the employers' or the employés contribution) to Health and Unemployment Insurance. In order to make the picture complete, I ought to add, though it is a very difficult figure to ascertain with any precision, charitable assistance. Charitable assistance has added to this a sum of £23,000,000 in recent years, compared with charitable expenditure of about £16,000,000 before the War. In the light of those figures I do not think it will be denied in any quarter of the House that I am right in my first proposition that the aggregate expenditure is very large.
  My second point is that expenditure has shown a very rapid increase in recent years. I do not want to weary the House with many figures, but I must be statistical to a certain extent. The Drage Return shows that in 1891 the total expenditure on Public Assistance was £22,500,000. That was, roughly, 30 years ago. By the year 1901 the total had risen to £35,000,000; by 1911 it had risen to £43,000,000, and by 1921 it had jumped up to £306,000,000. Again, I think the House will not deny that the increase has been very rapid, if not, as some regard it, appalling. My third proposition is an even more serious one. I have said that expenditure in one direction, so far from having diminished expenditure in another, has served, apparently, only to stimulate it. Take only two items. Take the items of education and poor relief. I suppose that LO one will deny that in 1870 and the years immediately after there was a very general expectation and hope that the establishment of universal education, followed by gratuitous education, would at least have the effect of equipping the rising generation against the chances and
  552
  changes of modern life—that they would be, at any rate, rendered less dependent on public assistance. The bald facts in that connection are exceedingly disappointing and disquieting.
  From the year 1834, when the old Poor Law was reformed, down to the seventies, there was a continuous improvement in the situation, as regards the relief of pauperism in this country. In the year 1818, in England and Wales the expenditure on poor relief was nearly £8,000,000, or 13s. 4d. per head of the population. With the reform of the Poor Law after 1834 things began rapidly to improve. In that year, 1834, the expenditure had fallen to something over £6,000,000, or 8s. 9½d. per head of the population. In the year 1849 the mean number of paupers was only 1,000,000 giving a ratio of paupers to population of 6·3. Thirty years later, in 1877, the mean number of paupers had been reduced to 720,000, notwithstanding the great increase of population, and the ratio of paupers to population had fallen from 6·3 to 2·9, while from 1870 to 1879 the expenditure per head on poor relief was 6s. 5½d. After that we ought to have begun to feel the effects of better elementary education. But look at the facts. Whereas we were spending about £7,000,000 on poor relief in 1877, in 1891 we were spending £9,500,000, although at that time we were spending £11,500,000 on education. In 1901 the expenditure on education had gone up to £17,000,000, and the expenditure on poor relief to £11,500,000. They go up steadily together.
  Mr. COVE: Does the hon. Member say that education is the cause of that?
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I very carefully abstained from any such statement. I am giving to the House a bare recital of the facts, almost without comment, and I ask the House to make the comments and draw the conclusions. I thank the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of repudiating that statement. I say there was a concurrence of growth of expenditure on education and on poor relief. I did not relate them as cause and effect. Hon. Members must draw what conclusions they please. As I stated, in 1901 we were spending £17,000,000 on education and £11,500,000 on poor relief. Ten years later the education cost had gone up to £29,000,000 and poor relief to £15,000,000. In 1922 education cost had

  553
  gone up to £80,000,000, and poor relief to £42,250,000. Without in the least adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, I do say that the mere concurrence of these figures presents a very great disappointment to the hopes of those who, in the seventies, believed that better education would lead to a diminution of expenditure on poor relief.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: What was the increase of population?
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: That is readily ascertained. I thought it was such an obvious fact that any hon. Member would supply it. I have only told half the tale—indeed less than half the tale. I again take poor relief, this time in conjunction not with expenditure on education, but with expenditure on a more closely cognate object, namely old age pensions. Everyone imagined that expenditure on old age pensions would, at any rate, to some extent, effect a diminution of expenditure on poor relief, but what has been the result? In the year 1901, when there were no old age pensions, we were spending £11,500,000 on poor relief. In 1911 we were spending £6,250,000 on old age pensions and the expenditure on poor relief had gone up to £15,000,000. In 1922 when we were spending £19,500,000 on old age pensions, poor relief had gone up to £42,250,000. Those figures refer to England and Wales. Meanwhile there has been legislation on health insurance on which the State is spending £26,000,000 a year; unemployment insurance, which costs £62,000,000, and War pensions, £80,000,000. I fervently hope this vast expenditure has done something to raise the general standard of comfort, but will anyone say that it has averted, or even diminished, unrest and discontent among the recipients? I think the letter bags of most hon. Members would supply a conclusive answer to this question.
  I pass to the fifth proposition, namely, that which refers to the overlapping of these different species of relief, a point on which I hope the hon. Member for Rush-cliffe will be able to shed a considerable amount of additional light from his large experience on the Committee over which he presided. I suggest that this overlapping is due in part to defects of administration, and in part to ignorance
  554
  and, to some extent, to fraud on the part of the recipients. For example, the Denison House Committee—whose activities are well known to many Members of this House, and, I hope, very favourably known—cite the case of a man who was discovered to be drawing two War pensions, one in Kensington and another in Paddington; who was also obtaining relief from the Mayor's Fund; who was drawing something from an infant welfare centre; and who was drawing something from that careful body the Charity Organisation Society; who was in receipt of a police pension from Eastbourne; and who confessed to having defrauded the Paddington Guardians, as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was clever!"] He was a remarkably clever person, but I hope that species of cleverness is unique. At any rate, I hope it is not too widely diffused. There was one other case which I had brought to my notice only this morning, a case which occurred in the Clerkenwell Police Court in July of last year, when a certain person was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment for having obtained by false pretentions from the borough council milk to the value of £1 13s. 6d. It was also found that the defendant was receiving £2 5s. 2d. treatment allowance from the Pensions Ministry: £1 2s. unemployment benefit; £2 5s., from the British Red Cross; 18s. 4d., pension; and 12s. 1d. relief from the guardians. I may add that the information about the British Red Cross and the guardians was supplied through the mutual registration of assistance, and if other public bodies had registered in the same way the fraud would have been very much more speedily detected. I referred just now to the very valuable report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Assistance Administration, Command Paper 2011 of the present year. The Report of that Committee lays great stress, though in very cautious language, on this question of overlapping. They point out with truth that many critics have not drawn a sufficiently clear distinction between the two forms of overlapping, namely, the statutory duplication of services on the one hand and the defects of administration on the other. I quote from the Betterton Report:
  "It appears to us that in much of the criticism directed against what is loosely

  555
  termed overlapping, a sufficiently clear distinction has not been drawn between those forms of duplication of provisions, statutory in their origin, and overlapping properly so-called, the latter being due to administrative defects which may result in the receipt by certain persons of assistance beyond the measure contemplated by Statute."
  This statutory duplication is to a very large extent the result of a long period of piecemeal legislation, in consequence of which several assistance services have developed each on its own independent line. The Betterton Committee point out that these services have developed on independent lines, and they classify them as follows:
  "(1) Health and educational services. (2) State pensions and State-assisted insurance schemes. (3) Schemes providing cash compensation for disablement or death from service. (4) Emergency and special post-War provisions. The services in the first group have been designed for the special needs of the individual affected by a particular form of infirmity, sickness, or want, and not for general need. … Schemes in the second group have not been designed to meet in full all the requirements of any individual case which has actually sustained the risk against which any one of these schemes provides. Under schemes in the third group compensation is paid in accordance with the degree of the loss sustained. … Services in the fourth group may provide incidentally for full maintenance, e.g., during training, or they may provide for the payment of wages, e.g., employment on relief works."
  Those are what one would call the statutory services, and the Committee very properly emphasise the point that duplication of services is actually contemplated and is carried out by Statute. But, apart from that, there is the overlapping which arises from inadequate administrative arrangements. This may arise either from the existing chaos—it is nothing less—of areas and the conflict, or at any rate the collision, of jurisdictions. At present there are separate areas for Poor Law administration, there are different divisional and inspectoral areas for national health insurance, for education, for the control of war pensions, for Employment Exchanges, and for insurance, while the Old Age Pensions, as the whole House knows, are administered in areas decided by the Board of Customs. Overlapping may arise from this chaos of areas and conflict of jurisdiction, or it may arise from the failure of administrative
  556
  co-ordination in either of two ways. I want again to quote from paragraph 108 of the Betterton Report:
  "On the one hand, persons may obtain by fraud assistance under two schemes simultaneously, where concurrent payments under the two schemes are directly or indirectly prohibited by Statute, e.g., under the health insurance and unemployment insurance schemes. On the other hand, persons may obtain by misrepresentation or by the concealment of material circumstances, assistance from a number of sources simultaneously, and in excess of the measure contemplated by Statute, e.g., excessive Poor Law relief granted by authorities in ignorance of assistance received from other sources."
  The Committee quote the results of a special test which was instituted in three typical towns, Beading, Halifax and Liverpool, a test of the potential value of arrangements for the registration of assistance. It was organised by the National Council of Social Service, and the Report says:
  "The test revealed the existence of a number of cases where authorities whose explicit or implicit duty it was to know the resources of applicants for assistance—Poor Law authorities, education, maternity and child welfare, and tuberculosis authorities—were not aware of grants of assistance to the same individual or to the same household made by other authorities. Thus, out of 2,046 cases in which poor relief was given in Reading and Halifax there were 161 cases in which the Poor Law authorities were not aware that assistance was also being rendered under the maternity and child welfare service; 35 cases in which they were not aware that school meals were being provided by the local education authority, and 89 cases in which they were unaware of the grant of unemployment benefit."
  I do not wish to quote at too great length from a Report which is open to the House, but I must quote these concluding words:
  "The suspicion remains, however, that overlapping of the type under consideration is widely prevalent and while the scope of the test described above was too limited to enable any final conclusion to be reached, its results do indicate"—
  and this is a very cautious Report throughout—
  "that there is a lack of co-ordination in the local administration of certain groups of services."
  These are the propositions which I am going to ask the House to accept. May I, for a few moments, glance at some remedies suggested in this and in other reports? In the first place, the Better-ton Committee advised closer co-operation between the central authorities which

  557
  control public assistance and between the local authorities which administer it. The recommendations are numbered X, XI, and XII in the Report. They are:
  X. "That local education authorities … if they provide meals for the children of parents who are in receipt of poor relief, should only do so under arrangements with the Poor Law authorities concerned.…
  XI. That maternity and child welfare authorities in Great Britain and tuberculosis authorities in England and Wales, if they grant assistance in kind in relief of physical want to families in receipt of poor relief, should only do so under arrangements with the Poor Law authorities.…
  XII. That in each area representatives of the authorities concerned in the administration of assistance from public funds should examine in conference possible joint arrangements for the economical use of local administrative machinery, especially investigating machinery, and consider the standards adopted by the different authorities for determining eligibility for assistance in individual cases."
  First, then, they ask for closer co-operation between the central authorities, which control public assistance, and between the local authorities which actually administer it. Secondly, they suggest more comprehensive information in regard to the recipients of all forms of relief. Of course, the ideal would be a single relief register, but I am afraid the difficulties in the way of that are almost insuperable. It would be of very little use unless it were both complete and up to date, but to make it complete or to bring it up to date would—at least, this is my information—involve almost prohibitive expense, which is just what we are seeking to avoid. Thirdly, plainly the time has come—at least in my judgment, and I hope I may convince the House to that effect—for some comprehensive investigation into the whole problem of public assistance. We had, it is true, a very important Commission in 1905 and two very important Reports in 1909, but those dates are pre-historic to-day—I mean, in view of the subsequent volume of legislation, to say nothing of the great catastrophe of the War. Finally, I would suggest that the time has come to consider whether it would not be wise to set up a single co-ordinating authority for public assistance on the lines of the Commission of Inquiry and Control which was established under the Act of 1834.
  558
  I am afraid that I have rather sorely tried the patience of the House. I have imposed upon it a terrible mass of figures, mainly relating to national expenditure—the expenditure of the State and of local authorities—in various forms of public assistance. But I should be very sorry to sit down, having left on the House the impression that I am viewing, or attempting to view, these problems exclusively, or even primarily, from the point of view of national expenditure. It is, indeed, as I have attempted to show the House to-night, exceedingly serious in that aspect, but that is not the whole of my case nor the most important part of it. I am thinking even more I hope—and I trust the House will believe me—of those who are exposed—I speak advisedly—to the temptation of this spate of public benevolence. An hon. Member smiles, but I hope he will believe what I say in that matter is very sincere. We were told the other day by the Archbishop of York, I think it was, that the ideal of the conscientious teacher was less to teach his pupils than to teach them how to teach themselves. I agree, but similarly I suggest the prime object of public assistance should be, not so much directly to help the recipients, as to help them to help themselves, and I am very far from "pessimistic as to the possibility of doing it, for, in the first place, I am very well aware of the extent to which large sections of the population—yes, and of those sections of the population who live by the labour of their hands—are already helping themselves.
  9.0 P.M.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech which he made in this House last year, confessed—I am quoting his words—that he was staggered by the magnitude of the contributions which were made by the working people of this country in one form or another to provide for what we colloquially call "a rainy day." Since he made that speech in the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been kind enough—and I wish to acknowledge his courtesy—to furnish me with the items on which his aggregate figures, which then greatly impressed the House, were built up. The items are these—the year is in most cases 1922, or the latest available year—friendly societies collected £9,000,000, the collecting societies £7,088,000, trade union benefit funds are estimated at £8,000,000, industrial

  559
  assurance companies at £31,500,000, making a total of £55,500,000. Then the Post Office Savings Bank—these are gross deposits for the year ending March, 1924—£81,300,000, trustee savings banks £40,000,000, railway savings banks £4,000,000, co-operative societies—this is the average net increase in shares and deposits — £4,000,000, and building societies £21,000,000, making a total of well over £200,000,000 a year. We are said not to be a thrifty people, but it seems to me those figures afford a wonderful illustration of the thrifty habits of a people which is too rarely credited with that particular virtue. I have a second ground for optimism. We have had before to face in this country an exactly parallel social crisis, and that crisis, like the present, followed immediately after the conclusion of a great war. We had to face it, and we faced it successfully, and we emerged from it. In some respects, I think, the situation of this country during those 15 years after Waterloo was worse than it has been in the years since the late War. There was far more acute suffering, far more disorder and crime. There was, I think, on the whole, greater dislocation of industry, and certainly greater dislocation in agriculture. For example, in Dorset alone, in five years after Waterloo, from 1815 to 1820, 52 farmers, farming altogether 24,000 acres, went into the Bankruptcy Court.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not under Protection that all this distress occurred after the Napoleonic Wars?
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I leave the hon. and gallant Member to answer that from his historical knowledge. One-third of the banks stopped payment in the years 1814–15. There was a very great deal of currency disturbance, which, on the whole, we have avoided by the wisdom of our rulers, and, still more, of our bankers in the last few years. But, above all, owing to these currency disturbances, there were the most violent oscillations of prices. In one year, 1813, wheat touched at one end 171 shillings a quarter, and by Christmas of the same year it had fallen to 75s. There was a violent fluctuation in prices,
  560
  and trade and agriculture were, in consequence, a mere gamble. To come back more closely to our present subject tonight, look at Poor Law administration of that day. I hope most hon. Members of this House are not only acquainted but familiar with the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1834. Apart from the statistical information it contains, it is a human document of enthralling interest, and it presents a terrible picture of demoralisation, and even of corruption. We emerged from that crisis in large measure thanks to the work of the Commissioners, and the reforms which were based on their recommendations. Those reforms were very drastic, and hon. Members are acquainted with the lines they took. But the result of the Act passed—passed, let me remind the House, by the Reformed Parliament by a majority of 299 to 20—was, in Mr. Gladstone's words, to rescue the English peasantry from total loss of their independence. Three-quarters of a centrury passed, and another Poor Law Commission, of which I was going to say the President of the Board of Trade was a member, but he was not, though a near relation of his was, and it is generally understood he had a considerable part in the framing of the Minority Report. The right hon. Gentleman opposite cheers that observation. May I recall to his recollection one sentence, and one sentence only, from that Report? It is this:
  "The present position is, in our opinion, as grave as that of '34. What the nation is confronted with, as it was in '34, is the ever-growing expenditure from public and private funds which result on the one hand"—
  These are the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite:
  "in the minimum of prevention and cure, and on the other hand of a far-reaching demoralisation of character and the continuance of no small amount of unrelieved destitution."
  At the time that Report was made the total expenditure was, I think, about £14,000,000 on poor relief.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The Report related only to Poor Law relief.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Exactly. I never suggested otherwise. I was about to proceed, when I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman, that at that time not one penny was being spent on old age

  561
  pensions, not one penny at that time the Commission was appointed was being spent on Health or Unemployment Insurance, while the expenditure on education was about one-third of what it is to-day. But as we saved ourselves in 1834 I believe we shall save ourselves again. No one would desire a repetition of the remedies applied in 1834 They would not be tolerated by the softer and more sentimental public opinion of to-day—
  Mr. WIGNALL: More sensible!
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: That was not "rose water surgery" in 1834, as Carlyle said. It was hard, but it saved the nation, and above all it saved those who were most immediately affected by poor relief; yes, it saved the mass of the peasantry of Southern England, and restored to them, in words which I think are historic—
  "their moral dignity and their economic independence."
  I hope I may say that I am not attempting to prefer an indictment against a nation, least of all against my own nation or any particular class within it. Far be that from me. But I do ask the House to insist once more upon a comprehensive investigation into the whole problem of public assistance. Existing arrangements—system you cannot call them!—are socially mischievous, they are, in my view, politically dangerous, and financially they are almost intolerable. They are the product of piece-meal legislation, legislation which has promoted neither social contentment nor industrial productivity. They are to the political parties—to all parties—a terrible temptation to wholesale bribery of the electorate. Above all, they have reduced a considerable section of the population to a condition of things not very far removed from that which compelled the drastic intervention of the reformed Parliament of 1834. I have already indicated certain lines following those suggested by the Betterton Committee, which might immediately affect some degree of improvement, but those recommendations, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise, are merely preludes. What I have in mind is a much larger measure of remedial reform; a measure, to the acceptance, of the principles of which I believe I can persuade all sections of this House I beg the House to give an opportunity later on to deal with this matter. Meanwhile, I thank
  562
  the House very sincerely, for the patience with which I have been listened to. I earnestly beg hon. Members with all the earnestness and sincerity which I can command, to consider the points which I have ventured, I hope not too dogmatically, to urge upon their attention. I hope at no very distant date I may be permitted to lay before the House a comprehensive scheme for placing the great social services on a footing much more satisfactory than that which they occupy to-day.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I beg to second the Motion.
  The House, I am sure, is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question tonight. There is no subject which is of greater interest and which in any sense is more worthy of serious discussion than this one. I think the House will also be grateful to my hon. Friend for the invaluable speech, full of illuminating information, which he made in support of his Motion. The Committee which has been referred to of which I was Chairman was set up, as the House probably knows, as a result of correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade and the late Mr. Bonar Law. I think I am not misinterpreting the view of the right hon. Gentleman when I say that he would probably have preferred that our terms of reference should have been larger, that we should have gone rather more into the merits of various schemes, and that our inquiry should have taken a much more extensive scope. If that criticism be made, I would say this, first that we as a Committee were bound by our terms of reference, and, secondly, that an inquiry extended more widely would hardly have been considered the proper subject for a Committee at all; such would have been referred to a Royal Commission. Hence in the few observations I am going to make I am going to confine myself to the Report itself, the recommendations which it makes, and to the suggestions which are made by way of remedy.
  Members of the House who have studied the Report will, I am sure, agree, and will believe me, when I say that this Inquiry, or rather the Report, is not really much indication of the amount of labour which the Report involved. In addition to the 15 or 16 meetings which we held, we had an immense amount of

