Sitting of 28 April 1925

Preamble
The House—after Adjournment on 9th April for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords]
  London Midland and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords]
  Bills to be read a Second time

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  2
  case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
  Land Drainage (Black Sluice) Provisional Order Bill
  Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable).
  laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Keighley Water Charges) Bill [Lords]
  Bill to be read a Second time to-morrow

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
  Mersey Tunnel [Lords]
  Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders
  Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed
  Bideford Harbour Bill (King's Consent signified),
  Bill read the Third time, and passed
  Burgess Hill Water Bill, Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
  Oakengates Urban District Council Bill,
  Oxford Corporation Bill,
  Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed
  Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],
  Read a Second time, and committed
  Great. Western Railway Bill [Lords],
  To be read a Second time To-morrow
  Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [Lords],
  Read a Second time, and committed
  London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords],
  To be read a Second time To-morrow
  Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Read a Second time, and committed
  London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (By Order),
  London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order),
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow

  ADVOCATES WIDOWS' FUND (WIDOWERS' PROVISIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,.
  " to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Advocates Widows' Fund (Widowers' Provisions)," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).
  Mr. TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that imports into Russia for the year 1923–24 were valued at 433,000,000 roubles; and whether, in view of the fact that only about one-third of these imports were exported by Great Britain, His Majesty's Government will now remove the bar which at present prevents the Trade Facilities Act being applied to trade done by Great Britain with Russia?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone) on 1st April, a copy of which I am sending him.
  Mr. TAYLOR: May we take it that it is not the policy of the Government to remove the bar?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member may take it that the policy of the Government is that which the Prime Minister announced in the answer to which I have referred.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of the Trade Agreement with Russia have been observed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Lieut. Commander KENWO RTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total British exports to, and imports from, Russia for the first three months of the present year?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The declared value of imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from Russia during the three months ended 31st March, 1925, amounted to £3,245,996. The declared value of goods, the produce and manufacture of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, exported during the same period and registered as consigned to Russia, amounted to £1,502,393.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    APPLICATIONS (CONDITIONS).
    Mr. BURMANasked the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the White Paper (Cmd. 2327) issued in relation to the safeguarding of industries, and the instructional memorandum, dated 5th February, 1925, issued by the Board of Trade, what are the criteria which determine whether an industry is of substantial importance on account of the nature of the goods produced; what is the minimum number of persons to whom an industry must give employment to entitle it to be regarded as of substantial importance on account of the volume of employment; to what extent is it competent for industries to make combined application in order to satisfy the requirements as to the volume of employment; and whether he accepts the fact that an industry is governed by a Trade Board as evidence that the trade is of substantial importance.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The circumstances of each particular ease must be considered, and I do not think anything would be gained by attempting to lay down in advance any absolute criteria by which to determine substantial importance. As I informed my hon. Friend on the 19th February, the fact that a Trade Board has been established in an industry cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence. As regards the third part of the question, I see no reason why industries which in respect of their products are cognate, or so closely related that they can reasonably be regarded as an entity, should not make a combined application.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN:Will the right hon. Gentleman say who decides whether or not an industry is of substantial importance: has he to decide himself?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the first place, on aprima facie application the Board of Trade decides; in the second place, the Committee; and in the third place, this House.

    SUPERPHOSPHATE.
    . Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Committee of Inquiry on Superphosphate will report.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:The Committee have not yet completed the hearing of evidence, and, therefore, I cannot say when their report will be received.

  FOOD PRICES.

    ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT.
    Mr. MORRISasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Food Prices Commission will be published?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that this Report is now complete, and has been signed; the printing is being put in hand at once, and it will be published as soon as possible.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY.

    BALFOUR COMMITTEE.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry will be published I.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Derbyshire (Mr. Grant) on 30th March, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. THOMSON:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of having a report of one particular trade, without waiting for the whole of the trades to be reported upon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I think, as I explained on another occasion, it would be impossible to interfere with the general scheme of work that the Balfour Committee have laid down for themselves. They are taking evidence from a large number of trades, many of which are unrelated; they are doing their work as quickly as they can, and I do not think we should interfere with the way they are doing their work.

  WHOLESALE PRICES (INDEXNUMBER).
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the the President of the Board of Trade if he can arrange to compile monthly

  7
  an index number of wholesale prices relating to the wholesale prices of the commodities comprised in the retail prices index number compiled by the Ministry of Labour, or of the raw materials from which these commodities are prepared?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:Index numbers of wholesale prices of foods are already published monthly in the "Board of Trade Journal." It would not, however, be practicable to compile index numbers of wholesale prices for the precise articles of food to which the index numbers of retail prices compiled by the Ministry of Labour relate. The latter include, for instance, particular cuts of beef and mutton for which no wholesale price quotations are available.
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage increase in the index number of wholesale prices in this country between 1st April, 1914, and 1st April, 1925, and whether he can give a similar figure for the United States of America?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:The index numbers of wholesale prices prepared by the Board of Trade for this country, and by the Bureau of Labour Statistics for the United States, both relate to the average prices of the month. The index numbers prepared by the Board of Trade show, for March, 1925, an average increase in wholesale prices, as compared with March, 1914, of 71 per cent. and the same figure expresses the increase in February, 1925, as compared with February, 1914. The latest figures of the Bureau of Labour Statistics available here at present relate to the wholesale prices of February, 1925, and show that, as compared with February, 1914, wholesale prices had increased by 62 per cent.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE:May the House know, Mr. Speaker, whether this question was submitted to you as one of urgency?
  Mr. SPEAKER:The question was submitted to me, but it is not yet a Quarter to Four.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not necessary that 48 hours' notice should be given of a non-urgent question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not my reading of the Standing Orders.

  CLYDE PLEASURE STEAMERS (ENGINEERS' HOURS).
  Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the number of unemployed engineers in Glasgow, he will arrange for a reduction in the number of hours worked by engineers on the Clyde pleasure steamers during the summer months?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:The Board of Trade have no power to regulate the hours of work on board ship, and could only intervene if there were reason to think that the manning arrangements were such as to cause inefficiency or danger. It is not, therefore, possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that there is danger from these men having to work too long hours, not getting enough sleep, and taking the piers as they have to take them in the locks—which is becoming a dangerous business—and does he not consider from that, point of view that he ought to intervene?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:No, Sir. I am not aware that in this case there are any circumstances which would entitle me to intervene. There is this further consideration: That I understand these men are paid a regular salary year in and year out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that they are only employed at certain times of the year.
  Mr. JOHNSTON:Will the right hon. Gentleman not say whether he considers that 90 hours a week for engineers when there are thousands of engineers unemployed is not a scandal and a disgrace?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What one ought to consider is what work men who are employed permanently, and paid the whole year round, are doing in respect of that pay? It would not surely add to the number of the employed to throw these men out of work when the steamers are not running.
  Mr. MAXTON:Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the special attention of his inspectors to the conditions of work of these men to see if they are, in fact, in accordance with public safety?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Oh, certainly, Sir. Not only here but in all cases it is the duty of the inspectors to see that safety provisions are properly enforced.

  ARC-LAMP CARBONS.
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantities and values of British.

  The following statements show the Quantities and Values of
  Electric Lighting Carbons impored into and exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland in
  the periods specified, distinguishing the principal countries from or to which consigned

  (A)—Imports of Electric Lighting Carbons.

  Country whence consigned

  Year 1923 (a)

  Year 1924

  Jan.—March, 1925

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  No

  £

  No

  £

  No

  £

  Denmark

  …

  …

  20

  1

  8,930

  128

  4,337

  43

  Germany

  …

  …

  1,884,243

  7,553

  2,627,973

  10,117

  907,909

  3,141

  Belgium

  …

  …

  62,135

  215

  —

  —

  1,260

  73

  France

  …

  …

  368,265

  770

  267,547

  1,781

  64,230

  290

  Switzerland

  …

  …

  —

  —

  153,102

  582

  100

  1

  Spain

  …

  …

  849,110

  2,238

  715,933

  1,704

  158,500

  358

  Italy

  …

  …

  —

  —

  40

  1

  50

  5

  Austria

  …

  …

  1,795,865

  4,393

  1,914,779

  5,671

  251,598

  647

  United States

  …

  …

  428,759

  5,303

  459,830

  4,716

  71,936

  1,094

  Irish Free State

  …

  …

  —

  —

  1,000

  10

  —

  —

  Total Imports

  …

  …

  5,388,397

  20,473

  6,149,134

  24,710

  1,459,920

  5,652

  (B)—Exports of Electric Lighting Carbons (Manufacture of Great
  Britain and Northern Ireland)

  Country to which consigned

  Year 1923 (a)

  Year 1924

  Jan.—March, 1925

  No

  £

  No

  £

  No

  £

  Mexico

  18,000

  69

  20,400

  119

  —

  —

  Chile

  316,220

  2,148

  454,800

  2,022

  —

  —

  Other Foreign Countries

  320,423

  889

  155,660

  864

  3,235

  82

  Total to Foreign Countries

  654,643

  3,106

  630,860

  3,005

  3,235

  82

  British India

  49,646

  813

  45,582

  955

  5,600

  54

  Australia

  195,755

  2,984

  53,900

  933

  27,700

  172

  Other British Possessions

  51,827

  731

  301,154

  2,776

  156,925

  799

  Total to British Possessions

  297,228

  4,528

  400,636

  4,664

  190,225

  1,025

  Total Exports

  951,871

  7,634

  1,031,496

  7,669

  193,460

  1,107

  (a) Prior to let April, 1923, the particulars relate to the trade of Great Britain and the whole of Ireland

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the date of the.
  made are-lamp carbons exported to foreign countries during the years 1923, 1924, and the first quarter of 1925, and the quantities and values of arc-lamp carbons imported during the same periods?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The answer contains tables of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to their being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  introduction of the Merchandise Marks Bill, following upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Harry Greer which reported to Parliament in 1921?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that I am unable to make a statement on this matter.
  Mr. HANNON: Has not this matter been hanging over for a very long period, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance to the country of his being able to make a statement in the near future?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:There are many other important matters which will be the subject of legislation; obviously, it would be impossible for one Department to monopolise the whole time of the House.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CADETS (FEES).
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has reached any conclusion with regard to the reduction of fees. for gentlemen cadets?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans):I regret I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Are the War Office considering this question in any way at all?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:Oh, yes.

    APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (W GOULD).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that W. Gould, of 26, Alexander Road, Sebastopol, near Newport, was enlisted into the Army at the age of 16 years, without the knowledge or consent of his father; and whether he will take steps to have this boy released on account of his youth and the desire of his parents to carry out their parental responsibility?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS:Under the Regulations, a soldier who misstates his age on enlistment is held to serve unless either he is under 17 when the application for his discharge is made or a case is made out for his discharge on compassionate grounds. In the particular -case referred to in the question the soldier was over 17 when application for his discharge was made, and, on inquiry, no
    12
    grounds for a compassionate discharge were found to exist. I regret, therefore, I cannot do what the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS:Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent these boys, who are quite irresponsible, from running away from home in order to join the Army, by punishing them for giving their wrong age?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for another question.

    RHINE ARMY (ALLEGED SEDITIOUSLEAFLET).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a leaflet, which purports to emanate from the Executive Committee of the Communist party of Great Britain, containing matter prejudicial to discipline and likely to incite to mutiny, has been widely distributed recently amongst the troops of the British Army of the Rhine, and whether he will take steps to have a thorough investigation made into the source of this document and its method of circulation.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine has reported that copies of the leaflet in question were found in certain barracks occupied by troops of the Army of Occupation. Investigations are being made.
    Mr. MACKINDER:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is common knowledge in Vienna-[Interruption.]I will repeat my question if it amuses hon. Member's. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is common knowledge in Vienna—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is not fair?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will address me, I will see that he is heard.
    Mr. MACKINDER:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is common knowledge in Vienna that all kinds of forgeries can be bought, and are bought by all Embassies, with the certain knowledge that 19 out of 20 are forgeries?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

    HEBRIDES STEAMER SERVICE.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the primitive accommodation provided for passengers on the Royal Mail Steamship "Cygnet "; that there is only sheltered accommodation for about one dozen persons; and that passengers crossing from the mainland to the island of Barra are exposed to winds, waves, and rain; and, in view of the subsidy of £14,000 provided in the Scottish Estimates for the Hebridean steamer service, what action does ho propose taking with a view to having this out-of-date canal boat service replaced by a suitable passenger service?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that this vessel holds a passenger certificate issued by the Board of Trade, 66 first-class and 91 third-class passengers. Of this number the first-class passengers all have sheltered accommodation and shelter is available for 24 of the third-class passengers. I am informed that the owners are taking steps to improve the sheltered accommodation for third-class passengers. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and I are at present examining generally the question of the Hebridean steamer services, including representations which have been made as to the vessels employed.

    MINING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines what steps the Government are taking to remedy the serious condition of the mining industry?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I cannot add anything to the statements made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself in the Debate on the 9th April.
    Mr. BATEY: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    COAL (SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary for Mines whether any practical
    14
    proposals are being considered by his Department to put into operation, with the least possible delay, the scientific treatment of coal on a commercial basis to eliminate the smoke in our cities and towns and conserve the valuable byproducts which are wasted to-day?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir; this question is being carefully examined by my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; but I am not yet in a position to add anything to what I have already said in answer to questions.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman discuss with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what manner his Department will expedite this matter?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir.

  TRANSPORT.

    STATION-MASTER (Two STATIONS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the practice of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company of appointing a station-master to look after two stations, as is evident in that at Bury the stations of Knowsley Street and Bolton Street are now under one station-master; and whether, seeing that this practice is contrary to the public interest, likely to endanger the lives of travellers, and impair the efficiency of railway administration, he will make representations to the company with a view to the appointment of a stationmaster at each station?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The responsibility in this matter rests with the railway company, who inform me that it is not unusual for them to place one stationmaster in charge of two stations, when, as in the case of the two stations to which the hon. Member refers, they are satisfied that this can be arranged without prejudice to the safe and efficient working of the line.

    MOTOR DRIVERS (TESTS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Transport if he has received from the Shorediteh Borough Council a communica

    15
    tion drawing attention to the increase in street accidents, and urging that all persons applying for a licence to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle should be subjected to a test to prove their efficiency; and what action he proposes to take in the matter'?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to he first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 18th February to the hon. Member for the Hallam Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (ENGINE NUMBERS).
    Mr. RADFORDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing practice of altering the engine numbers of second-hand motor vehicles by certain persons, and by the alteration causing a vehicle to appear to be of more recent construction; and whether, as the law protecting the public against frauds of this character is not sufficiently strong, he will take steps to strengthen it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I cannot see my way to introduce legislation to deal with this special form of fraudulent representation, which can in fact already be dealt with under the common law. It is only one of the ways in which the age of a motor vehicle may be disguised. I may add that if the vendor of a vehicle, in order to obtain official recognition of the altered engine number, knowingly makes a false declaration for the purpose of registering the vehicle, he commits an offence under Section 13 (2) of the Roads Act, 1920, and is liable on conviction to a penalty not exceeding £50 or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months.

    ROAD CONTRACTS.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Trans port whether, in view of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report of 17th February, 1925, noting the high rates of total remuneration earned by contractors in certain cases on contracts under Ministry supervision, he will discontinue these forms of contract; and whether he will confer with the local authorities of the districts concerned in future, so that
    16
    the prices paid to contractors by the Ministry shall not raise the prices generally to the local road authorities in the neighbourhood of these new arterial roads>
    Colonel ASHLEY: The form of contract mentioned in the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question was discontinued some two years ago in favour of tenders invited in the usual manner. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    ROAD FUND (GRANTS).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether the Ministry is making grants out of the Road Fund for 1925-26 to other new road schemes in addition to the Mersey road-tunnel scheme; if so, what are they; and what is the estimated amount to be provided by the Road Board Fund?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In the general allocation of the Road Fund for the year 1925-26, the sum available for "new road schemes" is included in the general provision of £850,000 for widenings, diversions, bridge reconstruction, etc. Provision has also been made, under the most recent unemployment programme, for a contribution of £700,000 towards the widening and improvement of Class I and Class II roads and the construction of new roads of classification value. I am unable at this stage to enumerate the specific schemes of new construction which are likely to receive assistance from these general allocations during the year, and I must point out that grants will also he made during that period to a number of other schemes approved under programmes of previous years, but still uncommenced or unfinished.

  POST OFFICE.

    POST OFFICE GUIDE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General at what date the ld. Post Office Guide was issued, and what efforts have been made to inform the public of this issue?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): This publication is in course of preparation. I am not yet able to say when it will be published,,

    17
    nor must it, be assumed that it will be possible to keep the price down to 11, though I hope to achieve this.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can I have an answer to the last part of my question?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When the guide is published, the appropriate steps will be taken.

    WIRELESS STATIONS (BODMIN ANDBRIDGWATER).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether, with reference to the two stations at Bodmin and Bridgwater which are to be erected in this country for wireless communication with South Africa, seeing that the South African station will be ready in three months' time, but that communication will be held up because of the delay in selecting one of the sites in Great Britain, he will state what is the cause of this delay; and when it is expected that these British stations will be completed and wireless communication with South Africa established'?
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: According to information received from the Union Government, the beam station in South Africa is expected to be completed early in September. The corresponding station in this country is due, under the contract, to be completed by the 7th October, and trials between the two stations should not, therefore, be held up for any appreciable period after the completion of the South African station. Some unavoidable delay occurred in the provision of sites in this country owing to the difficulty of securing sites which would satisfy the technical requirements of the contractors.

    TOTTENHAM OFFICE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the provision of a new central post office for Tottenham; and when building operations are expected to commence?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The legal negotiations for the acquisition of the proposed site have proved difficult, and are not yet completed. Consequently, no provision for the work has been made in the Revenue Buildings Vote for the current financial year, and it is, therefore, not possible to name a date for the commencement of building operations.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION STAMPS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General whether any arrangements have been made for the sale of the special British Empire Exhibition stamps at all past offices throughout the country; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of adopting this method of publicity, which has proved so successful in other countries?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have considered this matter, but I find that the cost of production of the special stamps is approximately 12 times that of an ordinary stamp, and the expense of a general distribution would therefore be prohibitive. The arrangements will accordingly be the same as last year. The stamps will be of the same design, with the necessary alteration of date, and of the same denominations.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Pensions the number of men on home treatment without allowances in the West Ham area at present; how many of the men are totally incapacitated from following their employment; and whether he will issue instructions that men who are certified by their medical practitioner to be unfit for work, as the result of sickness which is clearly due to service disability, shall receive full treatment allowances until certified fit to resume duty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.Colonel Stanley): I regret that I am not in possession of the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the hon. Member's suggestion in the last part of his question, I would refer him to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend on the 25th ultimo on the same subject.
    Mr. GROVES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman procure for me the information asked for in the first part of the question?
    Lieut.Colonel STANLEY: I will do my best.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the Department bar allowances in cases such as that referred to in the question?
    Lieut.Colonel STANLEY: The grounds on which application can be made for a treatment allowance have been explained more than once, and it is not proposed to make any alteration in them.
    T. WILLIAMS: But is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that when ex-service men are certified by their doctor as being unable to perform their employment they do not receive any alowance, although the disability is due to war service?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: In a case where treatment is necessary for disability and the actual treatment will debar them from following their occupation, they will be eligible for a treatment allowance.

    APPEALS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will have the Royal Warrant so amended that local pensions committees may have the power to authorise the payment of the travelling expenses of any relative, friend, or other person who, in their opinion, should accompany the pensioner when he appears before the appeals tribunal, in order that his claim may be adequately presented?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the procedure of appeal is a matter which is determined by the rules of the Lord Chancellor under the War Pensions Acts and not by the Royal Pension Warrants. Any extension of existing provisions in the direction suggested would, therefore, be a matter for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

    NEW CLAIMS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions what is the average number of new claims submitted weekly; and what is the proportion of claims in respect of disability, widows' and dependants' pensions, respectively?
    Lieut.Colonel STANLEY: The average weekly number of new claims received is about 1,000. Of these, 68 per cent. are in respect of disablement, 22 per cent. are made by widows and 10 per cent. by adult dependants.

    MEDICAL BOARDS AND FINAL AWARDS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many medical boards were held in the 12 months ending 31st March, 1925; in how many cases were final awards of life pensions issued; in how many cases were final awards given of final weekly allowances; and what was the average period of same?
    Lieut.Colonel STANLEY: During the period referred to 288,000 medical examinations were held by the Ministry. During the same period 48,500 final awards of 20 per cent. assessment and over, and 16,000 final awards of final weekly allowances of an average duration of 104 weeks, were notified.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (MINISTRY OF PENSIONS).
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Pensions if he can account for the small number of 14 who served in the Great War out of a total of 74 permanent officers of the rank of principal clerk and above in the Ministry of Pensions; whether preference could have been given to ex-service officers and men; and, in the event of any reduction of this staff, will he endeavour to retain all the ex-service officials in preference to those who did'not serve in the War provided their work is satisfactory?
  Lieut.Colonel STANLEY: The permanent officers who did not serve in the Great War now holding rank of principal clerk and above in the Ministry are all men of considerable established service under the State who were above military age, or were found unfit for military service, or were compulsorily retained in the interests of public administration. Preference has been given to ex-service officers and men to the greatest extent possible consistently with the essential needs of public administration, and this policy will continue to be followed in the event of further reduction of the staff.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of giving all these positions in the Ministry of Pensions to ex-service men? Will he take steps to rectify the injustice which has been done?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Of course, we are all in favour of giving all possible

  21
  assistance to ex-service men, but these officials are all civil servants of considerable standing, and it is quite right that they should be there.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  Mr. G. HARVEYasked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor is prepared to consider promulgating a rule whereby 'justices of the peace who have not attended at least one-quarter of the sittings of the Bench, to which they have been appointed, shall automatically relinquish their office?
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): In the Lord Chancellor's view it is not practicable to promulgate a rule such as that suggested by the hon. Member. The Lord Chancellor constantly takes action in individual cases in which justices of the peace remove from the areas for which they are appointed, and take no part in the magisterial work. I ought to point out that many magistrates who do not attend the sittings of the Bench, undertake a considerable amount of those duties which may be described as "ministerial," and also that in some cases magistrates who have rendered long public service on the Bench are disabled by age or illness from regular attendance.
  Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor, having regard to the indications that dissatisfaction exists in many parts of the country with regard to the methods of procedure whereby justices of the peace are appointed, will consider the setting up of a committee to re-examine the whole question.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question on the 11th March last. The Lord Chancellor is not aware that dissatisfaction exists with regard to the present method of selecting justices of the peace, which is based on the recommendations made by the Royal Commission in 1910, and he is not prepared to appoint a committee to re-examine the question.
  Sir F. NELSON: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is prepared to accept from me evidence that there is dissatisfaction with the existing conditions?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think my hon. Friend will be much more usefully employed if he sends any information direct to the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir F. NELSONasked the Attorney-General, with reference to appointments as justices of the peace, if he is in a position to state whether the Lord Chancellor is prepared to request Lords Lieutenant to convey to advisory committees that when vacancies occur the opinion of the Chairman or Senior Magistrate of the Bench concerned should in all cases be invited before any recommendation is forwarded?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL; Lords Lieutenant and advisory committees are at liberty to consult any person they may think fit with regard to persons whom they propose to recommend for appointment to the Bench. The Lord Chancellor believes that in many cases Lords Lieutenant or members of advisory committees consult the Chairman or Senior Magistrate of the Bench concerned before submitting names for appointment; but he is not prepared to direct that this course shall in all cases be followed.
  Lieut.Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the advisory committees in all cases will be asked to advise before appointments are made, in view of the fact that the last Government made appointments without reference to the committees?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot answer for a preceding Government. Under the present system, my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does receive the advice of the advisory committees, and acts upon it.
  Sir EDWARD ILIFFEasked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor is prepared to intimate to advisory committees that recommendations for appointments as Justices of the Peace should be directed exclusively towards strengthening and maintaining the efficiency of the various Benches and without regard to political considerations?
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The attention of all members of advisory committees when they are appointed is drawn to the recommendations of the

  23
  Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace. Those recommendations recognise the importance of strengthening and maintaining the efficiency of the Bench by appointing persons of high moral and personal character and general ability, and the Lord Chancellor has no doubt that these matters are the first consideration of the advisory committees when they recommend persons for appointment. But the Royal Commission further recommended that the Bench should include persons of all social classes and of all shades of political opinion, and if this recommendation is to have effect, the Committee must, in making their selection, have some regard to these matters.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CADETS (FEES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has reached any conclusion with regard to the reduction of fees for cadets?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY(Mr. Davidson): The matter is still under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been under consideration by the last three Governments, and may I ask him when a conclusion will be reached?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I hope very shortly.

    SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
    . Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the shipbuilding programme; and, if not, when he anticipates that one will be made?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Cabinet Committee which is inquiring into the naval shipbuilding programme is making steady progress, but I am not yet in a position to announce a definite date on which it will be possible to make a statement on the subject.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the Prime Minister aware of the effect that this decision will have upon the unemployed, and is he also aware that the First Lord
    24
    of the Admiralty in the last Conservative Administration said that the work of 32,000 men depended upon this full programme?
    The PRIME MINISTER::I am aware of those facts.

  GENERAL ELECTIONS(QUESTIONNAIRES).
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of bringing in legislation to prohibit the circulation of questionnaires to candidates at General Elections?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend tells me he would be glad personally to see this reform introduced, but he fears it would hardly be so popular with the electors as with the candidates.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the wisest thing to do to follow the example of many hon. Members of this House, and absolutely decline to answer any such questionnaires?

  NIGHT BAKING.
  Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary whether the Food Commission has yet reported on the question of the effect of the abolition of night baking; if so, what are the conclusions of the Report; and whether the Government has now decided to ratify the main provisions of the draft convention?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The Report has just been submitted and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. I would prefer not to attempt to summarise the Report in an answer to a question, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the Report itself. As regards the last part of the question, the International Labour Conference has not yet finally adopted a draft convention, so that this part of the question does not at present arise.

  EXPORT CREDITS.
  . Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas

  25
  Trade Department if he will state the amount of credit given under the export credits scheme?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL(Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The amount of credit given under the export credits scheme to 25th April, 1925, is £7,460,041. These figures are made up of advances £1,752,150 and guarantees £5,707,891. The figures for guarantees are for original grants and do not include renewals.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (POORLAW DISQUALIFICATION).
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to promote legislation to abolish the existing disqualification in regard to candidatures for boards of guardians among those who have, within the preceding 12 months, received benefit from the Poor Law?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH(Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend does not think that it would be desirable to introduce legislation in this sense.

  RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Health if he proposes to bring in a Bill for dealing with the simplification and improvement of the administrative machinery of rating and valuation, for the removal of various anomalies inherent in the present system, and effecting economies occasioned by the separate valuations for purposes of rates and taxes?
  Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Rating and Valuation Bill which has already been read a First time.
  Mr. MARDY JONES:Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when that Bill will be introduced for the Second Reading?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is a question for the Leader of the House.

  ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposed conference for a limitation of armaments; if he can state whether the conference will
  26
  be limited to naval and air armaments, as suggested in successive American Navy Appropriation Acts; on what date it is hoped the conference will assemble; and what nations will take part?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see in any quarter sign of the early summoning of a disarmament conference.

  HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS)BILL.
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the slow progress in the provision of new houses and the aggravation of the shortage of dwelling-houses by the continued conversion of existing houses into clubs, garages, and similar purposes, he will give facilities for the further progress of the Housing (Additional Powers) Bill, read a first, time on 17th February, and which would enable local authorities to prohibit these conversions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, the Government do not propose to grant special facilities for this Bill. Conversions of the nature referred to by the hon. Member are already strictly limited by the provisions of the Rent Restriction. Acts.
  Mr. THOMSON:Is the Prime Minister aware that many local authorities have petitioned, the Minister of Health and the Government to prevent the conversion of these houses for such purposes, and is he not prepared to do something more than what is being done at present in this direction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into that matter.

  HOUSE OF LORDS.
  Mr. MORRISasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to the House of Lords reform?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; am not yet in a position to make any statement.

  WOMEN FRANCHISE.
  Mr. MORRISasked the Prime Minister if the Government has arrived at any decision as to the terms of reference and constitution of 'the Cora

  27
  mittee proposed to be set up to inquire into the extension of women franchise?
  The PRIME MINISTER:No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Has any Committee been set up to look into this matter.
  The PRIME MINISTER:No, Sir.
  Captain BENN:Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the fact that he gave a definite pledge at the Election on this matter, and that now he appears to be taking no step to redeem it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Parliament is still young.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    STATE PRINTING WORKS, HARROW.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Commission appointed in 1922 to inquire into and report upon the working of the State printing works at Harrow is likely to be published?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I understand that the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government printing establishments, which was appointed in June, 1923, is in course of preparation.

    CROWN PROPERTY (ADMINISTRATION).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the overlapping and duplication of duties involved in the independent administration of real property by the Office of Works, the Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, the Admiralty, and many other Departments, he will investigate the possibility of economy and greater efficiency if all real property owned by the Government were brought under the administration and control of one Ministry of Lands?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware of any serious overlapping or duplication of duties under existing arrangements. The question of entrusting the management of all Crown property to a single Department has been carefully considered during the last few years, but the practical objections to such a scheme are by no means negligible. The hon. Member
    28
    may however rest assured that no opportunity will be lost of improving the existing organisation, and the possible advantages of concentration will be kept fully in mind.

  FOREIGN ARTISTES AND MUSICIANS (INCOME TAX).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that British artistes and musicians who have fulfilled engagements in South Africa, Australia, the United States of America and elsewhere are, before being allowed to embark from those countries, obliged to produce receipts showing payment of Income Tax in respect of fees received for performances in the said countries, and in view of the high salaries and fees being paid to foreign artistes and musicians performing in this country and who are generally employed on short-period engagements, he will consider the advisability of making provision that such foreign artistes earning these high salaries shall have their salaries arid fees made taxable for the period of engagement in this country, and that documentary proof of such payment of Income Tax shall be obligatory before they are allowed to embark for their own countries?
  Mr. GUINNESS:Under the general provisions of the Income Tax law the foreign artistes and musicians, to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers, are chargeable with British Income Tax in respect of income earned by them on visits to this country. The question of the assessment and collection of the tax in these cases has received the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he does not think that the facts warrant the adoption of the measures for enforcement of payment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Colonel DAY:As Australia and other countries adopt this practice towards our artistes, and people engaged in those countries, why cannot we adopt the same means in regard to these people who earn very large salaries in this country, and get away without paying anything at all?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that it is not the case that any considerable number avoid payment in this way. In any case only a very small sum is involved, and by unduly harassing foreigners who come here it might well

  29
  be that we should lose more than we should gain. We are, however, examining the matter, and it will be considered, but I cannot give a final answer now.
  Mrs. PHI LIPSON: Is it not a fact that the engagement has to be for six months' residence in this country?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to make it the duty of those paying the salary to these artistes to deduct the sum due, and account for it to the Inland Revenue?

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a manufacturing firm of West Bromwich, who had a claim for £1,100 for goods supplied to a firm in India, has been condemned by the High Court to pay £660 excess profits to the Government, although the transaction was a dead loss, the Indian firm having failed to pay one penny to the manufacturer referred to; and whether he will consider in the circumstances whether the claim for excess profits should be pressed?
  Mr. GUINNESS: It was decided on appeal that this debt was not a bad debt at the close of the Excess Profits Duty period, and that consequently, the amount could not he regarded as a loss arising during that period In these circumstances I can see no ground on which the statutory charge of duty, which is based that decision, can be waived.

  CURRENCY NOTES.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor el:the Exchequer if he proposes to replace the outstanding currency notes by Bank of England notes of low denomination?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total credit to date given under the Trade Facilities Act, and what are the losses?
  Mr. GUINNESS: A. White Paper is being laid before Parliament to-day showing total guarantees, to 31st March
  30
  last, £55,577,811, and losses charged to Consolidated Fund, to the same date, 18,986 16s. 10d.

  GERMAN REPARATION(RECOVERY) ACT.
  Captain BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is in the power of the German Government to vary, without the consent of the British Government, the amount of the levy made upon the Association of Exporters in accordance with the terms of the White Paper No. 2384?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative.
  Captain BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state., for the latest convenient date, the amount received under the new scheme for German reparation recovery; and the amount transferred to the British Treasury?
  Mr. GUINNESS: In view of the fact that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on the 7th April, the German Reparation (Recovery) Act has recently yielded a sum in excess of the British share of reparation receipts, it was arranged that the former method of administration should cease on and after the 10th April, but, under Article 2 of the Agreement, payments under the new method of administration only accrue as from the 1st May, 1925. Accordingly, receipts under the new scheme will only commence next month.
  Captain BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new agreement replacing the German Reparation (Recovery) Act provides that Great Britain shall recover, to the limit of the fund created by the agreement, the full 22 per cent. of the appropriate sums due under the Dawes annuity, or whether she will only receive 22 per cent. of the amount sanctioned for payment by the Transfer Committee.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The payments under the new agreement are subject to the jurisdiction of the Transfer Committee in exactly the same way as all other payments and deliveries in kind under the Dawes plan, including the previous German Reparation (Recovery) Act payments.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (REFUND).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have established claims to repayment of the balances standing to their credit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and what is the total amount paid to claimants, showing over 50 years of age and over 60 years of age separately?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR(Sir ArthurSteel-Maitland): The number of persons who, since 7th July, 1924 (which was the date on which Section 9 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act., 1924, came into force) have established claims to refunds of contributions or to compensatory payments under that Section is approximately 557,000. It is not possible to state separately the amount paid to claimants over 50 years and over 60 years of age respectively. The amount paid in refunds since the 7th July, 1924, is £529,984, and in compensatory payments £1,228,711. All those in respect of whom refund have been paid were of the age of 60 years or over. Most of those in respect of whom compensatory payments have been made were between 50 and 60, but some were over 60.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minsiter of Labour whether, in view of the growing desire on the part of working girls to remain with their own parents, he will issue the necessary instructions to all local Employment Exchanges that, in the cases where mistresses apply for domestic servants, efforts will be made by the Exchange staff to impress the necessity of such domestic service being day-time, with a maximum of an eight hours' working day, and the cessation of work at such a reasonable hour that the girls will not be compelled to live in, but be able to return to their own homes; whether his Department will ensure that any such situations offered to girls signing the unemployment register will be within reasonable reach of their homes; and can he state the number of girls who have refused acceptance of domestic service on the ground that they did not desire to live in?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The duty of the Employment Exchanges is to bring available employment to the notice of
    32
    suitable persons on their registers. I am not satisfied that it is either practicable or desirable that they should attempt to lay down conditions of employment in the manner suggested. I regret that I am unable to give the figure asked for in thy, last part of the question.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is not a record kept of the number of these cases that have been rejected at the various exchanges in the country, and, if so, cannot the right hon. Gentleman have this information compiled from it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question. It is not one that I can answer off-hand.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw attention to the fact that that is what is asked in the last part of the question on the Paper? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer "].
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Minister cannot answer now, the question must be repeated.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures asked for in the last part of the question on the Paper are not available, and cannot be given.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's last reply, is it not the case that every individual claimant who is refused on the ground stated in the last part of the question has her case recorded at the exchange, and, if that be so, why cannot the figure be given to this House?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is all a' question of tabulation. There is a great deal of information given, and it would be necessary to go through the whole of the cases and tabulate them, and in some cases it is not possible for the Ministry to do so.