  563
  documentary evidence to consider, and various small Sub-Committees were appointed to go through the various aspects of the case. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) was kind enough to say some kind things about the Report itself, but I should like to pay a tribute to those civil servants who were my colleagues on the Committee and, who in addition to the normal duties of their office, undertook the most arduous and difficult task imposed upon them, and but for whose experience and industry this Report would have been impossible. I do not for a moment profess that I have any practical experience in the administration of the various schemes. Indeed, I say this, that until I presided over this Committee, I had never given the matter that detailed study which afterwards I found myself obliged to give. The impression that I got at a very early stage in our inquiry was that I was impressed by the multitude, the diversity and the complexity of the whole of these schemes which, in the aggregate, go to make up our public assistance. This view is reflected in the Report itself, which states in paragraph 54:
  "The various schemes as they stand to-day have grown up piecemeal in a long period of years, and plainly bear the marks of their historical development. This development strikingly illustrates the process of specialisation, which is the natural comcomitant of the increasing complexity of civilised life, and the difficulties which attend the introduction of specialised methods. The various services have, for the most part, been instituted at different times, and have developed on a number of independent lines. They have been designed to provide for special contingencies as the need or demand for them became apparent, frequently by different methods and in different measure; different principles have entered into the conception of services providing for closely related forms of need, and different forms of administrative machinery have been set up for services broadly similar in purpose."
  The House will agree, because it is an historical fact about which there can be no dispute, that up to comparatively a few years ago, say 25 or 30 years, the theory was that there should be a single authority, namely, the Poor Law, which was competent to deal with all forms of public need, but during the last 25 years you have seen a large number, as the Report shows, of new systems of insurance that have been created, and from all of them it has been the object of the legislature
  564
  to remove what is called the taint of pauperism. Now the Poor Law, instead of being the sole agent of public assistance, has become an alternative or supplementary system. It is not likely in my view that these demands for assistance are likely to diminish. As they have increased during the last 25 years, there can be no doubt at all about their continuance, and oven an increase of them may be contemplated. Some of these schemes are contributory and some are non-contributory. Some of them are discretionary and some are not, and my conclusion, after going into this matter with the greatest care of which I was capable, was one of surprise, having regard to the number and diversity of these schemes, that the, gaps in administration were not greater than we found them to be. My hon. Friend the Member for York gave instances which sounded very glaring cases of fraud. Of course, no system of administration, or indeed statutory provision, will protect us against the man who is determined to defraud us, and the only way to deal with such cases is to catch the man and send him to prison. On that point I would remind the House that the Committee was not unmindful of the possibility of such cases, and we say in paragraph 109:
  "A certain number of prosecutions are instituted from time to time by the Departments concerned on the detection of fraud, but we have no reason to believe that cases of overlapping between such schemes as the health insurance and unemployment insurance schemes or between either of these schemes and the old age pension scheme are of more than exceptional occurrence. In these circumstances we do not feel called upon to make any suggestions as to the modification of existing arrangements."
  I do not propose to deal in detail with these various recommendations, but I propose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to be so good as to indicate to the House which of these recommendations have proved valuable, which have been carried into effect, or which it is contemplated will be carried into effect. There are just one or two upon which I will say a word. The first one is recommendation No. 1. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and there was some justification for it, that different medical standards had been adopted in determining physical and mental capacity under health and unemployment schemes

  565
  respectively with the result that insurance benefit has been withheld on the ground that they are not incapable, and on the ground that they are capable of working, and in consequence such persons have been deprived of benefits under those schemes. Then we go on to say that we have gone fully into this question, and we do think that there are occasions when gaps have occasionally occurred. In dealing with that most important question we make a recommendation:
  "That the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Board of Health and the Ministry of Labour should consider the adoption of arrangements to prevent conflict of opinion as to physical or mental capacity to work under the health and unemployment insurance schemes."
  And then we suggest that ultimately the matter should be referred to the Regional Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health whose decision should be final. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that recommendation, which seemed to us to be one of considerable value, has commended itself to the Ministry of Health, and whether it has been thought fit to put it into operation. The second recommendation is one of comparatively small importance but we recommend:
  "That the Ministry of Labour should take further steps to bring home to their local officers and to local committees the importance of a correct statement of the statutory grounds upon which claims to benefit are disallowed."
  I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether that recommendation has commended itself to him, because not only did we hear evidence during this inquiry which went to show that there was considerable justification for making this recommendation, but I well remember when I was at the Ministry of Labour I was asked questions which seemed to suggest that this recommendation was one which would bear useful results. The third recommendation is one which concerns the approved societies. There was a suggestion in evidence that, as between the various approved societies, some were a good deal more expeditious than others, and some were more efficient than others. The recommendation is that the Ministry of Health should carefully watch the administration of cash benefits of approved societies from the point of view of the time taken in the settlement of
  566
  claims, and should use every endeavour to secure the general adoption of the standard set by the most efficient society. Our object there was to bring up the less efficient to the plane of those who had proved most efficient.
  There is one point to which I want to refer in rather more detail and that is the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for York, the general question of arbitration. When I approached consideration of this question, I formed, prima facie, the opinion that if some universal and compulsory form of registration were possible, that it would have results which might possibly be justified. But on going much more deeply into it and hearing the witnesses that came before us on this question, the conclusion that I and the Committee came to was that any universal system of registration is utterly and entirely impracticable. I will give the House the reasons why. First, I would remind the House of the tremendous magnitude of the figures of the number of members who would need to be included. Those figures for Health and Unemployment insurance cover respectively 15,000,000 and 12,000,000 persons in Great Britain. It is estimated that 400,000 persons received cash payments each week under the Health Insurance scheme through some 8,000 different approved societies and branches, and at the present moment, as we know, there are something over 1,000,000 persons unemployed. There are 2,300,000 persons, men, women and children, receiving pensions and allowances under the War service pensions and compensation scheme, and the Ministry of Pensions and it is estimated there are something like 12,000 variations weekly in Great Britain. The House will see that to begin with, as my hon. Friend pointed out, to have a universal compulsory scheme of registration would involve enormous expenditure, and an immense number of officials to report all this various information. There is another difficulty, and it is this. The register, so far from being helpful, would actually be a delusion unless it was kept up to date day by day, so the House would see that not only have you an immense task to get it into operation, but having done so, unless you keep it up almost hourly to a point of complete accuracy, it may actually let you down. There is another point, and

  567
  it is this: that this information, even if the register was put into operation, really is irrelevant to at least two of the authorities concerned, because it is no part of the duty of those administering War pensions to inquire whether the man who is entitled to a War pension is getting assistance from anywhere else. The man having earned and having been allotted his pension, it is no concern of anyone else what other source of income he has. The same applies to insurance. So having, as I say, given the most careful consideration to this most important point and having started pre-disposed in the direction that a register would be a good thing, I and my colleagues have come definitely to the conclusion that a compulsory register is neither practicable nor desirable.
  But having said so much, I do want to call attention to a recommendation that we make on this point. The idea of this question of registration is no new thing, because as long ago as 1869 Mr. Goschen, then President of the Poor Law Board, communicated in a Minute to the Metropolitan Board of Guardians the desirability of establishing a register of relief for the Metropolitan area with a view to securing the fullest possible co-ordination between the Poor Law authorities and charitable agencies. But it is a significant fact that this principle received official endorsement, but the actual development of the scheme had been left entirely to voluntary effort. I will not weary the House by referring in detail to certain schemes, such as the Birmingham scheme, which is in operation. I would conclude by referring to the recommendation we make on that point. We recommend that the central and local authorities concerned should promote the formation of voluntary effort in areas for which such an organisation appears to be desirable, of local councils, constituted on the lines previously suggested, who, among other things, should organise voluntary schemes for registration of certain forms of assistance, supervise the work of an officer to be appointed to give and advise as to procedure. The House will see that recommendation made, after the most careful consideration of the whole subject, is a very different thing from the suggestion of anything like a compulsory scheme. I know many of my
  568
  hon. Friends want to take part in this Debate, and I do not feel justified in taking up any more of the time of the House, but I should like to say in con elusion that, if the result of our labours has been to cause some of these defects in administration to which we have referred in detail to be remedied, and if at the same time it has done anything to call the attention of Parliament to the desirability of the revision, unification, and simplification of our whole system of public assistance, then our labour will not have been wasted and the time expended not expended in vain.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I am sure the House will agree in congratulating the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) on giving us the opportunity of discussing the valuable Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) We all feel that, owing to the haphazard, piece-meal way in which our various forms of public assistance have grown up, there is, undoubtedly, a large amount of overlapping, such as was pointed out in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1909; and, although the hon. Member for York referred to that Report as prehistoric, many of us feel that it is a prehistoric example which we should do very well to carry out. Overlapping has taken place to a large extent since then, and cries aloud for redress to-day. Having said that, I must confess that much that the hon. Member for York said led one to rather a different conclusion. It seemed to me, though I may be wrong, that the figures he gave and the use he made of them led one to the supposition that he rather deplored the large increase in public expenditure, whether it be for education, or whether it be for the other forms of what he called public assistance. Surely, money spent on education is for public service rather than public assistance, and it is a public service that we welcome and would rather increase than decrease. What connection there was between the increase in the money spent on education and the increase in Poor Law relief, I must confess I failed to see.
  The hon. Member compared the year 1877 with to-day, but, surely, 1877 was a period of unexampled industrial prosperity, when the amount of Poor Law relief was, naturally, at a very low ebb,

  569
  whereas we all know that in 1922–23 we have been going through a period of unexampled industrial distress. Therefore, the conclusions that the hon. Member seems to draw are hardly well founded. I do agree with him that the amount and growth of expenditure is a matter that should cause us considerable apprehension, not so much in regard to the amount as to the incidence of the burden which is cast upon one section of the community as opposed to another. In the financial statement issued with the Budget, we are told, and it was quoted by the hon. Member for York, that the amount of expenditure in local rates has increased to £161,000,000 for England, Scotland and Wales. That is an appalling sum, and, if we translate it into an equivalent of Income Tax, it is, in effect, equal to an Income Tax of 2s. 8d. in the £. That is presuming that it were spread equally throughout the country, but we know that the burden of these local rates is very far from being spread equally all over the country, and that, whereas in some districts, according to the latest returns from the Ministry of Health, the rates are as low as 8s. or 9s., in others they exceed 20s., and even 25s. Therefore, although there is an equivalent to an additional Income Tax, in the way of local rates, of 2s. 8d. in the £ if averaged throughout the country, yet when you get this differentiation, one district being three times more heavily rated than another, you have, in effect, an additional Income Tax equal almost to 6s. in the £, which is a burden directly upon industry.
  At Question Time to-day the Government were asked what they would do to help and assist the heavy iron and steel industry, and I do not think the reply was particularly sympathetic. I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that, if he wishes to relieve and assist industry, no better method could be found than by tackling this question of the incidence of local taxation, which is placing an appalling burden upon industrial areas, and which is crippling and hindering the revival of trade in a way that is hardly realised by those who are not brought directly in contact with it. Heavy taxation is bad, but it is nothing compared to heavy rating. In the one case the Income Tax is a tax which falls on profits, on moneys that have been made, whereas rating is a burden which falls on the production of manufactures,
  570
  and is a capital charge and a tax on industry before the profits are made. Therefore, I submit that there is a good deal which should concern us in this increase in local taxation, amounting to £161,000,000 throughout the United Kingdom, which falls in its incidence unequally and unfairly in different parts of the country.
  With regard to the expenditure itself, I do not share in the criticism of the hon. Member for York. It seems to me that the test is whether the expenditure is on subjects which are worthy of the attention which has been given to them, and whether the return is adequate. The hon. Member suggested, as I understood him, that, judged by the product of our schools, and by the Poor Law returns, it was doubtful whether we had got value for our money; but I submit that there are other tests, and that, if you have regard, not to the rate of taxation, but to the health rate, the death statistics, the mortality statistics of the country, you will find an improvement in those rates which more than justifies a large part of this expenditure. The length of life has been extended very considerably during the last 30 or 40 years, largely owing to many of the remedial measures included in public assistance. In the Betterton Report the maternity and health centres of our large towns are referred to, and there is also Health Insurance generally, the feeding of school children, and other methods of public assistance which have added very considerably to the improvement in the health of the community. To that extent we are, I submit, the richer and the better for this large expenditure. In fact, instead of seeking to curtail it, I think the moral to be drawn from the figures given is that, while preventing the overlapping which is taking place, and while making sufficient economies and co-ordination to prevent waste as it may occur, owing to the multiplicity of authorities, we should rather extend the assistance which is given, in order to encourage and help people further to help themselves.
  At the end of his speech the hon. Member for York referred to the evidence which had been given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the extent to which people were helping themselves—evidence which, I am sure, was

  571
  most encouraging from every point of view. I submit that the conclusion we should draw from the figures generally given in the Betterton Report as to this growth of expenditure, is rather that we should link up the various methods of expenditure so as to fill up the gaps and complete the remedial work which is being done, and that we should not decrease the expenditure, but rather see that the money is more wisely spent and that that security is given which so often is lacking. The hon. Member for York said that when the time came he would have an opportunity of expounding a better way. I cannot help regretting that he did not tell us something of the better way which he had in his mind. Some of us feel that those various forms of insurance to which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, which have grown up in a more or less haphazard way in recent years, require co-ordinating and extending and improving so that they may give more complete security to the worker with regard to ill-health, unemployment, disability and old age. If we could only co-ordinate, extend and supplement these various methods of insurance we should be getting better value for the money we are spending. I hope the conclusion the House will come to as the result of this discussion is not that we should deplore the growth of expenditure, but that we should be encouraged by the valuable returns which have been secured, returns in greater contentment and in greater security which have been given up to the present, and that we should be encouraged to amplify them so that we complete that security and add to that, contentment which undoubtedly has been given during the past century or so.
  I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to have regard to the unequal incidence of this burden of rating, which hits various districts most unfairly. Many services which have been imposed by the House on local authorities during recent years are in the main national services, and local authorities feel that the cost should be borne toy the nation to a greater extent than it has been at present. You have the most extraordinary differences with regard to education, poor relief and local services generally. You have an education rate in some districts
  572
  of 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the £, whereas in other districts you have a rate up to 4s. 10d. The measure of that expenditure is fixed very largely by this House. Local authorities have very little say indeed as to the extent to which they may or may not spend the money. The Burnham Scale, fixed outside the local authorities, imposes upon them the standard of their expenditure. It is the same with regard to poor relief, due very largely at present to unemployment, which the Government have told us is a national charge, and therefore I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to use his influence and see that these national charges, education, unemployment, main roads—these various services should not be left to the local authorities, but should be borne to a much greater extent in the future than in the past by the State. The whole question of the incidence of taxation is a large one. It has been under the consideration of Governments for the List 20 or 30 years. But the situation to-day is worse than it ever has been. Districts are overburdened and oppressed by these appalling rates, and it is time something was done—you cannot review the whole system, but it is time some remedial measures were taken to relieve those districts which are being crushed by this excessive burden.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am sure the House has listened with very great pleasure to the comprehensive survey which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) gave of our vast expenditure on public assistance. If I may poach on ground which he has made his own, and if I may carry on the parable where he has left it, I am sure he will agree with me that, the best way of obviating the wasteful expenditure upon the Poor Law is to prevent the working man having to have recourse to the Pool-Law at all. My hon. Friend asked whether this vast expenditure of public money has brought any contentment in the minds of the people. Here again I am sure he will agree with me that the best way of causing the greatest amount of content in the public mind is to remove as many as possible of those uncertainties and injustices which affect their lives. That can only be done by some well-thought-out comprehensive scheme of social insurance—take them entirely out of the area of the Poor Law and close up some of those gaps and holes which

  573
  let the working man down into undeserved poverty. If I may give a catalogue of the exigencies which affect the working man, which interrupt his power of earning and depress his standard of life very often into undeserved destitution, the list is a long one. There is industrial accident and industrial disease, non-industrial accident and non-industrial ill-health, unemployment, invalidity, old age, blindness and the death of the bread-winner leaving the widow and children unprovided for. The insurance schemes have done a great deal to mitigate the hardship of this uncertainty, but there is still much to be done. The miner, for instance, though he may work without accident for the whole of his life may get pneumonia on his way home from the pit and be suddenly carried off. In the same way the highly-paid artisan may be run over in the street and leave a widow and family. There is also the fact that a large number of working people lose their earning capacity at the age of 60 or 65. Sir William Beveridge said he did not believe for a moment that a man of 60 was not capable of earning his living. That may be true, but at the same time there are many thousands of people over the age of 60 who cannot get any work to do, and I am sure a large proportion of the unemployed must be over that age,
  There are several methods whereby we can produce a comprehensive and well-thought-out scheme. In some quarters there is an idea that the cost must be put entirely on the shoulders of the taxpayer, but I think those who say that are using words without knowledge, because after all no Chancellor of the Exchequer could afford to forego the £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 he now raises through the insurance scheme. After all, I do not believe it is by any means certain—there is no evidence to that effect—that the people of the country resent in any way the idea of insuring against old age, unemployment or widowhood. In fact I am sure if you could prove to the workers that they would be gainers by it they would not mind even adding to their contribution. We can either have a complete scheme of insurance or a partial scheme. As far as I have been able to make out, the only person who has more or less thought out a complete scheme of insurance is a gentleman called Cohen, I believe a professor
  574
  at Cambridge, who has given a good deal of thought to the subject and has published a very interesting booklet. He points out that if the Government were to decide to monopolise insurance for old age, widowhood, unemployment, and also burial insurance and workmen's compensation, there would be enormous advantage and saving thereby. Whereas the State could run burial insurance for about 2 or 3 per cent., it now costs 14 per cent., and whereas the State could run the workmen's compensation scheme for 5 or 6 per cent., it now costs about 30 per cent. If the Government decide to take over burial insurance and workmen's compensation, they would find themselves up against very strong vested interests, and would probably have a hornet's nest of competition round their heads.
  It is not in my power to give the details of an insurance scheme. It is impossible for any private Member, or any body of private Members, to work out the details of an insurance scheme unless they have actuarial assistance. All that any private Member or any body of private Members or any House can do is to settle what are the general lines of policy, what are the benefits, and what they wish to raise and in what proportion they wish to raise it. As to the proportion, I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the State will have to pay a considerably higher proportion. For instance, the State is now committed to abolishing the means limit for old age pensions. That will involve an expenditure of £15,000,000. I believe the House has also committed itself to a sum of £20,000,000 in payment of pensions for widows and orphans.
  Mr. Cohen points out that if the State pay 50 per cent. of the insurance and leaves the remaining 50 per cent. to the worker and the employer, they will have to their credit a sum of £35,000,000, and, further, if the State decides to take over Workmen's Compensation and Burial Insurance, they will have a saving of £19,000,000; Unemployment Insurance will bring in £28,000,000, and the saving on the Poor Law would come to about £18,000,000. Therefore, we should have to spend a sum of about £100,000,000. That would provide for industrial and non-industrial accidents, widowhood and orphanhood, larger benefits for Health and Unemployment Insurance, and would reduce the pensionable age to 60 and

  575
  abolish the means limit. These are considerable advantages, and as far as I can understand Mr. Cohen, it would not in any way lead to extra burdens being put on the employer or the worker. It would be a mistake to imagine that if the State took over Workmen's Insurance that would lead to the worker bearing the burden of the insurance, because it could be easily arranged that the employer could pay some portion on his wage bill.
  What machinery shall we have to use to run this very large scheme? It is obvious that the Employment Exchange would be the machinery which we should use. It is a State organisation, ready and willing to carry out the policy of the State. It is an organisation in which the workers and the employers co-operate voluntarily, and it is capable of very large extension into a State insurance organisation. If, on the other hand, we decide to follow the lines of least resistance and fight shy of Workmen's Compensation and Burial Insurance, we have at our command schemes which have been worked out by Sir William Beveridge and Mr. Broad, both of whom have given great consideration to these matters. Mr. Broad used to be a Member of this House, and we must recognise that he is a pioneer on this subject, whether we agree with his scheme or not.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir William Beveridge says that without adding in any way to our insurance contribution we should, when the claims on the unemployment insurance schemes return to normal, as we hope they will before long, have at our command sufficient to give widows and orphans pensions and to reduce the pensionable age to 65. We should be able to give unemployment benefits at the rate of 15s. a week and to allow 15s. per week for sickness and 7s. 6d. for disablement. The criticism of Sir William Beveridge's scheme is that it gives us too little. It is inadequate. 15s. per week is not sufficient for an unemployed man. It is one of the great defects of his scheme that it would not in any way lift any number of workers out of the area of the Poor Law. On the other hand, Mr. Broad calculates that if we increase the payment to 1s. per week from women, to 1s. 6d. from the men, and 2s. 6d. from the employers and 1s. from the State, we
  576
  could give very material advantages in Unemployment and Health Insurance and bring the pensionable age down to 63, besides having a large surplus. The criticism which suggests itself as to Mr. Broad's scheme is, that he is asking too great contributions from the employed, and particularly from the employers. I do not see the employer paying 2s. 6d. a week instead of 1s. 3d.
  I do not advocate any particular scheme. The object of my remarks is merely to make an appeal that this subject shall not be treated in any partisan spirit. I hope that I have been able to prove that if we do not treat this matter in any partisan spirit, it is possible to hammer out a satisfactory scheme, which would give enormous advantages to the working people. The Liberal party, the Labour party and the Conservative party are working out separate schemes of their own. Would it not be possible for the Government to summon a round table conference and to come to some agreed scheme, on some agreed principle? I cannot help feeling that if it can be shown that by a complete scheme, that is to say, by taking in burial insurance and workmen's compensation, we can prove that enormous savings can be made, that very great benefits can be given, and that we can lift a whole category of workers out of the area and atmosphere of the Poor Law, it is our duty to face the opposition which would be aroused among vested interests. Our duty is not to treat any of these subjects in a partisan spirit, not to manœuvre for the next Election, but to co-operate in the solution of the grave problems that confront us now. What the country desires us to do is to secure peace at home and abroad, to improve the condition of the people, the housing of the people, and to remove all those uncertainties which afflict them.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Come over here!
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: We shall be rewarded when we go to our constituencies, in proportion as we have laboured in this most profitable and important field. Our chances of re-election will depend on whether we have tried honestly and sincerely to make this country a better place than we found it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Most Members who have listened to this Debate will agree

  577
  that if its importance were judged by the number who have been present at it, it would be a very poor judgment, indeed. In common with all other Members in the House, I respect the Noble Lord who has just sat down; but when he asks that we should approach public questions without any consideration of advantage to parties or sections, I am afraid that he is asking for a miracle that very seldom happens. I spent, in company with others, a considerable time on the Poor Law Commission, to which the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who opened this Debate, referred. We were all in agreement on certain fundamental principles concerning public relief. I left that Commission with a strong opinion that at last something was going to be done. It was a very vain hope, and a very vain faith, because nothing of practical worth has been done in regard to the very important questions with which that Commission had to deal. Two public Committees, one presided over, I think, by Lord George Hamilton, and the other by Sir Donald Maclean, have also reported unanimously as to certain things which should be done, but the same perverse spirit prevents us getting anything done. I hope very sincerely that the discussion to-night, and the publication of the Betterton Report, will inspire the Government to take the question in hand and, in a way, challenge the House to an agreed scheme. To leave matters as they are is to increase the demoralisation that was spoken of in the Minority Report which the President of the Board of Trade did so much in putting together. I want to enter a mild protest against the idea that all the money quoted by the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion, as being spent on what he calls public assistance, was public assistance in the ordinary accepted meaning of the term. I do not consider it public assistance that I have a pavement to walk on when I leave the House, or to have a street lighted or drained, or a main drainage system for this great city. We have to divest our minds of the idea that any public organisation of services for the people can in any sense be described as public assistance, or a kind of public charity, as something being done for some particular section of the community. During the period that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, from 1834 to now, modern society has
  578
  developed in an extraordinary fashion. Great masses of people have become aggregated in different parts of the country, and these, of themselves, could not supply the necessary services that each of them requires individually. But they can, collectively, get those services organised for them. Education was something that the Church and a handful of people dealt with when I received whatever education I had, and it had to be paid for week by week. Most hon. Members in the House think they are now giving the children of the workers education for nothing. That is not true. The worker is paying for the education of his children in another manner altogether. You are not giving him public assistance; you are only helping to organise the resources of the community, to which he contributes his part in a certain way and for a certain definite end. Therefore we need not worry. We ought to be glad, and very proud, that our country is spending millions on education.
  We ought to be willing to spend ever so much more on education, and to realise, not that somebody is giving the poor and the worker something, but that we are just organising the resources of the community for a given end. The same thing applies to public health services. It is perfectly absurd to talk about public health services as being in the nature of public assistance, as you would regard money distributed through the Poor Law. Nothing of the kind. There is no hon. Gentleman in the House who would want to leave the question of sanitation in the hands of private individuals. You are obliged to organise sanitation in the big towns. You are bound to organise it on a scale sufficient to preserve the health of the community. The reason more money than formerly is being spent, is not because you have got a bigger pauperised population, but because you are realising the need for common service, in order to preserve the common health of the whole of the community. It is quite wrong to mix up all the expenditure in the manner the hon. Gentleman has mixed it up. We ought rather to separate it under its different heads. We should then discover that, side by side with the tremendous, development of private enterprise which has gone on for the last 50 or 60 years, we have been

  579
  obliged to have another sort of enterprise proceeding concurrently with it, and increasing even to a greater extent than private enterprise itself. We have been obliged to take in hand these services, not because we wanted to do the poor good but because it was necessary for the life of the whole community. Therefore we should get out of our minds the notion that pauperism, or anything of that kind, has increased because children are being educated, and that we are paying for that education out of collected funds provided by the whole of the community, or that public health services are growing.
  The hon. Member who opened the discussion laid great stress upon some quotations from the Report of 1834 as to the horrible conditions which prevailed with the stalwart paupers taking money here and there. I read that Report some years ago, and like everybody else who read it for the first time, imagined that all the people who were getting public assistance before 1834 were able-bodied people, but the fact is that the great hulk of them, even in those days, were the old and the sick people, infirm people, widows, orphans, and so on, and that brings me to this, that we are blundering along, on the one hand dealing with unemployment, and on the other hand dealing with widows, orphans, infirm and sick people. It is an absurdity that we should at this time of the day have dozens of competing authorities dealing with these people. It is time for the nation to realise that the care of the people whom I have mentioned should be the care of the nation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman did not finish the historical tale which he told us at the beginning, because had he done so he would have told us that all this business of relief began in the parishes in a kind sort of way. It was thought that the poor of a particular parish must be cared for by the people of that parish. We have got beyond that by unions of parishes and towns, and I think that it is time that we dealt nationally with all these questions connected with our poor.
  I should like to see the Government definitely take in hand the reform of the Poor Law authority in a rather broader sense than is set out in the Minority Report, because it seems to me that the aged of the country ought to be a charge
  580
  upon the national resources of the country. There are many old men in this House, some as old as myself and some older, but even the oldest of us are capable of doing something. But we all know that there are many men and many women much younger than ourselves who are unable, owing to some infirmity or other, to earn their bread. It would pay the nation to take over all infirm persons, and keep them out of the labour market. It is not right to drive into the labour market people who are not capable of fully earning their daily bread, and I think that they ought to be a charge on the national funds and not on the particular parish or district where they happen to live at the particular moment. Further than that, you must face the fact that the working man dies at an earlier age than many of those who belong to other classes, and consequently you have multitudes of women and children, and though it is true that very often you can find a man or woman of the working classes who stoops to deceit, to get another 1s. or 10s. a week of public assistance, yet in the main the great mass of them are as honest as any of us here I speak of what I know. I have sat on relief committees for 25 years regularly, and it is only quite lately that I have not been doing it as regularly as I did it in the past. While I admit that sometimes we get "done," the mass of the people who come to us are decent and honest men and women who have only just fallen by the way.
  I want the House to realise that modern life has shortened the career of the men workers; they die sooner. The mass of our pauperism in East London is made up of women and children whose breadwinner is dead, and of the aged and infirm people. Those people ought no more to be considered paupers than the person who has reached the age of 70 and is in receipt of an old age pension. Let the House get into its mind the fact that the time when a pension ought to come along is when infirmity has come and the person concerned is no longer able to earn a living. It would commence so in the Army, the Navy, and, I believe, in the Civil Service. When the breadwinner of a family is dead the woman ought not to be considered a pauper because of the accident of the death of her husband, nor should the children, because of the death

  581
  of their father. The cost of this relief ought not to be on the locality where the people happen live at the moment. I hope that we are not going to settle down to consider some new scheme by which we shall, as it were, make districts care for the poor and those who are in need. What we ought to aim at is preventing the people from sinking into the condition that they need public assistance through anything like the Poor Law. To do that we have to see that the worker is regularly and continuously employed while he is capable of doing work, and that he is employed at proper rates of wages which will enable him to maintain himself in health and decency and his wife and children in comfort.
  It is useless to go on as we are, with wages depressed. It is useless imagining that, whatever scheme you may adopt, you will get rid of poverty unless you prevent it in the first instance. You have prevented virulent diseases like smallpox and diphtheria, very largely toy preventive measures. You must get rid of poverty in the same way. It is no use praying or talking about it; it is no use preparing paper schemes. What the workers want is security in their lives. What the women and children need, and the children especially, is full maintenance. Therefore, I beg hon. Members to go home and consider why it is that, in a period in the history of our country when the means to produce all that we need has increased a thousandfold, we still have poverty in our midst. We Socialists say that the reason is that you do not organise industry on the basis of service. If industry were organised to supply the needs of the community, just as you organise it to supply, say, a road, a drain, or light, you would not need to come here and talk about what to do with the poor, because you would have improved the poor out of existence.
  Mr. WEBB: I heard it remarked during this Debate that we have had a quiet evening for once, but I do not think the House ought to regard this evening as wasted or misspent if we have had forced upon our attention the necessity for grappling with some of these questions, which seem always to be left to stand over to more convenient seasons. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) in bringing this Motion before the House, did us, at any rate, the service of calling
  582
  attention to the very large number of separate authorities who are spending money on all these services. I am not quite sure that I agree with all his adjectives; at all events, I do not agree with the places where the adjectives were put. But the increase of expenditure is, of course, extremely striking. The figure is exaggerated because, of course, there have been changes. There has been a tremendous rise in prices and a steady growth in population, and the mere statement of the increase of figures is a little exaggerated. Still, allowing for that, the increase is very great. I do not like to accept altogether the terms of what is called the Drage Report, because, for some reason or another, it includes under the heading of "public assistance" a large number of services and excludes a number of others which I think have an equal right to be included. "Public assistance" is a question-begging term. It always makes us think of poor relief or something analogous to poor relief, some alias of poor relief, and I am not at all sure that those who first invented the term did not really mean poor relief and the various aliases for poor relief. That is how they thought about it. It will be found, however, that the return includes, and therefore the figures of the hon. Member for York include, not only old age pensions and War pensions, but also expenditure on education.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I was very careful to deduct War pensions.
  Mr. WEBB: I know the hon. Member deducted them, but I could not see a logical reason for his doing so. They are included in the Drage Report as public assistance and they are public assistance in exactly the same sense as the other items. The mere fact that we may choose to believe that War pensions go to extremely meritorious people who have led virtuous lives, and rendered great service to the community, does not differentiate them for this purpose from other parts of public assistance which have also gone to people who have led virtuous lives and given considerable service to the country. The return includes one part of the expenditure under the Public Health Acts, but excludes another large part of the expenditure under the Public Health Acts, and I cannot for the life of me see why it does so. It includes expenditure on Hospitals for the treatment of disease

  583
  and expenditure on maternity and child welfare work, while it does not include sanitation, water supply or drainage. I cannot understand why one should be public assistance and the other should not. There was a time when every individual was under the obligation of paving the roadway in front of his house, when he had to provide his own water supply, and I know large cities at this moment where each person provides his own water supply. Of course he had also to provide all the arrangements for dealing with sickness and for the education for his children and provide everything, and then there was nothing in the nature of public assistance, but in modern times we do not do that. The paving of the roads, the bridges by which we cross rivers, are not included as public assistance, yet they are just as much public assistance as our education system. I do not suppose the hon. Member for York imagines for a moment that he himself has received public assistance, but of course he has received the benefit of the pavement, of the drainage, of the public water supply and all these services. He has had all these benefits, in which we have all shared, and, therefore, instead of this expenditure mounting up to £300,000,000 it ought really to have mounted up to £500,000,000 or £600,000,000 a year, and there you see the absurdity of it.
  This return includes as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has mentioned, as public assistance what is really the development of communal services for the public benefit, which ought not to be included under public assistance at all, when by public assistance you are talking about poor relief or some alias of poor relief. It is a question-begging phrase, and I maintain that we ought not to use that return in the sense in which it was intended, by those who originated it, that it should be used. Connected with this in the hon. Member's resolution is another report. What is called the "Betterton Report" arose as a child of mine, but I disowned it. It arose from a letter which I wrote to the then Prime Minister, pointing out the gaps between the schemes under which assistance was granted and the administration, but I did not call it public assistance. I avoided that term, and I do not know who gave
  584
  it the title of the Departmental Committee on Public Assistance. As a matter of fact, it does not include all the public assistance, and it includes some things which are not public assistance. The report itself points out in fact, in one place, on page 12:
  "In the first place, there has been a series of measures primarily designed to provide, not for the granting of assistance in relief of physical want, but for the better promotion of the health and education of the community."
  Of the community, not of the individual at all, and they go on to point out:
  "To this class of measure are due the schemes of provision for tuberculosis and venereal disease …; the provision for maternity and child welfare; the provision of meals for school children; the school medical services; and the mental deficiency service."
  These, in the eyes of the Committee on Public Assistance, ought not to be included as public assistance, if you are meaning individuals as beneficiaries, but—incidentally individuals may benefit—the object is the promotion of the health and education of the community, not of the individual. I think the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton), who was Chairman of this Committee and responsible for this Report, perhaps builded better than he knew, because he is emphasising the fact that such measures are designed to promote the health and education of the community, not of the individual. The hon. Member for York did not make that distinction. All through he went on the line that these were gifts, that they were given to particular individuals in the community, I think I may say of the poorer class of the community, and he was rather criticising the extent of those gifts, and comparing the situation with the period before 1834. He was, therefore, suggesting to our minds that all this development of the organisation of public services, all this promotion of the health and education of the community, was equivalent to the scattering of outdoor relief, which was the particular type of the Poor Law before 1834.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In the question of the services of roads, sewers, water supply, etc., surely the individual pays by means of rates and taxes, whereas in the question of Poor Law relief, where, unfortunately, somebody has to receive it, it is a gratuitous; assistance.
  Mr. WEBB: The hon. Member shows an extraordinary state of mind. He divides the world into those who are ratepayers and those who are not.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I was simply asking a question.
  Mr. WEBB: I was endeavouring to answer the question. The hon. Member is suggesting that he has paid his share for the roads and bridges and drainage, and that the other people are not paying their share for the poor relief. If it be suggested that no part of the burden of rates and taxes falls on the great mass of the people below Income Tax level, I can understand the question, but there are no gratuitous services. Everything has to be paid for. All these communal services have to be paid for. Sometimes you pay for them bit by bit, as, for instance, when you pay a toll for going over a bridge. Sometimes you pay for them in a form which is assumed to come something near the cost of production. Sometimes you pay for gas in that way. Sometimes it is in a form representing some index of your ability to pay, including water supply, which you pay for in rates. Even if you do not pay for it directly, you are still paying, very likely more than if you paid directly, in the diminution of the amount of income you have through the existence of these rates. I think it has often been demonstrated that the wage-earners of this country are paying a larger proportion of their income in maintaining the common services of the community than the wealthy section of the community are paying.
  It often seems to me we still have in our minds a great deal of early Victorianism, a good deal of that period when we thought things ought to be run on what I would call "the pew-rent theory." When I was a lad in London most people paid pew-rents, and they had a pew in church according to the pew-rent they paid. Of course, there were some free seats, in which hardly anyone was ever seen, because it was not considered respectable. The notion really was that you had to pay for your religious service, and you got the religious service you paid for. That is what I call "the pew-rent theory." I think there are people who think public services ought to be run on that theory, that is to say, if you can pay for your drainage, you ought to have good drainage, but if
  586
  you cannot pay for your drainage, you ought to have bad drainage. If you can pay for a good water supply you ought to have a good water supply, but if you cannot, then you ought to have a bad water supply.
  I think we have got out of that, not merely with regard to seats in church, but with regard to public services. The water supply is laid on in equal purity and in equal quantity in the poorest and the richest parts of the city, and we do not protest. Similarly, education has got to be provided as a public service, and we are coming rapidly to the view that it ought to be provided of equal quality all over the city, in the poorest quarters as well as the richest, at any rate, so long as we do not try to put a better edge on the knife than the blade will bear, and that, so far as intelligence will bear it, it should be laid on equally as we now lay on water. We are getting further and further away from the pew-rent theory of administration. Take a step further in this development of public health, including hospitals. State-aided hospitals are included in the items under public assistance.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: The right hon. Gentleman is more responsible for these returns than I am.
  Mr. WEBB: For this, which was issued on the 22nd January, I am technically responsible—
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WEBB: But the hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember that it is only the repetition of the Annual Return which has been going on for years. I was referring to the speech of the hon. Member, and the figures which he quoted from the Return as something appalling and objectionable, and something which ought to be reduced. But these figures include money spent on hospitals out of the rates, and other good expenditure. I was endeavouring to explain that we got value for our money, and that I supposed that most people agreed that according to our needs we should be given in these matters and should pay in proportion to our ability. The House has been asked to adopt the recommendations of the Betterton Report and to be careful about expenditure, but I am afraid that the two things are not very compatible. If the Betterton Report recommendations were