  GOLD STANDARD.
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exchange value of sterling in dollars is to-day above purchasing power parity and whether he will take this point into consideration in deciding as to the restoration of the gold standard?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take all relevant facts into consideration.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SEATS).
  Mr. MAXTON: I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point affecting the Order of the House. It is whether, on this day, when the seating accommodation is taxed to its utmost limits, it is in keeping with the practice of the House for Members of other parties to come and deliberately book up the seats which are normally reserved for Members of a particular party?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Any arrangement as regards seats in the House is a matter of mutual courtesy. I hope hon. Members will continue to observe the traditions of the house.
  Major COLFOX: As I believe the question has some relation to myself, may I be allowed to make a statement. I came here this morning, and put a ticket on this seat where I am now. 1 was present at prayers, and I put a ticket at the back of the seat. This seat is not in the block that the Labour party usually occupy, but is exactly opposite the Gangway. When 1 had put the ticket in the back of the seat, I went out of the House for a few minutes. When I came back an hon. Member was sitting upon it. I asked him to move, which he refused to do, but eventually he grudgingly gave way. A few minutes afterwards he took the ticket from the clip at the back of the -.eat, and tore it up in front of my face. That, to my mind, is not showing the usual courtesy. I submit that I am not anywhere in the block usually occupied by the Labour party. that I have a perfect right to this seat, and I. intend to stay here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that such an incident should have occurred. It is one of those marginal questions where we must depend on the usual courtesy. I think the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now seated there shows that apart from a momentary incident he has been treated with the usual courtesy.

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow fortnight, I will call attention to the question of a national minimum wage, and move a Resolution.
    SILVER CURRENCY.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I will call attention to the unsatisfactory state of the silver currency, and move a Resolution.
    IRON AMID STEEL TRADE AND SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Sir PARK GOFF: I beg to give notice that to-morrow fortnight, I will call attention to the very serious state of the iron and steel industry and our shipping industry, and move a Resolution.
    UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I will call attention to the question of grants in relief of unemployment, and move Resolution.
    INDIA.
    Mr. PILCHER: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I will call attention to the position of affairs in India., and move a Resolution. Mr. PILCHER.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
" That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime. Minister]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1924-25).
Copy ordered "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—[Mr. Guinness]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 84.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
STANDING COMMITTEE B
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Bill): Mr. Runciman; and
had appointed in substitution: Mr. Harris
Report to lie upon the Table

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER(Mr. Churchill): Those prophets who incautiously declared that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an unwarrantable Budget and who predicted a heavy deficit at the end of the financial year have been rebuked by the event. The realised surplus of 23,659,000 corresponds with remarkable accuracy to the Budget forecast of 24,024,000, and although within this total there are considerable variations which show that the right hon. Gentleman has been fortunate as well as far sighted, the final and general result may justly be laid to the credit of the careful and scrupulous finance by which his administration of the Treasury was distinguished. The paper, which I believe is called the Blue Paper, although it is rather a colourless document, which hon. Members have in their hands, gives the details of last year's finance. I cannot afford the time to dwell on them at any length. Everything is found within the Limits of the Paper.
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    REVENUE, 1924-25.
    Spirits and tobacco have each fallen £2,000,000 below the Budget estimate. On the other hand, beer has advanced by £1,000,000, and small surpluses have accrued on wine, liquor licences and entertainments. The great remission of the Sugar Duty which the right hon. Gentleman made last year has fully reached the consumer, but the remission which he made on tea has been almost entirely extinguished by larger price movements in the world market. On the whole, especially when consumption is studied quantitatively, it is right to say that the consuming power of the people is maintained. The yields of the Inland Revenue Duties are also satisfactory. Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax show a deficit of £9,200,000 on the Budget estimate. These are moribund taxes, of which it is very diffi-
    50
    cult to estimate the yield, but their failure has been counteracted by the exertions of those stalwart and lively agents of taxation, Income Tax, Super. tax, and Death Duties, and in a. lesser degree the Stamp Duties. These Duties between them yielded £16,000,000 more then the Budget estimate in the year. The actual net result of the Inland Revenue Duties of the year shows a surplus over the estimate of £6,816,000.

    EXPENDITURE, 1924-25.
    Expenditure was £5,750,000 above the Budget estimate, but here again there are variations. The service of the debt, for several reasons, chiefly the increased cost of the floating debt, cost £7,000,000 more than was expected, but, on the other hand, Supply Services, in spite of the Sutton judgment, cost us 23,000,000 less than was expected. In the end, there emerged, to vindicate the prescience of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, a surplus of £3,659,000, which surplus, I need hardly say, has, in accordance with the exemplary purity of our financial law and practice, already been devoted to the redemption of debt.

    DEBT REDEMPTION.
    Coming to the debt itself, the results of last year's operations have shown a substantial diminution of the nominal dead-weight charge. On the 31st March, 1.124, it stood at £7,680,000,000, while on the 31st March last it had been reduced to £7,646,000,000. Floating debt has been reduced by £32,250,000, and external debt by £4,000,000. The successful work of the public thrift organisations, particularly the National Savings Committee, has continued. It has continued in spite of severe unemployment and obstinate trade depression. Saving certificates produced £32,000,000 gross in the present year, and showed a net increase over repayments of just under £3,000,000. Savings Bank Deposits also showed an increase of £11,000,000, in spite of the serious adverse factors which I have mentioned.
    Taking a wider view, no country has ever made the exertions which this country has made since the War to pay its debts and to meet its obligations with strictness and punctuality, and few countries have reaped a more tangible

    51
    reward. Making allowance for the fact that the American debt interest was not paid for the first few years after the War, and comparing like with like, the interest on the National Debt has been reduced in the five years since 1920 by up wards of £70,000,000 a year, and the rate of Government borrowing has fallen from.
    per cent. to 42 per cent. This great fall in the rate of money for the Government has enabled a whole series of conversion operations of a highly profitable character to be undertaken or envisaged. Even in the last few months, the three minor operations for which I have been responsible have resulted in a permanent diminution of the annual debt charge of £22,500,000.
    Much larger conversion operations impend within the lifetime of the present Parliament, and from these important savings may be realised by the taxpayer. But they will only be realised by strict adherence to the principles of sound financial policy, to the maintenance of which. I freely admit, the party opposite contributed during their period of power. If those principles are maintained and this process of debt redemption continues, a speedy and a substantial reward will be reaped by the taxpayer and the benefit will come to hand even before the present Parliament has separated.
    It is most necessary that this policy of debt repayment should continue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago, prescribed a figure of £50,000,000 a year as the ultimate total of the new Sinking Fund and he embodied in statutory form his proposal that the new Sinking Fund should be fixed at £40,000,000 in the first instance and then rise by yearly instalments of)5,000,000 to this figure of £50,000,000. It falls to me to provide the final £5,000,000 this year, as I shall do, to raise the new Sinking Fund to its statutory limit of £50,000,000. But that is not all that we have done in the direction of discharging war liabilities. We have been paying off our war pensions liability on a gigantic scale. When the War stopped, the present capital value of the War pensions liability was estimated to have been at least £1,000,000,000, and the maximum annual charge was £110,000,000. We have
    52
    now reduced that liability owing to the fact that we have met every obligation as it arose, and paid the expenses of every year from the revenue of that year. We have now reduced that liability to a present capital value of £760,000,000, and the annual charge has fallen to I67,000,000 a year. Strict perseverance in this policy of paying for War pensions every year instead of funding them or spreading them, as has been suggested in various quarters—a policy in itself by no means indefensible—will result in relief to the taxpayer year by year of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 until, finally, the whole liability is extinguished altogether or sinks to inappreciable proportions through the deaths of the pensioners. That is an important fact and a potent fact, which is often not noticed or not dwelt on when we describe the efforts which this country has made to free itself from the liabilities of debt in which it;was involved during the course of the great War, and it is a fact which I shall ask the Committee to bear in mind in connection with some considerable proposals which T shall make to them at a later stage in my remarks. That is all that I have to say about the finance of 1924; that is the tale of the year that is done as far A's I need supplement the Blue Paper.

    RETURN TO GOLD STANDARD.
    But. before I come to the prospects of 1925 I have an important announcement to make to the Committee. It is something in the nature of a digression, and yet it is an essential part of our financial policy. Ever since the Spring of 1919. first under War powers and later under the Gold and Silver (Export Control) Act, 1920, the export of gold coin and bullion from this country, except under licence, has been prohibited. By the express decision of the Parliament of 1920 the Act which prohibits the export was of a temporary character. That Act expires on the 31st December of the present year, and Great Britain would automatically revert to the pre-War free market for gold at that date. Now His Majesty's Government have been obliged to decide whether to renew or prolong that Act on the one hand, or to let it lapse on the other. That is the issue which has presented itself to us. We

    53
    have decided to allow it to lapse. I am quite ready to argue the important currency controversies which axe naturally associated with a decision of that kind, but not to-day—not in Budget speech. To-day I can only announce and explain to the Committee what it is that the Government have decided to do, and 1 will do that as briefly as I can.
    A return to an effective gold standard has long been the settled and declared policy of this country. Every Expert Conference since the War—Brussels, Genoa—every expert Committee in this country, airs urged the principle of a return to the gold standard. No responsible authority has advocated any other policy. No British Government—and every party has held office—no political party, no previous holder of the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer has challenged, or so far as I am aware is now challenging, the principle of a reversion to the gold standard in international affairs at the earliest possible moment. It has always been taken as a matter of course that we should return to it, and the only questions open have been the difficult and the very delicate questions of how and when.
    During the late Administration the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) appointed a Committee of experts and high authorities to examine into the question of the amalgamation of the Treasury and the Bank of England Note Issues. The inquiry resolved itself mainly into an examination of whether and in what manner we should return to the gold standard. The Committee was presided over by my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. A. Chamberlain), and then a private Member, and its other members were Lord Bradbury, Mr. Gaspard Farrer, Professor Pigou, and the Controller of Finance at the Treasury. This Committee heard evidence from a great number of witnesses representing every kind of interest financial and trading interests, manufacturing interests, the Federation of British Industries and others, were heard. It has presented a unanimous Report in which it expresses a decided opinion upon the question of the gold standard, and it sets forth its recommendations as to the manner in which a return to that standard should be effected.
    I have had the Report of this Committee printed, and it will be available in the Vote Office as I finish my remarks this afternoon. It contains a reasoned marshalling of the arguments which have convinced His Majesty's Government, and it sets forth a series of recommendations, in which my right hon. Friend, though he ceased to be Chairman on becoming Foreign Secretary, has formally concurred, and which His Majesty's Government are intending to follow in every respect.
    So much for the principle. There remain the questions of time and of method. There is a general agreement, even among those who have taken what I think I am entitled to call the heterodox view—at any rate, it is the view which we on this bench do not accept that we ought not to prolong the uncertainty, that whatever the policy of the Government, it should be declared, and that, if we are not going to renew the Act which prohibits the export of gold coin and bullion, now is the moment when we ought to say so. It is the moment for which the House of Commons has patiently waited at my request—and I express my obligation because I have not been pressed on this matter before—the moment at which it was, after long consideration, judged expedient that decisions should be made and actions taken. This is the moment most favourable for action. Our exchange with the United States has for some time been stable, and is at the moment buoyant. We have no immediate heavy commitments across the Atlantic. We have entered a period on both sides of the Atlantic when political and economic stability seems to be more assured than it has been for some years. If this opportunity were missed, it might not soon recur, and the whole finance of the country would he overclouded for a considerable interval by an important factor of uncertainty. Now is the appointed time.
    4.30 P. m.
    We have therefore decided, although the prohibition on the export of gold will continue in form on the Statute Book until the 31st December, that a general licence will be given to the Bank of England for the export of gold bullion from to-day. We thus resume our international position as a gold standard country from the moment of the declaration that I have

    55
    made to the Committee. That is an important event, but I hasten to add a qualification. Returning to the international gold standard does not mean that we are going to issue gold coinage. That is quite unnecessary for the purpose of the gold standard, and it is out of the question in present circumstances. It would be an unwarrantable extravagance which our present financial stringency by no means allows us to indulge in. Indeed, I must appeal to all classes in the public interest to continue to use notes and to make no change in the habits and practices they have become used to for the last ten years. The practice of the last ten years has protected the Bank of England and other banks against any appreciable demand for sovereigns or half-sovereigns. But now that we are returning publicly to the gold standard in international matters with a free export of gold, I feel that it will be better for us to regularise what has been our practice by legislation. I shall therefore propose to introduce a Bill which. among other things, will provide the following.
    First, That. until otherwise provided by Proclamation the Bank of England and Treasury Notes will be convertible into coin only at the option of the Bank of England;
    Secondly, That the right to tender bullion to the Mint to be coined shall be confined in the future by law, as it has long been confined in practice to the Bank of England.
    Simultaneously with these two provisions, the Bank of England will be put under obligations to sell gold bullion in amounts of not less than 400 fine ounces in exchange for legal tender at the fixed price of £3 17s. 10-1,-d. per standard ounce. If any considerable sum of legal tender is presented to the Bank of England the bank will be under obligation to meet it by bullion at that price. The further steps which are recommended by the Currency Committee, such as the amalgamation of the Bank of England and Treasury Note issues, will he deferred, as the Committee suggest, until we have sufficient experience of working a free international gold market on a gold reserve of, approximately, £150,000,000. It is only in the light of that experience that we shall be able to fix by permanent statute the ultimate limits of the fiduciary issue. All that will be in the Bill.
    The Bill also has another purpose. We are convinced that our financial position warrants a return to the gold standard under the conditions that I have described. We have accumulated a gold reserve of £153,000,000. That is the amount considered necessary by the Cunliffe Committee, and that gold reserve we shall use without hesitation, if necessary with the Bank Rate, in order to defend and sustain our new position. To concentrate our reserves of gold in the most effective form, I have arranged to transfer the £27,000,000 of gold which the Treasury hold against the Treasury Note issue to the Bank of England in exchange for bank notes. The increase of the gold reserve of the Bank of England will, of course, figure in their accounts.
    Further, the Treasury have succeeded in discreetly accumulating dollars, and we have already accumulated the whole of the 166 million dollars which are required not only for the June payment but also for the December payment of our American debt and for all our other American debt obligations this year. Therefore—and it is important—the Treasury will have no need to go on the market as a competitor for the purchase of dollars. Finally, although we believe that we are strong enough to achieve this important change from our own resources, as a further precaution and to make assurance doubly sure, 1 have made arrangements to obtain, if required, credits in the United States of not less than 300 million dollars, and of course there is the possibility of expansion if need be. These credits will only be used if, as, and when they are required. We do not expect to have to use them, and we shall freely use other.measures in priority. These great credits across the Atlantic Ocean have been obtained and built up as a solemn warning to speculators of every kind and of every hue and in every country of the resistance which they will encounter and of the reserves with which they will be confronted if they attempt to disturb the gold parity which Great Britain has now established. To confirm and regularise these credit arrangements, which I have had to make provisionally in the public interest, and to deal with the other points that I have mentioned, a short three-clause Bill will be required. The

    57
    text of it will be issued to-morrow, and we shall ask the House to dispose of it as a matter of urgency.
    These matters are very technical, and, of course, I have to be very guarded in every word that I use in regard to them. I have only one observation to make on the merits. In our policy of returning to the gold standard we do not move alone. Indeed, I think we could not have afforded to remain stationary while so many others moved. The two greatest manufacturing countries in the world on either side of us, the United States and Germany, are in different ways either on or related to an international gold exchange. Sweden is on the gold exchange. Austria and Hungary are already based on gold, or on sterling, which is now the equivalent of gold. I have reason to know that Holland and the Dutch East Indies—very important factors in world finance—will act simultaneously with us to-day. As far as the British Empire is concerned—the self-governing Dominions—there will be complete unity of action. The Dominion of Canada is already on the gold standard. The Dominion of South Africa has given notice of her intention to revert to the old standard as from 1st July. I am authorised to inform the Committee that the Commonwealth of Australia., synchronising its action with ours, proposes from to-day to abolish the existing restrictions on the free export of gold, and that the Dominion of. New Zealand will from to-day adopt the same course as ourselves in freely licensing the export of gold.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE:India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I am speaking of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown. I do not refer to India, but that in no way affects the argument[Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I would. appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Thus over the wide area of the British Empire and over a very wide and important area of the world there, has been established at once one uniform standard of value to which all international transactions are related and can he referred. That standard may, of course, vary in itself from time to time, but the position of all the
    58
    countries related to it will vary together, like ships in a harbour whose gangways are joined and who rise and fall together with the tide. I believe that the establishment of this great area of common arrangement will facilitate the revival of international trade and of inter-Imperial trade. Such a revival and such a foundation is important to all countries and to no country is it more-important than to this island, whose population is larger than its agriculture or its industry can sustain—[Holy. MEMBERS "No! "]—which is the centre of a wide Empire, and which, in spite of all its burdens, has still retained, if not the primacy, at any rate the central position, in the financial systems of the world.

    EXPENDITURE, 1925-26.
    Having dealt with—I will not venture to say disposed of these large preliminaries, important preliminaries—the finance of 1924, the position of our debt, and the return to the gold standard—I come directly to the Estimates for the current year. The Committee has already before it the Estimates of the Supply Services amounting to £407,471,000. I put the Consolidated Fund Charges at £391,929,000. Of the Consolidated Fund Charges, the debt interest, bearing in mind the savings on reduction of debt and on the conversions which have been effected, is put at £305,000,000, and the increased Sinking Fund at £50,000,000. The total expenditure for 1925 thus becomes £799,400,000. That is £9,400,000 more than last year's Budget Estimate, and £3,700,000 more than the actual expenditure of last year. I think this is a disappointing result, and It requires a word of explanation. The rapid changes of Government which have disturbed our affairs during the last three years have not been conducive to public economy. Not only have each set of new Ministers naturally wished to distinguish themselves by making Departmental improvements at the public expense, but three autumn General Elections have robbed the Treasury and the Cabinet—
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN:And the candidates.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to know that those burdens, collective in character, do not fall upon me. The successive Elections have robbed the Treasury and

    59
    the Cabinet of the opportunity of making that searching and comprehensive scrutiny arid that timely review of expenditure which are absolutely required every year, arid which, under settled conditions, normally take place in November and December. I found it impossible, in the short time that there was between the receipt of the Estimates in January by the Exchequer and their presentation in Parliament in February, to make the examination I had desired to make of them. It is indispensable that Departmental demands should every year be thoroughly re-examined from end to end. I have been able, in the short time available—I have no doubt that the experience of right lion. and hon. Gentlemen opposite was the same—to do no more than, by rowing against the stream, to keep equal, or even not quite equal, with the current. The tremendous flow of demands for expenditure of every kind comes from every quarter, and in the short interval that was available, I could do no more than keep fairly level, and was utterly unable to effect any positive and net economy such as I would have liked to have presented to the House.
    But if we may now come, and perhaps we may, to a period of settled government and continuity of policy [Laughter] it is all governed by the word "if," and I am not begging the question—if we may now come to continuity of policy, then a strict and prompt reversion to normal procedure is indispensable. The Estimates of all the spending departments in an advanced state of preparation ought to be in the hands of the Treasury by the beginning of November, in order that the issues arising out of them may 'be fought out amicably but exhaustively before the Estimates have to be presented to the House. Further, I have obtained the assent of the Prime Minister and of my colleagues in the Cabinet to the setting up of a Standing Committee of the Cabinet, not for the purpose of examining new expenditure—that runs a strict gauntlet—but for the purpose of overhauling blocks of recurring expenditure, in addition to the annual scrutiny made by the Treasury. I believe that we ought to aim at a net reduction in the Supply expenditure of not less than £10,000.000 a year. That is not taking an extravagant figure. It would be easy for me to get a more favourable response
    60
    by giving a more illusory figure, but I should be content if we could be sure that the net diminution of our expenditure was not less than £10,000,000 a year—.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Each year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Each year, progressively on Supply services. There should certainly be a saving of about £5,000,000 on the debt operations of each year, and there will be, I trust and believe, a certain steady expansion of the Revenue. From all those sources, if we were able to achieve that position—there is no reason at all why a strong and resolute effort should not achieve it there ought to be the means to present the tax payer with a certain mitigation of the heavy burdens which press upon him now. But it must be clearly realised that increased expenditure beyond what I am providing for this year and next year means increased taxation, and that reduced taxation can be achieved after this year only by a continued reduction of expenditure.

    REVENUE, 1925-26.
    The total expenditure in 1925 is, as have said, £799,400,000. What is the Revenue which I have to set against that? I have, first of all, to encounter a progressive loss of revenue of upwards of £14,000,000 on account of the remissions of taxation on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was so much complimented last year. £14,000,000 is a very serious lag to have to face at the outset of the problem. But that is not all. I do not feel justified in budgeting for any substantial expansion of trade. I believe in a sure and steady improvement in trade. It is not possible. in this scientific age, for Great Britain, for Europe, for the world to remain at peace for any long series of years without the process of recuperation being continuous. This is borne out by all the tests which it is possible to apply to the internal economic and financial circumstances of our own country. But the improvement will be only gradual, and it may even be slow. We have a long pull before us. It would be improvident to count on any speedy or important relief. We may all hope, but the Treasury cannot build its Budgets on hopes. If, contrary to my calculations but in harmony with all our hopes, any large or marked expansion of trade or business

    61
    should occur, that will be a windfall to the Exchequer. I am not counting on any such windfall.
    In any of the figures and proposals which I make to the Committee, I am not counting on any sudden or brilliant improvement in our affairs. I am not counting on, nor am I making provision for, any serious disaster such as would overwhelm our country if peace were broken by war abroad or by great industrial convulsions at home. Our destiny is in our own hands in these matters. We have our fortunes to make or to mar in these Islands. I am delighted to think that the realisation of that fact—that sombre and brutal fact—is becoming more and more common ground between all parties and all classes, apart from their other serious differences.
    Proceeding in this sombre garb along the middle way, I estimate the Customs and Excise revenue in 1925 at £235,000,000. That is against £234,500,000, the actual receipts in the year which has just closed. It is really a bigger increase than it looks, because to make the comparison between the receipts of last year and the estimates of this year exact, to compare like with like, about £2,500,000 should be deducted from the figures of last year for reasons into which I will not enter now. So I am really budgeting for about 1 per cent. increase on Customs and Excise. The Motor Vehicle Duties rise by £1,250,000 to £17,500,000—to such dimensions has that modest child which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) called into being 16 years ago, already grown. It is almost certain to grow larger in future.
    Coming to direct taxation, under the three years average the Income Tax will benefit by the fact that the deplorable trading results of 1921 pass away and a better year takes its place. On these and other favourable factors I feel entitled to estimate for a larger yield of the Income Tax. It has already, together with the Super-tax and Death Duties, exceeded the right hon. Gentleman's Estimate by £16,000,000 last year. I do not feel that there is any need to anticipate a diminution in the growing productivity of the of the Death Duties. The Super-tax will also reflect the improving trade of 1924. It is very difficult to make estimates which are other than speculative about
    62
    the remanets of Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax, but I am advised that some grain at any rate will be winnowed from the huge mass of chaff which is represented by the aftermath of those duties.
    At the present rates I estimate the total yield of Inland Revenue at £459,000,000, compared with last year's estimate of £432,000,000, and with the actually realised yield of £439,000,000. Perhaps the Committee would like to have the actual figures. They are:

    £

    Death Ditties

    62,000,000

    Stamps

    24,000,000

    Land Tax, etc

    1,000,000

    Income Tax

    289,000,000

    Super-tax

    70,000,000

    Excess Profits Duty

    4,000,0470

    Corporation Profits Tax

    9,000,000

    Total Inland Revenue

    459,000,000

    That gives me a total tax revenue of £711,500,000.
    With regard to non-tax revenue, I estimate the

    £

    Post Office receipts at

    57,000,000

    Crown Lands

    900,000

    Interest on various Lands

    12,600,000

    Miscellaneous ordinary revenue

    14,000,000

    Special receipts

    30,000,000

    equal to last year's Estimate and this is due to various receipts from disposals, food and shipping not coming in so punctually as was expected. We are satisfied that this Estimate will be realised. Adding the non-tax revenue of £114,500,000 to the tax revenue of £711,500,000, we get a total of 2826,000,000, or a surplus, on the existing basis of taxation, over the expenditure of£799,400,000, of £26,600,000. Taking everything into consideration, I think, on the whole, we are justified in considering the result satisfactory. It is the more satin factory because I am not taking into account a number of very important factors. For instance, I am not budgeting for any increase in the amount received by the Exchequer on account of.German reparations.We received£12,000,000 into the Exchequer last year

    63
    on account of German reparations, but that sum represented, not the payment due in the year, but considerable arrears besides. I am budgeting only for £9,500,000 for German payments next year. That represents a larger sum accruing but a smaller sum will be received by the Exchequer having regard to last year's receipt of the arrears of former years. I am not counting in any way on payment by our European Allies of the debts which they owe to us. I am not counting in this Budget in any way on their repayments. Negotiations with France are stilt proceeding—they have been interrupted by the change of Government—and negotiations with Italy will be begun[Interruption] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who interrupts is anxious that we should obtain these payments or that we should not obtain them. We have explained the principles by which we are governed in the correspondence which 1 have been authorised by the Cabinet to conduct with M. Clementel, the late Minister of Finance. They are principles which are in general accord with the Balfour Note, and which were laid down by the Government of which my right bon Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was the head. Of course we shall in no way relax our efforts to obtain repayment of what is due to us in accordance with principles which have been universally recognised, far outside this country, not only as fair but as actually generous. I am not however counting on it as a foundation for this Budget or for the figures which will confront us during this year. Neither am I, as I have said, counting on an expansion of trade. If anything comes from reparations, if anything comes from inter-Allied debts if anything comes from a revival of trade, that will be an additional relief which does not appear in the figures T am submitting to the Committee. Neither am I counting on any payment in this year by the Irish Free State under Article 5 of the Treaty.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why not? Has not Ulster paid?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:The Treaty must be observed in its integrity, and Article 5 is an essential part of it. I have not the slightest reason to assume that the Government of the Irish Free State have
    64
    not the intention of taking up with us, at the proper time and in the proper way, a, discussion of the important issues connected with Article 5, but I feel it necessary at this moment, when I am making a statement on the general finances of the country, to record this fact as one of the facts which must by no means be allowed to pass out of consideration, although it forms no foundation for my actual Budget. Neither am I counting, in the last case, upon any diminution of expenditure such as I hope may be achieved by the exertions of the Cabinet and the Public Accounts Committee, aided I trust by the House of Commons as a whole. Having regard to all these very considerable factors, I think I am justified in saying that the surplus of £26,600,000 in 1925 may without exaggeration merit the epithet "satisfactory."
    A surplus of £26,600,000 may be satisfactory in itself, but yet it may not be adequate for the needs of public policy. What are the twin supreme objectives of public policy at the present time? I can give them in a single sentence. Security of the home of the wage-earner against exceptional misfortune and encouragement of enterprise through a relief of the burdens resting upon industry. It is no use attempting to handle large matters of this kind in a partial wand ineffective fashion. Action, if it is to be taken, must in its character and in its scale be such as to produce an appreciable effect upon the lives and experience of all classes in the community. If, therefore, we are to advance upon these formidable problems. it is imperative that I should fortify the revenue, and this I will now, with the permission of the Committee, proceed to do.

    INCREASED ESTATE DUTY.
    I would like first to say this. In the new taxation proposals which I am going to make I trust the Committee will remember that the scheme I am submitting must be judged as a whole. It contains features which will, I have no doubt, be obnoxious individually in different quarters of the House, but every part of it is related to every other part, and I hope and trust that, when it is viewed in its entirety as an organic whole, the scheme will be found to be of help in the present general situation of cur affairs.
    Proceeding on the well-known maxim of beginning at the most unpleasant part, and putting that first, I proceed immediately to the Death Duties. The increasing yield of the Death Duties is a truer measure of the wealth of the country even than that growing yield of Income Tax and Super-tax which arises from the far-famed honesty of the British taxpayer stimulated by the equally well-known efficiency of the Inland Revenue. I propose certain additions to the rates of Estate Duty. They are not general throughout the scale. They do not affect estates of modest amount—the increases only begin after £12,500—nor do they affect estates of the greatest magnitude, the Duties on which were heavily increased in 1919 and leave no room for any alteration except in a downward direction. It is in the range of medium wealth that I propose the chief increases. The full details will be found in the White Paper which will be available when I sit down. I am only proposing to give a few specimen cases, and I hope the Committee will not press me for more, because the whole thing is better studied in print.
    On estates between £12,500 and £18,000 where now the duty is 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. I propose an addition of 1 per cent. On estates of 40,000, where now the duty is 9 per cent., an addition of 3 per cent., bringing it to 12 per cent. On estates of £175,000, where now the duty is 17 per cent., an addition of 6 per cent., bringing it to 23 per cent. On estates of £400,000, where the duty is now 23 per cent.—as the duty rises the increase diminishes—an increase of 3 per cent., bringing it to 26 per cent. On estates of £800,000, where the duty is now 27 per cent., an addition of 2 per cent., bringing it to 29 per cent. Estates of £1,000,000 and over remain at the same extremely onerous rates as at present. The yield of this scale of Death Duties is not fixed in any way arbitrarily, but is fixed in relation to a curve or line which rises harmoniously. The yield will he £10,000,000 in a full year, and £4.500,000 in the year of its initiation. That is my proposal. I have confined' myself to stating it far the moment, but I will unfold ifs exact purposes as I proceed with my remarks.

    SILK (REVENUE DUTY).
    Now I come to a series of duties of different kinds and of various origins, but
    66
    which have one feature in common. They all relate to subjects of luxury. They may all be called sumptuary duties or, if that be disputed, at any rate they are certainly optional duties. They are taxes which no man or woman—for women are going to pay their part—need pay unless he or she chooses. They fall on a class of expenditure from which everyone can easily refrain without any detrimental effect on health or morals,
    In the forefront of these I place a new revenue duty upon silk. That secret, at any rate, has been well kept. Natural, artificial, raw, semi-manufactured, manufactured or made-up silk will be subject to a new revenue duty. For nearly a generation Chancellors of the Exchequer have probed the problem of the silk tax, and all have retired baffled. The ingenuity and increasing experience of the Board of Customs and Excise have at length led to what I trust is a satisfactory and permanent solution of this problem. Natural silk enters the country at various stages—as raw silk, as silk waste, as thread and as tissue. I propose a carefully calculated scale of duties on all these imports. It is not an ad valorem tax but a specific duty. No natural silk is produced in Great Britain, therefore, the whole yield, without any countervailing duty, of the duty on natural silk comes to the Exchequer. I propose that similar specific duties, related to the duties on natural silk, should be levied on all corresponding imports of artificial silk at different stages. In this case, however, if the efficiency of the tax is to be fully maintained, a countervailing duty will be necessary in connection with the very large volume of home production. I am told it will be quite an easy matter to arrange.
    There remains only silk imported in the form of made-up goods, and here again proportionate duties will be levied on all imports wholly or partly consisting of silk, but in this case the duties will have to be ad valorem,as it would be impossible to deal with them on a specific basis. The basic rate of the duty is 4s. a lb. on raw silk, between a seventh and an eighth of the cost of the article; but the story is very complicated, and there are considerable variations in detail between the different grades. I will not weary the Committee with a complicated scale—they will find it in the Vote Office

    67
    at the close of my speech. But I wish to be absolutely frank and candid with the Committee. These are very good revenue duties. But in calculating the terms as between the foreign importer and the home producer, I have deliberately given a certain advantage to the home producer. I have done that for this reason, because I am using this particular trade for the first time as a fiscal instrument to extract revenue from the consumer, and I expect—I am bound to expect—that the imposition of this duty will lead to a certain decline in consumption. You will not get any result without some disadvantages, wherever you turn, and I wish to make up to the trade by a certain advantage over the foreign importer for the disadvantage they will suffer in a certain restriction in the general volume of their trade. On this basis, I estimate the revenue from silk at £4,000,000 in the year 1925, and at £7,000,000 in the year 1926. That is a substantial addition to our revenue, and if the scheme which we have prepared should ultimately commend itself to the Committee and to the House of Commons, I have no doubt it will be a permanent one.

    HOPS (IMPORT DUTY).
    The Silk Duty finds at its side a small companion which has reached me from the Ministry of Agriculture in the shape of a duty on hops. It is very small, but very shocking; it is nakedly protective. The object of the duty is to protect the culture of hops, and there is a special element of depravity attaching to this duty. A certain school of thinkers contend that beer is food, and, if so, hops are certainly, I am advised, an ingredient of beer—[An HON. MEMBER "Not now ! "]—but I am encouraged in the matter by the fact that those who hold that beer is a food are also, on the whole, very favourable to a protective duty on hops, and, on the other hand, those who dislike the duty on hops still more dislike the suggestion that beer is food, so I think my right hon. Friend's little monster may manage to make its way through the general network of electoral pledges which safeguards the main policy in fiscal matters as far as this Parliament is concerned. After all, hops have always been in a special position. I remember, many years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs sending
    68
    for me to receive with him a deputation of hop growers in a Committee Room upstairs. We could give them nothing but sympathy, but we gave them a double dose of that.
    For the last five years hops have been rigidly, rigorously controlled under an Act passed during the time of the late Coalition of blessed memory. That Act expires in August of the present year, and I have been confronted with the alternatives either of renewing the control or of agreeing to a protective duty. I have chosen the latter, and I am confessing to the Committee the reason why. Control would be utterly sterile, as far as I am concerned, but the duty will produce £130,000 in the first year and £250,000 in a subsequent year, as much, that is to say, or almost as much, as the additional grant which I have been able to give to the Universities of the country for higher education. I cannot afford to disdain any revenue, and even the most modest contributions are thankfully received. The spacious days are gone. We have entered a period of exact accounting and restricted scope; we have entered a period when any contribution, however small, when any diminution of expenditure, however petty, must be welcomed and eagerly grasped and sought for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The duty will be £4 a cwt., and limited to four years. We do not want to encourage any over-production in hops. It will carry with it a small additional duty on imported beer to countervail the tax on the home brewer, but after consultation in various quarters, I do not anticipate any alteration in the important area of the beer duty, and my estimate of the revenue from beer is not affected in any appreciable degree.

    MCKENNA DUTIES (RE-IMPOSITION).
    Finally, still on the task of fortification, I come to that celebrated group of duties for ever associated with the name of the eminent free trade financier and Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna. When that right hon. Gentleman first proposed these duties, he used the following words. I see a great many Gentlemen on the opposite benches who were his colleagues at the time, and who supported him accordingly in the use of these words:
    " The particular articles which we have chosen have been chosen, primarily, upon the ground that their consumption is not

    69
    required in this country; secondly, upon the ground of improving our fallen exchange; and, thirdly, on the ground that, in satisfying these two objects, we shall still obtain a certain degree of revenue."
    Those were his reasons in 1915, and every one of those reasons exists to-day. If those articles were luxuries then, they are luxuries now. If there was a need to diminish luxury importation from the United States of America then on account of the dollar exchange, has that need become any loss urgent on the morrow of our return to the gold standard? If such comparatively small receipts of revenue counted in the great War Budgets of those times, surely they count much more in the meagre period to which I have succeeded. These duties will give pleasure in almost every quarter of the House, for various reasons. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway will be able to point out how wise and farseeing they have been in warning the country of the hideous dangers of Protection which they were recklessly incurring; hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side, and perhaps above the Gangway, too, will be able to use all those arguments about stimulating British trade in particular industries with which we are all very familiar. I do not grudge anybody any reason which may lead them to vote for the reimposition of these duties. To some they are a relish, to others a target, and to me a revenue. They will bring in £1,600,000 a year in the first year and nearly £3,000,000 in a, full year. We cannot afford to throw away a revenue like that.
    I said last year that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in deciding to single out these duties, which were lying quite quietly and not interfering with anybody, and to bring them into the forefront of affairs, was actuated much less by considerations of high finance than by considerations of high political strategy. His action was not endorsed by the electorate at the following election. I believe that a great majority of Members in this House won their seats on a clear view that those duties ought not to have been taken off. We cannot afford the loss of this revenue, and the duties must be restored. They are capable of annual review, after all, and there may come another Chancellor
    70
    of the Exchequer, in times when revenue is more abundant and when expenditure is less exacting, who may be able, once again, to roll away this hideous cloud of oppression, and wealthy and patriotic persons will once again be able to recreate their exhausted strength in untaxed foreign motor cars no longer burdened by a 33A per cent. duty.
    The total yield of all these optional taxes will be £5,730,000 in the first year and £10,000,000 in a full year. In order to obtain the maximum yield from the Silk and McKenna Duties, we shall endeavour to bring them into force on the 1st July, and for that purpose we shall have to ask the Committee and the House to press steadily on with the Budget in. the intervening period.
    5.0 P.M.
    I have now completed my fortification of the revenue. None of the new duties falls en the mass of the people, none touches the necessaries or even moderate, common comforts of daily life. Together, they will yield £10,230,000 in 1925, and, what is far more important to me in the policy which I propose to outline, they give more than £20,000,000 a year of permanent revenue in 1926 and in future years. The surplus, therefore, of £26,600,000 is now raised by these additions to £36,830,000, and I also have a permanent addition to the Revenue worth anther £10,000,000 which will accrue in the following year. That is, over and above the extra £10,000,000 added this year there will be another £10,000,000 next year, and over and above the normal revenue of this year it represents an increase of £20,000,000.

    MINOR LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS.
    An announcement of a prospective surplus is always a milestone in a Budget, and before we settle what to do with it, I will pause to mention some minor matters, on which I shall have to propose legislation. I shall propose legislation following the Resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 concerning the liability of Empire Governments trading or owning property in Great Britain. I shall also propose legislation for Income Tax relief in favour of High Commissioners residing in this country, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already publicly referred. Provisions will he included to continue the tem-

    71
    porary exemption of Irish Free State charities from British Income Tax, and I shall suggest, also, certain improvements in the machinery for Income Tax appeals by charities in Great Britain. A recent decision of the House of Lords has revealed defects in the law relating to Succession Duty, which necessitates the tabling of remedial proposals. All these points will be represented by Clauses in the Finance Bill.

    WIDOWS AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    We are now in a position to resume our march upon the two main objectives I mentioned to the House an hour ago--Security for the home of the wage-earner and Encouragement of enterprise by the relief of taxation upon income. But now we can move forward with our wagons and our field-parks replenished, if not with an ample, at any rate with an adequate supply of shot and shell. Security for the home of the wage-earner against exceptional misfortune—that is the first need. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite for his remissions on tea and sugar, but I differ from him in thinking that this was the best use which could have been made of the enormous power represented by £30,000,000 of Revenue in the hands of the State. The average British workman in good health, in full employment, at standard rates of wages, does not regard himself and his family as objects of compassion. It is when exceptional misfortune descends upon the cottage hors that the slender margin upon which it floated is, for the first time, revealed. A year of misfortune, a year of distress, a year of unemployment, above all the loss of the bread-winner, leaves this once happy family in the grip of the cruellest calamity. Their furniture and household effects, gathered together by thrift, through years of toil in the prime of life, are scattered and dispersed in a few months for a tithe of their value. Inconceivable waste, degenerating into havoc, takes place all over the country, and is taking place whenever a lamentable catastrophe of an exceptional character falls upon the otherwise happy, free, and prosperous workman's home. Most painful of all is the position of the widow with several young children, left absolutely upon her own resources with a few pounds, and a few belongings.
    It is idle to say that the threat of adversity is a necessary factor in stimulating self-reliance. The threat of adversity has been active all these years, and, in the upshot, no effective provision has been made by the great mass of the labouring class, with all their efforts, for their wives and families in the event of their death. I am not reproaching them. The circumstances of their lives, the problems of existence, have not left them with the strength, or the means, or the foresight, or the habit of making such provision, and the fact remains, look at it how you will, that no such provision exists at the present time. That is the gravest evil and the gravest need at the present time.
    To change to a military metaphor It is not to the sturdy marching troops that extra rewards and indulgences are needed at the present time. It is to the stragglers, to the exhausted, to the weak, to the wounded, to the veterans, to the widow and the orphans that the ambulances of the State and the aid of the State should, as far as possible, be directed. The old laissez faire or laissez aller ideas of mid-Victorian Radicalism have been superseded, and no one has done more to supersede them than the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I am proud to have been associated with him from the very beginning of those large insurance ideas. The old ideas have been superseded by modern conceptions of scientific State organisation. The conceptions of the party opposite, of course, we know, but they are conceptions which are held not less earnestly, and certainly more practically—[An HON. MEMBER "Quite recently ! "]--on this side of the House. I am sure they commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman the father of British State Insurance, which at this very moment, although by no means complete, holds an honourable pre-eminence amongst the insurance systems of every country in the world.
    Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed a Committee of experts to examine into the possibility of Old Age Pensions at an earlier age than 70 and of widows' pensions. Governments came and went; elections were won and lost, but the Committee continued to labour in the deepest recesses of Whitehall, and, in the end, all the

    73
    actuarial and administrative possibilities were fully surveyed, and an immense mass of information and material was collected. The scheme of insurance we have now decided to inaugurate has been erected on that basis. Without that preliminary work, it would not have been practicable to deal with this matter this year, and perhaps not next year. As I have said, the action of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two years ago made possible this announcement. These conclusions were presented to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the summer of last year. I do not know what course he and his friends would have adopted with regard to it. Perhaps he will tell us for himself. But this mass of material was made available both to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in whose Department this matter lies, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we have done our best to frame a scheme out of this material.
    Any scheme to be of any use must be contributory. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh ! "] I will give a word of caution to hon. Members at the outset. Before they deride this scheme, or commit themselves to an attitude of derision, let them make quite sure what it is. Let them make quite cure how great are the masses it affects in a favourable sense. Any scheme, I say, must be contributory, must be compulsory, and, above all, must cover, virtually, the whole area of the wage-earning population. This area is broadly represented by the 15,000,000 people who are at present insured under the Health Insurance Scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. Those 15,000,000 contributors, with their dependants, represent over 30,050,000, or 70 per cent. of the entire population. The first question we have to ask ourselves is this What burden of additional contribution, in existing circumstances, can be borne and shared equally between employers and employed? We believe that 4d. for men and 2d. for women can be assumed by both parties, employers and employed, in the circumstances of our national life at the present time.
    Mr. SEXTON: In addition to what they pay at the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, that is what we believe.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD:Is it 4d. and 2d. each from the workers and employers.
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Yes, 4d. from the workman and 4d. from the workman's employer, and 2d. from the workwoman and 2d. from the workwoman's employer. We bear in mind, in the case of the workman and workwoman, the very large remissions of taxation which were made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. He made these great remissions on tea and sugar, and the relief granted by him provides the fund out of which the contributions of the workers can be paid. That is the right hon. Gentleman's share in the general architecture of the scheme, if he cares to claim it, but only if he cares to claim it. If he does not wish to claim it, there is no reason why he should.
    The case of the employers is more difficult, because we know how heavy are the burdens upon our productive industries at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh! "] I am sure my hon. Friends opposite, however they may feel about these matters—we will have weeks to debate them—would not wish to show anything like an air of levity in dealing with questions which, after all, affect not millions but tens of millions. We may differ—[Interruption.].
    The CHAIRMAN:I must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue.
    Mr. CHURCHILL:We may differ. The case of the employers is more difficult, because while unemployment is at its present height the burden is especially heavy on employers and also on the employed in the area of unemployment insurance. While the deficiency period lasts 10d. is required per week from the employer and 9d. from the man. That is an enormous burden. We believe this period is temporary. That is our basis. It will be a very great falsification of our view if it should turn out to be not temporary. Once unemployment has fallen from its present level to the neighbourhood of 800,000 then the deficiency period rapidly passes away, and the contributions of employers and of workmen in the unemployment area fall from 10d. to 6d. and from 9d. to 6d., respectively. It is a temporary period, but it is one which, I frankly admit, has caused my colleagues and myself a great deal of anxiety in connection with these present proposals. Before I sit down I shall hope to provide the employer,

    75
    with certain resources which will enable him to meet, and to more than meet, this extra burden, which will be a proper counterpoise in direct taxation to the immense remissions of indirect taxation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, made this time last year.
    What are the benefits which can be paid by contributions on this scale. If everybody in the ambit of Health Insurance had from the age of 16 years onwards contributed 4d. a week, and had had 4d. a week contributed by the employer—the women at half rates—a self-supporting scheme would now be in operation and would have afforded 10s. per week to widows, with an allowance for children and for orphans, and, secondly, l0s. a week to all insured persons and their wives from 65 years. Such a State scheme, on such a scale, would be self-supporting if everybody had contributed.from the age of 16 onwards. Such a scheme is not in existence. No one has contributed from the age of 16 onwards. Large numbers of people have never had the opportunity of contributing at all. The vast majority can never contribute on any scale sufficient to pay for benefits of this scope. The contributions of the employers and of the employed are 4d. Certain incidental savings on health and unemployment insurance will give relief to the extent of a penny each, which two pennies can be transferred to the new scheme. Such a basis could never have enabled us to overtake the immense liabilities for which no back payments have been made. Left to its own resources the scheme could not be brought into full operation for many years. A whole generation of men and women might toil their lives out before the distribution of benefits would be wide enough sensibly to raise the general level of comfort amongst the mass of the people. Here, then, is where the State—the capitalist State—with its long record of stable finance, with its carefully maintained credit, can march in to fill the immense gap. The contribution of the State will enable the whole scheme to be brought rapidly into operation, and we intend to bring it into operation in successive stages beginning from 4th January, 1926.
    The present capital value of the additional liability to be undertaken by the State under the scheme—the scope of
    76
    which I have yet to explain—has beet computed at nearly £750.000,000.before the Committee can be asked to bind upon themselves and upon future Parliaments this formidable load, we must look not only to the next few years, but we must let our minds roam forward into the remote periods of the future, which we shall not ourselves see, but for which we have a solemn responsibility.
    Here I have to make a very unexpected and a very disagreeable digression. The liabilities of the new pension scheme—I am putting all the facts before the Committee, and before a people who have gone through the Great War, and who, in view of all these events cannot be afraid to look at the facts and realities as they are—the cost of the new pension scheme is not the only great impending charge which we have to meet. Quite apart from the new pension scheme, the actuaries who have examined the matter have discovered and predicted an enormous growth in the cost of the existing non-contributory scheme of old age pensions. This additional cost is not due to the recent improvements or relaxations made by the late Administration. It is due to the fact that we are now entering upon a period 70 years away from the very great expansions of the population which took place in Victorian times. Moreover, we are living in a period when the span of human life has been sensibly prolonged. I will give one impressive example. The Census of 1891 showed 5.600,000 persons between the ages of 40 and 60. The survivors of these persons are the old Census of 1921 showed, not 5,600,000, but 9,700,000 persons between the ages of 40 and 60. These persons—that is the survivors of them—will be the old age pensioners of 20, 30 and 40 years hence. This tendency to a larger proportion of old people is steadily increasing. The actuaries assure me that the existing cost of old age pensions on the present basis in 50 years' time will be more than double what it now is. At present it is £27,000,000.In 10 years it will be £36,000,000. In 20 years it will be £46,000,000. In 30 years it will be £54,000,000. In 50 years it will be £60,000,000, without any addition being made of any sort or kind by any Government. This

    77
    island in 30 years will have more than double its present number of old and feeble people, and it will have to support them with an active population little larger than it is to-day—a population robbed—we must never forget—of much of its natural increase by the slaughter of the Great War. None of this was fore seen. Perhaps none of it could be foreseen at the time the non-contributory scheme of old age pensions was started in 1908. I think that the facts and figures which I have brought before the Committee are such as to raise disturbing and anxious reflections in the mind of every serious person.
    I have to take these figures into account in framing the finance of the new scheme. I am bound to secure for the Parliaments of the future the opportunity of control ling the growing burdens of the State. I will not put the Parliaments of the future in the position of being fettered by quasi-contractual obligations towards contributor seven though their contributions are compulsory. I will not be responsible for financial arrangements which in 90, 30, or 40 years will lead mathematically to an overburdened Treasury, fettered Parliaments, and a de pendent people. Therefore, it is provided in the finance of our scheme that the contributions, both of employer and employed, should be raised one penny each per man, and a half-penny each per woman, after the tenth, twentieth, and thirtieth year of the scheme to a maxi mum, in 1956, of 7d. on each side. I can not think that is an unfair condition for us to impose. I cannot think that is an excessive burden for us to contemplate in relation to posterity, for, after all, It is less than we are paying now while the present high rates of unemployment contributions are in force during the deficiency period. I am not seeking to fetter Parliaments. I am only seeking to make sure that what ever Parliaments there are, whatever parties- they may be ruled by, they shall be free to keep the finance in this matter under control, with out what would otherwise look like a breach of faith to those humble people who all their lives will have been paying contributions. On this basis, however, the cost to the State of the new scheme will still be heavy. The capital value is what I have already stated, but it will be definite. It will be controllable by Parliament without any breach of faith.
    78
    By the tenth year the cost to the State will be £15,000,000.By the fifteenth year it willbe£20,000,000. By the twentieth year it will be £24,000,000.Bythe thirty fifth year the burden will have declinedto£21,000,000and,thereafter we slowly pass into periods too speculative for us to follow with out the labours of the statistician But that is not all. If the Parliaments of the future adhere to the, three decennial increases suggested, and the conditions prevail which I have already explained, the whole system of old age pensions, not only the new scheme but the existing non-contributory scheme, will gradually come on to a self supporting basis. That is to say, the new entrants at 16 years of age, after the year 1956, wild with the help of the employers' contribution, pay not only for all their own benefits under the new scheme but for their own old age pensions after 70 as well. In 80 years, therefore, when the great majority of the contributors have contributedfrom16onwards,the complete scheme, the new and the existing old age pensions schemes—willbeon a wholly self supporting basis, so far as the great mass of the population is concerned The State will still be called upon to pay nearly £90,000,000 a year in perpetuity But that will not be on account of the cost of running the scheme; it will represent the interest on the cost of bringing these schemes into immediate operation without waiting for a whole generation until an adequate capital fund has been accumulated. That is the great division of burden which we make between the contributors and the State, and it is our guiding principle. According to this principle, the contributors will pay for benefits and the State will pay for making those benefits immediately avail able in our own time instead of after we have all passed from this sphere. This principle after 195(5 will apply fully not only to the new scheme, but to the existing Old Age Pensions scheme as well. I apologise to the Committee for the length of my speech. I really have tried to economise every word so as to give a fair idea of the scheme and yet not waste the time of the Committee.
    Let us now see what are the charges upon the State both for the new scheme and for Old Age Pensions. At present we are paying £27,000,000 a year for Old Age Pensions. In the tenth year the new

    79
    scheme will cost £15,000,000 and Old Age Pensions, £36,000,000, total, £51,000,000. In the twentieth year the new scheme will cost £24,000,000, and Old Age Pensions, £46,000,000, total, £70,000,000. In the thirty-fifth year the new scheme will cost £21,000,000 and Old Age Pensions, £56,000,000, total, £77,000,000. The next question I have to ask is, are we justified in laying these charges upon posterity? Here I would remind the Committee of the descending scale of war pensions charges, to which I designedly referred what seems a very long time ago at the begining of my remarks. We are paying £67,000,000 for war pensions this year. In 10 years they will have fallen to £43,000,000, a saving of £24,000,000 a year. In 20 years they will have fallen by £35,000,000, in 30 years by £45,000,000, and they will be virtually extinguished in 50 years. And so, when we compare the ever-rising expense of the new scheme and of old age pensions on the one hand with the ever-falling cost of war pensions, we find that the fall of war pensions in every year and at every stage largely exceeds the rise in the new pension scheme, and that at every stage it balances, or nearly 11,1ances, the cost of the new pension scheme arid the old age pension scheme taken together. At the worst, therefore, we have no need on these matters to expect greater burdens than those we are supporting at the present time. By the time that the growing relief from the decline of the war pensions has come to an end we shall have paid off our American debt, and a relief of £35,000,000 to £40,000,000 a year will inure to the benefit of our successors. Therefore, it seems to me, in nothing that we are now doing are we acting in an improper sense towards posterity. We are bearing great burdens every year, and we are putting upon them nothing of which it may be said we have in any way endeavoured to shirk our share.
    I turn, now, to the first decennial period of the new pension scheme, which is, after all, the one which concerns us in the most practical manner. The new pension scheme will cost the Exchequer nothing in the first year. Surpluses will accrue in the next two years and will be carried to the credit of the scheme. It is only from the third full year that a charge begins to operate. It begins at about
    80
    £4,000,000 a year and it rises in the tenth year to £15,000,000. But I feel very strongly, and it is the view of the Government, that this Parliament should not be generous at the expense of other Parliaments, that we should not have the advantage or the honour of introducing a great new scheme and departure of this kind and leave the bulk of the burden to be borne by the next Parliament, or the next after that. Therefore, we have decided to spread the payments evenly over the whole of the first decennial period, and I shall defray the charges of this scheme by 10 annual and approximately equal instalments. I will not now go into the reasons why they are not exactly equal; these will all appear in the documents which will in due course be brought to the attention of Parliament. They will be 10 approximately equal instalments of about £5,750,000 a year, beginning from the year 1926. That is the new charge, and to meet it is one of the reasons that I have fortified the revenue.
    I purposely refrain from giving details of the Bill. It will be presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. The Bill is ready, it will be printed, and we await only the first convenient opportunity, the first convenient break in the Budget discussions, to place it before the House. It will be sufficient to-night if I sum up the benefits in general terms, not in strict legal phraseology, for this I leave to the Bill and to. the documents to be presented.
    First, the widows of all men who are insured under the new scheme and who die after 4th January, 1926, will receive 10s. a week for life, and the eldest child will receive 5s. and the other children 3s. until they reach the age of 14. Every wife of an insured man and every child, over an area of 70 per cent of the population, will have that security behind them from 4th January next.
    Secondly, all existing widows of men who were insured under the National Health Insurance scheme who are now mothers of young children will be pensioned. The widows of those who have contributed have the pension for life as widows, but the widows of those who have not contributed, and in the nature of things never can contribute, are only pensioned when they are widowed mothers, that is,

    81
    when they have children under 14. All existing widows of men who were within the ambit of National Health Insurance, and who are now mothers, and on behalf of whom no contribution has ever been made or ever can be made, will receive as a free gift from the State the same pension and the same allowance in respect of children as the new insured classes will get after 4th January. These pensions will begin from 4th January, 1926, and will continue not for life, but till the youngest child reaches the age of 14 and for six months thereafter. This provision affects 200,000 widowed mothers and 350,000 children as from 4th January next. Existing and future orphan children will receive allowances of 7s. 6d. a week for the eldest and 6s. for the second orphan in the family. Of such children 30,000 will be affected from 4th January.
    Thirdly, from 6th January, 1928, two years later, all contributors, male and female, who have been contributors to health insurance for five years, and who will have paid under the new scheme two years' contributions—that is, less than £1 a year in the case of men, and 10s. in the case of women—who are over 65 years of age, or who subsequently reach 65, will receive 10s. a week without any means test or other disabling conditions. The same benefits will be given at 65 to the wives of contributors who have entered upon their pensions, i.e., if a man has entered upon a pension and his wife reaches 65, she will receive a pension of 10s. a week in consequence of his pensionable rights.
    Fourthly, the introduction of pensions at 65 has decided us to sweep away altogether the restrictions, inquisitions and means tests upon persons now over 70 who have been insured under the Health Insurance Scheme until reaching that age. There are about 100,000 persons affected by this provision. They will receive as a free gift from the State the rights in respect of old age pensions from which they are now debarred. I am informed that there are 75,000 men over 70 qualified in every other way for old age pensions, but who, because they are earning wages, are not allowed to receive pensions. That will all be swept away. After this Act is in operation it will be nobody's business what means they have, if they are in the insurable class, and
    82
    it will be nobody's business how they employ their time. 1st July, 1926, is the date appointed for this reform, but my right hon. Friend informs me that it will be only with the utmost strain of effort by his Department that all the necessary administrative work can be carried through by that time.
    Great as are the demands which I am making on the patience of the Committee I cannot pass from this subject on the first occasion of presenting it to Parliament without attempting an example of the scale of pensions which this new scheme affords. Talk of 9d. for 4d.—Interruption.] —That was a boast which was fully made good. There is no need for overstatement. The facts and figures which are supplied me by the Government Actuaries' Department are frankly incredible, but I am assured they are correct. A man of 20 will obtain under this scheme for 4d a week benefits which are actuarially worth 1s. 00. a week. The same benefits would cost a man of 30, 1s.8½d., a man of 40, 2s.8½d., a man of 50, 4s. 11d., and a man of 60, 16s. 8d. Now all will receive it equally for the payment of 4d. An employed woman will pay half contributions, but in the nature of things the major part of the benefits of the scheme will accrue to women. I take as a supreme example the case of a man of 35 who dies after the 4th January next, in insurance, leaving a widow and three children all under five years of age. The benefits which this widow and children will receive, allowing for the fact that the pension ceases on remarriage, are worth in capital value £600, that is to say, as much as the maximum sum awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the widow of a man who is killed in a terrible accident. Such are the miracles, I can call them nothing less, of nationwide insurance.
    I have only one thing more to say on this subject, and that is I hope the Committee understand what it is we are doing with this declining charge for war pensions. We could quite easily, and high authorities could have been marshalled behind us, have spread it over the lifetime of the pensioners and secured a substantial reduction of expenditure in the interval, which could have been devoted to the relief of the direct taxpayers who,

    83
    after all, pay two-thirds of the whole cost. We have deliberately decided not to do that, but to use this diminishing charge as a great instrument and lever to bring this new scheme into existence and thus turn it to another and I think an even better purpose. If I may stray for a moment from the dusty highroad of facts and figures on which we have been marching, and have still to march and turn aside into the path of fancy, I would say that I like the association of this new scheme of widows' pensions, and pensions at 65 with the dying out of the cost of the war pensions. I like to think that the sorrow and sacrifice and the suffering have been the seed from which a strong tree will grow, under which perhaps many generations of British people may find shelter against some of the storms of life. It is by far the finest war memorial you can set up to those who gave their lives, their limbs, their blood, and who lost their health or dear ones in their country's cause.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    I have now reached the agreeable and comparatively easy task of distributing the surplus of nearly £37,000,000. I have weighed all the different alternatives, and I have done my best to make the proposals and to submit to my colleagues in the Cabinet, the recommendations which I thought would be most effective and most helpful to the country at the present time. First of all there is the policy of Imperial preference. It is our policy to give effect to the proposals of the British Government at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 in so far as those recommendations do not involve any new or additional duties upon food of any sort or kind. Accordingly, I now submit, to the Committee proposals for the removal of the existing duties on Empire dried fruits, and for an increase in the preference on Empire tobacco from one-sixth to one-fourth of the full duty. I may say that I have received assurances from some of the great tobacco firms that this preference will lead to the wholly Empire tobacco being placed on the market at ½d an ounce less retail than at the present time. I propose an increase of the preference on heavy wines from one-third to two-thirds; an increase in the preference on the surtax on sparkling wines from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. So far as sugar is
    84
    concerned we propose to restore the preference to the level it was before the reduction of duty last year—namely, 4s. 31-d. per cwt., and also to provide that the preference shall remain at that level for 10 years or so long as the full duty does not fall below that level. This is the second time I have proposed a ten year's guarantee on sugar preference to Parliament. I announced such a guarantee in 1922. It was reprobated and repudiated —in my absence—by the right hon. Gentleman in 1924, but nothing has occurred to alter our view, as to the importance and need of giving a sense of security to the producers of empire sugar, so that it will enable them to make further plans with something definite to look forward to in the future. We propose to give the sugar producers that security and to invest the undertaking with statutory sanction.
    July 1st, 1925, will be the date when these Imperial preferences come into operation. The loss to the Revenue will be £1,470,000 in the first year, and £1,720,000 in the full year. We have thus carried out in the fullest and most precise manner every pledge given at the Imperial Economic Conference subject, of course, to those other pledges given at the General Election in regard to the taxation of the necessary foods of the people.

    DIRECT TAXATION.
    Now I come to the second of the two main objectives which I set before the Committee some time ago. The burden of direct taxation falls with injurious effect upon the enterprise of the nation. It is a delusion to suppose that the evil is confined to the classes who actually pay. It manifests itself in all sorts of ways, obscure but none the less traceable ways, it manifests itself in a contraction, and above all in a relaxation of effort, and in the loss of saving power. Thus it descends tier by tier in varying degrees upon every class of the population, and it reveals itself, I am confident, to some extent at least, in the present grave and exceptional unemployment from which this country is suffering. In factories, mines, blast furnaces and shipyards, we see this evil of unemployment, the preoccupation of every public man in every party. No doubt there are many causes for it. No doubt some of those causes are beyond our reach. Amongst

    85
    those which are within our reach, the existing high rate of taxation must certainly be counted. It is an undoubted fact that the country with the highest rate of unemployment is also the country where the taxes on income are at the highest level, and where at the highest level they are collected in full. Are you sure it is only a coincidence? I am sure it is not. Of all the remedies we are advised to apply to our industrial malady, some wise and some not wise, none is so simple, so well tried, so efficacious and so safe as the diminution of taxation falling upon profits and production.

    SUPER-TAX.
    I believe that the Super-tax at its present rate constitutes an excessive burden both on enterprise and on the saving power of the nation, and that it is an impediment to the creation of that new wealth without which our present load of debt and expenditure cannot be borne. The Royal Commission on Income Tax contemplated that a certain relation should be preserved between the Income Tax and the Super-tax, but that relation has been altered by the reduction of the Income Tax without a corresponding reduction of the Super-tax. I therefore propose to reduce the Super-tax. The Committee will remember that at the beginning of my speech I proposed an increase in the scale of the Death Duties to yield.£10,000,000 in a full year. My object was to transfer this burden of £10,000,000 from income to capital, and I now propose to reduce the Super-tax by exactly the same amount as I propose to increase the Death Duties. From every point of view I believe that change will be salutory. The difference between the highly-paid brain worker who depends entirely upon the exhaustible product of his brain and whose income depends entirely upon his health, and whose provision for his wife and family depends entirely upon his power to build up insurance funds in his lifetime—the difference between the position of that man and the possessor of an equal income derived from investments is too obvious to need any further discussion. It is recognised with enormous force in the present heavy scale of the Death Duties, and I believe that a moderate diminution of the burden upon wealth in the process of creation, even if
    86
    that burden is to be transferred to accumulated capital passing at death, will tend to relieve the pressure upon the highly-creative faculties of the community. Such a change is in accordance with modern conceptions, and I believe that within these limits and at this particular juncture, having regard to the special circumstances of our industrial situation and the lack of drive there seems to be in so many quarters, it will be attended by definitely recuperative symptoms. therefore propose to reduce the Super-tax in as nearly as possible a corresponding proportion over as nearly as possible the same range of taxpayers and to approximately the same extent as I propose to increase the Death Duties, so that the new burden and the new relief will balance one another in each succeeding stage of the principal ranges of income. I am not reducing the burden on this class of wealthy taxpayers, but I am adjusting the load in a manner more conducive, as I contend, to the general interests of the country.
    The scale of Super-tax reductions is considerable. Again I only give instances. The White Paper will reveal exactly what benefit every class of Supertax payer will get. For instance it halves the existing rates of Super-tax up to £3,000 a year; from this point the relief becomes smaller varying from 1s. in the to 6d. in the £ until in the region of income which denote a capital which will suffer no increase of Death Duty it dies away altogether except in so far as the richest taxpayer gains not a special rate of benefit for himself, but a benefit granted to the other classes on the lower ranges of the scale of taxation. The comparative scales of Estate Duty increases and of Super-tax reductions, together with other interesting figures on this subject will be found in the White Paper in the Vote Office. The cost of the Super-tax remission will be £6,700,000 in the first year and £10,000,000 in a full year. On the other hand, the new scale of Death Duties yields £4,500,000 in the first year and £10,000,000 thereafter. Therefore the net loss in the first year is £2,200,000 and in the future the balance will be exact.