  587
  adopted as suggested they would not tend to diminish expenditure, but would practically increase expenditure to some extent by the filling up of the gaps, though it might tend to diminish it in some other ways in view of a consequent saving.
  However, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe asked me some specific questions as to what had been done with those recommendations—such as they are! No. I, which refers to the prevention of the conflict between Health and Unemployment Insurance in regard to medical opinion as to physical or mental capacity to work, has been adopted, though points of detail and procedure are in process of discussion amongst the Departments to-day. No. II, that refers to the need for local officers and local committees giving a correct statement of the disallowance of claims, has also been adopted. No. III—the administration of cash benefits—has been adopted, and the Ministry of Health are looking into points in connection with it. No. IV—delay in the settlement of claims—is under consideration. As to No. VII—prevention of anomalies—the Ministry of Pensions made certain arrangements. Adjustments in regard to old age pensions arrangements have been made. Recommendation No. VIII—as to making more public the opportunities for obtaining benefit or pension and other things—has been actually adopted. Recommendation No. IX—dealing with approved societies, and information as to cash benefits received by individuals under the National Health Insurance scheme—is also under the consideration of the Ministry of Health. Recommendation No. X—dealing with local education authorities in England and Wales, and the question of providing meals for the children of parents who are in receipt of poor relief—has been a subject of consideration, but I cannot say that anything has been done.
  Number XI recommendation is that maternity and child welfare authorities should make arrangements with the Poor Law authorities concerned. That is definitely under the consideration of the Ministry of Health. There are recommendations with regard to overlapping and suggestions have been made that there should be voluntary registration. That is also under consideration. That
  588
  is a rather dull and not a very illuminating catalogue, but the necessities of the case compel me to answer the question in that way.
  With regard to preventing overlapping by stimulating local voluntary councils I do not think that is likely to have any very great effect. The suggestion was made a great many years ago, and only 35 separate authorities have made any move in that direction. My own information is that those authorities which have started a local voluntary registration of public assistance have not been able to carry it on very long without great trouble and some risk of breaking down. I am afraid if we rely on local voluntary assistance for maintaining a register of assistance we are relying on a broken reed. It is not likely we should get that instituted for the worst cases and it cannot become anything like universal. I do not want to discourage, the starting of local voluntary assistance registration, which is good as far as it goes, but I am bound to say that I cannot hold out any prospect of such registration being extended all over the country or of being in existence where it is most needed.
  Overlapping is most serious in its demoralising effect. We have been told that some people make a trade out of getting assistance from different bodies, and this is demoralising, although I do not think the money loss to the community is very great. Nevertheless, we do not want to leave any opportunity for such demoralisation or for the waste of money in that way, and therefore we shall take steps to prevent overlapping as far as we can. But as the Report points out, most of what is called overlapping is not wrong but right. The assistance is their right. They would be doing wrong if they did not go into the workhouse when they were ill or sick if we have not provided any better hospital accommodation for them. If the hospital arrangement is so defective that there is no place for the pensioners to go but the workhouse, then they must go to the workhouse when they are sick. That is the kind of legitimate overlapping which is often protested against.
  Similarly, children, if they are hungry at school are fed at school as the law commands, and then inquiry is made as to whether the parents ought not to have fed them. That is sometimes objected to, but it is what the law commands. If a

  589
  child is at school suffering from lack of food, the authority ought to feed him and make inquiries afterwards. No one to-day will get up in this House and say it ought not to be done. No one will say that a child at school suffering from want of food ought not to be fed, and that inquiry should be first made of the parent to see why the child is hungry at school. To feed the child at school and make inquiries afterwards is sometimes to discover that the parents are getting out door relief. It is not any wrongful overlapping. It is because the guardians have given inadequate out-door relief. It is the duty of the guardians, if they give outdoor relief at all, to give it adequately, and by adequately it is meant that the guardians ought to give enough to supply food and clothing and shelter sufficient for the health of the head of the family and of his dependents. The guardians are bound, if they give out-door relief at all, to give enough to see that the family has enough. If they give less they are running the risk of being prosecuted for manslaughter if people die from lack of food.
  It is perfectly true that if a child is found at school suffering from want of food, you may be sure the child is suffering from the lack of other things as well. Do not let us pretend that we want to stop feeding at school. We want to enquire why the child was hungry. The item for the feeding of children going hungry to school is one of those items which not even the hon. Member for York would wish to see diminished except in so far as the number of hungry children are diminished as it ought to be. A good deal of the speeches made have too often gone on the line that any increase in the cost of this service is a misfortune. If you add it all up, those enormous figures which the hon. Member for York brought forward, does it come to anything like one-tenth of the national income? In that total is included a very considerable amount of the organisation of those collective public services which nobody would pretend to do away with. Nobody is going to say you do not want an educational system or a water supply.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: These things are not included in the Report.
  Mr. WEBB: I know that water supply is not, but the whole of education is. I am pointing out that other services ought
  590
  to be, and the hon. Member, when he drew attention to that expenditure, ought to have pointed out to the House that, if one item of public health expenditure was in, the others ought to be. No one is going to get up in this House, and say that they wish the system of public education, or public hospitals, or old age pensions, or unemployment relief, stopped, or even diminished; and, therefore, though we may begin by protesting and calling attention to national expenditure, and even resolve
  "That this House views with apprehension the growth of national expenditure on public assistance,"
  we know we do not mean it. We know that not any one of us would propose any reduction of the expenditure on any one of these services, but that, on the contrary, we are all of us proposing and accepting that each several one of these services should be larger. With regard to the question of causes, take the case of the educational services, the expenditure on which is the largest item. The cause of the expenditure on education is the fact that most of us are born rather ignorant, and if it were possible to become exempt from that, and to spread that exemption among the people, we might diminish the cost of education.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I said. He was referring just now to unemployment, and I said we wished to decrease the cause of unemployment.
  Mr. WEBB: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member if he misunderstood me, which he did. I come now to the points on which we do wish expenditure to fall. We want to prevent the causes of the expenditure where the causes are preventable, and I think unemployment is one of those causes.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: How would you prevent it?
  Mr. WEBB: I cannot, of course, go into it now, but I have published my views on it, and no doubt the Noble Lord has read them. I am sure he has.
  Lord E. PERCY: They are most unconvincing.
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry I cannot carry conviction to the Noble Lord. There is one other cause which I want to see

  591
  abolished. I want to see the whole expenditure on the Poor Law, not merely diminished, but swept away. That means that you have to substitute for the relief of destitution the treatment and prevention of each of the several causes of destitution before destitution sets in. There should be no Poor Law. It should have been resolved, as the Minority Report recommended a long time ago, and distributed among its several services, on the basis of prevention and treatment, and not on the basis of relief.
  Mr. CLIMIE: The Mover, in speaking of his Motion, rather left me in doubt as to whether he really wanted the recommendations of the Betterton Report carried out or not. I remember quite distinctly the hon. Gentleman putting forward a very strong plea for further investigation. So far as I can see from any of the recommendations contained in this Report, and there are 15 altogether, I cannot find that there is a single one to the effect that further investigation into this matter should be proceeded with.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MATLOCKS AMALGAMATION ORDER.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that in raising this question of the Matlocks Amalgamation Order I have no wish to embarrass or pin prick the Government, but my questions to-day were prompted by a genuine desire to know on what ground the Minister had confirmed this Order. May I give a brief account of the history of this amalgamation. Some years ago Matlock, prompted entirely by a laudable feeling of civic pride, asked to have its boundaries extended so as to include not only Matlock Bath and Cromford, but some other towns and villages in the neighbourhood. That Order was refused. They renewed their
  592
  application in April, 1922, and at that time, after some inquiry, the Derbyshire County Council granted an Order. Up to that time there was very little opposition. The inhabitants of the towns to be amalgamated were not seriously alarmed, and there was no weight of opposition, but the moment the Order was granted by the County Council a great deal of opposition was aroused, and the inhabitants of two of these towns, Matlock Bath and Cromford, petitioned almost unanimously—95 per cent. of the ratepayers of Matlock Bath signed the petition—asking that the Order must not be confirmed. The inquiry was held in February, and as a result of the evidence given at the inquiry it was unanimously believed in the district that the Order would not go through. The weight of evidence against the amalgamation was absolutely overwhelming, and everyone thought that after the inquiry had been held by the Minister of Health the Order would not go through. Consequently, everyone felt happy and reassured. That, briefly, is the history of the amalgamation up to the present time.
  I must make a slight digression in order to give an account of the geography of the district. One of the reasons which the Minister of Health gives in the letter to which he referred me this afternoon relates to the geography of the district. He describes Matlock Bath as making a wedge into Matlock. All these towns lie along the narrow valley of the River Derwent, one above the other, and they are entirely different in character, just as they are entirely separate in geography. Matlock exists upon its residents. There is a large number of hotels and hydros there, and Matlock makes its living by the people who go there to reside. Matlock Bath makes its living out of day visitors, and Cromford is a small place, an industrial district carrying on quarrying and cotton work. The history of the places is different, and until recently—and this is a point which the Minister does not realise—Cromford was entirely separated from Matlock by the rocks which came down the River Derwent. Only in recent years, when these rocks were blasted, was a road made between the two places. Therefore the geography of the district disposes of the Minister's argument that the districts form one homogeneous whole. They do not; they are entirely separate.

  593
  This afternoon I asked the Minister of Health for his reasons for confirming the Order in face of the very strong opposition which had been raised. In answer, he referred me to a letter, over a month old, which I had already seen, and which has been exhaustively discussed by the people concerned, who found it most unsatisfactory. They realised that they are small townships fighting against a large township and against the Ministry of Health, and they want to know why they have been sacrificed and why the Minister of Health has, in their case, decided not to follow the policy which was laid down by Sir Alfred Mond when he was Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is a Royal Commission sitting on this very question now, and that Sir Alfred Mond on the occasion of some dispute between great towns in Yorkshire, two years ago, laid it down definitely as the policy of his Ministry, that the Ministry of Health would not confirm any more amalgamation orders or any more borough extensions until the Commission had reported. The Commission have published some evidence, but have not yet reported, and the people on whose behalf I am speaking feel that a great injustice has been done to them.
  Referring to the letter of the Minister of Health which contain his reasons for confirming the Order or, at any rate, he said that it contained his reasons, I may say that I can find no reasons. He says that he has given full weight to the opposition of these towns, but the only real reason he gives is, that he believes it will be far better from the point of view of local government that both Matlock and Matlock Bath should be united in one common authority. He does not give one shadow of evidence showing why he feels justified in overriding the petition of these towns. There is one further reason he gives, and it is a reason which surprises me very much coming from the Minister of Health, and which I welcome very heartily. He says:
  "With regard to Cromford's objection to the amalgamation on the ground of expense, it has to be borne in mind that the estate, which practically covered the whole area of the parish, is being sold, and is passing into separate ownerships, so that, even if the parish remained administratively a part of the rural district, heavy expense, chargeable on the parish alone, would be necessary in the near future to provide services which have hitherto been provided at the private expense of the landowners."
  594
  I am surprised at that statement coming from such a source. I welcome very heartily indeed this new recognition of a sound Conservative doctrine, that heavy taxation of landowners, forcing them to sell their properties, does inflict heavy expense chargeable on the ratepayers of the district; and I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that you will not rule me out of order on the ground that what I say is hypothetical when I express the hope that, in the event of the present Government remaining in office and bringing in next year's Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence with his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make heavy remissions of taxation, in view of the disastrous effect which the taxation of the landed interest is having. I was dealing with the objections of these people, and I said that they objected, almost unanimously, to the confirmation of this Order. They have done so on various grounds. One is that their interests are different. Matlock and Matlock Bath have this in common: they make their living by attracting visitors, and therefore expenditure on public amenities, pleasure grounds, and side shows of various kinds, are well worth while. Cromford is entirely different. It does not expect to attract visitors of that kind, and its people, naturally, very strongly object to being asked to carry the burden of expenditure which would undoubtedly, and quite rightly, be incurred by the town council of Matlock. Another very valid objection is that the town of Matlock is already very heavily in debt, being within £2,000 of its total borrowing powers. Cromford, owing, perhaps, to the beneficial operation of the private landlord, to whom the Minister of Health referred in such generous terms, has a total debt of only £600. Cromford, therefore, very reasonably objects to carrying the burden of the debt of Matlock.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that arrangements have been made to get over that injustice by differential rating. These arrangements are to extend over eight years. It is obvious and inevitable that Cromford, which has now practically no public debt, will ultimately have to carry a large share of the public debt of Matlock. That is a very great injustice. This is a matter of vital importance to the people concerned, though perhaps, not of enormous interest to the

  595
  House; but the matter vitally concerns this House as the liberty of the people is concerned, and the protection of the liberties of the people is the main and greatest function of this House. If all I have said was untrue, the objections of these people to this Order would still be valid. Rightly or wrongly, they prefer to govern themselves in their own way. In the answer of the Minister of Health there is not one shadow of a suggestion that the government of these small town ships is not absolutely efficient and properly carried on. Even if they were misgoverning themselves, I maintain that, so long as they are not causing either injury or discomfort to their neighbours—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were, not present; Houses counted; and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order. As an attack has been made on the liberty of speech by the Labour party, will the time lost in the Count be allowed to the Noble Lord?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that I remember occasions on which the hon. Member himself has called attention to the state of the House.
  Marquis of HARTINGTON: This is a question in which the liberties of the people are involved. Even if they were not efficiently governed, they prefer to govern themselves in their own small way. They are satisfied with their parish councils and with their town councils. They have a right to govern themselves in their own way. The Ministry of Health has made out no case that they are inflicting harm on the neighbourhood or on themselves. It is a question of the individual liberty of these people. I regret that there is no opportunity of taking a vote on this question because I believe that Members on all sides, and more especially on the benches opposite, would resent the way in which the Ministry of Health is acting in riding rough-shod over the liberties of these small communities.
  Sir CHARLES WILSON: I differ entirely from the views expressed by the Noble Lord. I have seen a great many things happen in this House. Reference has been made to the Yorkshire schemes.
  596
  I do not agree altogether with the statements which have been made. Sir Alfred Mond recommended the schemes of the Yorkshire towns, and they were interfered with by this House, and were thrown out without going into the merits. I was present during the Debate. I had something to do with the initiation of one of these schemes. When one considers that there are 24,000 local authorities in this country, one realises that there are thousands too many of them. There is the question of watersheds, and there is the question of the services which small towns neither can nor will supply. They have not the money, and if they have they will not spend it. They do not employ the men to carry out the necessary services and deal with them adequately. I could speak for a week on this question. I differ so strongly from the Noble Lord who has just spoken that I would fight him to tie last gasp. It must be remembered that the differential rating for a short time makes a difference in favour of those who are brought in. We have had experience of bringing thousands of people into the City of Leeds, and there has been no complaint in a single instance that they have lost by the transaction. I hope that the Minister of Health will stand to his guns and see that his recommendations are carried out.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I have some sympathy with the Noble Lord in standing up for the liberties of the people; but, put in that way, it seems to me that his statement raises rather a bigger question. The proposed amalgamation is not on normal lines, because it proposes to take in two parishes which are now out off by intervening authorities from the rural district council, of which they are a part. That is clearly an unsatisfactory arrangement, and sooner or later it would have to be remedied. It is proposed to add to the existing Matlock Urban District Matlock Bath with about 1,300 inhabitants or some fantastically small number for an urban district, and two parishes which are now part of a rural district council a few miles away. One of these parishes has offered no objection to the proposed amalgamation; the other parish has—it desires to retain its liberty. But there was, in the so-

  597
  called Birkenhead decision, to which the Noble Lord referred, a phrase about the public advantages, and that seems to be the deciding factor. The estate to which reference has been made is now being broken up, and the services will have to be provided in some other way. They will have to be provided at considerable expense. It seems to me that that situation having been created, the development of these public services had better, from the start, be undertaken in connection with the services already existing in the larger urban district of which this forms a part. As regards Matlock Bath, it may be true that it has different characteristics from Matlock urban district, but I believe it is also true that some time ago Matlock Bath itself proposed that part of Matlock should be added to it, so that it seems to me that Matlock is simply making a proposal on a somewhat larger scale than that which Matlock Bath itself made.
  I think the Noble Lord should realise the position of the Ministry of Health in this matter. An order was made by the county council, which has authority to make such an order. The county council of Derbyshire is clearly much better informed of all the local circumstances in their wider aspects than the individual units; and it is much more informed of the detailed aspects than the Ministry of Health. I am sure that the Noble Lord will agree that the Ministry of Health would require to have very strong considerations put before it if it were to propose to over-ride the order of the supreme local authority, the county council. In our view no case sufficiently strong has been made out. The decision was made in the last resort on grounds of public advantage. We believe that this new unit will be a more effective unit of local government than the existing two urban districts and two rural parishes separated from their rural districts, that you will get more efficient local administration, and on the whole get it more economically. Because of that the Department has decided to confirm the order and has notified that fact. The Noble Lord referred to a decision of a previous Minister of Health with regard to amalgamation of areas and borough extensions. I think he must have had in mind primarily the acute controversy between the county
  598
  boroughs and the large boroughs of which the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) is one of the leaders, and the county areas. He had not so much in mind the smaller re-adjustments of territory, and so long as our duty is as it is it was necessary either to confirm or reject the Order. To reject it we should have had to receive much stronger grounds than we appear to have received already. There is no desire on the part of the Minister to interfere unnecessarily with the autonomy of local areas, but past experience has shown that once the difficulties are surmounted and amalgamation achieved the difficulties disappear, and you get new unite of a more efficient kind.
  Lord E. PERCY: I wish to protest strongly against what I understand to have been the implication of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the investigations that are now being pursued by the Onslow Commission have reference exclusively to the question of bigger amalgamations.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I should be sorry if the Noble Lord got that impression. I said I thought what Sir Alfred Mond had in mind primarily was the controversy between the large boroughs and the counties.
  Lord E. PERCY: Whatever Sir Alfred Mond may have had in his mind is more or less an historic question. The point is this: That the Onslow Commission has considered this whole question of the arrangements under which alterations in local government areas are to be brought about. It was always understood in the Ministry of Health when I had anything to do with it that such questions of re-arrangement should be more or less left in abeyance until the Onslow Commission had time to report.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: May I point out that I believe the Noble Lord occupied my place at the time this inquiry was made by the Ministry of Health?
  Lord E. PERCY: There may have been any number of inquiries, but that the final Order should have been made before the Report of the Onslow Commission was received is, I believe, quite contrary to right policy, and if the hon. Member tells me that something contrary to right policy was done during the time I occupied his place, I can only say I am