    INCOME TAX.
    6.0 P.m.
    Now I come to the Income Taxpayers. I propose to apply to the classes of smaller Income Taxpayers a similar principle of relief to that which I have just

    87
    offered to the higher classes of Super-taxpayers by the relation of the Super-tax to the Death Duties. I propose to give a further advantage to earned income as against investment income in the lower ranges of the Income Tax scale. At the present moment the relief accorded to earned income as against invested income is one-tenth, with a maximum allowance of £200. I propose to increase this relief to one-sixth from 10 per cent. to 16; per cent., with a maximum allowance of 22.50. The measure of relief which this change gives to small incomes is very large. A married man with an earned income of £300 a year will find his tax reduced by 441 per cent., that is to say, he will get as big a reduction from this change in the rate as between earned and investment income —from that cause alone—as he would have got if the standard rate of Income Tax had been reduced by 2s. in the £. A taxpayer with three children, who has an earned income of £500 a year, will have his tax reduced by nearly one-fourth, or by the equivalent of 1s. ½d. on the standard rate; with an income of £750 a year he will get a relief, from this cause alone, of 10?2d. in the E. Broadly speaking, over the whole mass of Income Tax-payers with incomes under £1,000 a year—that is to say 90 per cent. of the Income Tax-payers —this relief to earned income as against investment income will give a benefit, on the average, equal to 6d. in the standard rate, and, of course, it is much more in the smaller classes of income. The full advantage of the new percentage will be obtained by incomes up to £1,500 a year, and thereafter it decreases as the income mounts to 22,000; and it is there that the Super-tax relief begins. On the whole, my curve will be found to be a continuous and harmonious progression, and will bear comparison with any of the existing curves of taxation. The cost of this particular relief to earned income, as against investment income, will be £3,000,000 in 1925, and £7,500,000 in a full year.
    There are two subsidiary points to be mentioned in this connection. First of all, I consider that the savings of old people on a small scale are virtually earned income, and, therefore, a person over 65, whose total income from investments or any other source does not exceed £500 a year will gain the
    88
    advantage—we are fixing 65 as the new old age pension period—will gain the advantage of this relief to earned income, although the income may be completely derived from investments which are the savings of a lifetime. In the second place, the relief which we give to the class of the smallest Income Tax-payers, the wage-earners who pay Income Tax, is a considerable relief, and justifies me in asking them, as a small return, to accept an alteration in the system of quarterly assessments, which is designed to reduce by nearly £100,000 a year the disproportionate cost of collection of the tax in this particular field.
    Lastly. but not least, and in addition, of course, to what I have said so far, I come to the standard rate of Income Tax. So far, the proposals which I have made affect a very large number of taxpayers. They affect very large numbers of taxpayers in varying degrees, but they do not affect them all equally. They do not, for instance, affect at all the reserves of public companies, on which the standard rate falls so heavily, diminishing the funds available for future development. I have every wish and every incentive, and I have received every exhortation, to reduce the standard rate of Income Tax; but my powers are severely circumscribed by the facts of the situation. The cost of a remission of the Income Tax rises with the increasing yield of that tax. A remission of ld. in 1924 would have cost £3,400,000 in the first year, and £4,900,000 in a full year. In 1925, the same remission of even Id. would cost £4,000,000 in the first year, and nearly £5,500,000 in a full year. Those are encouraging figures, but they are also large figures. We are approaching periods in which Chancellors of the Exchequer will be content and even proud if they can announce, as I have heard them proud to announce, remissions of Income Tax of 4d.,3d., 2d. or even a single penny. I have to think for more years than one, and I could not produce this year a Budget which would leave me stultified and in the position of having misled the House and misled the taxpayers of the country. I cannot do that, and I have to consider the possibility that I may have to stand here next year faced with the consequences of what I have done. In the circumstances, I have decided to

    89
    reduce the standard rate of Income Tax by 6d., at a cost of £24,000,000 in the first year and £32,000,000 in a full year.
    I am now in a position to balance the Budget of 1925, and I do so on a revenue of 2801,060,000, and an expenditure of £799,400,000. I reserve for contingencies a prospective surplus of £21,660,000.
    I have thus balanced the Budget in the public ledger in pounds, shillings and pence, and I have also tried, as I am sure hon. Members opposite will not deny, according to my lights—we all have our own point of view—to balance it fairly in the scales of social justice between one class and another in our varying community. Having limited resources to dispose of, and heavy burdens to carry, I have tried to present, on behalf of this new Parliament and the large Conservative majority, a scheme which has both unity and combination, which is national and not class or party in its conception or intention, which seeks to give to every class the assistance it most requires in the form most acceptable to the individual and most useful to the State—a scheme from which no class of men or women in the country, from the poorest to the richest, is excluded, and in which the proportion of advantage or relief progressively increases as the ladder of wealth is descended. I cherish the hope that by liberating the production of new wealth from some, at least, of the shackles of taxation, the Budget may stimulate enterprise and accelerate industrial revival; and that, by giving a far greater measure of security to the mass of the wage-earners, their wives and children, it may promote contentment and stability, and make our island more truly a home for all its people.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Continuation of Duty on Tea
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the customs duty charged on tea until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, shall continue to he charged on and after that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, that is to say—
    Tea… … the lb. … four pence And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913."
    Mr. SNOWDEN:Following the very sensible method of previous years, I shall do no more, at this stage of the Budget proceedings, than offer a few brief observations on the statement which the Chancellor or the Exchequer has just submitted to the Committee. Mr. Asquith, as he was a year ago, speaking after the Budget statement, then said that the first day of the Budget proceedings was consecrated by custom to non-controversial speeches. That is a very admirable precedent, and one which I would like to follow, but, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's speeches do not always lend themselves to non-controversial discussion. I shall, however, in the few moments for which I shall occupy the Committee, try to avoid being controversial, and shall reserve to a later occasion the taking advantage of the many opportunities of controversy which the right hon. Gentleman's proposals provide.
    I am quite sure that it is the wish of every Member of the Committee, and it is certainly my own desire, that at the earliest possible moment we should offer to the right hon. Gentleman our most hearty and sincere congratulation upon the great rhetorical and argumentative triumph which, as we expected, he has achieved upon the occasion of his first Budget speech. There are special circumstances of a rather romantic character associated with the right hon. Gentleman's appearance as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sometimes wonder if the ghosts, the spirits of former occupants of the Treasury Bench, still hover round the scenes of their earthly conflicts. If so, there is one spirit which to-day will share in a very abounding measure the high satisfaction of the Committee at the right hon. Gentleman's success.
    I do not propose, as I have said, to deal on this occasion with the points of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I shall reserve that to a later but a very early opportunity, when one has been able to examine more in detail the actual character of these proposals. I think it is necessary that in a few matters arising out of the Budget statement the position of my friends and myself should at once be made clear. When the right hon. Gentleman announced, ii. that portion of his speech dealing with the disposal of his estimated revenue,

    91
    that he proposed to increase the scale of the Estate Duties, I thought, "Well, there is at least one thing upon which I shall be able heartily to congratulate him and assure him of the support of my friends in carrying that proposal into law." But unfortunately his later proposal for the reduction of the Super-tax. and the application of the increased yield from the Estate Duties, has deprived me of that pleasure. I think I may say, however, that we shall give our hearty support to the proposal he submitted for a further relief on earned incomes in the lower ranges of the Income Tax scale. That is a proposal which has often been inside by Members of the party sitting behind me, and I am sure we shall not in opposition oppose a proposal which had our sympathy when we were in office.
    I think it is necessary, too, that I should state also now some of the proposals put forward which are likely to be strenuously resisted from this side of the House. We cannot be expected to approve the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for the reduction of the Super-tax, neither can he, I think, expect that we shall support the proposed reduction of the Income Tax applying to the general rate of Income Tax. He has certainly made one or two proposals which were not anticipated. It has, of course, been rumoured in the newspapers that he was going to re-impose the McKenna Duties, and in that respect rumour has been justified by the event, hut no one suspected that the right hon. Gentleman, especially with his record as a Free Trader, was going to use his first Budget for the imposition of what are purely protective duties. I shall await the later stages of the Debate to hear the Prime Minister justify his support of these import duties and the proposed duties upon raw materials and manufactures with the very definite pledges he gave the House last December that there would be no avenue open in this Parliament for protective duties except through the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I want to make this statement in regard to these duties, and particularly in regard to the re-imposition of what were called the McKenna Duties, and I hope the trades who are going to get a temporary protection Ly these duties will take notice of what we say. At the very first opportunity when we
    92
    have the power we shall repeal the duties the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to impose. In regard to his proposals for the extension of Imperial Preference, I understood him to say they will cost in a full year about £1,750,000.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In remissions of taxation.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Remissions of taxation, which means that the British taxpayer has to pay them.
    Mr. CHURCHILL:
    indicated dissent
    .
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman is sacrificing £1,750,000 of revenue in one direction he must find a substitution for that abandoned revenue, and therefore it means that he is either imposing that taxation upon the British taxpayer or he is failing to relieve the British taxpayer to that extent when he might have done so. Our attitude in regard to Imperial Preference may, I think, be very briefly stated in this form, that where preferential duties, or remission of duty upon imports from the British Empire, are not of a protective character, and where the preference does not. accrue to the Dominion producer, we are not opposed to a reduction or to the total abolition of these duties. But that does not apply in the proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to make. These duties are protective in their character. The amount of protection may vary. I had last year to go very fully into the matter. I know that the question as to whet-her a preferential duty upon tobacco is wholly protective or only partly protective is a very debateable point, but no one disputes that it is to some extent at any rate of a protective character, and therefore, the right hon. Gentleman may look forward to the most strenuous opposition we can offer in regard to these proposals, the proposal to reduce the Super-tax, the general reductin of Income Tax, the duty upon what he calls articles of luxury, the raw material of what is not an unimportant British industry, silk, and the re-imposition of what were called the New Import Duties.
    I am simply amazed at the audacity of the party in office, after the experience of the last nine months since these duties were repealed, and the only explanation I can suggest is that they are not satisfied with having increased the number of unemployed by 160,000, hut they are

    93
    determined to ruin an industry which the repeal of the duties last year greatly benefited [Laughter.] I shall be delighted in the later Debates on this question if hon. Members opposite will support their amusement by a few facts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), when he followed me 12 months ago, spoke of hundreds of thousands of people who were going to be thrown out of employment. I shall be very glad to hear him substantiate that by the facts of the present situation in the motor car industry. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind and complimentary references to myself and the achievements of my Budget in the earlier part of his speech, and I am sure I ought to be the last person to say that those compliments and congratulations were not very well deserved. That Budget, I think, in the matter of estimating was an achievement of which anyone would have a right to be proud. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be as successful in that respect at the end of 12 months as I had the good fortune to be. I re-echo, and I am sure every Member of the Committee re-echoes the hope which was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in the eloquent words with which he concluded his speech, that his proposal may have the effect of doing something, not merely to alleviate suffering in the country, but to restore trade to its former state of prosperity.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that this is not the occasion to subject the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to anything like detailed or considered examination, and I shall therefore postpone any observations I may have to make upon the character of the scheme until I have had an opportunity of examining it in greater detail. He has himself told us that a good deal of supplementary information, which may not merely cast a, very considerable light upon his proposals, but which may affect their very character, will be contained in documents which will be found in the Vote Office, and which will necessarily take a very long time to peruse. I simply rise in order, as an old Chancellor of the Exchequer and a very old friend and associate of the right hon. Gentleman, to
    94
    compliment him upon an exceedingly masterly performance. He had a very difficult task—no one knows it better than an old Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he has discharged it, in the opinion of everyone, in a way that fascinated anti enthralled the House of Commons and added to the admiration which everyone has for him. That is really what I rose to say, but I may add that I rejoice that he has given his powerful adhesion to the policy of utilising the resources of the country for the purpose of relieving undeserved distress. With regard to the actual character of the proposals he has put forward it would be premature for me to express an opinion, but I am delighted that he has taken the task in hand. The whole of his scheme betrays, as we should have expected, an ingenious, resourceful and exceedingly audacious mind.
    I should have preferred—I am only expressing now a cursory opinion—if he had undertaken a larger share of the responsibility for the State, having regard to the very heavy contributions which fall at present upon both employers and workmen under the special conditions under which we are labouring, and out of which we shall not issue for some time to come. I think it would have been better if the State had boldly and courageously undertaken a. larger share of the contributions, especially having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to reduce the tax on large incomes. I am also glad that he has steepened the scale of Death Duties. I have always been in favour of extracting revenue by that process rather than by increasing the tax upon incomes. It is a. piece of luck for anybody who inherits a fortune, and I do not think it is too much for him to pay a contribution, a very heavy contribution, to the State. I am sure that most of us would be delighted to pay 50 per cent. if we could get the rest. I am, therefore, very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted that policy.
    I very much regret that he should have thought it necessary to introduce the very controversial Protectionist issue. He is not getting very much out of it except, perhaps, what is necessary for his political supporters. It is, really, rather making provision for the widows and orphans of Protection, who suffered

    95
    very heavy bereavement in the General Election of 1923. I think it mars a very great scheme and a very great conception to introduce this old quarrel about Protection, for the very small revenue which he is going to get out of it. I am not, however, going to enter into arguments at the present time; it would be quite out of place. I am only giving a very general indication and a superficial view of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward.
    I am, frankly, delighted that he has undertaken the completion of the scheme of insurance. As he knows very well, in 1910-11, we found it impossible to cover the whole field. We were very disposed to include widows and orphans, but it was far more than we could compass at that moment. State insurance was a new idea. We bad to recommend it to the nation, and it was a very difficult task to carry it through. It was not particularly popular, because everybody had to contribute, and a scheme where everybody has to pay is, naturally, not very popular. For the moment, it was as much as we could do to carry the Health and Unemployment scheme through in a, truncated form. I am very delighted that my right hon. Friend, who was associated with me at that time in carrying through that scheme, has in his first year of Chancellorship undertaken the completion of the scheme. I congratulate him very much upon the courage which he has shown in undertaking that task.
    I hope that before the scheme leaves the Committee he will consider the suggestion I am putting forward, that he should not put as much upon the contributions of the employers and the employed during this very had p rind of unemployment, when the contributions are excessively high. I hope that he will see his way to make the contribution from the Exchequer a little higher. I think, on the whole, he has estimated his revenue rather conservatively, and that he would he in a position to find a good deal more. For the moment, I confine myself to these few observations. After full examination of the scheme I shall be in a better position to give a considered view.
    Mr. REMER:I only rise for a few moments to ask a question with regard
    96
    to manufactured silk. I happen to represent the largest town engaged in manufacturing silk in this country, and I take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for doing what I have been trying to put before successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for the last six years, during which I have had the honour to be a Member of this House. He is the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who has looked upon the matter in a favourable light. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has condemned him for raising the Protection issue, but I can assure him that he will have strong supporters on this side of the House. My object in rising is to put a specific.
    question. I have read carefully the White Paper put in the Vote Office, in which it is stated that there is to be 2s. 6d. per pound on artificial silk yarn as an Excise Duty and 3s. per pound as an Import Duty. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that, on the question of exports or re-exports, there will be a remission of that duty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, there must.
    Mr. REMER:I thank the right hon. Gentleman My object in asking the question was in order ",,hat there should be no confusion among the silk manufacturing community on that point, and that they should know that it will be provided for.
    Mr. J. JONES:I do not pretend to be an expert on the Budget. My budget is a very limited one. Therefore I cannot speak with great authority. I would like to ask the Chancellor how he intends to enforce the compulsory contribution upon workers, men and women, in addition to the present contribution they are already paying under the National Health Insurance Act? It is very easy to talk about a contribution of 4d. from people who have 4d. to spend, but I would like the right hon. Gentlemen who have been endorsing the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us how the ordinary workman, the casual labourer in the East End of London, is going to double his contribution That is what it means. The man has to pay. It is deducted from his wages.

    97
    We can provide pensions for certain people without those people paying anything at all. The widows of admirals do not pay contributions, but they get pensions. The widows of generals do not pay contributions, and they get pensions. The widows of other people in high authority get pensions without contribution, but when it comes to the workman, he has to pay. It is all very well saying that the employers pay, but how do they pay? The employer puts the amount on the cost of the production, and in the end Bill Garlick foots the bill. Whether it is insurance or the price of labour or the price of materials, the workman in the end has to pay. We have an instance of that at the present time. The railway companies say that they cannot carry on; that they cannot pay their dividends. Because their shareholders demand their pound of flesh, the workmen have to go through the mill. Dismissals have to take place and short time has to be worked.
    Who is going to pay the bill for the new insurance scheme, the biggest item in the Budget? We are told of widows' pensions. Yes,we will make you all widows before we have done with you. The working man will have to foot the bill. Who is going to guarantee the benefit? We should like to know that. I am not in the position of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He is an ex-Prime Minister. I am an ex-nothing. I should like to ask him who is going to find the means whereby we can guarantee benefits to the people who pay. The workman, the State and the employer have to pay. We want national insurance whereby the whole nation will guarantee people against adversity The cost should be met by the nation when our people fall by the roadside, just as in war. You did not ask the soldiers to contribute and you did not ask the sailors to contribute. You gave them pensions because they fought for the nation? Why cannot you give pensions to the workers because they have worked for the nation? The soldiers and the sailors could not have fought in the war had it not been for the material which was provided by the workers.
    We ask that the workers shall be guaranteed a proper standard of living. When they and their wives and children are down and out you say, "You must contribute before we will give you a pension." They have already contri
    98
    buted their skill, energy and ability. Now, they are told that they must come into this contributory scheme. When you wanted men to fight in 1014 you did not ask them to contribute towards a pensions scheme. You promised them that if they gave their bit you would do your bit, and you have done it to a very large extent. Now, the soldiers of industry who fight on the battlefields of labour are asked to pay more than double what they have previously paid. We, or at least some of us, protest against that. Let us all put our shoulders together, and let us say that the nation must be responsible. I am only able to say what the ordinary workman thinks, and I do say that this scheme of contributory pensions is not going to be accepted by the workers in this country.
    If we are going to be compelled to pay out more than we are paying at the present time, there is going to be a fight against it. If the workpeople are to contribute, all the people who are getting pensions from the State ought to be compelled to contribute. A large number of them are practically getting pensions when they are in their cradles. They are born with pensions. We have to be 70 before we get a pension. The Chancellor of, the Exchequer has taken 6d. off the Income Tax. That remission of taxation to some Members of this House will mean a thousand a year. Fourpence a week to the workman means pinching himself, his wife and his family. Therefore, we protest as far as we are able against the policy that the workers have to contribute still more. The workers outside will say that we are not going to have any more contributory schemes. If the nation is to be one, we must all hang together. We contribute enough already. I drink beer, and I am paying more than my share of national taxation. Some of those who drink tea pay nothing, or next to nothing. The workers in this country will have no more of these impositions of contributions to a national scheme of restoration. Consequently, I appeal to the House not to accept some of the proposals that have been made. Contributors are opposed to the principles of working-class organisations and, therefore, I Oppose it.
    Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I welcome the Budget as a whole, and, if my congratulations will be acceptable to the Chan-

    99
    cellor of the Exchequer, they will be given to him on what I think will be an epoch-making Budget. But I wish to refer to what I regard as a great inconsistency in reference to the proposals for the re-imposition of the McKenna Duties. I understand that, although the McKenna Duties are to be re-imposed, the motor car tyre industry will be excepted, as it has been, in my opinion, with great injustice, for the past five years. Owing to the exigencies of the War, there was an exception made, and for the period the McKenna Duties were enforced motor car tyres were the only accessories of motor cars that were not subject to them. Complaint has been made about that by the industry ever since. It is an industry that has suffered a great deal from unemployment. I, personally, know of two factories which have been closed down, and of a large company in liquidation simply because of the unfair incidence of foreign competition in this particular industry. And I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to have this matter gone into very carefully, to see whether this glaring injustice and grave inconsistency cannot be removed.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Without going into the virtue or otherwise of the Budget, there is a point to which I wish to refer. There was a Committee under the Road Fund Board which, as I understand, unanimously recommended that hackney carriages which are licensed to carry only four people, and have hitherto been paying on the basis of six people, should pay on the basis of four people. The Commissioner of Police lays down that a hackney carriage in London cannot carry more than four people, whereas in the past such carriages have been paying on the basis of six people. The Committee, I know, made this recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but nothing has been said in the Budget speech with regard to accepting the recommendation of the Committee to reduce the standard from six to four people, which is the limit of the carrying capacity of hackney vehicles, and to reduce the taxation from £15 to £12 in London and from g12 to £10 in the provinces. I would like to know whether the Treasury have con-
    100
    sidered this matter, and whether the Financial Secretary can give us any information on the point.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would like the Financial Secretary to make clear one or two points in reference to the scheme of compulsory insurance. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that, when the time comes for his scheme to begin to operate, a widow with children is to receive 10s. per week for herself with 3s. per week for the first child and 3s. per week for subsequent children, but that when the children reach the age of 14 the widow will no longer be entitled to any pension. Is that a true interpretation of what the Chancellor said? If so, then it seems to me that the greater part of the sympathetic words which he used in reference to the down-and-outs would be more or less wasted. The woman who has reared a family, who has devoted herself to the domestic side of life, and sends her children into the world at the age of 14, will be more dependent on some form of charity or pension at the age of 50 or 55 than she was at the age of 30 or 35, and for such a woman the pension scheme will be far less than what we anticipated when we were listening to-the details of the scheme. I would also like to know if I am correct in understanding that the Old Age Pension is to be payable at 65 years of age on 1st July, 1926? I had hoped that that was the intention of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that we have not been misled on that particular point.
    I wish to make one or two observations on this particular scheme as to how it is not likely to materialise in the sense submitted by the Chancellor. The very basis of the scheme is that pensions shall never be payable at any time at any age under 65 years over the next 50 years. Does anyone imagine that, with the intricate scientific machinery which we have and the general progress which we are making in science, we can keep pace with the unemployment problem, and at the same time compel men to continue working until they are 65? It. seems to me that, just as the necessity has arisen for the age limit to be reduced in 1925, by the same rule, long before we reach 1975 we shall want the age reduced below 05 years. It is also a fallacy to base the financial consideration upon the slow diminution of expenses on pensions for

    101
    ex-service men over the next 50 years. Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not too optimistic, when there are 6,000,000 in the world under arms at the moment, when European nations are spending to-day on way and preparations for war £100,000,000 more than they were spending in 1914, in believing that we are going to have 50 years of military peace I hope that his optimism is fully justified, but if the Prime Minister, in his reply to a question to-day, expressed his inner feelings, he has little or no belief in the possibility of peace being with us for any very long period.
    I hope that the Financial Secretary will at least clear the air so far as the payment of pensions to widows is concerned, and also in a reference to the period within which the pensions at 65 years of age will begin to operate. The Chancellor with great feeling told us of the poverty-stricken homes where insecurity ever haunts the worker and his wife, and said that he was going to do something for the old man and the widow and orphans of the worker, and all the other people who suffer undeserved poverty. The Chancellor took typical case of an individual 35 years of ale who dies prematurely—shall we say—early next year, and the widow and the three children, all under five years of age, are going to be in receipt of a glorious income of 21s. per week. It is impossible to think that the present rents can be paid, and that the widow can buy food and clothes for herself and her children out of a guinea a week. That shows that the pension scheme is not going to meet the elementary needs of either the widow or the orphan.
    If the income does not meet the needs of the home the widow must ask some other form of relief, and will she have to ask for a supplementary sum from the Poor Law guardians? If so, does not this proposal seem to be toying with insurance in comparison with the great scheme of insurance of which we heard from Conservative candidates during the last Election? Why should we have, for instance, one widow, the widow of an ex-service man who happens to have one or two children, receiving 10s. a week for one child and 6s. a week for other children while, under this Insurance Scheme, we are to have another widow,
    102
    equally as unfortunate in the loss of her husband, whose income is only going to be half that of her next-door neighbour widow I do not think that this scheme is going to meet the bill at all. It is merely going to be another very small instalment, and will do nothing towards the abolition of either Poor Law or pauperism or all that these particular things stand for.
    7.0 P.M.
    With regard to the general Budget statement, it is only what one might have expected from this Government when there was £37,000,000 to be allocated that £33,000,000 should go into the pockets of Income Tax payers, or Super-tax payers, while the workers are promised that, if they will only pay 4d. and 2d. extra per week, they shall, if they live to be 65 years of age, have a glorious income of 10s. a week. The Chancellor says that they will not be probing into the various sources of income of the individual when he reaches 65. They will even permit him to work, if he desires to continue to render physical or mental service, but the individual whose earnings never permit him to save, who has nothing when he reaches 65 except his limbs to work with, will be compelled to work as he has to do to-day at 70, because he could not possibly exist on the pension. Therefore, I submit to the Financial Secretary that unless some great improvement on the statement that has been made to-day is made in the Bill, I shall not be one of those who will be prepared to compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer. want to suggest that the burdens of those who can best bear them are being alleviated, whilst those who can carry no further burdens receive no tittle of relief under the terms of this Budget. It is true that Income Tax calls for a tremendous sum from Income Tax payers, but it is also true on the opposite side of the balance-sheet, that whereas we used to pay £19,000,000 for interest on the National Debt service in 1914, we are to-day called upon to pay £305,000,000 for interest, and the people who pay the direct Income Tax are very largely the people who receive the £305,000,000 per year interest. Therefore, one merely cancels out the other. It seems to me that in actual practice, the workers of this country, or industry as a whole for that matter, will benefit very little.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS:I doubted whether to get up, but listening to the speech just delivered, one would hardly have realised that it is only an hour since the Chancellor of the Exchequer finished the introduction of one of the most remarkable Budgets, at any rate, since 1009—a Budget which contains more definite statements, more notable changes, and more real promises for the future than any Budget which has been introduced since 1909, when we had a Budget which excited great interest. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down attacks the proposals with regard to pensions for widows with children and widows without children, and with regard to Old Age Pensions at 65, because they are inadequate. They may be inadequate. You never get everything at once. Is not there at least some gratification that the position is better to-day than his Government left it when they introduced their Budget? Surely it is better. There is a definite provision—not adequate to cover all cases—that will cover many cases, and will relieve many hardships and create a degree of independence. But all we get is carping criticism of a kind which is difficult to understand.
    There are just one or two points I want to raise. I shall be quite brief, because there are many Members who want to go home. Last week, in another Parliament, a Budget was introduced, and certain reductions in taxation were made. That Government is a Government in relation with our Government, and under Article 5 of the Treaty of Agreement certain arrangements should be come to with regard to the liability for the National Debt of the old United Kingdom, and the liability for the war pensions, which were also a liability of the old United Kingdom. At the present time, I think I am right in stating, we are receiving no contribution whatever from the Irish Free State in respect of her share of the National Debt, and in respect of her share of the war pensions, because her liability in respect of these two items has not yet been determined. I would ask the Financial Secretary to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Irish Free State is in a position to make the very large remissions of taxation which she mad,, the other day, that she ought now to be in a position to consider seriously bearing her
    104
    share of the common National Debt, and the common burden for war pensions, the whole of which at the present time we bear.
    We heard with interest the Chancellor's proposals for increasing the Death Duties for certain classes of people, and diminishing the Super-tax for, roughly, so far as it could be done, the same class of people, and I am a little doubtful whether the proposals were as satisfactory as he seems to think them to be. Death Duties are in my opinion a very evil form of taxation. They are a taxation of capital. They fall irequitably, and they come at difficult times, and frequently great extensions of businesses have been prevented through the sudden incidence of Death Duties. It is now proposed to increase these and to balance that burden by some remission of Super-tax. While we all feel the value of the arguments used by the Chancellor, in urging that those who were earning large incomes from their brains should be given every conceivable encouragement, yet, or the other hand, I think we should realise that there are some dangers in the proposals with regard to the increase in Death Duties. I say this as one who has not directly or indirectly had the privilege of paying any Death Duties. I feel that we ought to rejoice beyond measure that the full amount of preference that can be given within the scope of our existing tariff is being given, and I feel certain that the Budget introduced this afternoon w ill give wide satisfaction to the country among all classes of people, among both sexes, and among people of all parties.
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: I hope I shall not be accused of captious criticism if I pass a few remarks on the speech that we have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in one or two things that he said he seemed to go directly in opposition to the line of my own thought, and in one or two other items I should like to suggest supplements to what he said. First of all, he spoke about a return to the gold standard, as if an increase in the value of the pound sterling in relation to the dollar was the one and only criterion of our national prosperity. I should like to point out that every step, every degree that the pound sterling approaches to the value of the dollar, it goes further away from all the other currencies of Europe, Asia, and Africa. in other words, the

    105
    nearer the pound sterling approaches the dollar the more difficult it becomes for the purchasers of our goods to be able to buy them. If we were purely a mercantile arid financial nation, then I should agree that as we got nearer to the dollar with the pound sterling we should become more prosperous. But in so far as we are a manufacturing nation, dependent upon foreign customers to purchase from us goods which we produce, it is quite untrue to say that the approach of the pound sterling to the dollar is a standard of our prosperity. It means, as a matter of fact, a prosperity for one portion of the nation at the expense of the other portion. It means a prosperity for a small and non-creative portion of the nation at the expense of a very large and creative portion of the nation. It is only a few years ago since the pound sterling, if judged by the dollar standard, was worth about 8s. 6d. to 10s.
    Sir F. WISE: Thirteen shillings was the lowest.
    Mr. MITCHELL:Thirteen shillings. Make it so. It does not affect my argument. What has been the result of the gradual development of the value of the. pound sterling to "look the dollar in the face "as was said by a former Prime Minister? It has meant that, judged by goods, the capital debt of this country to its creditors has risen from 13s. to 20s. That is to say, that for every ton of goods which was handed to this country in its time of need, this country has now to pay hack 11 tons. It means, further, that every manufacturer who is dependent upon equality and stability of exchange in other countries is handicapped by the fact that our money is developing further and further away from the value of the money with which our purchasers have to buy the goods, and, as in former years it was frequently stated by hon. Members on the other side of the House in the country, that one of our great difficulties in the United States was that we had to purchase from the United States with an inflated currency here, so it is equally true that. in the eyes of the purchasers of our goods we are, by deflating our currency and raising it to the standard of the dollar, inflating their currency in accordance with the standard of the pound sterling. That is the first observation I want to make.
    106
    Secondly, I observe in the accounts what I consider a fatal weakness to any collectivist system. I see that the Post Office accounts are stated as part and parcel of the ordinary revenue and expenditure of the nation, and that this collectivist enterprise, which is supported entirely by the people who use it, has paid over to the ordinary revenue of the country £4,000,000. We are living in a time where municipal enterprise and collectivist development are progressing very greatly, and it would be an absolutely fatal principle if we were to allow it to go abroad that a collectivist enterprise is warranted upon any other basis than this, that the surplus from its operations should go back either to those who give service in it or to those who consume its product. It. seems to me contrary—I suppose because of my association with the collectivist city from which I come—to the whole spirit of collectivist enterprise that the Post Office, having a surplus on its operations, should not give back that surplus to those who created it hut should hand it over in the form of a partial reduction of Income Tax or some other method to those who may have had nothing whatever to do with the creation of the surplus. That seems to me to be a fatal weakness.
    I observe also that there is no figure in these accounts to represent the services which the Post Office renders to all the other Government Departments. Why should a collectivist trading department like the Post Office supply other Departments of the Government with all Post Office facilities without having entered in the accounts the amount which those services represent? I would go further and say that on a pure basis of accounting every Department of the Government ought to pay to the Post Office for the services which the Post Office rendered; the finances of the Post Offices ought to be credited with that sum of money and the services given by the Post Office should be costed to the consumers in accordance with the general surplus after those services have been estimated. But I see another thing. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes credit in the revenue accounts for what he calls "Special Receipts," which are really the sale of capital assets. My own representative, the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Home) sold vast quantities of capital assets, against which, in the

    107
    Government balance sheets, there appeared liabilities for the money borrowed for that purpose of buying those assets. He sold the assets and credited his year's revenue with the amount as if it had been ordinary revenue. I notice that in the White Paper issued to-clay there is still, under the heading of "Special Receipts," a sum of £30,000,000, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is to come from the sale of capital assets. That is bad finance. Nobody can defend a statement submitted to a corporation or to a company or to Parliament in which the scale of capital assets is considered as ordinary revenue.
    I pass from criticism to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider one or two small supplementary proposals. In the first place, his insurance scheme, complete as it may be considered, is lacking in one element. If you want to remove uncertainty and distress from the homes of the poor, you must make provision for the sudden demands that are made upon their resources by the occurrence of a death in a house. In the scheme which has been outlined to-day I foresee innumerable cases of people who will pay all through their lives but who will have a very remote chance of benefiting. I have no objection to that; I think that corporate payment by the whole of the individuals for the risk, is a good one. But I wish that in his insurance scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer would include a small sum sufficient to cover the cost of a funeral where death occurs. At. the present time it is being done by people paying almost from the day of their birth to their death into companies which make enormous profits out of the payments which are made. It should be, as in some of our Dominions, a national scheme to which all should contribute and from which all should get benefit. I am sorry, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not included in his scheme for widows' pensions other than those who are already under the Health Insurance Act. It is not fair to judge the financial standing of a family by income. We have had mentioned to-day people with incomes of £2,000 and upwards. What a vast difference there is in the financial position of, say, a professional man with £2,000 a year from his own profession, an income which he creates year by year with
    108
    probably very little capital behind it, and the position of another person who has an income of £2,000 a year from investments, showing a very large capital basis-upon which his financial position rests. It is the same with people.
    I would like to say a word from these Benches on behalf of that great mass of people who stand between the artisan and what are known as the middle classes, that great mass of people who are living a life of very strange convention, of very strict probity, of very definite and' ardently pursued ideas of respectability, hut who live so near to the verge of their incomes that it is impossible for them to accumulate any capital. If death comes to. a husband in that sphere of life, the widow is in a most tragic position. She has her children being educated in a certain kind of school. She is keeping them there perhaps a little longer than other people would do, and all of a sudden everything goes when the husband. dies. Why cannot some scheme be arranged whereby she also can Co introduced into this insurance? These points are points that occurred to me after listening to the very brilliant speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are other items to which reference will he made later, and upon which also I have very distinct and definite ideas. But these points I thought it right to mention to the House at this early stage when there was general latitude for roaming over the whole field.
    Question put, and agreed to

    CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL MEDICINE DUTIES (EXCISE).
    Resolved,
    " That the additional duties of excise on medicines imposed by Section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1915, and continued by Section eight of the Finance Act, 1924, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five. shall continue to be charged on and after that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-six
    And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    NEW IMPORT DUTIES.
    Resolved,
    " That the new import duties which were imposed by Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall be revived and shall be charged on and after the first day of July,

    109
    nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and for the purpose of the charge of duty on cinematograph films the expressions "positives" and "negatives" in Section twelve of the said Act shall be deemed respectively to include undeveloped positives and undeveloped negatives."

    SILK (CUSTOMS).
    Resolved,
    "That on and after the first day of July. nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following goods, that is to say—

    Silk

    Cocoons and waste of all kinds—

    s.

    d.

    Undischarged

    the lb

    1

    6

    Wholly or partly discharged

    the lb

    3

    0

    Raw—

    Undischarged

    the lb

    4

    0

    Wholly or partly discharged

    the lb

    5

    9

    Thrown or spun, including yarns and threads ofall kinds

    Undischarged

    the lb

    4

    8

    Wholly or partly discharged

    the lb

    6

    8

    Tissue containing silk—

    Undischarged

    the lb

    5

    3

    Wholly or partly discharged

    the lb

    7

    9

    Artificial silk

    Yarn, thread, straw or waste

    the lb

    3

    9

    Tissue containing artificial silk

    the lb

    3

    5

    Articles not heretofore specified made wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk

    A duty equal to 33½ per cent. of the value of the article."