  599
  very sorry, and I think it is quite possible. Many things contrary to right policy happen in all Government Departments, whatever Ministry is in power. The point is that at the present moment it is most important that we should receive the Report of the Commission before any re-arrangements of local government areas are made, such as has been made in the instance given toy my Noble Friend behind me, and I wish to ask the Ministry of Health to reconsider very seriously whether such re-arrangements should be made on the authority of the county council, a body which is
  600
  not always respectfully viewed by the smaller local authorities, and I cannot accept the statement that the opinion of the county council is enough for the Ministry to go upon. It is on that very point the Onslow Commission is sitting, and I think it is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman should have made an Order of this kind pending the Report of that Commission.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYÉS, SCOTLAND (OVERTIME).
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYÉS, SCOTLAND (OVERTIME).
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  EXCHANGES, PONTYPRIDD (QUEUES).
  EXCHANGES, PONTYPRIDD (QUEUES).
  AGED WORKERS.
  AGED WORKERS.
  DOCKS (JUVENILE EMPLOYES).
  DOCKS (JUVENILE EMPLOYES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
BUDGET.
  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  NEW IMPORT DUTIES.
  NEW IMPORT DUTIES.
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  WAR INVENTION CLAIMS (MR. DE MOLE).
  WAR INVENTION CLAIMS (MR. DE MOLE).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  STATIONERY OFFICE (DISCHARGES).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (DISCHARGES).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STATISTICAL BRANCH).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STATISTICAL BRANCH).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  APPEAL (MR. C. A. J. HONEY).
  APPEAL (MR. C. A. J. HONEY).
  FINAL AWARDS.
  FINAL AWARDS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (AIR MINISTRY WORK).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (AIR MINISTRY WORK).
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  LONG-DISTANCE SCHOLARS, EDINBURGH.
  LONG-DISTANCE SCHOLARS, EDINBURGH.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  AYR DISTRICT ASYLUM (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  AYR DISTRICT ASYLUM (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  INDIA (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  INDIA (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  MAGISTRATES, MIDDLESEX (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  MAGISTRATES, MIDDLESEX (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  NAVAL BASE, SINGAPORE.
  NAVAL BASE, SINGAPORE.
  BURNEY AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  BURNEY AIRSHIP SCHEME.
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
HOUSING.
  BRICK SUPPLIES (GOVERNMENT ORDER, DARLINGTON).
  BRICK SUPPLIES (GOVERNMENT ORDER, DARLINGTON).
  WEST SUSSEX.
  WEST SUSSEX.
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  UNFIT DWELLINGS.
  UNFIT DWELLINGS.
  LIGHT CASTINGS (DOCKYARD PLANT).
  LIGHT CASTINGS (DOCKYARD PLANT).
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
POOR LAW.
  MOTOR AMBULANCES, SHOREDITCH.
  MOTOR AMBULANCES, SHOREDITCH.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  BELMONT COLONY.
  BELMONT COLONY.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  INSURED PERSONS.
  INSURED PERSONS.
  MILK SUPPLIES.
  MILK SUPPLIES.
  BLIND PERSONS ACT.
  BLIND PERSONS ACT.
  PANEL PATIENT'S APPEAL.
  PANEL PATIENT'S APPEAL.
  CLYDE STEAMERS (ENGINEERS' HOURS).
  CLYDE STEAMERS (ENGINEERS' HOURS).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD VEHICLES (REGULATION AND TAXATION).
  ROAD VEHICLES (REGULATION AND TAXATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  EX-ENEMY COUNTRIES (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  EX-ENEMY COUNTRIES (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  HUMBER (PILOTAGE RATES).
  HUMBER (PILOTAGE RATES).
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  MANDATED TERRITORIES (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  MANDATED TERRITORIES (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  KENYA AND ITALIAN SOMALILAND (IVORY TRADE).
  KENYA AND ITALIAN SOMALILAND (IVORY TRADE).
POST OFFICE.
  STAFF PETITIONS.
  STAFF PETITIONS.
  LONDON TELEPHONE AREA (RECEIPTS).
  LONDON TELEPHONE AREA (RECEIPTS).
  MR. P. L. CALTER, NEWRY.
  MR. P. L. CALTER, NEWRY.
  HOTELS (TELEPHONE CHARGES).
  HOTELS (TELEPHONE CHARGES).
  COLLECTIONS, HIGHBURY.
  COLLECTIONS, HIGHBURY.
  FACILITIES, LONDONDERRY COUNTY.
  FACILITIES, LONDONDERRY COUNTY.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARDS.
  DOCKYARDS.
  CLERKS' PAY.
  CLERKS' PAY.
  CLASPS.
  CLASPS.
  NAVAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.
  NAVAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.
  GSEENWICH COLLEGE (OFFICERS' SERVANTS).
  GSEENWICH COLLEGE (OFFICERS' SERVANTS).
  PORTSMOUTH PORT DIVISION (MASTERS-AT-ARMS).
  PORTSMOUTH PORT DIVISION (MASTERS-AT-ARMS).
  MESS DECK SPACE.
  MESS DECK SPACE.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "COLOMBO."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "COLOMBO."
  PROMOTION.
  PROMOTION.
  ARMY OFFICERS' PAY (REDUCTION).
  ARMY OFFICERS' PAY (REDUCTION).
  COAL INDUSTEY (SPIROCHAETOSIS).
  COAL INDUSTEY (SPIROCHAETOSIS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I (beg to move that Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Briton Ferry Works. If the Standing Order is dispensed with it will authorise the deposit of a late Petition. I have been in communication with the promoters and also the opponents of the Bill. The promoters have no objection to this late Petition being deposited and I, therefore, ask your Lordships to dispense with the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Briton Ferry Works.—(The Earl of Donoughmore).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given to present the Petition accordingly.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a
STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTER- SHIRE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
QUEEN'S FERRY BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANS-JORDANIA.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Emir Abdullah's administration in Trans-Jordania is tyrannical, extravagant, inefficient and generally unpopular; and that the High Commissioner for Palestine has consistently refrained from exercising his powers to bring about an improved state of affairs; and whether it is the policy of the Government to endeavour to reconcile the people of Palestine to Zionist tyranny by establishing a worse tyranny in Trans-Jordania?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when, two years ago, I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to the deplorable condition of Trans-Jordania under the British Mandate I was told by the noble Duke who then represented the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House that the Emir Abdullah had carried out his task in a. satisfactory manner. I do not know what line will be taken this evening by the noble Lord the present Under-Secretary of State, but I very much doubt whether he will repeat that statement, not because there has been any material change in the situation during the last two years but because the Government have at last been compelled to face the facts, which are, briefly, that Abdullah's interest in the administration is limited to the squeezing of as much money as possible out of the taxpayers for his own personal use and that he is so unpopular and impotent that he can only be maintained in nominal power by British armed forces.
As regards the second part of the Question, this is not intended as a personal attack on Sir Herbert Samuel. I have no reason to suppose that Sir Herbert has deviated in any way from the policy laid down for him, whatever that may be. The fact remains, however, that he has missed numerous opportunities of instituting remedial measures. Such measures might have included a stricter control over the finances, steps to repair and complete the Turkish roads, which have been allowed to decay, and also the giving of the people some voice in the government. In Turkish times Elections were held regularly. In 1920 I held a General Election in the northern area and acted as returning officer, so I know that there would be no
286
difficulty about that. As regards the third part of the Question, I do not suggest that that is the explicit policy of the Government but there can be little doubt that the sight of a prosperous and contented Trans-Jordania would increase the discontent in Palestine, or that if Trans-Jordania had had a responsible Government it could not have been included in the Rutenberg concession. I beg to ask the Question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I have, I think, some cause to complain of the form in which the noble Lord's Question is drawn up. It is couched in rather violent language. It contains a good deal about tyranny, extravagance, and so forth, and in the last part of it the noble Lord insinuates —it is an insinuation rather than a direct statement—that there is what he calls a "Zionist tyranny" in Palestine. Thus, the noble Lord introduces an insinuation of this kind into a Question purporting to deal with quite a different subject. I wish to state, quite clearly, that this insinuation is altogether unfounded. There is no Zionist tyranny in Palestine, and no tyranny of any kind. There is a British Administration, presided over by a British statesman of very distinguished record and controlled by a British Secretary of State. These things are about as far removed from tyranny as anything can be.
I do not propose to go over the whole question of the merits of our policy in Palestine. That has frequently been discussed in your Lordships' House. The policy has been reaffirmed by three consecutive British Governments. It is impossible to go back on that. Papers have been laid before the House at fairly frequent intervals showing the lines on which the policy is being carried out in practice. I should like to quote from one of them. It is a Paper (Cmd. 1989) laid before Parliament in November, 1923: that is to say, while the late Government were still in office. It contains a Despatch from the late Secretary of State to the High Commissioner, dated October 4, 1923. In this Despatch the noble Duke wrote as follows:—
"It has been the constant endeavour of His Majesty's Government and of yourself. as High Commissioner, so to conduct the administration of Palestine as to do equal justice to the interests of both parties concerned."

287
Later on, in the same Despatch, the noble Duke spoke of the
"desire and intention of His Majesty's Government to deal with absolute impartiality between the different communities of Palestine and to fulfil to the letter the obligations—both to Arab and Jew—to which their predecessors publicly committed themselves."
That indicates the spirit which the late Government brought to their task in Palestine. It is one with which the present Government associate themselves unreservedly. To describe as a tyranny an Administration conducted in this spirit is, I venture to say, to use language which is not in accordance with the facts.
I now turn to Trans-Jordan. I think that your Lordships know generally what the position is. During the war we gave an undertaking to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within certain geographical limits. I know I am on controversial ground. There has been dispute as to what those limits included. But about Trans-Jordan, at any rate, there is no dispute. It admittedly falls within the limits to which the wartime undertaking applies. That is a governing consideration as affecting the political status of Trans-Jordan and the character of our relations with that country. We have to discharge our mandatory functions in a manner not inconsistent with our promises. What has happened is that an Administration under the Emir Abdullah was set up in 1921 and has been functioning over since. We have assisted it with money and advice; but have not exercised or attempted to exercise anything in the nature of direct control.
I am not prepared to say that the present state of affairs in the country can be regarded with unmixed satisfaction or that there is no room for improvement. There has undoubtedly been discontent with the methods of administration. In September last, there was an outbreak of disorder when the Chief of the Adwan tribe induced certain other tribes to join him in armed resistance to the Emir's authority. It was considered necessary to support the Emir's Government, and the rising was put down and order restored in a very short time. It must be remembered, on the other hand—and the noble Lord naturally never made any reference to these factors—that two very definite
288
advantages have accrued from the establishment of the Emir's Administration. In the first place, raids from Trans-Jordan into Palestine have practically ceased. Formerly there was constant danger of incursions by Bedouin tribes, and on one occasion a raid of very serious proportions necessitated the employment of considerable police and military forces. From the date of the establishment of the Arab Government no serious raids have occurred. In other words, Palestine has been immune from disturbance on her Eastern frontier, and, as a consequence, heavy reductions have been effected in British military expenditure in that country. The second advantage is that the safety of the Trans-Desert Air Route, which starts from Amman, the capital of Trans-Jordan, has been effectively maintained. The mail service by this route, which is a fortnightly one, has been carried on without a hitch for more than two and a half years. It brings London within ten days of Baghdad.
Your Lordships will gather from what I have said that I do not regard the situation as free from anxiety or as incapable of improvement. But I see nothing in it to justify the kind of language used by the noble Lord. It must be remembered that the Trans-Jordan Administration is necessarily in the experimental stage. It has had to buy its own experience. If it has made mistakes, and if its actions have not always conformed exactly with what we here look upon as the true principles of government, I do not know that we need be very much astonished or dismayed. We are now engaged in considering the whole question of the direction in which improvement may be effected. We hope very shortly to enter into friendly discussion with the Emir on the subject. I cannot say more for the present. The House may rest assured that we are fully alive to our obligations in regard to territories for which we, are responsible under the Mandate, and that we shall do our utmost to place matters on as satisfactory a footing as possible.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the Government are still of the opinion that their first-diagnosis of this Bill is correct and that its effect, if it is passed, will be to increase the number of strikes instead of diminishing them. The noble Lord thinks otherwise, and if the House chooses to pass the measure they will, of course, do so. I have only to add that, the Government holding this view, I cannot hold out much hope that there will be any facilities for its further passage into law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DOXOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 69.
1. From and after the passing of this Act the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, Part II, shall be amended by the insertion of the following subsections at the end of Section four of that Act, viz.:—
" 4.—(6) Where the Minister has referred a trade dispute as provided by subsection (1) of this section to a Court of Inquiry, it shall be unlawful, prior to and during that inquiry and prior to the report thereon to the Minister, for any employer to declare or cause a lockout or for any workman to go on strike on account of such dispute: Provided that except where both parties to the dispute agree to an extension of time, nothing in this Act shall be held to restrain any employer from declaring a lock-out or any workman from going on strike after thirty days from the date of the reference of a trade dispute to a Court of Inquiry by the Minister.
"4.—(7) Any employer declaring or causing a lock-out contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than twenty pounds nor more than two hundred pounds for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any workman who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than two pounds nor more than ten pounds for each day or part of a day that such workman is on strike.
"4.—(8) Any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner any employer to declare or continue a lockout or any workman to go or continue on strike contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than ten pounds nor more than two hundred pounds.
"4.—(9) The procedure of enforcing penalties imposed or authorised to be imposed by this Act shall he in manner
290
prescribed by Sections sixty-one, sixty-three and sixty-seven of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887."
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I have one question to ask the noble Lord with regard to the new subsection (8) which provides that any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner to declare or continue a lock-out or strike shall be liable to special penalties. I have an open mind on the matter, but I would ask him to give us more reasons for this provision than we have had up to the present. I think it is taken from the Canadian Act, on which the Bill is founded. The first part is very simple. Any person who takes part in any strike before the period named has elapsed is liable to a penalty. There can be no doubt about the question as to whether a particular person has taken such a part, but this subsection is more complicated and, I think, more dangerous because it provides a special penalty for any person who incites, encourages or aids any one to declare a strike or lock-out. It will raise very difficult legal questions, and instead of strengthening the Bill this particular provision will, I think, make it much more difficult to work. How is any one to prove that a particular person has encouraged others to take part in a strike? He must have done it by speeches, and that will involve the pernicious system of the police attending meetings and taking down speeches. If he does it in any other way then it will be much more difficult to prove. I am putting this point as a supporter of the Bill, not as a critic, and I would ask the noble Lord to give us some additional reasons why he has included this particular subsection in his Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the noble Earl on this point. This clause is taken verbatim from the Canadian Act; I think it is Section 60. It is really directed against the maintenance or support of a strike or lock-out by other people, or, indeed, a sympathetic strike. The Canadian Act has worked in two ways. Trade union secretaries and leaders, as moderate men, have been able to tell their followers that if they desired to strike then they, the leaders, would not endorse their action, because the result under this section would be that if the penalties were enforced they would suffer far more than

291
those who wore following them. In another way it has prevented outside organisations coming in and maintaining a strike. There was an interesting case in which a local mining union in Nova Scotia was on strike and where the United Mine Workers of America, an alien union, came in and sent down an agent to the place who gave tickets for food and goods only to those men who were in their union. The employers prosecuted the leader of the alien union, or the agent whom they had established in that place. He was convicted and fined. An appeal was made by the alien union but the conviction was upheld by six Judges, and the local union were quite satisfied with the result
There is no doubt that the penalties would not be enforced against a large number of people. It is not done in any country where they exist, but inquiries that have been made show that a judicious enforcement has often been found to be valuable. In Australia, although the penalties are general, they have not been often enforced because the fact that a reasonable time has to be given by law has caused men to give that time —and that is the object of this Bill. The same thing has occurred in Canada. I hope that this explanation will answer the question which the noble Earl has raised, and will show him the reason for the inclusion of this subsection.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to require, returns.
1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in any year by notice served on the occupier of any agricultural land in England or Wales or the person having the management of any such land, require
292
him to make within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by regulations made under this Act, a return in writing for that year with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, or the persons employed on the land, and, if the occupier is also the owner of the land, that fact shall be stated in the return.
(2) No individual return or part of a return made under this Act shall be used, published or disclosed, except for the purposes of the preparation and publication by the Minister of agricultural statistics or of a prosecution under this Act.
(3) (a) Any person who refuses, or without lawful excuse, neglects to make a return required under this Act to be made by him shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(b) If a return made under this Act is untrue in any material particular, the person by whom the return was made shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence.
(4) Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(5) Any notice under this Act may be served on the person to whom it is addressed either personally or by post, and, in the case of a notice to an occupier, may be addressed to "the occupier" without naming him.
(6) The expression "agricultural land" includes land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for a market garden or nursery ground.
(7) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat praying that the regulation may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such time as is specified in," and insert "twenty-eight days of the receipt of." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to preserve to your Lordships' House the power of making Regulations under this Bill. Unless the Amendment is accepted the Department will be able to say that the Returns must be made within three or four days, or ten or twelve days, or whatever time they think right. I have always

293
endeavoured to prevent the privileges of Parliament being handed over to the Departments, and I have always held that the proper course is for Parliament to determine, in passing Bills of this sort, what the provisions of the law should be. I am not particularly wedded to twenty-eight days, and if the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill thinks that the period should be different, I shall be quite prepared to accept an alteration, but I hope that the period may not be less than twenty-eight days. Noble Lords will remember that the voluntary Returns were generally sent in somewhere about the end of June. At that time farmers are very busy with the hay harvest and find it a little difficult, at a few moments' notice, to collect all these particulars. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consent to put in some particular date, allowing at least twenty-eight days in which to furnish the required information.
Before I sit down I should like to call your Lordships' attention to that which took place last year when this Hill was before this House. The Second Heading-was moved on May I by my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster, whose statement ran to about four lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. No other noble Lord said anything at all, and the Second Heading was passed without any criticism. My noble friend—I am sure quite unwittingly—made a mistake in the few words which he did say. He said that this Bill was substantially the same as Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917. But it is not. It contains three provisions which did not find a place in the Corn Production Act, 1017. I shall move some Amendments later on, the effect of which will be to bring the Bill into line with that Act. I have the section here, but I presume that it is not necessary to read it.
I then find that on the Committee stage only one noble Lord said anything which had anything to do with the Bill. Lord Clinton made some remarks, and my noble friend Lord Ancaster said that the point which he raised was answered by subsection (7) of Clause 1. I venture very humbly to differ once more from my noble friend. I hold that subsection (7) of Clause 1 is a perfectly illusory provision, and might as well be left out. In the House of Commons it, is absolutely useless I to try to find out whether anything is lying
294
upon the Table. I do not know how many noble Lords can tell me how we find out in this House. It took me a good many years to discover the process in the House of Commons, and I do not believe there are at this moment ten Members of that House who know it. In this House, no doubt, most noble Lords know what to do, but none of those whom I have asked— perhaps I have been unfortunate—could tell me how to find out what is lying upon the Table. Then the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, made certain remarks which merely went to show that the Bill was being hurried through unnecessarily. I venture to agree with him. On the Third Beading nobody said anything at all. This shows that, by an accident which often happens in the other House, though I was not aware that it so often happened here, the Hill passed through without your Lordships really knowing what it contained. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept my Amendment, or something like it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("such time us is specified in") and insert ("twenty-eight days of the receipt of").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I will not follow the noble Lord into the question of the manner in which documents are laid upon the Table of this House. Notice is given from time to time which provides us with that information. As regards the noble Lord's Amendment, I am not sure that I appreciate his objection. I thought that he desired that when this Bill became an Act of Parliament the terms of the notice should be found in it; that is to say, he wanted it in the Act and not in the Regulations. We are at one upon that point, because, as the Bill stands, it will be in the Act, the statutory Regulation being as specified in the notice. The noble Lord requires a specific time, but I do not think this will be so convenient as the provision contained in the Bill at present. This is not a matter of very-great moment one way or the other, but I suggest that what the noble Lord really wants is that some minimum time should be given by Statute. I suggest, if the noble Lord is willing to accept them, that the words should be: "Within such time, not being less than fourteen days, as is.specified in the notice."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is not enough.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think it is a matter of great importance, but the form in which I suggest the Amendment is, I think, the right form, because it gives what the noble Lord really wants, which is a minimum period. Would the noble Lord accept twenty-one days?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord suggests—namely, that there should be not less than a certain number of days' notice; but I think the number ought to be twenty-eight.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to controvert the noble Lord upon a point of this kind. The advisers of the Ministry think that fourteen days is the right period; the noble Lord suggested twenty-eight days; and I am willing to accept twenty-one days—that seems a fair arrangement.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not quite cognisant of the procedure of the House. Might I withdraw my Amendment in order to move it in another form—namely, the insertion of the words, "not being less than twenty-eight days" after "such time"?
LORD PARMOOR: I have already stated that I think that is the right form in which the Amendment should be moved, and that I am willing to accept "not less than twenty-one days."
On Question, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10. after ("time") insert ("not being less than 28 days").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUOCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUOCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with respect to the cultivation" and insert "of the acreage." The noble Duke said: My Amendment is somewhat on the same lines and is to define the Bill more distinctly than docs its present form. At the present time a Return may be asked for in respect to the cultivation of the land or the crops or live stock thereon. I propose to leave out the words with
296
respect to the cultivation of the land, and to insert in their place the words "of the acreage." It still leaves a Return to be made of the crops or live stock, and so forth. I think it is a practical Amendment and renders the Bill less objectionable. There is a great fear amongst many farmers that the present Return will give far too great power to the Department and that farmers may be pestered with all sorts of questions which may or may not be useful.
It appears to me, and I hope your Lordships will share the view, that if my Amendment is carried, the Department will be able to get all the information they really require, and that if they want further information they will probably obtain it voluntarily as they do at the present time. It is a different matter setting out answers to questions when the answers are voluntary from what it is when the answers have to be made compulsorily, subject to a penalty. We are all aware how, for many years, these questions have been a great nuisance and a great interference with business. Probably they are useful in one respect—they require a large number of clerks to look over them and, possibly, pigeon-hole them. The Lord President was so reasonable in his reply to Lord Banbury that I hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment. It will not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill, but will, I think, make it on the whole more acceptable and enable the Department to get better information than they do at present.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("with respect to the cultivation") and insert ("of the acreage").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PARMOOR: I understand that the effect of the noble Duke's Amendment would be that persons connected with the land would be required to make a Return in writing for each year of the acreage of the land, or of the crops or live stock thereon. The Bill, as drafted, really preserves, in substance, the present form in which these Returns are made. No doubt, the noble Duke is right in saying that at the present time the Returns are voluntary, whereas in future they will be subject to a penalty, but when we come to the question of the penalty I am willing to accept an Amendment put down by the noble Duke. Within the limitations