    SILK (EXCISE).
    Resolved,
    " That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall be charged—

    (a)on all artificial silk yarn, thread. straw or waste manufactured in Great Britain or Northern Ireland an excise duty at the rate of two shillings and sixpence for every pound's weight; and.

    (b)in respect of every licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of artificial silk yarn, thread, straw or waste in Great Britain an excise duty of twenty shillings."

    HOPS AND BEER.
    Resolved,
    " That during a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the following duties of customs shall he charged on the importation into Great Britain. or Northern Ireland of the following gouts, that is to say —

    £

    s.

    d.

    Hops

    the cwl

    4

    0

    0

    Every extract, essence or other similar preparation made from hops

    An amount equal to the duty on the quantity of hops which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, has been used in the manufacture of the extract, essence or preparation

    Beer

    In addition to the essence duties of customs now chargeable, a duty of tenpence for every 36 gallons where the worts were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1.055 degrees, and so in proportion for any difference in gravity."

  INCOME TAX.

    CHARGE OF TAX.
    Resolved,
    "That—

    (a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth (lay of April. nineteen hundred and twenty-five, at the rate of four shillings in the pound; and.

    (b) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year beginning the sixth day of April. nineteen hundred and twenty-four, shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five

    Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements and hereditaments in the administrative County of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax; and.
    (c) The like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.
    And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    SUPER-TAX.
    Resolved,
    "That—
    (a) the additional duty of Income Tax (called Super-tax) shall be charged in respect of incomes which exceed £2,000 as follows:—

    In respect of the first 2,000l. of the income

    Nil

    In respect of the excess over 2,000 l

    For every pound of the first 500 l. of the excess

    Ninepence

    For every pound of the next 500 l. of the excess

    One shilling

    For every pound of the next 1,000 l.of the excess

    One shilling and sixpence

    For every pound of the next 1.000 l.of the excess

    Two shillings and threepence

    For every pound of the next 1,000 l.of the excess

    Three shillings

    For every pound of the next 2,000 l.of the excess

    Three shillings and sixpence

    For every pound of the next 2,000 l.of the excess

    Four shillings

    For every pound of the next 5,000 l.of the excess

    Four shillings and sixpence

    For every pound of the next 5,000 l.of the excess

    Five shillings

    For every pound of the next 10,000 l.of the excess

    Five shillings and sixpence

    For every pound of the remainder of the excess

    Six shillings

    (b) the like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax so charged as had effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.
    And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE).
    Resolved,
    " That there shall be substituted for the rates of Estate Duty set out in the Third Schedule to the Finance Act. 1919, rates in accordance with the following table —

    Principal value of the estate

    Rate per cent of duty

    £

    £

    Exceeds

    100

    and does not exceed

    500

    1

    Exceeds

    500

    and does not exceed

    1,000

    2

    Exceeds

    1,000

    and does not exceed

    5,000

    3

    Exceeds

    5,000

    and does not exceed

    10,000

    4

    Exceeds

    10,000

    and does not exceed

    12,500

    5

    Exceeds

    12,500

    and does not exceed

    15,000

    6

    Exceeds

    15,000

    and does not exceed

    18,000

    7

    Exceeds

    18,000

    and does not exceed

    21,000

    8

    Exceeds

    21,000

    and does not exceed

    25,000

    9

    Exceeds

    25,000

    and does not exceed

    30,000

    10

    Exceeds

    30,000

    and does not exceed

    35,000

    11

    Exceeds

    35,000

    and does not exceed

    40,000

    12

    Exceeds

    40,000

    and does not exceed

    45,000

    13

    Exceeds

    45,000

    and does not exceed

    50,000

    14

    Exceeds

    50,000

    and does not exceed

    55,000

    15

    Exceeds

    55,000

    and does not exceed

    65,000

    16

    Exceeds

    65,000

    and does not exceed

    75,000

    17

    Exceeds

    75,000

    and does not exceed

    85,000

    18

    Exceeds

    85,000

    and does not exceed

    100,000

    19

    Exceeds

    100,000

    and does not exceed

    120,000

    20

    Exceeds

    120,000

    and does not exceed

    140,000

    21

    Exceeds

    190,000

    and does not exceed

    170,000

    22

    Exceeds

    170,000

    and does not exceed

    200,000

    23

    Exceeds

    200,000

    and does not exceed

    250,000

    24

    Exceeds

    250,000

    and does not exceed

    325,000

    25

    exceeds

    325,000

    and does not exceed

    400,000

    26

    Exceeds

    400,000

    and does not exceed

    500,000

    27

    Exceeds

    500,000

    and does not exceed

    750,000

    28

    Exceeds

    750,000

    and does not exceed

    1,000,000

    29

    Exceeds

    1,000,000

    and does not exceed

    1,250,000

    30

    Exceeds

    1,250,000

    and does not exceed

    1,500,000

    32

    Exceeds

    1,500,000

    and does not exceed

    2,000,000

    35

    Exceeds

    2,000,000

    and does not exceed

    40."

    SUCCESSION DUTY.
    Resolved,
    "That for the purposes of Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1894, and of Section fifty-eight of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, a succession shall be deemed to arise on the happening of the death by reason of which the successor, or any person in his right or on his behalf, becomes entitled in possession to the succession or to the receipt of the income or profits thereof."

    LIABILITY OF DOMINION GOVERNMENTS TO TAXATION IN RESPECT OF TRADING OPERATIONS.
    Resolved,
    " That where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that Government shall, in respect of the trade or business and of all operations in connection therewith, all property occupied in Great Britain or Northern Ireland and all goods owned in

    113
    Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purposes thereof and all income arising in connection therewith, be liable, in the same manner as in the like case any other person would be, to all taxation for the time being in force in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
    For the purposes of this Resolution the expression His Majesty's Dominions' includes any territory which is under His Majesty's protection or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government or any part of His Majesty's Dominions."

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with Finance."
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed

    MINING INDUSTRY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell]
    Mr. BATEY: I propose to ask the House to give a little consideration to the condition of the mining industry. I put to the Secretary for Mines this afternoon a question which was very plain and simple. It asked the Secretary for Mines to state what steps the Government were taking to remedy the serious condition of the mining industry, and the reply of the Secretary for Mines was that he could not add anything to the statements made on this subject by the President of the Board of Trade and himself in the Debate of 9th April. The trouble is that on 9th April neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Secretary for Mines said anything that really mattered so far as the mining industry is concerned, and, from that reply, it does not seem as though the Government and the Secretary for Mines realise the serious condition in which the industry now finds itself. I desire to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the Government
    114
    propose to do in order to help this industry, the position of which is getting worse week by week. It was had enough before the House rose for the Easter Recess, but it is even worse to-day.
    In reply to a question which I put about a week before the Easter Adjournment, the Secretary for Mines said that in the County of Durham 75 pits had been closed within the previous 12 months. In Durham there are barely 200 pits altogether, and yet out of that number 75 have been closed within a twelvemonth, and it is estimated that there are, in Durham, 40,000 miners out of work. As a matter of fact, the figures for the whole country are very serious. It is estimated that 400 pits are not working and there must he not less than 160,000 miners all over the country out of work; but if the conditions of the industry throughout the whole country is bad, in Durham it is extremely bad. Our Durham Miners' Association pays a relief allowance to miners who have been thrown out of work —in addition to the insurance benefit—and for some time past, for every £I that has come into the fund, they have been paying out £2 in relief. That kind of thing cannot go on for long and the present condition of the industry calls for the serious consideration of the Government. One could have some sympathy for the Government if the cause of the depression in the coal trade were not well known, but even to the miners engaged in the industry, let alone to the Secretary for Mines, the cause of the depression is well known. We have in this present depression a feature which did not exist in other depressions. I have known depressions in the industry which were confined to the export trade and did not affect the home trade. I have also known depression in the home trade which did not affect the export trade. The unfortunate thing about the present depression is that it applies both to the export trade and to the home trade.
    I desire to deal with the question of the export trade this evening because on several occasions recently in this House Members on the other side have ascribed the depression in the export coal trade to German competition. I do not believe German competition has anything to do with the real cause of the depression in the export trade. Let us remember that in 1913 the output of coal in this country

    115
    was 287,000,000 tons and in 1913 the output in Germany was only 187,000,000 tons, and in that year Germany had to buy from us no less than 9,000,000 tons and was only able to export 34,000,000 tons. That was the condition of things in 1913, and we must keep in mind the fact that Germany has now to supply to France, Belgium and Italy reparation coal to the extent in round figures of 40,000,000 tons, while she has lost the Saar pits from which there was an output of no less than 14,000,000 tons. If we consider these facts we must see directly that Germany is not in a position to be a serious competitor or to be the cause of the depression in our export trade.
    I know that some hon. Members opposite a week or two ago said that Germany was increasing the output of lignite. That may be true. Germany between 1913 and 1924 increased her yearly output of lignite coal by no less than 37,000,000 tons a year, and that seems, on the face of it, to be a big increase, but in other coal the decrease in the German output was no less than 22,000,000 tons. When we also remember that lignite coal is a coal of inferior character and can never be a serious competitor of, British coal, it will be seen that that cannot be the cause of the depression in our export coal trade. Although the Germans are working 84 hours per day, and a good many hon. Members opposite say that our miners should increase their hours and work as long as the Germans instead of seven hours per day, the fact remains that the output for the British miner per man shift employed is a quarter of a cwt. more than it is in Germany. One night, when the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir G. Doyle) was moving a Resolution in this House on the question of German competition, he referred to Stinnes and others bringing German coal into this country. He made that statement on the night of Tuesday, 17th March, and on Thursday, 19th March, I happened to pick up a newspaper referring to the statement that had been made by the hon. Member, and giving a report as to what the Germans were thinking on this question of competition in the coal trade. That report was from Berlin, and it stated:
    "In point of fact, the import of British coal continues to irritate German coal
    116
    owners. Nearly 7,000,000 tons of British coal reached Germany last year, and, although on a smaller scale, imports have been considerable so far this year. In neutral countries, according to statistics published here, British competition continues keen."
    Germany, in my opinion, is not a 'danger so far as the competition with British coal is concerned in Europe, except in Russia Germany is a danger in Russia, because we must remember that in 1913 we ex ported to Russia 6,000,000 tons of coal but last year we exported only 37,006 tons, which is an enormous decrease. In 1917 the then Government appointed a Departmental Committee to go into the question of the export of coal, That Committee reported in April, 1917, and, in dealing with the question of Russian coal, stated:
    " Before the War, Germany was making a determined effort to seize the Russian market for imported coals. While the consumption of British coal in Russia remained practically stationary from 1908 to 1912, the consumption of German coal during the same period more than doubled."
    That was prior to the War, and I submit that, through the stupidity of the Government in taking up an attitude which prevents trading with Russia as we would like to see it carried on, instead of the Government encouraging the Russians to come and buy our coal at the present time, the Government are following a course that will tend to encourage Germany to get hold of the Russian market and keep us out of it for a very long time. In dealing with the export coal trade, the chief cause of the depression of the coat trade is to-day, as it was after the Treaty of Versailles, the fact that reparation coal has robbed us of the French, Italian and Belgian markets, and then the stupidity of the Government has robbed us of the Russian market.
    I am going to suggest that there is only one remedy for the coal industry at the present time, and that that remedy is a subsidy from the Government to help the coal industry to tide over these bad times. In the Debate on the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, a little over a fortnight ago, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked us not to forget that he was the author of that Act, and that it was due to him and through that Act that we have received £25,000,000 as repara

    117
    tion since the Act was passed. As a matter of fact, this country may have got £25,000,000 as reparation, but through that reparation the coal industry of this country has been ruined, and I submit that the Government would not be doing too much in giving back to the mining industry at the present time, if not the whole of that £25,000,000, at least a part of it, in order to help us to get over the present depression.
    Now I want to say a word or two in regard to the home trade. There, we know just where the consumption of coal is lower than it was in previous years. Comparing 1914 with 1923, we find that the consumption of household coal is still the same, as is also the consumption of gas coal and of coal for the railways, and we find that the electrical undertakings have nearly doubled their consumption of coal, but we find that the depression in the coal trade in this country is in connection with iron and general manufactures and also in connection with the Navy. An hon. Member, just before the House adjourned for the Easter Recess, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of tons and the cost of the. coal consumed by the Navy during 1913 and 1924 respectively, and the answer was a startling answer. Indeed, I confess that when that answer was given, it. simply staggered me. The First Lord stated that, in 1913, 1,810,250 tons of coal were consumed at an inclusive cost of C2,081,800, as compared, in 1924, with 312,750 tons, at a cost of £534,000. There we dropped in money value from over £2,000,000 to just over £500,000, and it is a matter worth the consideration of the Government, at a time like the present, when the Admiralty has to buy oil from foreign countries, as to whether the Navy really does save by the burning of oil rather than by the burning of coal. Even if there be a slight saving by the use of oil rather than by the use of coal, I submit that the Government should seriously consider whether it would not be better to use coal in the Navy as they did in 1913. rather than to use oil.
    I will not. enlarge upon the danger of the Navy being in a position of having to depend upon foreign countries for oil, but. if war broke out and any trouble took place, this country would be dependent upon foreign countries for oil, and even if the Admiralty should make up their mind that they are not going to use coal,
    118
    I submit that the Admiralty and the Mines Department ought to consider seriously whether they will not extract the oil from coal rather than buy it abroad as they are doing at the present time.'
    As to the less consumption of coal in the iron and general manufactures of this country, we must remember that the iron and steel and shipping trades are consuming much less coal than they did in 1913, and that to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been proposing to give a reduction of Income Tax to some of the men who will not consider the general good of this country, but who go away with their money and buy ships in Germany. I submit that at a time when the industries of this country are so depressed—not only the shipping industry, but the coal industry, which is dependent upon it—capitalists ought not to be allowed to spend money that they have got from this country. Some of us remember Sir Christopher Furness, and the father of the present Lord Furness, and we. remember that he got all his money out of industry, and especially out of the coal industry in Durham. After these capitalists have got money out of the industries in this country, they go into Germany and spend the money there for building ships there, and they leave our own workmen idle. That is the kind of thing that the British workman ought to be protected against.
    8.0 P.M.
    The Government talked at the beginning of the Session of protecting industries. Are they prepared to protect the workmen against the selfishness of those capitalists who are prepared to build ships in Germany simply to save £300,000, and allow British workmen to remain idle in consequence'? Free Trader as I am, I would go to the extent of protecting the British workman against capitalists doing things like that, and if capitalists, as the directors of Furness, Withy and Company have done, want to build ships in Germany, while our own men are idle, while the shipyard trades and coal mining are depressed, I would say, deport those men to Germany, and make them live there. Last year the Home Secretary deported a Russian, because he was in this country playing his fiddle. If a Russian has got to be deported because he is playing his fiddle in this country, there is more reason for

    119
    deporting those who are spending money on building ships in Germany. I took up a picture paper a fortnight ago, and saw in it a picture of a lot of piping and machinery brought here from Belgium for the purpose of sinking a new colliery between Retford and Doncaster. When our iron and steel trade is in the condition it is, and the miners are idle, it is not the time for people to buy piping and machinery abroad, when they can get it at home. The Government ought seriously to consider preventing these capitalists from making such foreign purchases in times like these.
    My remedy for the present depression, and until we get through the cycle of bad times, is to grant to the mining industry a subsidy. The right hon. Member below the Gangway in his book suggested that money should be taken from the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of assisting capitalists to find work, and he says:
    " Why people should be so afraid of the word subsidy ' I cannot understand."
    There I agree with him, and I want to urge upon the Secretary for Mines that, in view of the condition of the mining industry, the Government should seriously consider granting a subsidy to the mining industry, to help it over the present bad time.
    Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend, and at the same time sympathise with the Secretary for Mines for being brought here to-night. But until he will persuade the other Members of the Government to do something for the mining industry, we must take every opportunity we get to raise this question. In the last discussion he asked what could we put in place of the present system? I would remind him of the Sankey Report. One does not refer to that on every occasion, because one would expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman to he conversant with it. In that report it was made very evident that certain steps had to he taken if the coal industry was to live. From that time it has gone from bad to worse, se, and it is high time the Government did something. I would also call attention to the Buckmaster inquiry, which showed clearly that the industry could not carry on under present conditions, and that the wages paid were not sufficient. Since that time,
    120
    and during the Easter Recess, I have been amongst the miners, and they have been asking me what the Government intend to do in this mining crisis. They expect something, especially after the speech made by the Prime Minister, when he said he was trying to do something to help the industries forward, and when we had to tell them that the Secretary for Mines gave his word that the Government can do nothing at all, but must leave it to the men and the employers to fight it out themselves, then I may tell the hon. and gallant. Gentleman things are getting very bad indeed, and there is such unrest in the mining community, that I am very much afraid that, unless the Government deal with this question, something very serious will happen. No one on these benches desires a strike. I know what a strike means. None of us want. to reach that stage, but, unless something is done, we are in danger of reaching it.
    I think the Government, by the scientific treatment of coal, could do something to relieve the present situation. We are told that 385,000,000 gallons of fuel oil came into this country in 1924. By the scientific treatment of coal we could get to a large extent the oil which is now 'brought into this country. I understand the Government will not touch the question of subsidy, but I maintain that much could be done by the scientific treatment of coal to relieve the present situation. The Secretary for Mines, in his last speech. told us that that was being done, but it is not moving quickly enough. Before that can be. done effectively under the present method adopted, I am afraid the bottom will have dropped out of the coal industry, and we shall be faced with greater distress than has ever been experienced before in the industry. It is for the Government to take this matter in hand at once, and see what can be done. They cannot, as it were, sit on the fence waiting for the miners and coal owners to settle this question. We cannot settle it, I am confident of that. The present system does not allow of that. There is not sufficient money coming in to pay the wage we want, and, rather than pay any more, they have preferred to close the mines. We have had the statement from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that that has already taken place in his county, but I am pleased to say that so far as Lancashire is concerned it has

    121
    not occurred there. But what has happened in Durham will surely happen in Lancashire, and right through the coalfields. Before that time arrives, we are very anxious that something should be done.
    I join with my hon. Friend to-night for the purpose of saying once more how we feel on this matter. It may be said that this has been repeated too often, but things that matter can never be too often repeated. If we were to sit down quietly, knowing our position, we should not be doing our duty to our men. That is why we are taking this opportunity to-night, as we shall take every opportunity we can get to point out the serious position in which the industry is placed. I trust that we shall be able to get a full-dress Debate on the mining question, for I am not satisfied with having to wait for Adjournments to bring it forward. It appears to us that, with the exception of a few Members on the Labour Benches, no one is taking interest in the coal industry. Look on the benches here; look on the Conservative Benches—a mere handful of Members who are here out of courtesy, I take it, so that we may have a chance of airing our grievance. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to the attention of the Prime Minister how we feel on this matter. I can anticipate his reply to-night. He will, no doubt, tell us the same that he has told us before, that he cannot do anything, and that the miners and owners must fight it out for themselves. That will not, do. We want something more, and, whatever the consequences may be, we shall bring this forward on every occasion we can get, determined that until Parliament does deal with it, there will be no rest for the Government or Members of this House. We do not want to resort to other methods, but wish to do it by peaceful methods. That is why we are calling the attention of Parliament to the keen industrial distress in the coal-mining areas.
    The SECRETARY for MINES(Colonel Lane-Fox): I do not at all wish to blame the hon. Gentlemen for bringing me here to-night. They are always. very considerate in dealing with me, although the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tinker), who has just spoken, said he knew exactly what reply I was going to make, and then gave
    122
    it in the form he expects. But it was rather a caricature of what I said on previous occasions, and, certainly, of what I shall say now. I will begin by saying I have practically nothing to add to what I have said before, and if the hon. Gentlemen will read the previous Debates carefully, they will find it is not fair to say that the Government have over and over again expressed the decision that they can and will do nothing. It is not fair to say the Government are not prepared to do anything. On previous occasions we have had to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that the question of internal arrangements in the industry, as to wages and so on, were matters which must be settled by the industry itself, that the arrangements in the industry must be by agreement between the various parties in that industry; but that is a very different thing from saying that the Government are going to do nothing to help the industry, to try to promote the industry, and to try to secure fair play in every possible way. The hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, asked that we might have a full Debate on the mining question. During the last fortnight before the Recess we had no less than three Debates on mining. A considerable number of hon. Members were in the House at the time, and we had a pretty full Debate. On each occasion I invited suggestions. I said the Government were quite prepared to listen to and welcome any suggestions that might. he made to get. the industry out of its difficulties.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the scientific treatment of coal and complained of the Government's inactivity in the matter. I would point out that this is being developed as far as it can be developed. We are hoping very shortly—I cannot give the full details now—to develop and encourage the process of low temperature carbonisation. It has been impossible hitherto to find any process which could he made a commercial and paying proposition. Government research is still going forward, and am hoping to be able to take a party of members down to see what is going on next week. The Government are doing all they can do in this matter, as previous Governments have done. Whether or not anything successful in this line will be the immediate salvation of the coal-mining industry, for which

    123
    apparently hon. Members opposite look, is another matter. Still we hope for the best. Yet to suggest that by the means which we hope will be successful unemployment will immediately cease either this week or next is, of course. a statement. I should not like to make. The process will take some time to develop. It is going on very satisfactorily, and, as I say, I hope in a short time we shall be able to make an announcement as to how far we have been able to get.
    Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication of the time when he will be able to make the announcement?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: Obviously, I cannot. I am waiting most anxiously, hut to make any announcement before those engaged in the research are absolutely ready would scarcely he fair to them.
    Mr. HARDIE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that a Department is busy with research in this matter. Will that Government Department take upon itself to say whether or not the low temperature carbonisation of coal is a good thing or not.? This matter has been looked into in Scotland.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER(Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman must not now make a speech, hut he can put a question.
    Mr. HARDIE: I was only desirous of having it made quite clear as to whether or not the experiments are proceeding on a commercial scale. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not the Research Department will take upon itself to say whether or not the working is upon a commercial scale? I want to know what is the basis upon which the decision will be made.
    Colonel LANE-FOX: The matter may he described now as being well beyond the laboratory stage, and, of course, it has gone further than that. We are working towards the development of a scheme on a very much larger scale. There is no use in making any announcement until the experiments show that there is some real prospect of their being successful.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that some years
    124
    since hundreds, if not thousands of tons of coal were carbonised, and the results used in the way indicated?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware that a great deal of that sort of thing has been done, and I am also aware that until quite recently we have not yet arrived at a commercial proposition in respect to low temperature carbonisation — one likely to yield a fair prospect of commercial success. The hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that the Admiralty should give up the burning of oil fuel on the warships and revert to the use of coal. That, however, it is obvious, would not be a very easy thing to carry out. The same hon Gentleman suggested strong measures of Protection. That is a somewhat remarkable suggestion coming from the quarter it does. Such a proposal is a great development on what we have hitherto had from gentlemen opposite, and, perhaps, we may hope in the future to get closer together on these fiscal matters than in the past. Then reference was made to our export trade in coal. I do not think the limitation of our coal exports is only due to German competition. All over the world, and certainly all over Europe, the output of coal has very largely increased, and, therefore, competition in the neutral markets of the world is becoming more and more congested, and more and more severe. The principal cause for our present position, and for the failure of our export trade, has been that foreign competition has been so acute and is growing more acute every day. Also there is the fact that other countries are able to produce at a very much lower cost than we can do. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should endeavour to persuade foreign countries to adopt the same labour conditions as those we have in this country.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Why not adopt the Washington Convention and be done with it.
    Colonel LANE-FOX: It is not fair to say the Government are doing nothing. They have considerable schemes in view in the way of the development of the electrical supply and other ventures which will, we hope, increase the demand for coal. The home demand depends, of

    125
    course, on an improvement in the home trade. We all hope that will come about, and I believe that already there are slight signs indicating that there is going to be a revival of trade. The moment that revival develops it will bring an increased demand for coal from the home trade. It is the coal-exporting districts which are peculiarly suffering at this moment. Our difficulties are due to the decline in the export of coal, which is due to various causes, but mainly and principally to the fact of the increase in the quantity of coal being put on the market at a very much lower cost than our coal. I do not know that there is much to be said beyond this. The Government are watching every process that is going on and following up every point to see whether any opportunity will present itself of helping the coal industry. If any hon. Member thinks the Government are being particularly remiss in any direction we shall welcome any suggestions. The main suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor was that the Government ought to give a subsidy to the industry. The question of subsidy is one, as he knows, that is being generally considered, but if we subsidise one industry we have got to subsidise others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all !" and "The sugar beet industry ! "] At present there is just as much unemployment in the engineering and shipbuilding trades as in the coal industry and more, and everybody knows that we cannot subsidise one industry alone. I can assure hon. Members that if the question of subsidies has to be resorted to, and I hope it will not, I shall certainly do my best to see that the coal industry does not suffer. I do not think I can usefully add anything more. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to say that in their opinion I have said nothing.
    Mr. B. SMITH: And said it very well.
    Colonel LANE-FOX: They have said what they have had to say in perfect good faith, as I have said all I have had to say, and I am afraid I cannot add anything more.

    SCOTTISH AFFAIRS.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I had arranged with the Secretary for Scotland to raise a question in connection with Glasgow housing, but before I go on to that I
    126
    would like to say a word in regard to mining. I do not profess to have any great knowledge of mining, but one thing I can never understand is why one sees the miner leaving work with a miserable wage after having performed the most useful function in society and on the same day one can see people who never contributed to our social necessities anything like the labour the miner has put in, leaving the theatres in the West End of London with fabulous wealth in their hands, wealth out of all comparison with their labour. It may be argued that the miner has to contend against foreign competition, but when One looks at the racecourses and sees wealth in abundance in the hands of people who are not as good as the miner, and have not contributed as much as he has to our social wellbeing, and then thinks of the miserably-paid and miserably-housed miner, one cannot but feel that there lies one of the worst condemnations of capitalism. I think with other Members that the Government ought to take steps to help the miners.
    The question I wish to raise is of local interest to my native city of Glasgow. Every Member in this House, Labour, Liberal or Tory, will be to some extent tired, I suppose, of hearing of Scottish housing, and even more tired of hearing of Glasgow housing conditions. If one reads the newspapers, and particularly Sunday newspapers, it is seen that the housing and other conditions in Glasgow seem to be gaining a share of prominence they never before received. Whether that be due to the Members from Glasgow now in the House of Commons, or whether it be clue to other causes, it can certainly be said that Glasgow's housing conditions do need to have attention paid to them, and that Glasgow ought to receive as much help as possible in securing a humane standard in housing. I was more than surprised a week last Friday—I am not quite certain of the date—by a report of the proceedings of the Glasgow Town Council. One of the member of the Council, a colleague of mine who represents part of my division, raised the question of why the Glasgow Corporation were not proceeding more rapidly with housing schemes. The answer came from a man who is not a Labour man, but who represents what is termed the Moderate party. The Glasgow Corporation have

    127
    become more advanced than even we in this Parliament, and they have not even a semblance of the Liberal party there. All they have is the Moderate party, which is the Tory party, or the party representative of vested interests, and the Labour party, or the working class party. There is room for neither Liberal nor independent members. This moderato man is the convener of the Housing Committee, and whatever may be his faults or his failings he has at. least put a certain amount of energy into the question of housing in Glasgow. I want to pay him the tribute that he has at least been energetic in seeking to get something done towards solving Glasgow's fearful problem. It must have been a matter of great concern, not only to the Glasgow Town Council and the citizens of Glasgow, but to those who, like the Secretary for Scotland, are privileged to represent Glasgow here, to read the very deliberate statement made by the convener of the Housing Committee. When asked why certain schemes were being held up he said, according to the "Glasgow Herald" report, that he was glad the question had been raised, as it gave him a chance of stating publicly the facts as he knew them. As far as my recollection of the report is accurate, he said something like this, that the Scottish Board of Health were responsible for passing the plans of the various housing schemes which Glasgow proposed to proceed with, and that certain of them were being held up because the Glasgow Corporation were insisting on a certain standard of housing of which the Board of Health in Edinburgh refused to approve.
    I want the House to remember that the Glasgow Corporation have by a majority, a Conservative majority—even the Glasgow Corporation have decided that certain standards in regard to housing are low enough and that they want houses built under certain conditions as regards stone, as regards space and as regards window frontage. Then the Board of Health come along and say, "We are not going to allow you to build those houses, because that type cost £500, and we know of another type which will cost slightly less than £400." They point out that in the slum clearance building schemes stone has not been used such as has been asked
    128
    for for the three-apartment dwellings, but that they have been built with bricks and with a frontage of some form of plaster and concrete. They ask, "Why do you not apply that system to these houses as well?" and the consequence is that the houses are held up, because even the Tories on the Glasgow Council insist on decent housing conditions for people. It may be argued that the slum clearances schemes have been completed, but my reply is that I do not accept the statement that these houses are good enough. it is not sufficient to lower the standard of the other houses to the slum clearance standard, and what you ought to do is to raise the latter up to the standard of the other houses. A most astounding statement has been made on this subject on behalf of the Board of Health, and if it is not correct, the sooner it is denied the better. It is said that a deputation was sent to Edinburgh to obtain powers to proceed with certain housing schemes in Glasgow at once. It is not merely the housing problem that is concerned, although in Glasgow that problem is tremendously- acute, but in this way you partly raise the problem of unemployment because the Secretary for Scotland knows perfectly well that one of the ways of employing men is the laying out of streets end the making of sewers and roads.
    This is largely semi-skilled labour. I do not like to call it unskilled labour because I think all labour to a certain extent is skilled, and as I stated before the Rent Commission, I think the average workman has as much capacity as the average Member of Parliament. The point I want to make is that if this work on housing is held up it means that those who form the semi-skilled section of the community remain out of work. Here we have Glasgow, which is admittedly the most densely populated area in the country, and its population is housed worse than any other place in the nation. The Corporation of Glasgow. which has a majority of Moderate members, are refused facilities by the Secretary for Scotland to obtain the houses which they require. They send a deputation to Edinburgh, and they are told that because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health is away on holiday in some part of Europe the Board cannot and will not sanction going on with this housing scheme, or even come to any understanding in regard to it.

    129
    According to the statement made, not by a wild Socialist or even by a timid Labour member, but by a responsible member of the Moderate party of the Glasgow Town Council, they cannot go on with their housing scheme because the Under-Secretary is abroad. Is it not terrible to think that, because the Under-Secretary is on his holidays, a housing scheme should be held up and work kept back simply because the hon. Gentleman cannot be present to sanction a particular scheme. Every 24 hours makes it more terrible for Glasgow, and I raise this matter in the hope that the Secretary for Scotland will at once see that this housing scheme is proceeded with, and that even on the point of cost he is not going to lower the standard. Glasgow has already enough of bad housing, and I do not want to see in the next 10 or 20 years any more monuments to the name of the present Secretary for Scotland in the shape of horrible houses like those which we have now in Glasgow. I think it is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to see that there is no lowering of the standard, and that every facility is given to the Glasgow Town Council to proceed with their housing scheme. I make no apology for raising this question to-night, although it may be inconvenient, but I do so in the hope that something will he done.
    I wish also to say something in reference to another subject of which I have not given notice, and if the Secretary for Scotland cannot answer to-night perhaps he will inquire into the matter. This is a question affecting certain prisoners at Peterhead. Recently a Sinn Fein society made representations to the Secretary for Scotland to grant them facilities for visiting Irish prisoners. The Sinn Fein body is a perfectly legal organisation, and the prisoners they wish to visit come from Ireland. The relatives of these prisoners cannot visit them in the same way as these other persons on account of the expense of travelling from Ireland. Generally speaking, a prisoner in Scotland has committed a crime in Scotland, and his relatives can get access to him and obtain all the prison privileges allowed to his relatives. If, however, you are going to take prisoners from Belfast and the North of Ireland across to Scotland, then you are practically making it impossible
    130
    for the relatives of those prisoners, owing to the expense, to have contact with those prisoners.
    The organisation of which I have spoken is a perfectly legal body, and they have made an approach to the Secretary for Scotland for permission to visit these Irish prisoners, and I think they ought to be allowed to act as deputies for the Irish friends of these prisoners. The members of this organisation say that they will observe all the customs and laws laid down in regard to visiting prisons, and all they ask is that they should have the right to visit these prisoners subject to our laws. These men are prepared to submit 10 names from their organisation and the authorities can inquire into their character. Seeing that the friends of these prisoners live at long distances away it is only reasonable that some other persons should be allowed to deputise for them periodically in regard to visiting these prisoners. I think that that is a reasonable request. After all, it is the only safeguard that a prisoner has that friends should see him periodically to ensure that even a prisoner is being decently treated. I do not wish for an answer on this point now, because I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice, but I would ask him to inquire into the matter, and see if he cannot give permission to this organisation for its members to visit and keep in touch with the prisoners. I have raised these points in the hope that the Secretary for Scotland will not merely give us sympathy —because we are almost tired of being given sympathy and nothing else—but will give an assurance that on both these matters he will act, and act promptly, and see that the rights of the people are decently safeguarded.
    Mr. MAXTON:I rise to bring to the attention of the Secretary for Scotland one or two points of which I have not given him notice. I did not expect that this opportunity would have been presented to us this evening, and in any case, if the House had been crowded with Englishmen or Welshmen, I would have refrained from presenting the claims of Scottish people before the House but, since we have, I think, at the moment a working majority of Scotsmen among the 20 or so who are in the House, I think it will be agreed that it is quite legitimate that we should air a few of our national grievances.