297
of the Bill the actual form in which the Returns will be required will appear in the Regulations and I am prepared to accept an Amendment from the noble Duke as to the way in which the Returns shall be laid upon the Table. Having regard to those two matters on which I am prepared to meet the noble Duke I will ask him if he cannot leave the existing words in the Bill. Those words enable the Return to be asked for in a sufficiently wide manner. It is thought to be of importance by the Ministry of Agriculture that the Returns should not be cut down so as to give them less information than at present, but when we come to the Regulations and they are laid upon the Table, of course it will be open to the noble Duke, or any one else, to say that we are asking for too much information. This is the view of the Ministry, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed at this point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend behind me, Lord Banbury; I think the principle of the Bill is quite right. We want to make these Returns strictly accurate and not only partially so, but I want to know what is meant by general cultivation. We want to know the exact acreage and the crops, but what is cultivation as distinct from crops? I do not understand what that means.
LORD STRACHIE: I think the object of the Ministry is that it shall be explained in these Returns exactly how a man is cultivating—whether he is using sulphate or basic slag. It seems to me to be a very difficult thing to ask and is perfectly unnecessary in a Bill of this sort. The Lord President says there is to be only a small penalty, but even if it is reduced to £5 it is a very serious sum for small holders. It is very important that this particular Amendment should be accepted. I think that it will make the Bill more simple and more acceptable, especially to the small men.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The word "cultivation" was in Section 15 of the Corn Production Act of 1917, but it was there for the very good reason that at that time a subsidy was given to farmers, and there were committees which
298
investigated the control and cultivation of the land. At the present moment no subsidy is given, and there are no committees—and I hope there never will be any more—which can interfere with the business of the farmer, telling him how he ought to cultivate his land. If the Amendment is carried every information which can be wanted can be given. There can be no object in asking for a Return as to cultivation unless you are. going to set up committees to interfere with the farmer in his cultivation. During the Recess I have seen a great many farmers in Wiltshire, and they are very much alarmed, and want to know whether they are to be. interfered with in the conduct of their business. I hope sincerely that my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and, if necessary, divide the House upon it.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I attach very great importance to this Amendment. I do not at all agree with the Lord President of the Council that with this alteration the information obtained will not be sufficient. It is a totally different thing altogether. They are as different as chalk from cheese-both agricultural products, but differing entirely. In this particular case what the noble Duke wants to do is to give the Minister all the reasonable information that can be of any use to him. If, however, he is to be told what is the cultivation of the land—and it is the widest phrase and may mean anything or nothing—what are the Department going to dc with the information when they have got it? Will they write to the farmer, and say: "I notice you are going to put down so much land in mangolds, and so much in barley; if so, we think it is a very bad arrangement of your land"? If not, what is the use of cumbering the State and the pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Agriculture with all this information which, when they have it, they cannot use? I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and put in words which are practical and businesslike, instead of words which are most misleading, and may be very dangerous.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the course of this debate reference has beep made to me. It is stated that I was responsible for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House a year ago. I am

299
not in the least making myself responsible for it to-day, but, in regard to this vexed question of making a Return of cultivation, I should have thought the words proposed were necessary owing to the fact that, certainly on a good many farms in my neighbourhood, there are a number of fields where there is no crop growing, nor are there any sheep, nor any grass—at least, I hope there is not, because, if there is, it is only twitch grass. In that part of the country there is a good deal of land which is known as "dead fallows," and, if you do not occasionally have "dead fallows" on a heavy clay land, you are very likely to get very bad crops. That stale of cultivation, which is very necessary, would not bring the land under the description in the Bill. I should have thought that there was no harm in asking for the information which is required under the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl and also to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because I think that the other speakers have entirely misunderstood the meaning of the word "cultivation." It does not mean cultivation in the sense of the way in which the farmer is carrying on his business. It has never been held to include that, nor is it intended now to include it. I have before me what is returned under the head of "cultivation," and I think it is very much the same as has been described by the noble Earl. It states whether land is bare, fallow, or grass, or used for mowing or grazing, or rough grazing, such as mountain heath or moor; and that is information which it is very valuable for the Ministry to have. I did not think it would ever have been suggested that this was an interference with the methods of carrying on business. This is information which has been regularly supplied, it is exactly the information to which the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, referred, and I hope that your Lordships will allow the words to remain in the Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Cannot a precise word be found? It is evident, by the admission of the noble Lord, that, though the ordinary practice is what he has described and I understand that nobody has raised any objection to it, the word proposed in the Bill is capable of another moaning. The English
300
language is a rich language. I should have imagined that some phrase could be discovered which would not be open to the misconstruction of which the noble Duke and other members of your Lordships' House are afraid.
LORD PARMOOR: For the moment it does not occur to me that there is a better word than cultivation to express what is intended, but I should be most willing to consider the point between now and the Report stage, and to see the noble Duke about it, in order that we may make it quite clear that this is not a question of the way in which a business is being carried on, but the condition of the fields as they stand. I hope that, if the Amendment is withdrawn now. suitable words can be found to meet the whole difficulty before the Report stage
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask if the acreage of dead pasture mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster——
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, I did not mention pasture, I was referring to cultivated fields.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Well, dead fallow. Is the acreage of "dead fallow" given in the Returns?
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is rather difficult satisfactorily to answer a question of that kind on the spur of the moment, but if this could be left over till the Report stage I will promise to give every consideration to it in order, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has pointed out, that we may find the most appropriate language.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I suggest that the noble Lord should agree to omit the word "cultivation," and to include the word "acreage" now, and, if between now and the Report stage, he should find a better word, we could consider it. It is far better to delete the objectionable word now, and to alter the clause again later, if it is found that we are wrong.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry I am unable to accept that suggestion. It would obviously leave uncovered in the Returns very valuable particulars, and I could not assent to the word being struck out.
LORD CARSON: Would not the best way be to put in a definition of cultivation, and tell us what it is?
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think that might meet the difficulty, but I am not prepared now to give a definition on such a difficult point.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It would seem, perhaps, ungracious if I did not accept the offer that my noble friend has made, though I was specially asked to put down this Amendment and to press it. The real objection I have is to the vagueness of the term in the Bill. Although many of your Lordships want me to go to a Division, after the way in which the noble Lord has met me I hardly like to ask your Lordships to divide. But it is finite understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look into the matter and will meet my point by inserting a clear definition, so that there can be no abuse of the word "cultivation" by asking for a lot of unnecessary and vexatious information. If that is so, I think I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to corroborate what the noble Duke has said. He has expressed my real intention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (1) "or the persons employed on the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is proposed in order to bring the Bill within the definition given by my noble friend Lord Ancaster on the Second Reading stage last year. If noble Lords will refer to Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, they will see that the numbers of men employed are not required. If under that Act, which gave a subsidy to the farmers, and interfered with the cultivation of the farmers' land, it was not necessary to give the numbers of men employed, why is it necessary to do so now? There is a further point. It is extremely difficult, in farming, to say exactly how many men you do employ. Take my own case. I employ a certain number of men regularly, but during the hay and corn harvest I employ extra men, and not always the same number; generally, men who are employed on other parts of the small estate which I
302
have. Again, I have men in to cut hedges. I do not have them in every year. I have had a man in for six or seven weeks this year, whom I have not had for a great number of years. And so with ditchers.
How am I to return the number of men I employ? Remember, this is compulsory, and if you do not make a correct Return you are liable to a line, at present not exceeding £20. Supposing I say I employ twelve men, and the Department say: "We require to see your wage-sheet," and I produce my wage-sheet, which shows that fifteen men are employed. They would say: "You have made a false Return," and I should reply: "It is true, I did at that particular time employ twelve men, but the three other men were extra men whom I had in; I did not think it was necessary to put them down. "What is going to happen then? They may say in the end:" That is all right; you need not do anything." Your Lordships see the trouble and bother to which farmers will be put. When it was voluntary it did not matter so much. Now that it is to be compulsory it will place a very considerable burden on the farmer. What is the object of it? What does it matter to the Ministry of Agriculture how many men a farmer employs? Is it that there is to be a Bill enacting that no farmer must employ fewer than so many men per hundred acres? If that is not the object, what is it?
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will meet me on this point. Surely at the present moment, when agriculture is in a very parlous condition, there is no need to lay further burdens upon the farmer. It may seem not to give a great deal of trouble to the farmer to say how many men he employs; but as a matter of fact the vast majority of farmers do not keep any very accurate accounts, and this would entail a great deal of trouble. I have not an agent; I have only a sort of foreman and I have to do all this myself It would entail a great deal of work if I had to go through all my wages sheets, which come in once a fortnight, to find out how many men I employ and for how long I have employed them. What is the object of the Ministry of Agriculture knowing whether Lord Parmoor employs twelve men, or fourteen? If any one wants to discover the number of men employed in agriculture he can get it from the Census Returns. You will not get a true Return

303
if you insist upon this provision, because there are the extra men who are employed and who cannot really be put into the Return. The farmer makes his Return in June, say, and he finds that the corn harvest is delayed by the weather and it becomes necessary, on the few fine days at his disposal, to employ additional men to gather the harvest together. When he makes his Return he does not know whether he is going to employ those additional men or not, and the Return is of no use. It seems to me that the only possible object in view is that it may be placed in the hands of those who want to interfere with the management of the farm and to say that a certain number of men must be employed per hundred acres. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or the persons employed on the land").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should regret it if these Returns were asked for in a form which gave unnecessary labour to my noble friend Lord Banbury. But the Ministry of Agriculture consider, not in regard to a particular farm or Return, but in reference to the conditions of the industry generally, that it is important for Them to have these statistics. The conditions, of course, are very different from those of the Corn Production Act of 1917, which was an Act not for the purpose of obtaining information upon which agriculture might be benefited—which is, of course, the, hope in connection with this Return—but in connection with specific points in a particular Act. The Ministry of Agriculture think it is of importance, when they want to assist agriculture in various ways, that they should have this information. I do not think that the noble Lord will be subject to the difficulties or penalties he suggested. There is no real difficulty in giving the number of men who are really employed. I do not suppose that would mean a man who came on for a week or something of that sort, but the number of men who are normally employed. I hope your Lordships will allow this provision to stand in the Bill. I do not think there is any difficulty about it. There is certainly no sinister object in it. We can get a certain amount of this information, no doubt, from the decennial Census Returns, as I pointed out on
304
Second Reading: but it would be very imperfect. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will allow the Ministry to have this information, which, in their view, is of great importance in regard to the industry at large. I hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: I hope my noble friend Lord Banbury will insist upon his Amendment. I have had a sheep farm in occupation for a few years and I find it very difficult to know how many men are employed there. It is a source of constant dismay to me to find how many people come on at lambing time, shearing time, and so on. I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture should lay such great stress on the importance of obtaining this information. This is merely an inquisitorial Act. It is important, I suppose, because it is fashionable nowadays for the Government to poke its finger into every concern. I cannot see how the public can benefit by the very inadequate Return which will be made at best, be cause it cannot be an accurate Return.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, made a very conciliatory speech, but I wish he could satisfy the House that this information would be useful for the Ministry of Agriculture. They wish to have it; but the Lord President did not tell us why they want to have it, and I am afraid that many people will think that it is a Return for a purpose which the Lord President himself would disclaim, lie told us a moment ago, and I heard him say it with great satisfaction, that His Majesty's Government had no desire to interfere with the methods of agriculture. I think that is what he said in his speech. I am glad that I gathered his meaning correctly. But there is a very widespread feeling in the country that there is a desire to interfere. You hear people in the country saying: "Are they going to send down instructors and professors from Whitehall to teach us how-to manage our farms?" That is the sort of thing they do not regard with any satisfaction at all, and that is why I, for one, should be glad to see that ambiguous expression "cultivation" disappear from this clause altogether. For exactly the same reasons, I should like to see this reference to the number of men employed disappear also, because it seems to lend

305
itself to the same kind of suspicion which, I think, is doing a great deal of harm in the country. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill said that there was no sinister meaning in this provision. The difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, can be got over quite easily. One column of the Return might be headed "Casual labourers" and another column "Labourers engaged in task work." That would cover the point to which Lord Banbury objected. He said that he had to take on extra men from time to time. We all have to do it. In all parts of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales extra men are taken on at harvest time, and people are employed on task work. The Government, of course, are pledged to economy and they would have to scrap a great many thousands of the forms which they propose, though they may be using the old ones. But the difficulty mentioned by Lord Banbury could be got over easily in the way I have.suggested, and I commend my suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion, which will be carefully considered. I am afraid I can say nothing more on the main point. As I have stated, this information is required by the Ministry in order that they may understand all the conditions of agriculture. I am sure—at least I am instructed and I firmly believe—that it is not required for any other purpose, or for a sinister purpose such as has been suggested. I must leave the Amendment to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "twenty pounds" and insert "five pounds." The noble Duke said: I understand from the Lord President that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, but there is a somewhat similar Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury., whom I do not want to cut out. Should I do so if I move this Amendment now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Both Amendments are to omit the word "twenty."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I move to omit the word "twenty."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, leave out "(twenty)."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to repeat, as I stated before, not by way of emphasising it, but because it is the view of the Government, that we are quite prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment to leave out "twenty" and insert "five" pounds, which, in the opinion of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, is a sufficient and fair penalty. I did not know that the noble Duke would quite take up the attitude he has done. We do not consider that a penalty of forty shillings, as proposed by Lord Banbury, is sufficient, and therefore, in agreeing that "twenty" should be left out, the Government do so with the intention of accepting the other part of the noble Duke's Amendment that five pounds should be inserted.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I now move to insert "forty shillings"
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I must say that for myself I think that £5 is not an unreasonable sum to put in, but I do not want to move it and prevent my noble friend from having an opportunity of speaking on the question. I move to insert the word "five."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after ("exceeding") insert ("five").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understood that my noble friend wanted me to move my Amendment, but I do not care which way it is. I shall be content to accept £5.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I go a little further than the noble Duke, because I wish to omit the penalty subsection altogether. When I spoke on Second Reading I foreshadowed what I meant by this Amendment, and I gave my reason for wishing to omit this paragraph. The

307
Returns would be got from all over the country a great deal more easily by voluntary methods than they will be got by imposing a penalty. I do not allude to those districts where there is a large population and a sufficient number of police or officials to carry out the task, but to those parts of Wales and Scotland where the population is scattered, and where, if you want your Returns to be accurate, and worth having, you will find it excessively difficult to get them unless you send out an army of people to serve the notices, and, if they are not filled up properly, send out those people again to tell the farmers that if they do not fill them up they will have to go before a magistrate and be fined.
In the speech of the noble Lord on the Second Reading he touched on this subject very clearly. He said:—
"… the Board of Agriculture Act. 1889. … contains no provision as to the method in which those statistics are to be collected, although, as a matter of fact, on a voluntary basis, a very large number of annual Returns were made. These Returns were subsequently made compulsory by the Corn Production' Act, 1917, but with the repeal of that Act the compulsory powers disappeared."
Then he went on to mention that the council of the National Farmers' Union, recognising the great value of accurate statistical and economic information to the industry in all its branches, had informed the Minister of Agriculture that it would welcome the introduction of a measure in Parliament to put upon a sound basis the annual agricultural statistics from England and Wales. But the National Farmers' Union said nothing about this being compulsory. I think that if they had realised that it would be compulsory, and that they were liable to be fined, they would not have been so anxious to pass their resolution.
The noble Lord told us that the proposal to make the Returns compulsory was also submitted to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Council of Agriculture and that it received the approval of both those bodies. I wonder if they realised the number of people who were to be employed to serve these notices, and to tell the farmers that unless they filled them up they would be fined. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept my Amendment. I would point out to him that the experience in my own country is that we
308
get Returns quite easily, and that there is no fine. The twenty-six counties of Ireland are very much smaller than the parts of England, Scotland and Wales to which I allude. The noble and learned Lord knows that a great deal better than I do. I beg to move my Amendment, though I do not think it is much use my trying to persuade the noble Lord to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 22 to 25, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD PARMOOR: As the noble Earl has stated, the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales, and in Scotland, passed resolutions approving the principle of compulsory Returns, and the whole Bill is based on the principle that there should be compulsory Returns in order that the information may be obtained. The penalty has been reduced to £5, as desired by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, for it really would alter the whole character of the Bill, which, if this Amendment were passed, would no longer be a Bill of a compulsory kind.
THE EARL OF MAYO: It would make it a voluntary Bill instead of a compulsory one, and that is what I am aiming at.
LORD PARMOOR: The farmers themselves desire that it should be compulsory in order that it may be effective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I beg to move, in subsection (3) (b), to substitute "ten pounds" for "twenty pounds."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (3) (b) "unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence" and to insert "if it is proved that he knowingly made such untrue return." The noble Lord said: This is a legal point and I move the Amendment with some trepidation. As the Bill stands, if a man