    131
    'One matter that I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is. I believe, a British grievance, but, as it is really a financial one, it is felt more keenly in Scotland than it seems to be in England. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has a direct responsibility in the matter, except that we regard him as being responsible for everything that is wrong once we are across the Tweed. It is the regulation by the railway companies, which I think was a War regulation, by which a railway return ticket for a journey or less than 12 miles is only available so far as the return half of the ticket is concerned, for a period of two days. It is an extraordinary piece of sharp practice on the part of the railway companies that they should issue a ticket to a citizen who pays them a sum of money for a double journey, and that, after 48 hours have expired, the railway company refuses to carry out the contract. Within a 12-mile radius of a city like Glasgow, the occasions when people travel, say, from a country town into Glasgow by train, but return by tramcar, are very frequent, owing to the very inadequate train services that the companies provide; and in such a case the return half of the ticket is lost completely. For journeys beyond 12 miles there is a regulation which makes the return half only available for two months. I would like the Secretary for Scotland to find out for us, his humble servants, what is the rationale behind these dates—two days and 12 miles, and two months and beyond 12 miles. Where is the common sense; where is the logic; where is the reasoning? We can see nothing in it but a vexatious desire on the part of the railway companies to annoy the travelling public and to get into their pockets a certain amount of money in payment for services which they have not rendered and have no intention of rendering. This is a matter of very wide complaint amongst. working men in the vicinity of Glasgow, where I live. The regulations may apply in England, but, if the working people of England are prepared to put up with this, the working people of Scotland are going to be very annoyed about it, and are going to make their annoyance felt.
    My other point, although a Scottish one, does not come immediately under.
    132
    the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office, but, if it is allowed to proceed as has been indicated just now, its effects will have to be dealt with by the Scottish Office. It is the suggestion which I understand is being made by the Ministry of Pensions to abolish the one instructional factory in Scotland for disabled ex-service men. It is in the Cathcart Division of Glasgow. Again, I think that this is a very great injustice, and it is going to cause considerable hardship if the disabled ex-service men who are presently receiving their training there are either to have their training interrupted before they reach proficiency or are ready to find employment, or are to be told that, if their training is to continue, they must transfer to some instructional factory across the border in England. In either case there is very great hardship if an ex-service man who has been seriously disabled, who is a married man with children, is asked to stop his training in a factory near his home—to which he can travel every day and from which he can return home every evening to his family—and to come down to some place in England, where it would be impossible for him to find house accommodation for his family, although he might possibly find lodgings for himself. That would be a very grave injustice; and a large proportion of these men would not agree to come away and leave their families, and would simply be thrown on to the street and would become a responsibility with which my right hon. Friend would have to deal through one or other of his public services.
    I ask him to bring his greatest influence to bear upon his Cabinet colleague, who is more directly responsible in this matter, to prevent the closing down of this instructional factory, and to allow Scotland to have one of these institutions, s-; that Scotsmen may get their training within the borders of their own country and within reasonable reach of their own homes. I think that a. quiet word from him to his colleague, in that genial manner which he usually adopts with us when refusing to do anything for us, would have a very great deal of influence, and would save much public agitation, annoyance and injury to a body of deserving people. I do not ask or expect an answer from the Secretary for Scotland on either of the points I have raised. What I expect is

    133
    that he will immediately take action on the matter, as I have suggested. I apologise for detaining the House after the arduous hours they have had earlier in the day, but I hope some other Scottish Member will be able to raise something which will continue the sitting until its normal conclusion.
    Mr. KIDD: I am very glad the hon. Member has raised this matter of the disturbances of the arrangements in Scotland with regard to the instructional training of ex-service men. I need not make any apology to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench for not having given him notice. Luckily, I have anticipated the remarks of the hon. Member opposite by writing to my right hon. Friend to-day calling his attention to the very great inconvenience and the very natural grievance that is felt in Scotland at the closing down of this instructional institution. We are entitled to look to my right hon. Friend to make the strongest possible representations in the proper quarter, which I presume will be the War Office, to retain this centre in Scotland. It is inconceivable that Scottish feeling in such a matter should be ignored. The inconvenience to Scottish ex-service men will be appreciated even in London. It forces the ex-service man into this ugly alternative, either to break his training, perhaps at a point at which it will be a serious matter to break it, or to abandon his home, change his whole surroundings, and divorce himself from his family, and cause all the heart burning and inconvenience which would be occasioned thereby. I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can all that the hon. Member has most excellently and moderately said, and in saying it I am sure he has reflected the feeling of the Scottish people.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want to add my word to the appeal to the Secretary for Scotland regarding the instructional centre. Some two months ago I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the sending of almost 20 men from the Cathcart Instructional Factory to a. factory which I understood then to have been in the Midlands. The Minister was good enough, on representations I made to him privately after the question had been answered, to stop the transfer of these men pending some further arrangements being gone into. I am not
    134
    blaming him, because with so many things in his mind a matter of this kind might easily slip his memory, but I understood that before anything further was likely to be done in regard to the closing of this factory he was going to let me know:and to see if anything further could be den in providing training in or around Glasgow. I am of opinion, and I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that there are quite a number of very large workshops in Glasgow which are vacant and which would provide a very suitable place for instructional factories, and these exservice men at present under going training at this factory at Cathcart would be able to continue their instruction within easy reach of their homes. To close this factory at Cathcart without opening a similar factory in or near Glasgow would necessarily mean that these men would be away from their wives and families, living in hostels and very seldom having the opportunity of returning to their homes. I am certain the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Labour will agree that these men, in the unfortunate position in which some of them are, of being badly broken in the War, are much more comfortable in their own homes in the evening after they have finished their day's instruction than they would he living in a hostel or in lodgings in some other part of the country. I therefore hope the Secretary for Scotland will do his best to induce the Minister of Labour to look about in Glasgow for premises which would be suitable for transferring the present instructional factory at Cathcart.
    I should also like to reinforce the request my hon. Friend has made re travelling facilities in Glasgow and the ticket question. The Secretary for Scotland is perfectly well acquainted with the details of the Scottish railways, because at one time, prior to taking office in the Coalition Government, he was a director of the old Caledonian Railway Company. I take it therefore that he is fairly familiar with the conditions of travelling in Scotland and with many of the regulations that apply to it. We are now approaching the holiday period, during which invitations will be put into advertisements in all parts of the country to visit London and see the exhibition at Wembley. It is rather

    135
    curious that while we in London can book a tourist ticket from London to Glasgow at a cheaper rate than the ordinary ticket, with greater privileges than are possessed with the ordinary ticket, you cannot from any of the three terminal stations in Glasgow book a tourist ticket to London. Evidently the railway authorities are of the opinion that while Glasgow is a holiday centre for the people of London, London is in no way a holiday centre for the people of Glasgow. Surely there is something absurd there. By paying an extra 4d. at any of the three stations in Glasgow you can book on to Brighton. A man comes to London, spends a day there, goes on to Brighton, has a holiday there, comes back to London, finishes his holiday, and returns to Glasgow, only having paid 4d. more than the ordinary return fare to London. These are the absurd arrangements of the railway companies of this country. They will not give facilities from far-distant stations, but for an additional 4d. one can go 50 miles from London to Brighton and 50 miles on the return journey, making 100 miles for 4c1. I do not think- one could get it as cheap as that on the German or French State railways. The same thing applies to stations even nearer than Glasgow.
    The Secretary for Scotland knows that two-thirds of Scotland is closed for train travelling from Saturday night until Monday morning. You can get to Callender and Aberdeen, but I think those are the furthest points north that you can get in the train on Sunday. Therefore, two-thirds of Scotland is a closed book to the travellers unless they are fortunate enough to possess motor cars. The railway companies block any further travelling at the week-ends to the north of Scotland and the centre of Scotland.
    Nor is that all: the Secretary for Scotland knows that when the 25 per cent. was taken off the fares in England it was not taken off the fares in Scotland. In the first place, 50 per cent. was added to the pre-War fares, and then a further 5 per cent., making an addition of 75 per cent. over the pre-War rates. When the railways were grouped, the 25 per cent. increase was taken away in this country, leaving only 50 per cent. over pre-War rates, but the 25 per cent. was
    136
    not taken off the fares in Scotland. We still pay the same fare from Glasgow to Aberdeen as when the full 75 per cent. was on. The same thing applies to the fares between Glasgow and Elgin, Glasgow and Inverness, Glasgow and Wick, and Glasgow and Thurso. In pre-War times, one could get from London to Inverness for 3 guineas, and a person could come from Inverness to London for practically the same figure, with six days allowed for completing the out ward journey and six months allowed to complete the return journey. To-day on ordinary fares only three days are allowed for completing the outward journey and two months for completing the return journey. I suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that he should get something done, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, to deal with these matters. The railway companies are now trying to manage the railway system of Scotland from offices in London. They will find it impossible.
    We are told a great deal about restoring trade. What happens in Scotland Travelling from Glasgow to Gleneagles you may have a man sitting beside you, dressed in plus-fours and with golf clubs on the rack. That man will be going to Gleneagles on a cheap golfer's ticket, and he pays less for travelling about 20 miles more than the commercial traveller who goes to Stirling to book orders which will find work for the people of Glasgow. The commercial traveller pays several shillings more than the man who is travelling 20 miles further to play at golf, and yet we are told about developing industry. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to get something done to stop this absurd arrangement of the railway companies.
    People in Scotland are leaving the railways and travelling long distances by motor chars-a-bane. The railway companies say that they cannot do this or that because the revenue is not there. They have only themselves to blame. They are not catering for the travelling public. One would imagine that they do not want the public to travel. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to go into these matters. He will find that the complaints which we have raised this evening with regard to the railways are sound complaints which require consideration and demand to be redressed in the interest of the travelling public of Scotland.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to raise several matters, of which I have not given notice to the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to one of them, however, I raised it before the recess, and I have not been able to get a definite answer. In Scotland we have had a Rent Commission sitting and its proceedings have aroused a great deal of interest. I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether in view of the general interest in the proceedings of the Committee, he would make it possible for every Member of this House to have a copy of the evidence submitted to the Commission. When I was in Glasgow during the recess I found in conversation with various people that it is regarded as of the greatest importance that we should be able to have the evidence in a handy form, because of the questions involved. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when we shall get the Report of the Commission, and what action the Government is going to take on the Report. I hope he will be able to take us into his confidence in regard to this matter.
    With respect to the railways, I do not in the least object to Scottish people being allowed to travel an extra distance from London to Brighton for 4d. As a Scotsman I am willing to take that extra fourpennyworth; but I do think that the Secretary for Scotland has been a little remiss in regard to the injustice that is being inflicted upon us by the railway companies. I will give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman will have had the experience when he has been coming to London for a period of exile from his own country, of some of his friends going to the station to see him off. Those friends would have to pay 3d. for a platform ticket in order to see the Secretary for Scotland off the premises. At Euston or any other English station one can get a platform ticket for a penny. I do not see why the Scottish people should have to contribute three times more to the revenue of the railway companies than the English people are required to pay for a platform ticket. I am sure that a joint representation by the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Transport to the railway company would have this matter remedied, and that we should get the penny ticket just the same as the Sassenach gets it. With regard to the instructional factory in Cathcart, my own constituents view with the greatest
    138
    apprehension the action of the Government in this matter. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will use his influence in the Government to see that the desires of Members of all parties in _this House, representing Scottish constituencies, in reference to this matter shall receive sympathetic consideration, and that this instructional factory shall be retained. I am sure that when the Secretary for Scotland explains to the Cabinet that the Tories and the Socialists in Scotland are united on this point, the Cabinet will be agreeable to granting the request. I hope that we shall get the penny tickets and keep the factories and obtain soon the evidence in connection with the rent.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour): Scotland sometimes complains that it has no opportunity of putting its case in this House, and I make no complaint that this occasion should be used for that purpose. It is perhaps right that I should say at. the outset that most of the questions which hon. Members have raised fall outside my province. The duties of the Secretary for Scotland are various, but I am sure that I should have the sympathy of my hon. Friends opposite if I were to resist the imposition of further duties upon myself. Possibly, however, the opportunity which has been taken of raising these questions will draw the attention of those principally concerned. I can only say that I am willing, at the request of hon. Members, to discuss these matters with those who are primarily concerned. I cannot say any more than that.
    Various Members have raised the question of the training institution for ex service men. I have to-day received cam, munications on this matter from various quarters, Members of this House, and other quarters. I will make it my business to inquire into this matter at -once. I cannot, of course, commit myself in any way on the question, but I think that I can say, at any rate, that my sympathies are with those who desire to keep at least one of these institutions for the training of ex-service men in Scotland, and I shall do what I can in that regard. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to the question of visiting prisoners in Peterhead. I have not had that matter brought to my notice, and I cannot say anything at the moment

    139
    on it except this, that I am afraid that it is not an easy thing to make any concession to any society, because if one society is permitted then that would open the door to other societies, but, of course, as I have not seen the details of the subject, I will look into it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it and give me a reply?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly. Then we come to the other question, which is the main one. That is the question of housing in Glasgow. There is no difference of opinion between any of us as to the serious condition of housing in Glasgow. Nor, indeed, would there be any difference between any of us as to any efforts which either we individually, as Members of this House, or I, as the Secretary for Scotland, or head of the Board for the time being, ought to make to try to improve those existing conditions. But when we come to deal with the particular complaint as to holding up a scheme of houses in Glasgow by the Board of Health, I have to say that I am the first to admit the energy and enterprise of the Glasgow Corporation, and I am anxious to support them and to give them the fullest opportunity to fulfil their work, but, on the other hand, it is the duty of the Board of Health, as it is my duty as the head of that Board for the time being, to resist the efforts of any local authority which proposes to enter upon the building of houses which, in our opinion, are unduly extravagant.
    After all, the only reason we do that is in the interests of the people for whom we believe these houses are being built, for if the Government or the Department concerned were to say, "We would much rather have stone houses and much rather see bow windows and all the additions that are possible," and if they chose to say that they would give a free hand in this matter, then the prices of house building throughout the whole country would soar to the same extent as they did in the unfortunate scheme which we had under the Addison administration, which brought the whole housing problem into a very deplorable condition. I am as anxious as anybody to see a high standard of housing in this 4Rountry, but it is the duty of the Board
    140
    of Health and it is my duty to resist any great extravagance. I was, like the hon. Member, absent for a short period. 1 was in. Scotland the other day, and my attention was drawn to the statement made by some members of the Glasgow Corporation that, because the Under-Secretary for Health was absent from Scotland no decision could be come to on a question of this kind. That is not the case. These matters were brought to the Board of Health in the ordinary course of administration, and representatives of the Glasgow Corporation attended to convince the Board that they were right. The Board, in my judgment, very properly refused to give way to the extent that the Corporation demanded.
    These matters were brought to my notice. I have myself seen representatives of the municipality in question and I have told them that so far as I am concerned this is a. matter of detail which no doubt would form a topic of conference between the Board of Health and representatives of the municipality with myself or the Under-Secretary present, or, possibly, both. In those circumstances, perhaps, it would be a mistake for me to say more, but I want to make it clear that the Board's refusal to sanction this extravagant scheme, which is really just a small part of the main scheme of house building, has my full approval unless and until I am convinced by the corporation that there is a just reason for altering it. But there is evidently a mistaken idea on the part of some people in Glasgow that the corporation should he left free to go into any scheme, however extravagant it may be, without check, and that on the other hand they have not been fairly treated. I am quite certain that that is not the case. The fullest consideration has been given by the Department to my knowledge, and while I have not full details of the figures with me, because I had no notice of the raising of this question until this evening, I will say that the best and most suitable arrangement for settling this question is that a conference should take place.
    Mr. BUCHANAN:It is not sufficient to say there should be a conference held. In the meantime the houses are being held up, employment is being refused to men, and the work is not going on My point is as to whether he can say whether

    141
    the conference is to be held and if he will take steps for it to be held within the next few days. I think it is a most urgent matter; if he can assure me that that conference will be held in the immediate future it would do something to modify my opinion in this matter.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The matter was brought to my attention on Saturday, and my instructions were given to the. Board on Saturday that arrangements should be made to hold a conference as soon as possible, and I said it was immaterial whether my hon. and gallant Friend Captain Elliot was there or not. I would meet the deputation myself.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon Gentleman tell us about the publication of the Report?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have not yet received the Report of this Commission, and, until I do, it is impossible for me to give' any undertaking. I have reason to believe that I may receive the report of this inquiry comparatively soon.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Let us have the evidence apart from the Report. It would be of very great service to us in making up our minds with regard to the consideration of the Report afterwards,
    142
    if we could get that evidence collected and published.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already said that I will give consideration to that, but I must point out that the evidence taken at this inquiry has been published, and has been, in the main, published in the Press, and, of course, if it is to be a question of publishing the whole of the evidence, that adds very materially to the cost, and that is a question on which I must reserve my opinion until I see the whole circumstances.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me with regard to this. What is under dispute is that some of the evidence that told strongly in favour of the tenants' case was not published in the newspapers, whereas the evidence that tended the other way did get published and had a bigger space in the Press. Will he take that point into consideration, that these newspapers, dependent to a very big extent for advertisement purposes upon the factors and property owners in Glasgow, published a side of it that seemed to show the property owners' ease more effectively?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty nine Minutes after Nine o'Clock

TRADE AND COMMERENCE.
  COTTON FABRIC AND YARN (OUTPUT).
  COTTON FABRIC AND YARN (OUTPUT).
  SLATE (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  SLATE (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  PIG-IRON AND STEEL (OUTPUT).
  PIG-IRON AND STEEL (OUTPUT).
  SHIPBUILDING.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  FOREIGN ENTERPRISES (BRITISHINVESTMENTS).
  FOREIGN ENTERPRISES (BRITISHINVESTMENTS).
  NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCEINSTITUTE.
  NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCEINSTITUTE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FEES FOR CADETS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FEES FOR CADETS).
  BRITISH ARMY (COMMANDINGAND STAFF OFFICERS).
  BRITISH ARMY (COMMANDINGAND STAFF OFFICERS).
  BRITISH OFFICERS OF AND ABOVE THE RANK OF COLONEL-COMMANDANT AND COLONELON-THE-STAFF.
  BRITISH OFFICERS OF AND ABOVE THE RANK OF COLONEL-COMMANDANT AND COLONELON-THE-STAFF.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONSAND GRANTS.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  ROYAL WARRANT, 1914 (ARTICLE 1163).
  ROYAL WARRANT, 1914 (ARTICLE 1163).
SCOTLAND.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUSINSTRUCTION).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUSINSTRUCTION).
  HEBRIDEAN STEAMER SERVICES (FARES).
  HEBRIDEAN STEAMER SERVICES (FARES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PUBLICASSISTANCE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PUBLICASSISTANCE).
  COTTON GROWING. WEST INDIES.
  COTTON GROWING. WEST INDIES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS' PAY).
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS' PAY).
FIGHTING SERVICES.
  PERSONNEL AND EXPENDITURE.
  PERSONNEL AND EXPENDITURE.
  CIVIL RIGHTS.
  CIVIL RIGHTS.
  IRISH FREE STATE (FINANCE).
  IRISH FREE STATE (FINANCE).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (W. H. KEYS,LIMITED).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (W. H. KEYS,LIMITED).
Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday, May 21.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
LLOYD'S BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I feel that any one who raises the licensing question in Parliament must be regarded as a disturber of the peace, for undoubtedly he stirs up a hornet's nest. Therefore, it is better that the subject should not be tackled by Governments, and that it should be done by a member with a past rather than by a member with a future. No one is satisfied with the present condition of the licensing system in Scotland; yet no one will allow anything to be done which does not aim at attaining some altogether impossible ideal. Never was the dictum that perfection is the enemy of improvement better illustrated than by the results of the temperance extremists' uncompromising attitude towards licensing reforms. Attempts to deal with the matter have usually been inspired by whole-hearted Prohibitionists, and the 1913 Government Act, which sought to temper their idealism with political expediency, has only created confusion in licensing administration.
My noble friend Lord Wemyss, whose absence I regret on this occasion, introduced an amending Bill in 1923, but the
1030
moment seemed premature, for at that time only one of the polls had been taken and it was not possible to foresee the total failure of this method to secure any amendment in existing conditions. The Bill was withdrawn and that which I have the honour to present to your Lordships differs in many respects from the Bill presented by Lord Wemyss. The noble Earl's Bill sought to give the community a fourth option in favour of licensing reform. The present Bill has a wider scope. Its main object is, while reducing licences, to encourage the establishment of types of public-houses that shall be more working men's restaurants than drinking bars, and shall, if possible, be conducted under disinterested management. Next, the object is to provide for the automatic extinction of one-fifth of the existing licences in over-licensed areas. The Bill also seeks to stimulate private enterprise by giving limited security for the money expended in improving or erecting premises, by postponing the next plebiscite for eleven years, and by making provision for creating a fund from trade profits to give compensation for suppressed licences.
Another reason for prolonging the period before the next plebiscite is taken is that this will restore to licensing bodies control over the liquor trade. Their authority has been seriously compromised by the provisions of the 1913 Act. Under that Act, as your Lordships know, a triennial poll was established on the widest franchise in licensing areas to decide between three options: first, whether there should be no change; scondly, whether there should be a reduction in licences; and thirdly, whether there should be no licence. It should be explained that a poll could only be taken if a tenth of the population in an area demanded it. The second poll has not yet been taken in counties, and the demand in the burghs was naturally only made in the areas within which the Temperance Party was strong. Therefore a large part of Scotland has not, so far, had the opportunity of expressing its more considered opinion on the question at issue.
The effect of the Act on the position of the licensing authority is obvious, for if, every three years, all licences may be abolished by popular vote, the authority will hardly think it worth while to with-

1031
draw any licence in the interval, and even in areas where, under normal conditions, they would be disposed to reduce the number within their jurisdiction, they would feel that they had scarcely the authority for doing so, as the decision had been delegated by Parliament to the people. Moreover, the power of the Court to enforce reconstruction of defective premises lapsed for seven years under the 1913 Act, which weakened a most necessary power enabling much good work to be accomplished. Under this Act one or two polls have already been taken in 511 areas, which, except in a few instances, were selected by the advocates of No-Licence. A most intensive campaign and an expenditure of much money by the No-Licence Party made it certain that all genuine advocates of Prohibition recorded their votes. On the first occasion, in twenty-four areas out of the 511 polled No-Licence won the day, while in twenty-two a limitation of licences was carried; but in the second plebiscite, held in 257 burgh areas, limitation was repealed in six areas, and No-Licence in four, these results being chiefly in residential areas where no licensing problem existed. It is a notable fact that in purely working-class areas the majorities against No-Licence were the largest, that very few of the supporters of the 1913 Act have been returned to the House of Commons, and that, though Dundee returned a Prohibition Member of Parliament, it also within a week or two voted against any change in every area, and by enormous majorities of two or three to one in the working-class areas.
It is therefore plain that the Prohibition campaign has failed, that the country is not going voluntarily "dry," and that the real problem can never be solved by Local Option, though many of us had hoped that it would be. In the fierce turmoil and struggle between contending factions the less drastic option—the reduction of licences—was lost sight of. In fact, under that Act reduction, which is the most tactical line of advance, has become a dead letter. Worse even is the fact that the control of the licensing authority over a dangerous trade has been weakened. The almost complete victory of the No-Change policy in the majority of districts has made it practically impossible for the authorities to refuse or to withdraw a licence. I need not point out
1032
the confusion created by the reversal, every three years, of previous decisions, and the difficulties in which a licensing authority is placed in an area which has either gone "dry" for three years and then has to be suddenly supplied once more with public-houses or, after voting the reduction, decides for the re-establishment of the old licences.
As an example of this I would cite what is happening in Clydebank, where a similar situation has arisen. In 1920 two areas at Clydebank went "dry." In 1923 the decision was reversed. It is proposed, therefore, to replace the abolished public-houses with municipal drink-shops, the profits to go to the Common Good, a fund at the disposal of the Town Council to use for any purpose which they may consider expedient. One can well foresee the pressure that will be put on the Town Council at every election to expend the money in many ways that may be most demoralising. Were the money spent on perfectly legitimate objects, it is obvious that if a local authority has to depend for revenue upon the drink traffic the municipality is given a very undesirable interest in the large consumption of alcohol. Even should the Court attempt to carry out a policy of reduction, it is an invidious one, because it has to distinguish between well-conducted licensees in order to deprive one of his livelihood without notice or compensation. In fact, the option of limitation was ignored at the poll mainly because there was no scheme of compensation, and the ordinary citizen shrinks from depriving any man of his livelihood.
No state of affairs can be less conducive to adequate control of the retail trade, which is the most difficult and delicate part of local administration, than that which exists at present in Scotland. Realising this, I felt it was incumbent on me, on a pressing request, to bring this Bill before your Lordships. We have to find the way out of our administrative impasse, which is so prejudicial to the public interests. The whole question of licensing reform is entangled with past controversies, prejudice has hardened into habit of mind and stale catch phrases, implying either that any form of reduction is an attack upon property, or that any attempt to secure a reduction of licences without committing injustice to individuals is to

1033
create a monopoly and to give fixity of tenure, and that it is a danger to the people. All these phrases so affect those who should be the best supporters of progressive reform that it is difficult to obtain a fair hearing for any scheme. There is, therefore, a tendency to abandon all attempts at finding a solution of the problem and a disposition to regard the situation as hopeless.
The purpose of this Bill, promoted by prominent citizens interested in the public welfare, in the administration of the Licensing Acts and in temperance, is not only to restore order in the administrative machinery for controlling the retail trade, but to promote the public interest by meeting public requirements. A noble Lord, who was lately on the Woolsack and is now on the Front Opposition Bench, invited me to join him in opposition to the first draft of an analogous Bill. I did so because it contained unworkable and inexpedient provisions. I commend to his attention the present Bill, from which those provisions have been expunged. The noble and learned Viscount has recently plumped for No-Change in the constitution of this House. He is, therefore, I am sure, alive to the instinctive conservatism of our countrymen, which will always lead the majority of the electorate to plump for a similar option. But the noble and learned Viscount's recently supergrafted political views will, on the other hand, incline him favourably towards a measure which seeks to give the working man and woman the equivalent of establishments which are so popular in other circles.
Perhaps the most remarkable change in the habits of the present generation is the growth of what may be called the restaurant habit, with a view, possibly, of reducing the scale of living and the domestic servant difficulty, which makes life a serious problem. The same conditions exist in an acuter form in smaller homes. Why, then, should it not be as easy in this country as it is for the less well-to-do all over Europe to get a change from home cares and the domestic rice pudding? Why should not the wife of a working man be able to have her day off from the eternal drudgery of family cooking? She could have that if respectable working-class restaurants, such as this Bill seeks to
1034
establish, existed. The fact is that temperance reformers have fixed their eyes on the drunkard, and have wished that all legislation should be directed to removing temptation from his path. They have forgotten the very much larger section of the community which is self-disciplined and reasonable and only asks for facilities to take a moderate amount of alcohol with their meals. Nowadays, the drunkard is becoming the exception and should not be allowed to prevent the great mass of respectable citizens from having legitimate opportunities for reasonable refreshment.
I have received a report from the Chief Constable of Edinburgh, which shows that the arrests for drunkenness in Edinburgh, in 1915, numbered 4,926, whereas in 1924 they had fallen to 3,460, which was 310 less than in 1923, out of a population of over 426,000. Many arrests were of habitual offenders. The percentage of "incapables" has fallen from 3·18 in 1854, the year before the Mackenzie Act, to 0·44 in 1924. The Scottish Temperance League attack this Bill as "a belated attempt," and so forth. Every reform is belated in the sense that it is an attempt to remedy past mistakes which ought never to have been made. If we could go back to the beginning of things I believe we should have never permitted drinking powers to exist. We should never have dissociated drink from food. The true fact is that the out-and-out temperance reformer is, despite his name, opposed to all and every reform. He believes only in Prohibition and, consequently, travels another road. He fears lest improvement in the control and use of alcohol should dim men's eyes to the evil of drink and therefore, from his point of view, a state of things so bad as to force the country to adopt Prohibition is to be preferred.
The points in the Bill selected for attack are:—first, the postponement of the triennial poll for eleven years. I have explained the reasons for this, but I would add that, to my mind, a triennial convulsion, with all the attendant evils of a hotly-contested election over the "to-be" or "not-to-be" of the liquor trade, is highly demoral sing and harmful. The cost of each contest is estimated at some hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the ratepayer shares about £52,000 for the expenses of polling the contested areas. I consider that the question of licensing

1035
is more or less a judicial matter, and should be left as much as possible to the authorities elected for that purpose on a purely democratic basis and to the sheriffs who so admirably administer the Licensed Clubs Act.
It may, however, be pointed out that the Bill merely postpones the plebiscite, and this is favourable to the Prohibitionist view in so far that the places which went "dry" at the last poll will continue so much longer than they might do if they had an earlier chance of reversing their decision. These areas will, therefore, provide us with an interesting experiment of how partial Prohibition works in this country—for, while hotels and contiguous public-houses provide the thirsty with opportunities for indulgence, no complete Prohibition is possible—just as the three areas put under Government control during the war are carrying on an effective experiment in disinterested management. The Temperance League object to every proposal of disinterested management. I fully agree with them that the character of this management needs careful scrutiny, and some amendment may be necessary in the Bill to ensure that the character of such bodies is such as to give confidence that their management will be absolutely disinterested and single-eyed to the public welfare. To my mind, village societies running the liquor trade for local benefits are a mistake. I believe that the area in which the disinterested company works should be a large one, and that the accounts of such company should be subject to public audit and should be submitted annually to the licensing authorities.
Great exception is also taken to the proposed compensation, but this principle has been accepted in England, has worked well and has resulted in the speedy and very large reduction of licences. It is practically the payment for the goodwill of an establishment such as is paid, as a matter of course, in the case of all shop and business premises. It in no way confers vested interest in the sale of liquor, as is contended by our opponents. It is more than a month since this Bill was published in the Press and, as yet, no constructive alternative has been offered from any quarter whatever; therefore, the Bill holds the field. It will undoubtedly be fought by the extreme Temperance Party, but there is a large body of moderate opinion which evidently
1036
desires, as we all do, to see the wasteful and harmful national expenditure on drink still further reduced. It is recognised, however, that the direct frontal attack through Prohibition is useless, and, even if successful, might lead to an even worse state of things than exists at present. But the fact is appreciated that increasing temperance can be secured by indirect methods, by providing an alternative to the public-house, often the sole refuge at present for the young man seeking the society of his "pals" or crowded out of his overflowing home. The cinema, despite some drawbacks, has probably done more for temperance than any other institution, just because it has provided a decent, respectable place for young people to consort together in the evening. The Service Clubs, which exist in most large centres and are run as licensed restaurants, have justified their existence and proved indisputably, by their popularity and by the absence of drunkenness, that well conducted restaurants of such types fill a want in the life of the community.
To my mind we must exploit every expedient for controlling and administering the liquor trade, which I recognise is one pregnant with danger to the community, and it will be on the results of such experiments that we may hope ultimately to build up a sound and progressive policy, tending to diminish excessive expenditure on liquor without depriving reasonable individuals of liberty to take such refreshment as they may require. Meanwhile, there is not the slightest indication that Prohibition has come, or is coming, within the range of practical politics. It is expedient, therefore, to turn our backs on unattainable ideals, face the facts as we see them, and do what we can to remove the dangers and difficulties that have become apparent in licensing administration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Novar.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, when I came from the country to-day I did not anticipate that I should be the first to speak after the mover of the Second Beading of his Bill. I rather expected to find on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Bill by one of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite and who were responsible for the

1037
1913 Scottish Act, which this Bill attempts to amend. My objections to this Bill are twofold. Firstly, so far as I understand it, what it proposes to do for temperance is very small, while the extent to which it will prejudice the cause of progress and of temperance reform is very great. I am sure we all agree that the noble Viscount, by his speech to-day, as by his speech two years ago, has indicated not only his appreciation of the gravity of the problem, but his disinterested desire to deal with it. This Bill was introduced in 1922, first of all into another place, by Mr. Kidd. Mr. Kidd, I understand, is a solicitor who was in the House of Commons and is secretary of the Scottish Brewers' Association. This Bill has now been taken up by an association calling itself the Scottish Public-House Reform League, of which Lord Salvesen is president.
Less than a year ago your Lordships spent four days discussing and examining the drink question. As the result of those debates two points arose. It was clear that there were two aspects with which the community had to deal—the social aspect, and the political aspect. The political aspect is that side of the drink problem which I think your Lordships are most reluctant to face and to tackle. By "political aspect" I mean the attempt of one trade, the drink trade, to get such power as will enable it to prevent Governments interfering with its financial interests, and to apply such pressure on candidates and Members of Parliament as will enable it to dictate to the Legislature. Only the other day I was reading a speech made at a conference of members of the licensing trade in this country. A prominent speaker stated quite clearly that in the industrial city in which the conference was being held the drink trade controlled no fewer than two thousand votes in each of the five constituencies. That agrees very much with such estimate as I have been able to arrive at as to their electoral power. If you have one industry in this country able to control two thousand votes in every constituency—and the prosperity and welfare of that trade must inevitably clash and come into conflict with the welfare and development of the nation—there is created a political situation which we shall have to face and deal with quite apart from the physiological or social aspect.
1038
The political side of the drink problem does not merely affect England, and this is indicated by the Report of the Committee which was set up in 1917 by the Government. Your Lordships will remember that in that year the Government set up three bodies to consider proposed licensing legislation, and in the establishment of these three bodies the very best men were selected. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack was responsible for the personnel of the English Committee. It was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. Equal care was taken in selecting the personnel of the Scottish Committee, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline. It was a representative Scottish Committee, and it reported, without any dissentient voice, to this effect:—
"The trade in Scotland is highly organised; it is amply equipped with means. … The work of the Trade organisations becomes a not unimportant factor in political and municipal contests. … These organisations tend to prevent a free and unbiassed expression of opinion by voters."
I suggest that there could be nothing more undesirable than to have an industry which is able to prevent "a free and unbiassed expression of opinion by voters." This Committee went on to say:—
"In fact, under the present system the Trade undoubtedly wields great powers upon the voters and uses this power in its financial interests."
That is to say, that the political aspect of the drink question is a very real aspect in Scotland as well as in England.
It is difficult for many of your Lordships to realise the strength, power and methods adopted by this political organisation, because a large number of your Lordships have not come out actively on what I may call the side of temperance; and by temperance I mean such individual and collective action as is recommended by disinterested persons like the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and disinterested leaders of opinion who have an interest in the social and moral development and progress of the people of this country. All I say on this aspect is that this Bill does not touch the political side at all.
Then, as regards the social side, and by that I mean drunkenness and the effects