309
makes an untrue Return he has to prove that he made it innocently and without negligence. I have always understood the law to be that a man has not to prove his innocence but that the prosecution has to prove his guilt. The Lord Chancellor will be able to tell me if I am right in that supposition. My Amendment meets the point. It may be extremely difficult for a man who quite innocently makes a mistake to prove that he did so innocently and without negligence. Surely it is for the Department to prove that the man knew he was making a false Return. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill is a celebrated lawyer. Perhaps he will agree with my definition of the law, and in that case I hope he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("unless he proves that lie made the return innocently and without negligence") and insert ("if it is proved that lie knowingly made such untrue return"). (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the somewhat wide principle to which the noble Lord refers, and with which I entirely agree, has any application to the present case at all. The matter stands in this way. A Return is required; it is not made, or it is made negligently. Surely in those circumstances, if a question arises, it is for the person to show-that the Return has been made in a proper manner. The person who makes a faulty Return should give an explanation as to why he made a faulty Return.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move, in subsection (6), to leave out "or osier land or woodland."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or osier land or woodland").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am prepared to assent to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6) the words "but shall not be applied to woodlands or gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such woodland and/or garden are less in extent than two statute,
310
acres."The noble Lord said: In consequence of the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord of the last Amendment I will omit all reference to woodlands in moving this Amendment. There are a good many people who have land attached to their villas and cottages from which they sell a good deal of produce. I think a line should be drawn somewhere as to lands from which these Returns are to he demanded.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 15, at end insert ("but shall not be applied to gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such gardens are lees in extent than two statute acres").—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord apparently thinks that these gardens are gardens in the ordinary sense. They are market gardens.
LORD RAGLAN: Is there a definition of market gardens? If I sell a row of carrots does not that make the garden a market garden?
LORD PARMOOR: No, certainly not. It is not meant to apply to an ordinary private garden attached to a cottage. I ask the noble Lord in these circumstances to leave out the proposed words. It may be necessary further to consider the definition of agricultural land which is construed to include market gardens. The definition of agricultural land is in subsection (6), and it includes "land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or for a market garden or nursery ground." The noble Lord will see that that definition sufficiently protects him.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made the matter sufficiently clear. Unless the Amendment of my noble friend is accepted, there is no reason why every garden attached to a dwelling-house should not be treated as a market garden or nursery garden, and I venture, to interpose on the really public ground that of all the grave scandals of national expenditure at this moment probably the greatest is the enormous mass of statistics of every description which are piled up in the public offices and which are perfectly useless to anybody. I do not say that there may not be some utility in the statistics which the Government seek under this Bill. If you want to know

311
the amount of corn land or land under any particular culture, it is quite understandable that it may be necessary to have these Returns, though I have grave doubts whether they will be utilised to any great advantage. But to serve on every small occupier a variety of papers, to force labourers to make Returns, to make all the mistakes which public Departments always make,—calling upon a man time after time, and sending him, as I have seen sent, five or six reminders—seems to me to be a waste of money against which this House ought to set its face.
Let me tell the noble Lord that I sat upon the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer nine years ago, and, of all the questions upon which that Committee pronounced, that which called for their strongest comment was the immense rise in the cost of the Stationery Department owing to absolutely futile Returns. We examined head of Department after head of Department, and they admitted that in a great number of cases these arrangements had been made twenty or thirty years ago, that a large number of people were employed in connection with them and that little or no public use was made of the information obtained. I think the noble Lord is fully justified in asking for further information, and I sincerely trust that he will press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I must say that I am rather afraid of this Amendment. As the Bill stands it applies to market gardens, but not to private gardens attached to houses. Under this Amendment any private garden attached to a house might, if over two acres, come within the Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: Only if the produce is sold.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am not at all sure about that. The sale of the produce does not make the garden a market garden. The Amendment might, I think, have an effect which the noble Lord does not intend.
LORD PARMOOR: There has never been any difficulty in the definition of market garden in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and no such difficulty has ever arisen as the noble Lord suggested. As regards the wider question, every one desires that unnecessary Returns should
312
not be asked for, but these Returns are, I think, essential. The amount of extra work relating to these small market gardens is probably very slight indeed, but we want the Returns in order to get a correct estimate of the whole position regarding all agricultural land, including market gardens. If the proposed words were included, they might involve the risk to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Does the noble Lord contend that corn can be grown on a holding of under two acres attached to a dwelling-house?
LORD PARMOOR: That is not suggested; but corn is not the only product of agricultural land. There are agricultural products that can perfectly well be grown on market gardens, and which are habitually and constantly so grown.
THE EARL OF MAYO: This question has cropped up before. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, has said, gardens over two acres will not be covered by this Amendment, but there are gardens over two acres, attached to dwelling houses, of which the produce is sold. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it clear that the definition of a market garden has been settled, but my noble friend Lord Midleton was right when he said that a host of people will have to be paid to look after the matter. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has left out the reference to woodlands—and quite rightly—but what is to be said of these gardens of over two acres? We have had no distinct answer from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with regard to that point, and I should be glad—I do not know whether the Committee will agree with me—if he would give us a little more information.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (7), and to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Before any regulation is made under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft."

313
The noble Duke said: I think the Lord President is going to accept this Amendment——
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does not the noble Duke wish to move the Amendment which stands first in his name on the Paper, to leave out the second "may" in subsection (7) and insert "shall"?
LORD PARMOOR: May I point out that the noble Duke is quite right, because if the new subsection is adopted in place of that which is at present in the Bill the other Amendment becomes immaterial. I accept the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think the Amendment has the advantage of making the matter clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. lines 16 to 24, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke, of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: As one or two matters have to be settled, I do not propose to take the Report stage of the Bill until to-morrow week, which will provide an opportunity of dealing with the matters which have been raised.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS AT SOFIA.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the settlement of Bulgarian Reparations and of the costs of the Armies of Occupation, any reconstruction on a more economical basis of the International Commissions at Sofia has been effected. The question of Allied Commissions in ex-enemy countries is one to which I have called attention on various occasions already, and I hope that some statistician (Mr. Sidney Webb, for choice) will some day calculate the amount of money which has been spent upon useless and extravagant Commissions—money which would otherwise have been diverted into the pockets of ourselves and our Allies. As an instance of the useless extravagance which is perpetrated by these Commissions, I may mention the fact that nearly
314
three years ago I was in Berlin and was informed by a prominent member of one of these Commissions that their work was practically terminated then, whereas, according to the "Hats-off-to-France" Press, their work has not been begun.
In the case of Bulgaria, immediately on the conclusion of hostilities the usual horde of Missions descended upon that country—Frontier Commissions, Reparation Commissions, and Control Commissions—accompanied by typists and other satellites, drawing much larger salaries than the Bulgarian Prime Minister, and there they have remained ever since. These various Commissions have been battening upon the bankrupt Bulgarians for several years. One can understand that it may be necessary to keep these Commissions in existence in Germany, because the Germans do not show any alacrity to pay the Reparations, but the case of Bulgaria is different. The Reparations payable by Bulgaria were fixed at the fantastic figure of £90,000,000, but as the result of negotiations it was reduced to £23,000,000. That took place more than a year ago. One would have supposed that, the amount having been settled, the work of the Commission would have terminated and that it would have broken up and come away, but, far from that being the case, it was then discovered that prolonged negotiations had to be entered upon with reference to the cost of the Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria, and I understand that the Bulgarians have been called upon to pay another million in connection with those costs. That has now been settled, but, so far as I know, these Commissions still remain in existence.
When I last called attention to this subject, and more particularly to the question of these Allied Commissions in Bulgaria, I instanced the case of the head of the British section in Sofia, who, I said, was drawing a higher salary than our Minister there, and I added that I was surprised that he should find himself able to adopt a course of this nature. I am glad to take this opportunity of making amends to this particular gentleman. I have since discovered that, much to his credit, our representative, Sir Elliot Colvin, was very anxious to be withdrawn a long time ago, and I believe it is the case that he has set an example of economy and moderation to his Allied

315
colleagues which might well be imitated. Nevertheless, so far as I know, our Commission still remains there, and I suppose Sir Elliot Colvin is still there. It seems to me. and I suppose it must seem to anybody who has ever been in that part of the world, or in an ex-enemy country, that it is time that this sort of thing came to an end, and I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to announce this afternoon that at all events our Mission is going to be withdrawn, because I am quite convinced that nothing will be done until we take the lead. It is unfortunately perfectly true—although I may be abused for saying it—that if we are to wait for action on the part of our Allies we shall remain very indefinitely. Therefore I hope to have a satisfactory assurance from His Majesty's Government that there will be an early termination of the British Mission in Bulgaria.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I will reply to the Question of the noble Lord. It is a matter which really comes under the Treasury more than under the Foreign Office because it is a question of expenditure. I will, therefore, deal with it, instead of my noble and learned friend, Lord Parmoor. As the noble Lord has indicated, this is by no means the first time that the noble Lord has raised questions in your Lordships' House about the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia. He has initiated debates on this subject on previous occasions in 1922 and 1923. I will briefly recall to your Lordships' minds the history of these matters. In doing so, I venture to think I shall provide good justification for what has happened up to the present, and I can also make an announcement about the future which will, I hope, be satisfactory to the noble Lord, although it may not go quite as far as he desires.
It will be recollected that the Inter-Allied Commission went to Sofia early in 1921 with the task of fixing the method of settlement of the Reparation liabilities of Bulgaria under the Treaty of Neuilly. The Commission's task was no light one. Its labours proved to be a lengthy business, and great credit for overcoming difficulties must be given to the Delegates on the Commission whose energy and persistence were rewarded with an agreed settlement of the Reparation question in March. 1923. To reach a settlement by
316
agreement is the ideal policy; it is no use grumbling that some time is taken up in argument. The result will abundantly repay any time so spent. Further and equally difficult negotiations were needed on the subsidiary question of recovering the costs of the Allied Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria. A settlement of this question also was reached by mutual agreement—on the 28th March last—and is ready for formal approval by the Allied Governments concerned.
In all these transactions His Majesty's Government are happy to think that the British Delegate, Sir Elliot Colvin, played a conspicuous part, having great influence with his colleagues and with successive Bulgarian Governments. It will thus be seen that the Sofia Commission has produced results and accomplished the most difficult part of its task. Its labours are, of course, not over. There remain some matters for decision in connection with the Bulgarian share of the Ottoman Debt and other matters raised by the Peace Treaty. There must also be some Allied organisation to supervise the working of the new agreements.
Now I will come to the question of finance. The total establishment expenditure of the Commission at Sofia has been:—1921, £47,302; 1922, £41,169; 1923, £36,600. These are the totals for all the Allied countries. In considering these figures it must be borne in mind that political considerations absolutely necessitated the division of the Commission into three national Delegations. That is not the most economical form of organisation, but no other was practical. The progressive reduction in expenditure shows that although constantly engaged in delicate negotiations the Delegates did keep an eye on administrative economy.
As regards the future, the Commission, by achieving the Reparation and cost of occupation settlements, have finished the most difficult part of their task, and it is possible to consider what the normal organisation should be henceforth. His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it should be feasible to keep expenditure within £16.000 a year, and they have recommended this strongly to the Ambassadors' Conference. Their view-is that the main staff of the Commission, apart from the Delegates, should be on international lines (as, for example.

317
in the League of Nations) and this plan will effect large, economies. The Government consider that expenditure on this scale should prove sufficient, though not more than sufficient, and they trust that the proposal will commend itself to the other Governments concerned, who are at one with them in desiring to effect all possible economies. It would, however, be very harmful to reduce expenses to a point at which the Commission loses prestige and is no longer composed of officers of real standing, capable of exercising independent judgment and whose opinions carry real weight with the Allied and with the Bulgarian Governments.
Before I resume my seat I will take this opportunity of announcing that Sir Elliot Colvin, who has been the British Delegate on the inter-Allied Commission in Bulgaria since the Commission was first set up, has informed the Government of his desire to resign his post at the end of the present month, now that the chief tasks of the Commission have been completed. His Majesty's Government feel that the country is greatly indebted to Sir Elliot Colvin for the conspicuous ability with which he has performed the tasks incumbent on him as British Delegate on the Commission. He has succeeded at all times in working in complete harmony with his French and Italian colleagues, and has successfully maintained friendly relations with the Bulgarian Government, in spite of the delicacy of the negotiations in which he took a leading part.
It is perhaps somewhat of a paradox that the Delegates of the Commission entrusted with the administration of the Reparation clauses of the Treaty should have come to be regarded as the sincere friends of the country by whom Reparations are being paid. Such, however, is the case. The fact is that the Commission as a whole has always borne in mind the fact that the financial and economic prosperity of Bulgaria is an essential condition of the discharge of her obligations. In short, the task laid upon the inter-Allied Commission has called for both firmness and tact in no small degree, and the admirable combination of these qualities which Sir Elliot Colvin has displayed has contributed in a large measure to the success achieved by the Commission.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government could add one more fact to the information which they have given to the House—namely, how long they contemplate that this Commission is to go on. As I understood what the noble Lord has just said, it is to cost £16,000 a year, which, of course, has really to be paid by Bulgaria, and is taken out of the money available for Reparations and for all other purposes which Bulgaria has to find. That £16,000 a year is the British Government's proposal; I do not understand that the Allied Governments have accepted that, and I do not quite gather how long the payment of that money is to go on—I presume until the whole of the Reparation debt has been paid by Bulgaria. I do not carry in my mind exactly what date has been fixed for that, but, since the amount is £23,000,000, and other expenses which still have to be estimated, and also the £1,000,000 "for the Army of Occupation, I am afraid it is likely to be some considerable time.
May I very respectfully impress upon the Government the immense importance of getting rid of these relics of the War Commissions as soon as possible? I am sure that, there are many members of the Government who will warmly sympathise with that idea. It is not only a question of whether they are doing useful work. I am sure that all that the noble Lord has said about the services of Sir Elliot Colvin is fully deserved, and every member of the House will desire to join in the tribute which he has paid to him. But that is not quite the point. The point is that these Commissions, of which the Ambassadors' Conference in Paris is the chief—and is, I think, the most pernicious—have existed ever since the war. As far as I understand the noble Lord, they are likely to exist for many, many years more, and that is not a satisfactory state of things if we desire the final pacification of Europe.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, it is true that the Government have not been able to state through my noble friend how long this Commission is to go on. It is impossible now to fix an exact date, but I think I can say that the Government cordially agree with what the noble Viscount has said, that the sooner you can get rid of these War Commissions the better.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not at all sure that the noble Lord who answered this Question was a very suitable person for the purpose. The noble Lord has very grandiose ideas upon finance, and not very long ago he spoke of a sum of £3,500,000 as a "niggardly contribution." It is quite natural that, in the circumstances, the pettifogging economies which I have suggested did not make much appeal to him. The one thing that is clear to me, as apparently it is to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, is that these Commissions are going on. According to the view of Lord Arnold, you must not reduce their salaries because it will diminish their prestige. It may possibly diminish their prestige, but it is not likely to diminish their popularity. I have passed a certain amount of time in ex-enemy countries since the war, and my own experience is that in all these cases it is the opinion of everybody who has any knowledge of the circumstances that the kind of work which is now performed by a Commission of this kind could perfectly well be performed by one or two secretaries attached to the existing Legation. If the noble Lord could give me some assurance that that would be done, if I were a Bulgarian I should feel considerably more hopeful as to the future. But it seems to me that there is a prospect of these gentlemen remaining at reduced salaries indefinitely.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships at great length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, as its main aims and provisions have been discussed, both here and in another place, on previous occasions. I will endeavour, however, adequately to summarise the objects of the present Bill, and, in particular, I must explain Clause 2, because that clause introduces a new provision. The Bill has four main clauses, and, as they deal with entirely different matters, it follows that the Bill falls into four separate parts. I will deal with them in order.
320
Clause 1 of the Bill increases from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000 the total amount of loans, the principal and interest of which may be guaranteed by the Government, and extends the period during which guarantees may be given from November 9, 1923, until March 31, 1925. The principle involved was fully discussed in the debate upon the original Acts—the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922. Your Lordships will remember that the genesis of these Acts was that the Treasury should have power to guarantee loans for works of a capital nature with a view to relieving unemployment. These Treasury guarantees have undoubtedly been of value in the vital work of finding employment. Under the original Acts, as I have said, there was power to guarantee up to £50,000,000. It is now sought to raise the limit to £65,000,000. The guarantees already given and promised amount to about £43,000,000. Therefore, when this Act is passed the Treasury will have in hand powers to the extent of a further £22,000,000, but these powers, either wholly or in part, must be exercised before March 31, 1925. Before I leave this clause, I would advise your Lordships of one fact which is important in this connection, and will, I think, be recognised as highly satisfactory. In all the guarantees which have been given the Government has only in one case so far been called on to make good a loss. This was in the case of a small brickwork, and the Exchequer was involved in an expenditure of, approximately, £4,000.
Clause 2, as I have before indicated, deals with a new matter, which had no place in the previous Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922. The clause carries out the Resolution adopted by the Imperial Conference last autumn, that the Treasury should be empowered to contribute towards the interest charges on loans raised in the United Kingdom where the proceeds are spent in this country and are to be applied on, or in connection with, a public utility undertaking in some part of His Majesty's Dominions or in a British Protectorate. I must make it quite clear, my Lords, that this is a proposal to pay money, not to guarantee it, and the clause gives power to pay up to a maximum of three-quarters of the interest on any loans such as I have described.
Now, certain provisions are laid down in the clause, the chief of which is that

321
the contribution must be limited to £1,000,000 in any one year and to £5,000,000 in all. Another important condition is, as I have indicated, that this contribution will only be made by the Home Government on such part of a loan as is expended in the United Kingdom. One of the chief objects of this proposal is to stimulate orders for goods which will be supplied from this country. Thus the clause should do something to reduce unemployment, more particularly as another condition of a contribution by the Home Government is that the loan must be for expenditure which would not normally be incurred until a later date, and it is also definitely laid down that the loan must be calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom. The extent of the possibilities under this clause is considerable. If I assume that loans are raised at 5 per cent. per annum, the Treasury contribution of the maximum of three-quarters of the interest would in all enable assistance to be given towards capital works involving an expenditure of from £26,000,000 to £27,000,000. Having regard to all these conditions, I venture to think that this clause is one which will meet with a wide measure of support.
I now pass to Clause 3, the purpose of which, shortly stated, is to extend the period during which requests for guarantees under the export credits scheme may be received, and also for an extension of the time during which guarantees may remain in force. I need scarcely remind your Lordships of the history of the export credits scheme. It was started five years ago mainly with the object of endeavouring to help our trade with certain countries which had been specially disturbed as a consequence of the war. In the first instance, the plan was to make advances through the Board of Trade in respect of goods exported to those countries. Later, the Government decided to adopt a procedure more closely approximating to the normal methods of financing trade, and agreed to guarantee bills drawn by traders in respect of goods exported to the countries included in the scheme, and to share a proportion of the ultimate loss, if any.
By this clause the Bill extends the period for acceptance of requests for guarantees up to September 8, 1926, and extends the period during which the guarantees may remain in force up to
322
September 8, 1930. According to the most recent figures the total amount of credits actually taken up, including both advances and guarantees, was, in round figures. £9,400,000. To this should be added another £3,400,000 which has been earmarked but not yet taken up, making £12,800,000 in all Out of this total £5,400,000 has already been repaid or, in the case of guarantees, the guarantees have been cancelled on the bills being met. The total amount now in use or earmarked is, therefore, £7,400,000, leaving a balance of £18.600,000 for further transactions No new principle is involved in this clause: it merely continues the system already in force, and the extensions are given with a view to making the export credits scheme more effective in contributing to trade improvement and the provision of employment.
I come now to the last clause of the Bill, Clause 4, which deals with matters which are already well known to your Lordships' House and have been discussed on several previous occasions. The clause provides that the Treasury may guarantee the principal and interest of a loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan of a further amount of £3,500,000. This money is required in connection with the Gezirah irrigation scheme. Previous guarantees have been given by the British Government for this scheme to an amount, in all, of £9,500,000. Therefore, the further £3,500,000 provided for by this clause will bring the total in respect of which guarantees have been given to £13,000,000. This clause, which gives power for this additional guarantee of £3,500,000, lays down conditions similar to those which have been previously enacted. The general effect of these conditions is that the Soudan Government must make proper arrangements for applying the loan and charging it on the general revenue and assets of the Soudan, and establish a proper sinking fund to redeem the loan within fifty years of the time it is raised.
This farther loan of £3,500,000 is to complete the Gezirah irrigation scheme. The contract for the work is let to a British firm, and it is to be completed by July, 1925. It is estimated that after the completion of the irrigation scheme, 70,000 bales of cotton annually wall be obtainable from the Soudan. This will be

323
a substantial contribution towards increasing the output of a vital raw material. Another advantage which will accrue from this loan is that the placing of this big contract with a British firm means an expenditure of considerable sums of money in this country upon plant, machinery, steel and iron work and materials, all of which should help to relieve unemployment. I should say that it had been hoped to raise this final loan of £3,500,000 without the guarantee of the British Government. Proposals to that end have, however, proved impracticable, and therefore this guarantee is needed. If the British Government were to decline to guarantee this £3,500,000, the position might be somewhat serious. It might be I that the whole of the irrigation scheme would be in jeopardy, and, as the British Government has already given guarantees up to £9,500,000 in connection with the scheme, it seems the wiser plan to guarantee this further sum of £3,500,000 with the object of carrying the work through to a satisfactory and remunerative conclusion.
I have now dealt with all the provisions of the Bill, and I venture to think that, taken as a whole, it is a measure which will commend itself to your Lordships because it is designed to continue and extend schemes already adopted for reducing unemployment and furthering trade. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in view of the proposals which have been made by the Government in another place to abolish the McKenna Duties, and which, it is obvious, will increase unemployment, I must say that I am very much surprised that they should now produce in your Lordships' House a scheme which may affect unemployment in an opposite direction.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether my understanding of Clause 2 is correct. The clause is rather involved, but, as I understand it, the fact is that we guarantee to spend a sum not exceeding £5,000,000 in all, and that we shall never get that five
324
million pounds back. We practically make a present of £5,000,000 to certain people in the Dominions. Is that correct?
LORD ARNOLD: Potentially. If all the money is used £5,000,000 would be paid, not guaranteed, as interest on loans, but the loans in respect of which that interest would be used must be money which is spent in this country, and therefore it will help unemployment here and will also help the Empire.
LORD BANBUBY OF SOUTHAM: It is really giving a subsidy to a certain undertaking on the understanding that that undertaking spends the money in this country.
LORD ARNOLD: In effect, yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We are going to spend £5,000,000 to alleviate unemployment, and I do not think we shall ever get a penny of it back. We are really making a present of it. When we come to Clause 4, as I understand from the noble Lord, another £3,500,000 is to be spent because, if you do not spend this additional £3,500,000, the £9,000,000 which we have already spent, or some such sum, will probably be wasted. I dare say that is true, and it may be advisable to spend a certain amount of money in order to complete the work, but what is going to happen if what we see in the newspapers is correct? I do not always believe what I see in the newspapers, but what is going to happen if the Egyptian Government take over the government of the Soudan and we abandon the control of the Soudan to that Government? I may be wrong, but if so I should like to be put right. So far as I can gather from the newspapers one of the claims made by the present Egyptian Government is that we should withdraw altogether from the Soudan, and that the Soudan should be managed by Egyptians and by them only. Are the Government going to say: "No, we have invested a certain amount of money in that country, we have made that country prosperous, and we are going to stand as we are," or are they going to give way? If they are going to give way I do not think they ought to lend any more money. If they are going to retain control of the Soudan itself I should not object to it, but I should like to know what the position is.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is really not an occasion on which to embark upon a question of foreign policy. Whatever may be the policy of the Government in the future, on which I desire to say nothing at present, I think it may be taken that an expenditure of this kind will be safeguarded. But I shall not be led into embarking on a discussion of foreign policy on this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, may I ask that we should be permitted to take the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow? It is a Money Bill, and no Amendment-can be carried. The Bill is rather urgently required. Contracts are awaiting confirmation, and can be entered into as soon as this Bill is passed. The Government have done their best to push it forward, and in the circumstances I hope that we may be permitted to take the Committee stage to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the request of the noble Lord is a reasonable one, and I shall agree to it.

FARM LABOURERS' WAGES IN WILTSHIRE.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes in Wiltshire farm labourers are only paid £1 (one pound) a week. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the facts of the case which I desire to bring to the notice, of His Majesty's Government are very simple, and can be briefly stated. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture made a statement in his place in Parliament to the effect that there were two counties in England in which the wages paid wore so low as £1 a week, and he mentioned Wiltshire and Berkshire as those two counties. I was abroad at the time, and I was very much surprised to read of that statement. I have taken some personal interest for a considerable time in this question, and I knew that at any rate within a short period of my going abroad the wages in many districts in Wiltshire were not £1 a week but 30s. a week, and in a great
326
many cases 27s. a week, although the agricultural conditions in certain parts of the county are extremely bad.
The farmers of Wiltshire were very indignant indeed about this statement, and they at once instituted inquiries. Two or three Members for Wiltshire in the other House interrogated His Majesty's Government, and they made the very natural suggestion that a statement of this kind ought either to be supported by quoted authority or withdrawn. In this particular case the Minister made what seemed to me to be an amazing statement—namely, that the authority could not be given because the person who had given him the information declined to have his name disclosed. At school we used to call a boy who did that sort of thing a sneak, and we knew how to deal with him. Unfortunately, when we are grown up those summary methods are not resorted to. I am bound to say, so far as my knowledge goes, that it is entirely contrary to the universal practice of Englishmen, and above all of English Ministers, to make a grave charge founded upon authority and to refuse to quote that authority, or, when you find that your statement is ridiculously incorrect, to refuse to withdraw it.
What happened in this particular case? The National Union of Farmers is very active in my County, and in each of their brunches they immediately instituted inquiries. For some considerable time they could not hear of a single case in the County where wages had been so reduced, but last week a case was discovered in one village where one man, it is true, had had his wages reduced to £1 a week. One man in one village! And this is enough for the Minister of Agriculture upon which to base a general charge of this grave kind against all the agricultural employers in the County. It is an outrage. The Minister of Agriculture represents, or ought to represent, all the interests connected with our great industry of agriculture. He is as much a representative of those who own the land and of the farmers who cultivate it, as he is of those who work upon the land, and he is not going to serve the labourers' interest, or secure an improvement in their wage conditions, by making statements of this kind and then refusing to verify them.
We were discussing, a short time ago in your Lordships' House, a measure deal-

327
ing with Agricultural Returns, and the Lord President found it very difficult to understand why some Amendments were moved from this side of the House. He contested the desirability of the alterations that were proposed and, I am happy to say, carried. It is evident from the Lord President's speech that he does not realise the present condition of things in the agricultural world. He does not realise that the conditions have changed by what has recently happened. He justifies his action by reference to the voluntary condition of things that has been hitherto in existence. I would point out, in the first place, that that condition of things was voluntary, and in the second place that the air was not infected as it is to-day with all these rumours and reports of what the Government are going to do. We hear of compulsion imposed upon farmers to make certain payments, and to do certain things. It is a blind man's policy, it is a policy made in defiance of all the facts as they exist at the present moment, it is a policy which will perish in the hands of those who are trying to force it upon our industry, and one that will react bitterly upon the very class whom the Government seek to help.
Let it be remembered that a statement made in Parliament is a privileged statement. You cannot proceed upon it. But supposing the Minister said: "I will make it outside," and he does so? The whole farming community of Wiltshire could not then bring an action for libel against the Minister of Agriculture, or at least I suppose not. This is an entirely misleading statement. It is not true that the farmers of Wiltshire are paying only £1 a week, it is not true that there is a great difference between the wages paid there and elsewhere. My belief is that, taken as a whole, the wages are as good and satisfactory in Wiltshire as they are anywhere else. And we have only heard of one case. When the Minister of Agriculture was asked by Members in the other House to give his authority for the statement it was not only because we wanted to know whether this charge, which we believe to be unfounded, had any foundation or not, but also because we wanted to find out the facts and use such influence as we possess to get the condition of things altered. Yet the Minister of Agriculture makes this statement and refuses to give any authority, or even admit that he has been misled.
It is not consistent with the best traditions of English government for a Minister to make a statement of that kind, to be unable to substantiate it, and then refuse to withdraw it. It reflects the greatest discredit on the farming community; it is discreditable to my own County, and it is absolutely untrue. I am here to repudiate it absolutely and entirely, and to say that the closest inquiries and most vigorous search made throughout the whole of the County has only revealed one case. I submit to His Majesty's Government that for their own reputation for character as fair-dealing men this charge ought to be withdrawn, and withdrawn without qualification. I shall be much surprised if the Lord President of the Council does not take advantage of this occasion to make it perfectly clear that the Minister was misled and that the charge is repudiated and withdrawn whole-heartedly. At least, so much justice is due to those whom I represent, the agriculturists of my own County.
LORD PARMOOH: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has very much exaggerated the statement that was made, and has not perhaps given sufficient attention to the corroboration which is forthcoming in support of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in another place. The noble Viscount asks whether the Government "are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes of Wiltshire agricultural labourers are being paid only £1 per week." No such statement was ever made by the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to read exactly what he did say. This is the actual statement made in the other place:—
"In the South of England, I am sorry to say, I hear of cases of a wage as low as £1; not, I hope, very numerous cases, but there certainly are some. When we talk of 25 s. we must remember that the Norfolk men have not been working 50 hours but 48 a week.
"Ms. BLACK: Does the 25s. include rent and no emoluments?
"Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I hope those cases are rare. What the Prime Minister said about two months ago no one can deny—namely, that it is impossible to get good value for such wages as that. There is nothing more uneconomic than a sweated wage. There is a good deal of interest in a regulated wage. Very often there are

329
farmers who would like to pay a bettor wage than they are doing, but whose 6ense of social duty precludes thorn from paying as good a wage as they would like to pay. These are the very men whom regulation would protect.
"MR. LAMBERT: Are the conciliation committees working where these £1 a week wages are paid?
"MR. BUXTON: No, there are very few conciliation committees working at all.
"SIR HENRY CAUTLEY: In what locality are these wages of £1 a week paid?
"MR. BUXTON: In Berkshire and Wiltshire."
Therefore the statement was that in Wiltshire, as the noble Viscount has said, there were rare cases—I use that expression-in which these low wages were paid.
When the question was raised in the House of Commons with regard to the sources of information no doubt the answer was given in the way pointed out by the noble Viscount. As the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture stated, in reply to questions in the House of Commons on April 16, 1924, to disclose the names of the farmers whose workers are in receipt of low wages, or to disclose the districts where they are paid, would obviously embarrass the persons concerned, and the Minister does not see his way to disclose the names or the sources of his information its to cases of low wages in Wiltshire. The noble Viscount can be assured, however, that the information is derived from unimpeachable sources.
In addition to that, further information can be added. Since the statement was made, other cases have been brought to the Minister's notice, and in one case a wage of 17s. only per week is being-received. Confirmation of cases of low wages has been received as a result of an inquiry by the Ministry's own inspectors which clearly indicated that able-bodied men doing a full week's work were receiving only 20 s. per week. In two cases which came, to the inspector's personal notice, the men were married with families; in one case he was a general farm worker and milker doing 62 hours per week, including Sundays, for 20 s. per week, and in the other case a general farm worker working 52 hours for the same sum.
Then this matter, as the, noble Viscount has stated, was discussed in Wiltshire. It was discussed at the Chippenham branch
330
of the National farmers' Union on Saturday, April 26, and I take the following quotation from the report of the discussion:—
"Mr. Prior referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that there were farmers in Wiltshire paying £1 a week to their employees. He regarded that as an insult to the farmers in the county but he was sorry to say he had found a case in his neighbourhood. Mr. Prior said he had been to the farmer himself and told him of the disgrace we was bringing upon himself, the parish and the farmers generally. His excuse was that the man came to him as he could not get other work and he put him on temporarily at that figure. He understood the man had reduced his other employees from 27 s. to £1."
That is a statement made by Mr. Prior, a Wiltshire farmer, who may be known to the noble Viscount.
The last agreement made by the conciliation committee in Wiltshire lapsed on September 29, 1922, and since that date it is understood that the majority of the farmers have paid their workers in accordance with the recommendation of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union. The county Farmers' Union recommended a minimum rate of 27 s. per week for 50 hours with proportionate rates for overtime beyond the 50 hours, and proportionate reductions for men below 21, and it is understood that this rate is paid by the majority of the farmers in the County. I want to emphasise that, because the only statement made in the first instance was that it was a rare occurrence. It has never been suggested that it was paid in parishes in Wiltshire. Here we have a statement that the general rate was a rate which had been fixed by the County Farmers' Union, although the conciliation committee was no longer in force. Yet, as stated by Mr. Prior at the Chippenham meeting, there was a case of £1 a week, and the farmer had reduced his other labourers to the same figure.
The Minister has received protests from the Wiltshire branch of the National Farmers' Union and others in connection with his statement about low wages in Wiltshire, and suggesting that, if there are cases in which farmers are paying only £1 a week, the men concerned are not fully able-bodied workers, but are men employed on compassionate grounds at a lower rate than the standard wage

331
because they are only partially competent. It should be pointed out, however, that the cases brought to the Minister's notice are of able-bodied men doing a normal week's work. In making this statement as to low wages in Wiltshire in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture never suggested that £1 a week was the general rate being paid to agricultural labourers in the County, or in any district. His sole object was to emphasise the need for machinery for compulsory regulation of wages in agriculture, in order to prevent a few unscrupulous employers from exploiting the weak bargaining powers of their workers.
I think the words used by the noble Viscount are hardly justified. It is clear that no statement was made that the farm labourers in Wiltshire were paid such an impossible wage as £1 a week, but it is true that a rare case has occurred, and, in addition, that information of other cases has been given by the inspectors to the Ministry of Agriculture. I am certain, speaking on behalf of the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, that he would be extremely careful not to exaggerate any statement in a matter of this kind. I do not think he did so, and the remarks of the noble Viscount, which seemed to imply that a general attack had been made upon the agricultural wages paid in the County of Wilts, cannot really be supported when one has regard to that which was actually said by the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place.
As regards the other matters referred to by the noble Viscount, I think they were outside the present Question. It may well be that his views upon agricultural policy are very distinct from those of the present Government. That may have to be discussed on some future occasion. But as regards the particular Question which he has asked, I have stated the authority upon which the Minister of Agriculture made his statement, although I do not think—though I know the noble Viscount would be very careful in a matter of this kind—that he ever made the statement that in certain parishes of Wiltshire the agricultural labourers were paid only £1 a week. That which he actually did state I have already read out to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has
332
replied with his usual courtesy, but I think it will be the view of your Lordships that the reply is not altogether adequate. The case, as I have followed it, has two aspects—(1) the nature of the charge that was brought by the Minister of Agriculture in the speech to which reference was made; and (2) his defence of the reasons for which he declined to give the authority for that charge. As regards the first point, I gather from the remarks made on both sides of the House that the case is that, in the first place, the Minister of Agriculture said that in a number of cases, although the occurrence was rare—and he specified Wiltshire—wages were paid at the rate of only £1 a week. To that my noble friend replies that the most careful investigation has shown only one such case as having been established. The noble Lord then says, quoting from a speech made at a meeting—I think he said at Chippenham—that an allegation was made by a farmer that he knew of other cases in which a farmer had reduced wages from £1 7s. to £1 a week. Was that in Wiltshire? No such statement was made.
LORD PARMOOR: I understood—the meeting being in Wiltshire—that it referred to Wiltshire.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The assumption is that it was in Wiltshire. The allegation is, therefore, not only that was there one case, but that there were other cases. If that be so, surely the first duty of the Minister of Agriculture, when challenged, is to give his authority.
This brings me to my second point. We have all known in our public life occasions when information is given to us privately and confidentially, under conditions which make it very difficult to give away the name of the informant. Those conditions are, as a rule, two in number. In the first place, a man may say to you: "I obtained this information in the most confidential way, and under pledge of secrecy, and therefore you must not put me in an impossible position." Or he may say: "I give you this information, but I am very reluctant indeed to be put in a position where I myself may be made the victim of a legal action in consequence." We are very familiar with both those cases, but neither of them applies to this

333
instance. Surely, if a statement of this sort is made, be it just or unjust, by a Minister of the Crown, and a Minister of the Grown is challenged, it is not open to him to say in reply: "I do not want to asperse the character of this or that parish; I do not want to attack this or that farmer." He is bound, as an officer of the Government, to state his authority for a statement which is in its essence damaging, disparaging and injurious. If it is true, that is all the more reason for making the matter public.
Here I come to what struck me as the most vital point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Long. He said that he took action to-day, not only in a spirit of righteous indignation—as was evident—but in order to remove any abuse that might exist. He is concerned with the honour of his County, and with the reputation of the farmers of Wiltshire; and there I think he is quite right. I am bound to say that I think, in the first place, that the charge ought to have been made much more definitely, and not in the rather loose terms that the Minister of Agriculture adopted; and secondly, that when challenged as to the sources of his information he had no justification whatever for refusing to give them, and for leaving that
334
County under an imputation which, if it is not altogether false, is, at any rate, grossly exaggerated.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I cannot, carry this matter any further. There is no Motion, and therefore] cannot divide the House unless I move for Papers. But there are no Papers that I am aware of, and all I can say is that I entirely agreed with the noble Marquess below me when he said that the reply of the Government was wholly inadequate. It will convey a very bad impression to the agriculturist, not only in Wiltshire but elsewhere, and the Government have only themselves to thank if the language they used, and, above all, the language used by the Minister specially appointed to protect agricultural interests, leads people to believe that they have committed an injustice, and have been unfair to the agricultural industry. I very much regret, for the credit of British statesmanship, that the Government did not take advantage of this opportunity to put themselves right where they have hitherto been wrong, but I can carry the matter no further.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.