1039
of excessive drinking: the crime, poverty, ill-health, premature death, industrial inefficiency and demoralisation which follows an unwise and excessive consumption of alcohol. Let us see how far this Bill deals with this aspect. The position was stated quite clearly by Lord Dawson of Penn a year ago, when he said that he was of opinion that the consumption of alcohol in this country was excessive and that all disinterested persons were agreed that there should be a reduction in the consumption of intoxicants. Let us see how far this Bill proposes to carry out the object indicated by Lord Dawson of Penn—namely, a reduction in the consumption of intoxicants. As the noble Viscount pointed out in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, it is proposed to reduce a considerable number of redundant and unnecessary public-houses. That has already been done, but he proposes by the Bill to have it done on what he might call a scientific instead of an haphazard basis.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I distinctly stated that the reduction was suspended by the operation of the previous Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am speaking of the reduction which follows from the 1913 Act as the result of a plebiscite.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: So was I.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: A certain number of houses, about three or four hundred, have been closed as the result of a popular vote. If there are four public-houses at four opposite street corners and one is closed as being redundant, it does not follow that there will be a twenty-five per cent. reduction of the drinking in that locality. Far too much is made of the beneficent results which follow from the closing of redundant houses. The position was stated quite clearly by Lord Salveson in an article he wrote to the Scotsman, in which he said:
"The reduction of licences ensures benefit to those that remain."
That is to say, that a great deal of the custom which used to go to the house that has been closed will gravitate to those which remain, and there will not be a large reduction, or a considerable reduction, in drinking. The amount of help that is going to be given to reduc-
1040
tion of drink by this section of the Bill is very small.
Next we come to the proposal to establish a system of disinterested management, and I gather from the noble Viscount that he himself feels that this part of the Bill might be improved and strengthened. I entirely agree with him. By disinterested management we mean a system whereby not only the actual sellers of intoxicants over the counter, but the owners of houses themselves, have no financial interest in maintaining, or increasing, the sale of intoxicants, and that the trade is conducted by persons who want to carry out the object indicated by Lord Dawson of Penn—a reduction in the sale of intoxicants. Let us see how far this Bill carries out that object. One of the main features of disinterested management in Carlisle has been the abolition of external advertisements, advertisements which are intended to stimulate the popular demand. This Bill does not propose to do away with advertisements. They will still continue, and will still appear as invitations to the public to purchase the articles which are advertised. Secondly, this particular proposal deals only with new licences, of which I believe only a very small number are issued in Scotland every year. In the third place, it is proposed that the companies that are to deal with disinterested management are to consist of persons none of whom are to have a holding of more than £200 in value in the company.
The public-house under disinterested management will be in open competition not only with the improved or approved public-house, to which I am coming presently and which it is proposed to establish by this Bill, but also with the pure drink-shop and, indeed, with the badly-run drink-shop. I remember perfectly a brewer telling me of the difficulty which he experienced when he improved one of his premises because he was up against the unscrupulous competition of the pure drink-shop. This Bill does not touch that aspect of the question. What chance is there of the public subscribing the money necessary to run any large number of public-houses under disinterested management when these houses would be in open competition with the licensed trade and with the pure drink-shop? Lord Salvesen, in an article in the

1041
English Reveiw, admitted this. He said:—
"The necessary capital to run even a small proportion on disinterested lines would be extremely difficult to raise."
Accordingly, so far as this contribution to sobriety is concerned, the results would be infinitesimal.
There is surely one lesson which we have learnt both from Carlisle and from what are called "trust houses" in this country, and that is that in order to achieve any real results there has to be disinterested management not in isolated houses in a locality but over the whole area. I rather gather from the speech of the noble Viscount that he would tend to agree that if there are to be real and solid results from disinterested management there must be monopoly over the whole area. This Bill might have made a real contribution to the solution of the very difficult situation which exists in Scotland to-day if it had proposed to deal with this point. There are some areas which, on a previous poll, went "dry" and which have now gone "wet." There would have been a real opportunity for an experiment there. This Bill might have made provisions whereby a disinterested trust could have taken over the drink trade in such areas and run them on disinterested lines. That would have been a real contribution.
I agree entirely with the noble Viscount's remarks as to its being undesirable that the profits from the drink trade should go in relief of rates. I agree that it would be undesirable to have licensed premises owned by municipalities. But I can conceive, that it would have been quite easy to put forward a proposal whereby some statutory body might have taken over the drink trade and whereby all profits made in the locality would have gone to national interests. Lord Salvesen, in a letter explaining this Bill, pointed out that so far as disinterested management was concerned the Bill was drafted to "avoid conflict with vested interests." I think it is a great pity that it labours under that limitation, because if a Licensing Bill does not attempt to conflict with existing vested interests it can do very little for the cause of temperance. So as regards the proposals for disinterested management, I do not believe that they would touch one per cent., or
1042
one-half or one-quarter of one per cent., of the problem in Scotland to-day.
We come next to the proposal for the establishment of improved or approved public-houses. At first sight this is a very attractive proposal, for it is suggested that all licensed premises should be converted from mere drinking places into restaurants or cafés. One of the difficulties is that licensed premises have a double value. There is not only the value of the bricks and mortar and of the land, but there is an added value attached to the building—namely, the value of the licence. In England, for instance, the value of the licence is twice or thrice the value of the bricks and mortar. If a caterer wants to run a catering business and to start a restaurant, he is not going to pay £3,000 for a building which is worth only £1,000, if his main object is to serve food and reduce the sale of drink in that building. It is quite obvious that the profits on food in that establishment would cover only one-third of the capital which he put into the business, and if he did not maintain the sale of intoxicants, he would get no return on the money which he had put into the building.
We have also learnt another lesson from Carlisle and that is that, owing to custom, habit or climate, there is a demand for food only in a limited number of licensed premises. The economic demand for food is restricted to a minority of the licensed premises in Carlisle. The other day I read a very interesting contribution to this side of the drink question in the form of a speech made by an eminent King's Counsel in Court. A proposal was before the Court that an existing trust house should be taken over by a firm of brewers, Messrs. Barclay and Perkins, and used by them as an approved or improved public-house. This eminent King's Counsel was representing the licensed victuallers, who were opposing the proposed transfer; that is to say, he was voicing the opinion of men eminently qualified to express an opinion as to the real object and aim of the improved public-house. This is what he is reported to have said—
"There was I considerable difference between trust houses and Messrs. Barclay, Perkins. The trust house was a sort of temperance movement in the hands of persons who were disinterested about the sale of intoxicants. Messrs. Barclay on the other hand were a firm of brewers who were astute enough to see that if brewers were to

1043
continue to sell their beer they must offer better facilities. Behind it all was the sale of beer, and that was the difference between the system practised by trust houses and Barclay's system"—
of the improved or approved public house—a public house run by firms who are not disinterested about the sale of intoxicants. Nobody could have put the case against the improved public-house in the hands of brewers more clearly than this representative of the licensed victuallers. A majority of houses in Scotland, if this Bill were to pass, would still be drinking places and would not be, and could not be, restaurants or cafes. They would still be what Lord Salvesen has described as "temptations to insobriety."
One of the real failures of this Bill, so far as I am concerned, is the fact that it does not attempt to deal with the crux of the problem—namely, the conflict between the interests of the nation, which, as Lord Dawson said, are to check and reduce the consumption of intoxicants, and the interests of those who have invested their money in the Trade, which are in the direction of stimulating and increasing consumption. Is there any noble Lord who will get up to-day and say that in his opinion it would be in the interest of the nation largely to increase the consumption of brandy, rum, whisky and gin? A Trade agitation has been going on for a reduction in the Budget of the duties on spirits with the avowed object of increasing the consumption of brandy, spirits and gin. That indicates an irreconcilable conflict between those who have their money in the Trade and are forced to try to increase the consumption of intoxicants, and the interest of the community which must necessarily be to check, control and reduce it. So, as regards the temperance side, this Bill, I think, does not make any substantial contribution to the solution of the question, and, as I have indicated, I think it loads the scale against reform.
I have not the technical knowledge, particularly of licensing in Scotland, and I am not the person, to deal with the new vested interests which this Bill proposes to set up, but I would explain to your Lordships that this Bill proposes to impose upon Scotland a system which Scotland has never had, and refused to have some years ago, and that it proposes to give security of tenure to something like four-fifths of the licensed houses. The Bill, in substance and in fact, as I
1044
see it, would repeal the Act of 1913. After new vested interests have been created, and after there has been an interval of ten or eleven years, does any reasonable man imagine that the 1913 Act, or such clauses of it as are now proposed to be postponed, would be allowed to come automatically into operation? Of course not. Again I am indebted to Lord Salvesen, who said in an article published in the English Review:—
"Let us frankly confess that the plebiscite clauses of the 1913 Act must go as a condition precedent to"
such changes as are contemplated in this Bill. That is to say, the object of this Bill is to do away with the plebiscite clauses of the 1913 Act.
The noble Viscount, in introducing this Bill, referred to the failure of the 1913 Act in Scotland. I wonder what test he applies to the success or failure of that Act? Is the evidence of failure which satisfies him the fact that only something like thirty areas have adopted No-Licence resolutions under that Act? Frankly, I am amazed at the number of areas which have adopted No-Licence, because those polls took place in Scotland at a period when people at large were turning away from that control and restriction which had been imposed upon the country during the war. Those polls were taken at a time when, as the result of high taxation, all social and philanthropic bodies were short of money, when the temperance movement was very short of money, and when the licensed trade, on the other hand, was making larger profits than it had ever made before, and had much more money to spend. It would, indeed, be an odd remedy for the situation to say that because only a limited number had adopted this policy, therefore we should make it impossible for any others to adopt it,
Or is the test of failure that the worst areas have not adopted No-Licence? Communities are very like individuals, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that it is far easier for an individual who is not a confirmed drunkard to take the pledge than it is for a man who has lost all self-control as the result of drink. Communities which recognise the gravity of the drink problem, but which are not the worst communities in Scotland, have naturally been the first to adopt this policy. The fact that some of the worst

1045
have not done so yet is not an indication of failure.
Or is the test of failure the result which has been achieved in those localities which have adopted No-Licence resolutions? I read the other day a speech by a magistrate in a locality which has adopted 6uch a, policy and confirmed its adoption at a subsequent election. The magistrate stated that whereas in that area, the police court had been required to sit always upon one day, and occasionally two days a week formerly, now it only sat upon one day a month and very frequently it did not sit oftener than once in six weeks. That is an enormous gain for that locality.
Take the convictions for drunkenness. I could quote to your Lordships figures from Dumbartonshire, or Fifeshire, or Orkney, giving you the convictions for drunkenness for the last three "wet" years and the first three "dry" years—not figures comparing post-war with prewar conditions, but both dealing with post-war periods. Those figures indicate, in an overwhelming number of cases, a reduction not by a half, not by a quarter, but to a twentieth; that is to say, if you take the convictions for drunkenness for the last three "wet" years and compare them with the first three "dry" years, you find they have been reduced by over 90 per cent. Think what that means to many a home in those localities, where there is now only one conviction and where previously there were twenty. We are bound to take cognisance of these facts when dealing with great social questions like that of temperance. I see no test which would warrant the practical repeal of the operation of the Scottish 1913 Act. I say frankly that if your test had been that the Act did not allow the electors of localities to choose an alternative to Prohibition or an alternative to the present system, I think that a very strong case might have been made out, but this Bill does not propose to remedy that defect, if defect it be.
Lastly, I am going to say that I see no indication of any general sentiment in Scotland either in favour of this Bill or against the 1913 Act. This Bill was introduced first in 1922. It is significant that of the twelve members of another place who backed it only two were returned at the next Election. That fact does not seem to indicate that their constituents rallied round them to
1046
return them to Parliament because they had been associated with this Bill. Since the Bill was first introduced to the Legislature there have been two Elections in Scotland, and I understand that the majority of the Scottish Members, taking them as a whole and including all Parties, are pledged to the existing Act. There is another indication of popular opinion which I propose to take. Your Lordships know that a candidate, when he comes before a constituency, states in his Election address those proposals which he will support and which he thinks will win him popular favour. He puts into it also the policy which he will oppose. I say that if there were any general feeling against the 1913 Act, a large number of the candidates at either the last Election or the previous one would have invited the support of the electors in their constituencies on the ground that they were out to disembowel or repeal the Act of 1913.
I once had a public debate with an eminent Scottish Member of Parliament, a K.C., who had always spoken against the side of what I call temperance, and I asked him—we were debating Local Option—whether, at the previous Election, he had in his Election Address advocated either the repeal or the serious amendment of the 1913 Act. He said, "No." I asked him whether, when he next came before his constituents, he proposed to do that He said, "No." The fact that the majority of the candidates did not advocate this Bill in their Election Addresses, and did not advocate either the repeal or the substantial disembowelment of the 1913 Act, indicates that in their view there was not any very large volume of opinion among the voters against the 1913 Act, or in favour of this Bill.
Before sitting down I want to quote the opinion of one who, I think, should carry great weight with your Lordships, and that is Mr. Kidd, who first introduced this Bill. He, after all, had an opportunity of seeing what his constituents felt about the proposal. He had been definitely associated with the measure, and your Lordships will agree with me that it was likely to be a live issue in his constituency. I have here the account in the West Lothian Courier for October 24, 1924, of a meeting which was addressed by Mr. Kidd. That report begins with

1047
an account of the arrival of the candidate; he was a Conservative, and it is quite evident that he was talking to his supporters. The newspaper describes the enthusiastic demonstration in support of him when he stepped on the platform. Mr. Kidd made a speech outlining his policy, and this is what he is reported to have said:—
"He gave an undertaking that he would neither by voice nor vote do anything to disturb the present position of the licensing law."
A very significant fact is that Mr. Kidd, who gave that pledge, was addressing a largely Conservative gathering and this remark was received, according to the newspaper, with applause. His Conservative supporters in his constituency agreed with him, therefore, in that statement.
I will give only one other extract. There is in Scotland a system, which I think originated in that country, of heckling. In an account of another meeting, I notice that a gentleman in the audience, Bailie M'Kenzie, is reported to have asked Mr. Kidd whether he intended to reintroduce his Bill. What was Mr. Kidd's answer? He said:
"No, I do not want to discuss that Bill. Its death is complete."
That is what the originator of this Bill said when asked at the last Election whether he intended to resurrect it. I say, with emphasis, that we should be unwise to try to put life into a dead Bill, and that it would be as politically suicidal for us as Conservatives to adopt a Bill which its originator himself refuses to discuss as it would be unconstitutional for us, as a branch of the Legislature, to try to impose upon Scotland a system to which the electors of Scotland and the elected representatives from Scotland have shown that they are so overwhelmingly opposed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, it is at least presumptuous or, if I might use an ecclesiastical term, temerarious, for an Englisman, and a fortiori for an English Bishop, to thrust himself into the little known and vexed area of Scottish questions. And yet this question of temperance is not, of course, merely a Scottish question, although, when my steps are led to Glasgow on a Saturday evening, I can well appreciate the reasons which lead Scotsmen to claim a kind of
1048
primacy in the matter of temperance legislation. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in any detail over his very interesting speech, but I will allow myself two or three general observations on the things that he said.
He animadverted with some energy on what he called the political influence of the liquor interest. With great respect I would suggest to him that that malefic influence, respecting which he feels so strongly, is very largely the creation of himself and his friends. What I mean is this. If you ask why it is that there is a political influence attaching to this great industry which does not touch the other great organised industries, I think you will be led to two causes, one comparatively unimportant, the other very important indeed. One is that this particular industry is exceedingly ill-organised from the point of view of the nation, and the second;—and this is the more important—is that this interest, and this interest alone, is subjected to a continuing criticism and attack which, I must say, speaking for myself, seems to me to lack both candour and justice. Remove those causes, and there is no reason why this great industry, which ministers to a most important and legitimate need of the nation, should not take its place with other organised interests in the general sum of the national life, instead of provoking those extreme and strong moral repugnances which apparently it produces at present.
The other general observation which I want to make is this. The noble Viscount said that it was common ground that there is an excessive consumption of alcohol in this country. What is the, means by which you determine what is an excessive consumption of alcohol? I think we ought to be on our guard against what I will call the hypnotism of large statistics. It is a constant practice of the noble Viscount and his friends to parade the vast sums of money spent on alcoholic beverages. Before you can estimate what that means, whether it indicates an excessive expenditure or not, you must be able to see that expenditure in comparison with all the other items of normal human expenditure. Let us know what has been spent upon amusements, upon dress, upon butchers' meat, upon any other object which enters into the general expenditure of the citizen, and only then can we say whether or not

1049
the large expenditure on alcohol is or is not excessive. And remember this, when he asked us whether there is any one who desires that there should be an increase in the expenditure on whisky or brandy or any other alcoholic beverage, the answer is that we all know that there will be an increase if the people become more prosperous and have more to spend; and we desire that they should become more prosperous, and we know that, if they do, they will be relieved from the necessity of making many sacrifices which at present, under our commercial depression, they have to make.
I have always felt in these discussions that we are too much influenced by these general observations about excess. Of course, I do not wish to be supposed to deny that there are many and grave evils which come from excessive indulgence in alcoholic beverages. I believe doctors say that the physical ills which come from over-eating are even more widely distributed and hardly less grave than those which are due to excessive indulgence in alcohol. Be that as it may, we are required as good citizens and responsible legislators to do everything in our power to deal with the matter by legislation.
I am not going to follow the noble Viscount into a detailed criticism of his Bill. This is a Second Reading debate, and I apprehend that a Second Heading debate concerns itself with three things. First of all, it concerns iteslf with the question whether the objects which a measure proposes to effect are good objects and whether they are right; secondly, it concerns itself with the question whether the measure proceeds on sound principles or assumptions; and, thirdly, it asks whether it presents a scheme which has a reasonable prospect of working out successfully. Those three general questions must be in our minds, and our answers to them, I suppose, will determine the vote we cast when we are asked whether this Bill is to be read a second time or not.
I ask myself what are the objects of this Bill? I apprehend that they are four. It desires to establish in the place of the existing drink-shop an improved type of public-house which recent marked changes in English society have rendered extremely necessary. There are two
1050
great changes which have passed over English society and are telling upon the demand for a new kind of public-house. The first change is the new mobility of the people in vast numbers. The people are now passing freely over the country and are requiring some provision for their refreshment. The second is the great change in the relations of the sexes, which requires that that provision shall be such that both sexes can use it with equal comfort and propriety. I take it your Lordships will agree that this object of providing an improved type of public-house which shall match the new kind of demand which is now being made, is a good object.
The second object of the Bill is disinterested management; that is a point to which many experienced temperance reformers attach great importance. I cannot be sure that they do not exaggerate the importance that belongs to it, but that it is desirable that those who sell alcoholic beverages should themselves be without any personal interest in the amount they sell—that is, the amount consumed by individual consumers—seems apparent, and I shall take leave to assume that this object is a good one.
The third object is to reduce the number of public-houses in areas where they are plainly too numerous. Any one who remembers the haphazard way in which the population has been gathered, and in which public-houses have been distributed, cannot dispute that there is a case for reducing the number of public-houses. We in this country have accepted that view and redundant public-houses have been removed in many districts, with very happy results. But I think there are a good many districts where we want more public-houses. I lived for some time in London, over the border, and I was enormously struck by the ills which resulted from the small number of public houses which existed to supply a vast end rapidly increasing population. There was a strong total abstinence prejudice there against any new licences and public-houses were set down in certain areas and not in others, with the worst possible result. If an intelligent survey could have been made of the district and some reasonable relation between provision and demand had been established, so that public-houses in sufficient numbers and of the

1051
right type could have been provided for the in-coming people, I am persuaded that temperance in the community would have been advanced and not prejudiced. I take it we shall all agree that the suppression of redundant public-houses is, in itself, a good thing.
The last object is fair compensation to those whose trade is destroyed, levied on those who, by virtue of that destruction, have their trade increased. I must confess that I do not like the idea of being good at the expense of other people, and I think it is most demoralising to everybody concerned that we should satisfy our own consciences thus cheaply. Therefore I had some doubts as to whether it was really equitable to raise compensation in this way, but after reflection and remembering how great is the addition to the trade of other houses by the suppression of those which are superfluous, I came to the conclusion that this also was a good object. I therefore accept this Bill in the first place as one the objects of which will bear examination.
I pass, then, to an examination of the assumptions or principles upon which the Bill is constructed and I distinguish two. The first is—and this is a very vital assumption which, as the noble Viscount reminded us, will ultimately have to be faced—that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is legitimate and, in moderation, salutary. The second assumption is that this consumption ought to proceed under wholesome conditions. In the long run the temperance legislation that we adopt will have to be determined by the objective which we have in our minds, and to which we are attempting to move. It is impossible any longer to conceal the fact that the so-called organised temperance movement is proceeding or the lines, and with the arrière pensée in the minds of its advocates, that the ideal to reach is Prohibition. That ideal is sometimes confessed and sometimes carefully concealed, but the great determining principle upon which their proposals are based is that it is a step towards the desirable object of universal Prohibition. I consider that that objective is not a sound one and, therefore, I separate myself wholly from all its consequences. Those who have in their minds the secret hope of ultimate Prohibition and who believe that that policy of violent restriction is legitimate will oppose this Bill, but other men will regard it with a certain benevolence.
1052
A clause in this Bill which will attract attention is that which suspends for eleven years the Act of 1913, and that will be very offensive naturally to the advocates of that measure; but it seems to me a very attractive feature of the Bill. Too frequent elections are the bane of modern democracy; they are one of its principal dangers and one of the chief reasons for the contempt into which it has fallen. Is it reasonable that a great self-governing and self-respecting community should be required every third year to go over again the question whether it will or will not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages? That seems to me an insult to the intelligence of the community. It is not reasonable that it should be so, and here I speak professionally. It is my business to know how Acts operate in the life of parishes and there is nothing more unwholesome in a parish than the kind of agitation and excitement which this sort of election causes amongst the people. It is resented most strongly by some of them; it is urged with fanatical ardour by others. It breaks up the harmony of a parochial community, and creates mischief in many directions. But the clause is, I think, an integral part of the Bill, alike as to its policy and finance, and, as I have said, it seems to me to have considerable merits of its own.
I do not exaggerate the practical results which legislation can effect. I am one of those who believe that very little can really be effected in the reformation of public morals and the shaping of social habits by legislation, but this Bill is a substantial measure of reform which deprives no man of his natural liberty, prejudices no man in his lawful interests, imposes no fresh burden on the taxpayer, and sums up and expresses the lessons of experience. Discussion in Committee may, no doubt, disclose defects and those defects may be remedied in Committee. But in its broad lines I submit that this measure deserves your Lordships' support on Second Beading. It has the promise of a really useful measure which might bring about a general change for the better in Scottish life.
Temperance, which we all desire to promote, will gain by the improvement of social conditions, and by the rising standard of genuine self-respect. It stands to benefit by everything that strengthens individual responsibility, and it stands to suffer by everything that im-

1053
pinges upon lawful personal independence. Therefore it is that I am opposed to all legislation which can be said to come under the censure of that view. Temperance means ultimately an appreciation of the right exercise of moral liberty. You must accept the risk of that liberty; you must not adventure upon the unsound policy of attempting to restrain. This measure will assist, in some degree, the moral progress of the community, and will do something, I think, although only a little, to remedy the gross and scandalous outrage of Scottish life.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I always much admire the speeches of the right rev. Prelate, and to-day he has spoken with his customary eloquence upon his own familiar lines in this matter. But I cannot help thinking that in some of the speeches to which we have listened there has been a good deal of travelling away from the point. The point lies in a comparatively narrow compass, and it is a very simple one. In Scotland the position is quite different from that in England in this respect. For the last twelve years we, have had an Act which Parliament passed with general approval, the Temperance (Scotland) Act of 1913. That Act says that the people of the community may vote and may decide either that there are to be no licences, or that there is to be unrestricted power of licensing, or that there is to be a limitation of the power of licensing.
When that Act was passed—and I rather think that I belonged to the Government that passed it—there were some of us who thought that it was not an Act which would have any very direct effect. We did not expect to see the Scottish people go bald headed in favour of Prohibition. But then that was not the whole point that we had before us. What we thought was that if the Scottish public had this instrument of correction in their hands it would have a considerable effect, that public opinion would become more potent, and so far as my observations have gone, and I have had some opportunity of observation at fairly close quarters, that has been the result. Quite true, there has been very little absolute prohibition by local option. Quite true, in some cases the decision come to has been reversed, but when it has been reversed, so far as my inquiries inform me, it has always been reversed
1054
with consequences which have been inherited from the time when a more stringent view was taken.
Undoubtedly, progress has been made in temperance in Scotland, not as fast as some people would like nor as slow as other people would like, but that there is progress there is no manner of doubt. When you inquire into the number of convictions and note the information you get from those who have the best opportunity of observation, you find that is so. I put that down, a good deal at all events, to the fact that the public have got in their hands an instrument by which they can bring about a better state of things, and by which if in any locality, be it a town or country district, there is a sense that the public-house system is being abused, the inhabitants can control it. It is a weapon of considerable potency, although it is a weapon which very conservative people are very loth to put into operation. I am one of those who believe that when institutions have the power of moulding views, and when it is possible to mould them, and when there is a good public opinion behind, that that public opinion operates.
The noble Viscount who introduced this Bill referred to what he considered my rather conservative attitude about this House, and the absence of any necessity for making any drastic reform in its constitution. I am not conservative in that at all. I am one of those, who recognise that this House has responded excellently to public opinion, and what I am pointing out to your Lordships now is that public opinion has operated in Scotland. Scotland has been placed by the Act of 1913 in. such a position that it is able to assert its public opinion, and the consequence of that has told very well.
What is it that this Bill proposes to do? To begin with, it proposes to sweep away the Act of 1913. It proposes to suspend for eleven years the operation of the first five sections. That is, in effect, a repeal. It then proposes to set up another kind of public-house, a public-house which shall have statutory security of tenure, analogous to something set up in England under the noble Earl who sits opposite (the Earl of Balfour) when he was at the head of the Government which passed an Act in the year, I think, 1903. In Scotland nothing is known of any such tenure. It has never been unfamiliar in

1055
England, because when the late Lord Halsbury gave the judgment of this House in the great case of Sharp v. Wakefield he was only saying that you could not control the action of the magistrates in refusing to renew licences. He was not saying there was any custom, which afterwards received the recognition of law, that licences should be renewed when there was no reason why they should be forfeited. That has never been the practice in Scotland. That has not been the custom of the country. In Scotland the magistrates have the freest power of refusing any licence, and they do so whenever they think it is for the good of the community that a licence should be refused. But the noble Viscount with his Bill proposes to sweep that away, and to substitute for the principle we have now another principle which is unfamiliar to us in Scotland.
I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time. I only want to say that I think this is a Bill which will meet, as it goes on, with a great deal more opposition than it has received in the first instance. We are not discussing the question which the right rev. Prelate discussed. We are not discussing the general question of temperance in Scotland. We are discussing the question of whether we are to retain possession of this instrument given in 1913, which has proved a valuable instrument, not in the things it has done in the interest either of the extreme temperance people or of the brewers, but in forming the hand which public opinion has been able to exercise and which public opinion has exercised with good effect. It is not that there are many No-Licence resolutions passed, or that they are likely to be passed, but it is that the people know, and those who are responsible know, that if they do not conduct their business properly the local people will be very apt to pass, as they have sometimes done, a No-Licence resolution, with the result that a clean sweep will be made. That is something on which we set great store in Scotland.
I have had many representations in the last few days made to me about it. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is right in saying that a majority of Scottish members are pledged to maintain the Act of 1913, but I should be much surprised if they were not. At any rate, I am quite
1056
sure that the great body of public opinion in Scotland is very much averse to taking away the system we now have, and I shall listen with great interest to the statement which is to be made on behalf of the Government as to their attitude to this Bill. My own impression of the Bill is that it will perish of anæmia.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, there are two circumstances which combine to render our discussion on the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill to-day of a rather academic character. In the first place, the Session is already far advanced, and whatever may be the fate of this Bill here, even were your Lordships to pass it, there would be no prospect whatever of its making any progress in another place. The second point is that quite recently the Government have agreed to set up an Inquiry which will traverse at least part of the ground covered by this Bill, and in these circumstances these matters must be regarded as sub judice. It is obviously impossible for the Government to pronounce upon principles which will be involved in the Inquiry that has been promised.
Within the last year or two there has been more than one Bill before your Lordships of a similar character to this, and I think on two occasions—certainly on one occasion—your Lordships have gone so far as to express the opinion that you are at all events in favour of the principle that it is desirable that public-houses in this country should be improved. The description of the approved public-house which it is the object of this Bill to set up is of a character which will appeal to many of your Lordships as having a good deal to commend it. An approved public-house is to be a place where the provision of refreshments and non-alcoholic beverages is made obligatory, where the rooms are to be airy and commodious and equipped with tables, and where adequate sitting and sanitary accommodation is provided, so that the houses may be suitable for use as places of general refreshment and not merely as places for the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It is certainly the case that a great number of the public-houses in Scotland do not correspond to that description. The opposite type of public-house is all too common. I refer to the places which are mere drinking shops and where the seating

1057
accommodation is insufficient, where, indeed, the space available is no more than sufficient for customers who are actually drinking. In a place of that sort, when a man has finished drinking he has to go out and make room for the next customer, and under those conditions, if a man has nowhere else to go except, perhaps, a none too comfortable home, possibly overcrowded, or else the street corner, if he succumbs to the temptation and takes too much, it is perhaps only fair to lay a share of the responsibility on the conditions to which I have referred.
Apart from the approved public-house, to which I shall return in a moment, this Bill contains two provisions which are intended to contribute towards the promotion of temperance. The first is the principle of disinterested management, which is introduced under Clause 6. This clause, after providing that no new licence shall be given to any except an approved public-house, goes on to provide, in subsection (2), that in the event of there being competing applications for new licences the application for a licence under disinterested management shall receive the preference. In view of the Inquiry to which I have already referred, it would be highly improper on my part to enter on a discussion of the merits or demerits of disinterested management, and the only point I wish to make in this connection, so far as this Bill is concerned, is that, whatever its merits or demerits, the effect of this provision cannot be other than small. There are, to-day, in Scotland somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 licences in force. Of this number about 5,000 licences are public-house licences, which would be affected, but in any case the new licences which are granted are very small in number indeed. If I may take 1923 as a typical year, as I think it is, only fifteen new licences were granted. Even assuming that there was an application under disinterested management in every one of those cases—and it is not an assumption which it would be fair to make—the progress of disinterested management could not but be very minute.
The second provision to which I referred is that for reduction. The scheme for reduction is contained in Clause 17, which provides for a reduction of one-
1058
fifth in the total number of licensed premises over a period of eleven years, subject to the payment of compensation. But subsection (2) of this clause goes on to provide that the scheme is not to be obligatory in localities where the number of licensed premises does not exceed one per thousand of the population, or in sparsely populated areas where the number of licensed premises, though exceeding that proportion, is not in excess of the needs of the locality. The noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, made the point that the Ace of 1913 had resulted in greater difficulties so far as the decrease of licences was concerned. That must be largely a matter of opinion. It is difficult to form a definite conclusion from the figures. For the purposes of comparison I have here the figures for the last eleven years. It is clear from subsection (2) that the reduction would not be so large as one-fifth, on account of the qualifications. But during the last eleven years, that is from 1013 to 1923, the total number of licences has actually been reduced by wastage and other causes from 10,275 to 8,875—a reduction of 1,400. I mention these figures because they show that something comparable to the reduction which is proposed under the Bill has already been going on, and the proposed reduction would be made by virtue of setting up the compensation scheme, which is a very complicated and controversial part of this Bill.
In dealing with the question of compensation it is light to remind your Lordships that any scheme for compensation in Scotland would be on a very different footing from that which is actually in existence in England, and I may perhaps read to your Lordships a paragraph bearing upon this point from the Report of the Committee under Lord Shaw of Dunfermline which was set up in 1917 in regard to State purchase. The Report says:—
"The contrast between the two cases has been often publicly recognised, and in the House of Lords on August 9th, 1904, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Secretary for Scotland from 1895 until 1903, stated, with, so far as the Committee is aware, the entire approval of all sections of the community in Scotland, the matter thus on the question of the provisions for the extinction of licences by way of compensation for the Trade: 'If anything in the nature of the English Bill were to apply to Scotland, we should be in an infinitely worse position than at the present time. I am apprehensive that an attempt may be made to extend

1059
the general principle of this Bill to Scotland. and I wish to take this opportunity of saying that there is such a difference in the circumstances of the two countries that it would be an act of gross injustice to apply the principle in this Bill to the country north of the Tweed.'"
I have to remind your Lordships that since those words were used in this House the Act of 1913, with its notice of seven years, has been passed and has, I think, had a further effect in differentiating the case for compensation in Scotland from that which exists in England.
At this point I should like to say that whatever your Lordships may see fit to do with this Bill, even assuming that you were to give it a Second Reading to-day, the Government must not be held to approve of the very big changes which it proposes. There are several very large principles involved. There is the question of compensation, there is the whole question of the suspension of the 1913 Act, and there-is the question of security of tenure. All those are matters of the greatest importance which can be changed only after full consideration and on the responsibility of the Government.
In view of the circumstances attending the two provisions of the Bill to which I have referred—namely, disinterested management and the reduction of licences—I think the case for the Bill as a temperance measure must stand or fall on the case which can be made for the approved public-house. The real test is whether or not the introduction of the approved public-house will tend to diminish over-indulgence in intoxicating liquors.
The description of the approved public-house is contained in Clause 2 of the Bill, and I am bound to point out to your Lordships that even cursory examination of those provisions reveals certain difficulties in the way. First of all, there is the question of food. I think we all sympathise with the noble Viscount's desire to escape from the drudgery of the domestic rice pudding—I think that was what he said—but we already have in existence in Scotland a good many places where licensing courts have by-laws which provide that the sale of food shall be carried on in the house. That, as your Lordships know, I think, from previous discussions in this House, often does not
1060
result in more than a plate of biscuits on the counter and perhaps the scrag end of a neck of mutton somewhere in the background. The fact is that unless an economic demand for food exists no number of by-laws will create it.
The question of by-laws, again, affords difficulties, I think, from an administrative point of view. It is stated in Clause 2 that the licensing court is to frame by-laws dealing with the structure of the building and the conditions under which the business is to be conducted. It is very difficult to visualise by-laws which will be more definite than the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2. I think it would really be bound to come to this, that licensing courts would have to deal with each case on its merits, having regard to the plans and the alterations proposed. Again, paragraph (d) of Clause 2 stipulates that the by-laws shall be designed to secure that the public-house
"is not managed or served by a person who is remunerated by a salary or commission the amount of which depends upon the profits made by the sale of exciseable liquors."
That, I think, is a further tribute to the principle of disinterested management, but if that is so it hardly seems to me to go far enough, because it is quite clear that circumstances might very easily exist, in fact would often exist, in which the precise amount of the salary or commission of the manager or servant would not be of so much importance to him as the retention of his job, and in its turn the retention of his job would depend upon the satisfaction that he gave to his employer, and this would necessarily bear relation to the profit which he made in carrying on the business.
I wish to make it clear that I do not put forward these difficulties as being necessarily fatal to the principle of the approved public-house, but it is really no use discussing the matter unless we are prepared to face the facts. It is no use blinking the difficulties which do abound in this most difficult and controversial subject. I need hardly say that the Government is entirely in sympathy with the object which the noble Viscount has in view in introducing this Bill. That I understand to be the promotion of temperance and, generally speaking, the improvement of conditions, and I think the House is under an obligation to the noble Viscount for having brought the

1061
matter forward. The discussion of it cannot but be of benefit.
THF EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: My Lords, I have waited with some anxiety to hear what were the views of His Majesty's Government in regard to this measure, and I confess that it was with a sense of, I will not say profound, but considerable relief that I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It appears from what he has said that we are to regard this for all practical purposes as a purely academic discussion, for indeed it is obvious to anybody who is acquainted with the methods of Parliament that this Bill would have no chance whatsoever of reaching the Statute Book unless it were taken up by His Majesty's Government and pressed not only through this House but through the other House. That, we are assured, is not going to be the case, and therefore we must content ourselves with the satisfaction that we have had the expression of a number of pious opinions, as to which, I believe, there is very little difference of view, and a number of more or less fruitful, more or less destructive suggestions.
I have been associated during my political life with a good deal of what is called temperance legislation. I remember—I think it must be now seventeen years ago—piloting through the House of Commons, which devoted weeks and even months of its time to the purpose, an elaborate and comprehensive scheme based upon the principle of what is called Local Option or Local Control, subject, as we then thought, and as I still think, to generous and even tender terms as regards the Trade in the matter of a time limit. That Bill passed the House of Commons, but it was not fortunate enough to receive your Lordships' approbation. It suffered, I will not say a premature, or even untimely, but a summary end, when it came within these walls.
The next attempt, on a much more modest scale, for which I and my colleagues were responsible, was the Scottish Temperance Act of 1913, which this Bill proposes, in effect, to repeal. There is no use disguising it—to put off its operation, to suspend it, for eleven years is, in effect, to deal it a mortal blow. That was a measure confined to Scotland alone, and I think for good reasons. In
1062
the first place, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has reminded us, the distinguished Scottish statesman, his own relative, who knew, I suppose, as much of Scottish affairs and Scottish opinion as any one who has been in Parliament in my lifetime, pointed out when the Licensing Bill of 1904 was before the House—as the noble Lord has most appropriately quoted—that the law and condition of England and Scotland in this matter were wholly dissimilar one from another. Scottish opinion was, if I may say so, much more ripe for an attempt at the experiment of Local Option than opinion in England was, or at present is, so far as I can judge it, and we passed that measure, not without strenuous conflict and serious differences of opinion between the two Houses, but we passed it by agreement in a form which was a compromise between opposing views, and was assented to or acquiesced in by all Parties.
It was an experiment—avowedly an experiment—and comments have been made by the noble Viscount who opened the discussion, and by others, upon what they describe as its comparatively insignificant results. Insignificant judged by what test? If, indeed, it had been a measure which, under the guise of Local Option, was intended by its friends—and that seems to be the view which the right rev. Prelate takes—to bring about Prohibition, I agree that the results would not be striking in magnitude, but that was not the intention either of its friends or of either House of Parliament when giving assent to it. The intention was to enable people in Scotland, in different localities, to say whether or not they would have houses licensed for the sale of intoxicants at all, or whether they considered the present number to be redundant or only adequate, and whether, in fact, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the existing condition of things. A measure of that kind would not have been possible unless it had sub stantial support from Scottish opinion and I here make my first criticism upon the present Bill.
I have a perfectly open mind in regard to what I may call the experimental treatment of the temperance question. I have always said, and I still hold that opinion, that we should have the widest possible latitude, or at any rate give facilities for the widest possible latitude,

1063
of experiment, consistent with public interest and public safety in regard to this most—I will not say dangerous trade, but this traffic which needs, above all others, to be rigorously supervised and controlled. If I thought the positive proposals of this Bill, in the form in which they are presented to us, would provide a new avenue for the increase of temperance, and a diminution of the excessive consumption of liquor, I should be disposed to regard the Bill not only with tolerance but with favour. I think, however, that the remarks just made by the noble Lord who sits upon the Government Bench are sufficient to show that, from a constructive point of view, it holds out the slenderest and most meagre hopes of reform, either in the shape of disinterested management or in the multiplication of those idealised or so-called improved public-houses.
Has it any backing in Scottish opinion? The right rev. Prelate said that he regarded with abhorrence, and at any rate repugnance, the multiplication of Elections. That may be an undemocratic sentiment, but I am not sure that I do not share it, and I will tell the House why. In the last five years, since the month of January, 1920, I have gone through four contested Elections, which I believe to be a unique experience, and all in Scotland. It is true that in the last resort I was getting wearied of Elections, and apparently my constituents were getting wearied of me, otherwise I should not now have the privilege of addressing this House; but this testimony I can bear, and I believe it will be corroborated by every Scottish candidate, whether successful or unsuccessful at the polls, that during the whole of those four Elections I never had a hint or suggestion from any elector—hardly, I think, from any of those outside organisations which interfere so mischievously with the conduct of Elections in these days—that there was any objection to the Act of 1913, or any suggestion from any of my own constituents, or from outside, that there was any opinion in Scotland in favour of such a measure as this.
I believe this measure to be without any real backing in Scotland, just as I believe that the Scottish Temperance Act. although on paper the result may not seem to be striking, is supported by a large body of opinion in Scotland, who would look upon its disappearance as a
1064
deliberate withholding from the people, and the abrogation, of the power which every candidate in Scotland believes the people ought to possess of keeping control over this most important and dangerous trade. So that you are dealing here with proposals, so far as I am aware, that are as academic in their origin as we know now that this debate and this Bill are in their legislative aspects.
But I cannot leave the matter there. The Bill, I believe, will be nugatory so far as it makes constructive proposals. All the same, it is a measure of a highly revolutionary character. It proposes, it is true, a compulsory reduction in the number of licences, but, to carry that into effect, it proposes to import into Scotland the machinery of compensation, totally unknown and uncongenial to the soil and to the atmosphere of Scotland, borrowed from one of the legislative experiments, of which I say nothing in the way of criticism, for it applied only to England, of my noble friend opposite, and of which, as we have been reminded, and as I have already repeated to you, Lord Balfour of Burleigh declared that it was wholly alien and foreign to anything in the Scottish character and practice. That is the first change of a revolutionary character.
What is the next? The next is the repeal of the power which Parliament in 1913 deliberately conferred upon the localities. I should like to quote, in regard to that matter, one passage which, I think, has not yet been cited in this debate from the Report of the Committee, presided over by Lord Shaw, which was appointed, as the Government have told us, some few years ago. This is the unanimous finding of that Committee:—
"The power of the communities in Scotland over the prohibition and restriction of licences has, in the Act of 1913. reached a clear and definite stage. What has been accomplished after a protracted struggle Cannot be surrendered. … What was agreed upon on all hands was that any measure"—
such as State purchase, which was what they were specifically considering—
"which deprived the local authorities of the powers of local option won for them under the Act would be a public wrong."
That is not merely the view of what are called fanatical temperance advocates, for the Committee—and they were unanimous—add:
"The Committee shares this opinion."

1065
This Bill flies directly in the face of that solemn and deliberate finding by a thoroughly competent, impartial, independent body. I am satisfied that an attempt to take away that which, by general consent, was given to the localities of Scotland under the legislation of 1913 would, as the Committee there report, be regarded as surrendering a privilege which had been hardly won, and which the people desired vigilantly and jealously to maintain.
Those appear to me to be, in themselves, amply sufficient grounds why Parliament should not commit itself to legislation of this kind, on the constructive side shadowy, conjectural, contingent, in the highest degree doubtful, and, on the negative side, when it comes, to deal with the existing state of things, destructive and revolutionary. I should therefore, if the matter had not, from the declaration of the Government, been reduced to academic dimensions, have felt myself compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, after what has fallen from the noble Earl and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on behalf of the Government, it would be unwise of me to do what I had intended to do—namely, to state my objections to this Bill—but I may in a few sentences express my views on one or two of the essential points at issue. I feel, with other speakers who have not a direct connection with Scotland, that I am hardly qualified to intervene in this debate upon a Scottish Licensing Bill, but many years ago I sat upon the Royal Commission on Licensing which did survey the licensing conditions in Scotland, and which reported in the year 1899, and one of the recommendations, signed by myself, which appeared in the Report was that the people were to have a direct measure of popular control after five years' time. The House will realise that the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1917, extended that time limit by three years, and I feel that the overwhelming feeling in Scotland would be, and is, opposed to that part of the Bill which seems to suspend, and virtually to repeal, the Local Option clauses in that Act.
The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has referred
1066
to extreme temperance reformers. I should be very glad if people would realise that at all events those with whom I am associated with regard to any temperance effort belong to that school of thought which desires to support any measure which can be proved to be of real advantage to the cause of general sobriety. I am not in favour of the proposal in this Bill of setting up a new type of approved public-house. I do not oppose that proposal because I am unconcerned in regard to the state of licensed premises, but because, in the first place, I think that those conditions in regard to a right state of the premises are already, or should be, enforced by the existing law, and, in the second place, I think that what is proposed in this Bill on that point would cause considerable difficulty and danger which would, I fear, more than counterbalance any advantage which would result from it. The line of cleavage between the two schools of thought on this point is not, on the one hand, of interest in the right conditions concerning licensed premises, and, on the other, of opposition to such conditions; the whole point is whether such legislation as is proposed in this Bill would bring about those improved conditions which are necessary from any standpoint of true citizenship. I do not know whether the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill intends to go to a Division, but if he does I feel so strongly the objections to this measure that I shall vote against it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, but I find myself so unable to agree with many of the statements made by the right rev. Prelate who spoke earlier in the debate that I should like to take this opportunity of expressing a somewhat different point of view I am not speaking as a Prohibitionist. I do not believe in Prohibition. I do not believe that Prohibition would ever be practicable in this country. I believe in the reformed public-house, owned and managed by the State, and I welcome the measure which has been introduced by the noble Viscount in so far as it is intended to promote the reformed public-house.
But the measure is open to very grave objections. It is drastic in its methods in attempting to promote the reformed public-house. It sweeps away the Scot-

1067
tish Temperance Act of 1913 which has not been in operation for a sufficient time to have had a fair trial. Moreover, it introduces into the Scottish law a principle hitherto unknown to it by giving to the licensed house a statutory security of tenure. This principle is, and has been for some time, known to our English law, and many of us have felt that such legal security of tenure has been a serious hindrance in the way of temperance legislation. There is another difficulty in the way of this measure. Recently, the Government promised an Inquiry into the experiment which has been associated with the City of Carlisle, This Inquiry will give us further information about the success or failure of the disinterested management of public-houses, and it seems to me to be premature to pass a measure of the kind introduced by the noble Viscount until the results of the Carlisle experiment are fully known.
I differed, most of all, I think, from the right rev. Prelate in his whole-hearted advocacy of this measure when he spoke as if the evils that arise from intemperance are to be compared with those which arise from over-eating and other things of the kind. He ended his eloquent speech with the statement that he supported this measure because it would do something at any rate to remove the gross and scandalous outrage of Scottish drunkenness. I doubt whether he would be able to apply those remarks to Scottish gluttony. I hope this measure will not receive the assent of your Lordships' House, because it seems to me to be entirely premature to accept it until we know what are the results of the Inquiry which has been promised by the Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with my noble friend who represents the Scottish Office in your Lordships' House that we are very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Novar for his speech, and for the discussion to which it has given rise. I thought that his speech was very moderately expressed and showed that, whatever may be thought of the provisions of his Bill, he shares the view which I believe is general in your Lordships' House as to the proper attitude to be adopted towards temperance questions. He was strongly in favour of some measure which would put an end to the
1068
rather hopeless position in which we stand in regard to the licensing question, whether in England or in Scotland, and he was anxious, if possible, to carry ail sections of opinion with him in his effort towards reform.
He had the tactical success of throwing the authors of the Act of 1913 upon their defence. The two distinguished members of your Lordships' House who were responsible for the passage of that Act were evidently rather sensitive to the somewhat severe handling which it received at the hands of my noble friend. They said it had not failed. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was most anxious to prove that it had not failed. I have some recollection of the debates upon that Bill. I think we were always told that the voice of Scotland demanded the Bill, that the representation conveyed to your Lordships and to another place was that there was a sort of uprising in Scotland in favour of the Bill as submitted to Parliament, and that it was at your Lordships' peril that you opposed it. The Bill was ultimately passed, but it was not received with any enthusiasm in Scotland and has had very little operation. I will venture to say that, whatever face they may put upon it, the authors of that Bill are profoundly disappointed in their hearts at its operation. I think there is no doubt whatever that when it turned out that so far from the No-Licence option being generally availed of hardly anybody would look at it, the authors of the Bill were extremely sorry for themselves.
I observed that the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, said that he was all in favour of experiments in this licensing question. Not all in favour, my Lords—
THF EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: It depends on what the experiments are.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Exactly. I did my very best, in company with more influential members of your Lordships' House, to persuade the Government of the day to make an experiment in disinterested management, and in company with my noble friend's most distinguished father, a complete scheme of disinterested management of a very tentative and moderate character, as becomes your Lordships' House, was produced in the form of Amendments. But the Government of the day, the

1069
Government of the noble Earl, would not hear of it, and that scheme was thrown out with contumely in another place.
THF EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: Forgive me; it was most carefully considered, but it was rejected, not on the principle of disinterested management but because we were advised that it was wholly unworkable in practice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not recall the elaborate respect with which, apparently, it was treated by the Government of the day. I know that it was rejected; I mean, that no attempt was made to meet it by modification. No alternative proposal of disinterested management was suggested. On the contrary, it was thrown out. The Bill was sent back to your Lordship's House, and we were put in the position of having to choose whether we would throw it out altogether or whether we would accept the decision of another place. Your Lordships' House pursued a course which it has often pursued; it bowed to the decision of the House of Commons in that respect, and the whole question of disinterested management has been postponed from that day to this. I am not going to say anything more about disinterested management. I am, myself, responsible for having made an announcement to your Lordships only a very few weeks ago that an Inquiry into disinterested management would be set up, and that will be done as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. Therefore it would be most improper for us to express an opinion now upon a matter which is to be tried by a Committee.
My noble friend Lord Novar knows what sympathy I have with his object, but I know he will allow me to say that I regret that he should have made a legislative proposal involving disinterested management at a time when this Committee is about to be set up. It is quite clear that if this Bill were to go further than the Second Reading stage it would be absolutely necessary to cut out the disinterested management part of the proposal; otherwise we should have the verdict before the trial has taken place. We should have a decision on disinterested management at the very moment when the Inquiry into it was about to begin. This Inquiry, I can assure your Lordships, is intended to be
1070
a real one, and not a shelving Inquiry, and therefore I regret that at such a moment a proposal should be made to deal with the subject upon which that Inquiry is to take place.
There is also the other very important point, upon which I will not dwell, because it has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and by my noble friend opposite (Viscount Haldane). We cannot make ourselves responsible in any sense for so drastic a proposal as the suspension of the operation of the Act of 1913 without very much more careful consideration than it is possible to give to a Bill introduced at such a stage as this by a private member of your Lordships' House.
It may be asked what course it is proposed to take on this Bill? The Bill contains another proposal which stands upon a very different footing, and that is the proposal of what is called the system of approved public-houses. I never have entertained any doubt whatever that that is a principle which ought thoroughly to be approved. That principle has been under your Lordships' consideration in two previous Bills, brought in under the auspices of my noble friend Lord Lamington, and I think a Bill was passed through your Lordships' House, once if not twice, and sent to another place. Personally I should be very sorry to give a vote which would seem to imply that I receded from the point of view which I have always expressed in favour of the approved public-house.
I do not know what course my noble friend Lord Novar will take in respect of this Bill. To pass it through your Lordships' House would be of no avail, even if my noble friend succeeded in doing so, for if it reached the Committee stage it would be necessary, for the reasons I have explained, to ask your Lordships to amend it in very drastic particulars. My noble friend will see that we have no choice. We cannot allow a matter which is sub judice to be decided until the Inquiry is complete, and we cannot make ourselves responsible for suspending the Act of 1913 without proper and careful consideration. Therefore my noble friend will gain nothing by proceeding any further with his Bill. I do not know whether he will press it to a Division, but if he does personally I cannot vote

1071
against the approved public-house. I shall, therefore, vote for the Second Heading as a testimony to the value of that important principle, but I cannot give my noble friend any hope that the Government, or any member of the Government, can support him at any further stage of the Bill. I do not think, therefore, he will gain very much by having a Second Reading, but if he proceeds to a Division I shall support him.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, in view of what the Leader of the House has said, I should, of course, consult my noble friends after the Second Reading of the Bill, if your Lordships are good enough
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I need occupy but a few minutes of your Lordships' time in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It does not owe its origin in any way to me. It was introduced in the other House of Parliament, read a Second time, and referred to a Standing Committee. It passed that
1072
to give it a Second Reading. I regret that there seems to be a tendency to regard the Bill as unnecessary. Those who prepared it regard it as a necessary and a practical measure which is urgently required in the interests of the public and of licensing administration in Scotland. I should propose, therefore, to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, and afterwards to consult my friends as to whether any further steps should be taken or not.
On Question, Whether the Bill be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40: Not-Contents. 23.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Onslow, E.

Dunedin, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Salisbury, M. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Burnham, V.

Gisborough, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Jessel, L.

Portland, D.

Churchill, V.

Leigh, L.

Cross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Balfour, E.

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Muskerry, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Newton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbery.)

Younger of Leckie, V.

Raglan, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eldon, E.

Durham, L. Bp.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

Lovelace, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lucan, E.

Sumner, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Haldane, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Hemphill, L.

Airlie, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lyell, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L.

Thomson, L.

House with practically no alterations. It comes to your Lordships' House with only two operative clauses, and what they effect is this. They would give to the ordinary wild birds, to which we are accustomed in England, further protection beyond that which many Acts of Parliament have already conferred upon them. There is hardly any of your Lordships who would not be inclined to extend such protection to these birds.
When one arrives in England from the Continent one of the first things we notice is the extraordinary difference in the number and volubility of the birds of these islands. That is no doubt

1073
largely secured by the protection which the Legislature has accorded them. If one wanted to give a picture of absolute and utter desolation one could hardly find better words than those with which your Lordships are no doubt familiar:—
"The sedge is withered from the lake And no birds sing."
There are many of your Lordships, and one noble Lord in particular, one of the chief ornaments of the Opposition Bench, whom I am sorry not to see here to-day, who have passed much of your time in listening to what the birds have to say to us. My noble friend, I have very little doubt, has derived as much profit from what the birds have said to him as the birds derived from what St. Francis said to them. This Bill would ensure that there is even less interference than at present with these wild birds.
Let me explain it in a few words. The first clause makes it illegal to use a live decoy bird, secured by means of braces, or any bird which is blind or maimed and therefore unable to get away, for the purpose of taking wild birds alive. It would not interfere with those who desire to use a decoy for the purpose of destroying such destructive things as wood-pigeons. A farmer who has to kill wood-pigeons which devour his crops would not be affected by this Bill at all. The Bill also deals with the particularly cruel device for catching birds by the use of bird lime. From the little experience I have I should have thought it was impossible to catch a bird with bird lime, but skilful people do it and in large numbers. The other House of Parliament is satisfied of that by evidence, and they have made it an offence under the first clause.
The second clause provides that birds shall not be cruelly confined. They must be confined in a cage which allows them to stretch their wings and take such exercise as a cage bird might desire to take I regret to say that the only opposition I fear from the Government may occur with regard to this clause. It is no fault of mine, but I am aware that the noble Lord who represents the Home Office in this House is greatly perturbed by the occurrence in this clause of a split infinitive, and your Lordships know that if this was a Money Bill you could not, even in Committee, put it right: it would have to remain. The House which passed
1074
it is like the Emperor Sigismund—supra grammaticam. You could not enforce any rule of syntax; but I hope the Home Office, as represented here, will be as indulgent as the Home Office was in the other House. Let me say that I am in no way responsible for this lapse. It has been pointed out to mo by two members of your Lordships' House, one on this side and one on the other, and, as I have said, it has not escaped the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, who represents the Home Office here.
With these words I would ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and I do express the hope that it will not be necessary to amend it in Committee, because those who introduced it in the other House know that if any Amendment is made here it will probably prevent the Bill from becoming law during this Session. Accordingly, bad as its grammar is—there is another defect which I have not revealed and which the noble Lord has not discovered; it is not exactly of the same kind, but it is a defect all the same—I hope that this will not induce your Lordships to refuse the Bill a Second Beading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. It is a very melancholy sight to see a human being imprisoned, but I think it is almost as melancholy to see a bird imprisoned. Personally, I wish that most caged birds were not caged. The chief birds which are taken by bird catchers in this country are bullfinches, larks and goldfinches—all birds that love the open country, and anything that prevents this outrage going on should, I think, have our support. I simply wish to say that I support the noble Lord and that I am quite sure that the House will pass this Bill, and to point out how much it is needed to stop the depredations of the bird catchers.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I also support this Bill. The only point concerning which I should like to ask for information concerns subsection (1) of Clause 2, which says that a bird shall have room "to freely stretch its wings" that no doubt is easy to interpret—"and exercise itself." I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether

1075
he would be prepared to give a judicial decision as to the amount of space required by, say, a lark in which "to freely exercise itself."
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been asked to express the opinion of the Home Office with regard to this Bill which, following many other Bills of a similar character, has passed unanimously through all its stages in the House of Commons, but I must say that I was very much surprised when I came to Clause 2, to which allusion has been made, to find that this Bill, so eloquently supported by my noble and learned friend, says, among other things, that you have to permit a bird "to freely stretch its wings and exercise itself." That the noble Lord, with his artistic, literary and juridical experience, should have fathered this Bill in your Lordships' House was to me, when I came to this clause, a matter of some surprise, and I will only say that, although the Bill has been passed unanimously by the House of Commons, we still have the House of Lords to correct their grammar. As those who are responsible for this Bill are very anxious that no alteration should be made for fear of what may happen in another place, I do not propose to suggest any Amendments either to Clause 2 or any other clause. The Home Office has the very greatest pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of a Bill which is sent up to it by the unanimous consent of another place.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must confess that I feel a good deal of hesitation in regard to subsection (1) of Clause 2. I do think that we ought to have some clear definition of what is meant, and we are the more entitled to it because the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, clearly led us to understand that the support for this Bill comes from those who wish to see no birds kept in capitivity at all. That seems to me to be going to an extreme which public opinion is hardly prepared to support at the present moment. I can imagine any magistrate before whom a case was brought finding himself in very great difficulty if he were asked to say that a canary or a starling was or was not permitted—in the bad grammar to which reference has been made—"to freely exercise itself." That a bird like a starling should have plenty of room to exercise itself freely means a very large cage indeed, and I do hope, since the
1076
Home Office has on this occasion entirely abrogated its function of criticising the legislation which comes through both Houses of Parliament, that when we come to the Committee Stage some Amendment may be put down to make the point quite clear.
I would venture to press upon the noble Lord who represents the Home Office that he should point out to this Office that it really is not a satisfactory state of things that legislation which they know to be badly drafted should be allowed to pass either House of Parliament when they have the power of altering it. It is a very frequent thing that members of your Lordships' House complain that there is no power left to this House except that of revising. If this House is going to abandon this power, it seems to me that our functions may be even smaller than they have been claimed to be in the past. Whatever the results may be, I venture to hope that there will be considerable discussion in Committee and that some Amendment will be moved to this clause making it quite clear, so that when these matters come before the police court magistrates shall not be in any difficulty as to the meaning of Parliament when this Bill was passed.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I hope that this House will not waste its time upon this so-called mistake of grammar. In regard to this dogma of the split infinitive I must confess myself a complete heretic. The Dean of St. Paul's lately collected in a very interesting essay a large number of precedents in which English authors of the greatest fame and repute, upon whose writings the best traditions of the English language are founded, frequently made use of this form of words, which has been most recklessly called this afternoon a piece of bad grammar. For my part I believe that this dogma was entirely an invention of governesses and pupil teachers.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I will only say that the noble Earl opposite and the noble Lord sitting behind me have called attention to what may undoubtedly be considered a defect in this Bill. It might be difficult even for the Lord Chancellor, if the case came up here, to say exactly what was the meaning of the expression about a bird being allowed freely to exercise itself. Whether, if someone had con-

1077
fined in a cage a skylark, it could possibly freely exercise itself except outside the cage, I should not have been prepared without consideration to decide when I was a Judge, and I would not attempt to decide it now. That is, I admit, a grave question, worthy of the consideration of this august assembly, and, if the House considers that the Bill has to be amended in Committee, there might then be no ground for not allowing the Home Office freely to exercise itself by proposing that the words should run
"To permit the said bird freely to stretch its wings"
instead of
"To permit the said bird to freely stretch its wings."
I am afraid, after what the noble Earl has said, that this Bill must be amended in Committee, but I hope it may, at all events, be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE METHODS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is an Advisory Committee in connection with the Post Office; if so, of whom it is constituted, what are its functions, and whether it has any initiative. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for rising to put my Question at this hour, because some of your Lordships, I think, will recollect a small Committee which sat recently on the business of the House, in which the virtuous view was very strongly expressed that it was the duty of this House to sit, if necessary, till eight o'clock and clear up the business on the Paper, and it is still a good long way from that hour. At any rate, I will not detain your Lordships very long.
I raised a Question in connection with Post Office administration the other day, and I think it would, perhaps, be fair to take this opportunity of saying that the Postmaster-General has been good enough to communicate with me with regard to
1078
many of the points I then raised. I think that in most instances he has made out a very good case, much better, of course, than his representative was able to make out, without notice, when I raised the points. There were one or two noble Lords opposite who caused some little amusement on that occasion—on which the Rules of Order in this House did not permit me to reply—on the ground that as a member of tie Socialist Party I suggested that business methods should be applied in Government institutions. That was entirely misconceived, because, so far as I am aware, the Party to which I belong has never suggested that business, whether public or private, should be run in an unbusinesslike way. The matter caused amusement among members of the Government, but the point was a false one.
On that occasion Lord Burnham made an interjection towards the end of the discussion, and said that we already had an Advisory Committee. I rather understood him to mean that there was an Advisory Committee to which it would have been proper and suitable to refer the points raised in the discussion. I think your Lordships were aware, from what had appeared in the public Press, that there was an Advisory Committee on some matters, which the noble Viscount opposite and Sir Alfred Mond left with explosive feelings, because it was of no use. That Advisory Committee, as I have hitherto understood, was limited to advice with regard to wireless and particularly Imperial wireless, and what I want to ask about to-day is whether there is an Advisory Committee in existence, of whom it is constituted, and what its functions are; that is to say, what matters are normally to be referred to it, and whether it has any initiative, by which I mean whether it is in a position to make suggestions of its own motion to the Postmaster-General, or whether it merely meets to consider proposals and suggestions put before it by the Postmaster-General. I am merely asking for information, and not like Rosa Dartle, but in the most honest circumstances.
THF EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can answer the Question put by the noble Earl very shortly. He has asked as to the Advisory Council, and as to whether they are limited merely to wireless, and also whether the members of the Council have any initiative to raise points. The

1079
answer of the Post Office is that the Advisory Council was originally constituted in 1021, and has been re-appointed by successive Postmasters-General since that date. The Council at present consists of sixteen members, and I can give the noble Earl their names if he wishes.
EARL RUSSELL: By whom are they appointed?
THF EARL OF LUCAN: By the Postmaster-General, I understand, and the functions of the Council are to tender advice to the Postmaster-General on any question which he may submit to them. It is open to any member of the Council to suggest to the Postmaster-General any subject which it is desired to bring up for discussion by the Council, and such questions are usually placed upon the agenda.
EARL RUSSELL: Has the noble Earl any information as to how often the Council meets?
THF EARL OF LUCAN: I have not that information.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, it was not my intention to address your Lordships on this subject, because I am carrying on a certain amount of controversy elsewhere with the Postmaster General, and I do not think it is fair to him that he should not be able to answer either in person, or, if I may say so, by deputy, with regard to the Post Office. I think that while we have great respect for the Lords-in-Waiting, it is a little hard on them that they should have, one after another, to answer for Departments with the work of which they cannot be familiar. Perhaps I can give the information which is desired by the noble Earl opposite.
The Advisory Committee was set up four or five years ago. It is constituted of those who are supposed to be men of business in many walks of life, although they do not represent any particular federation or association, either of employers or employed. Each one, I think, was asked individually to join, because it was thought, I imagine, that he might be of some service to the State by reason of his knowledge and experience in one or more of the trades of the country. No fixed time was settled for the meetings of this Committee. It
1080
was entirely at the option of the Postmaster-General for the time being, and I think I am right in saying that the Postmaster-General in the last Government did not summon the Committee at all. The agenda is drawn up by the Permanent Secretary of the Post Office, but it has been open to any member to draw-attention to any particular subject, and to ask that it should be put on the agenda. The discussions have been short and, as I venture to say—though I am not here to air my grievance—not very effective.
If I may give your Lordships a clue to what this Committee was, or what it was not, I may say that during the whole of the five years it never had before it the question of wireless telegraphy—it was excluded altogether from its survey. It is almost inconceivable to those outside the Post Office that that great question, which has occupied business men in relation to postal business during all this period, and for many years before, should not have been before this Committee Two or three Committees were appointed to deal with it, but the business Committee, so far as I recollect, and I think I am right, never had an opportunity of dealing with the matter in any shape whatever.
It is a strictly Advisory Committee. It set up various sub-committees on matters of Post Office business, and I had the honour of presiding over one dealing with telegraphy, but I cannot say that our recommendations met with much favour, or went much further than the pigeonholes of the Post Office, so far as I know. However, this Committee existed in name, and met in a certain number of cases, and was always treated with the utmost courtesy by all the officials of the Post Office. I always felt that it provided a very convenient buffer between the Post Office and the public. The Postmaster-General, in the House of Commons, was always able to say: "I have taken the advice upon this point" of the Advisory Committee, composed, as the House knew, of business men whose names were fairly well known to the public at large. On the other hand, I do not think it fulfilled the hopes of a good many of us, and I cannot say that it has taken an effective share in the administration of the affairs of the Post Office. Whether it will do so in future, of course, I cannot prophesy.

1081
I had to refuse the invitation to serve again, because I felt that it was hardly right to give a public appearance of efficiency to a body which had not been very seriously treated. I quite admit the difficulty of a consultative body of this kind. It is not really part of the machinery of State, it interferes at every turn, if it does its work constantly and in detail, with the permanent officials, and in the case of the Post Office, which is a vast business organisation, it would have, if it wished to do much good, to take a continuous part in public administration. I submit that a body which only has met, I should think, an average of two or three times in the year for an hour and a half at a time cannot do anything of the kind. It may be in the future that it will be used to better advantage.
I only wished to correct an impression which my noble friend below me (the Earl of Lucan) I think, gave, that this body had anything to do with wireless or had ever been consulted on wireless. It never has. It has passed its time, I am bound to say, pleasantly, so far as I was concerned, at the Post Office, it has seen something of the working there, and it has doubtless greatly strengthened the permanent officials, because they were able to say that, so far from being tied by official red tape, they were helped in solving all the problems put to them by those who were supposed to have the business brains of the country. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but I thought I could answer my noble friend opposite in a way that he would entirely understand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think we are very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Burnham for having supplemented the information given by the representative of the Post Office in answer to the noble Earl, and, indeed, we have every reason to be grateful to my noble friend because he has, with the greatest public spirit, helped successive Governments both in this Department and in other Departments, for which the country is very grateful. At the same time, I think the House might be left under a misapprehension if I did not say one word. I think the best testimony to this Advisory Committee is that successive Postmasters-General have, with very rare exceptions, always
1082
adopted its recommendations. It may be that it does not operate as much as it ought to do, but at any rate that broad fact remains, and, though I am quite sure your Lordships will have listened to my noble friend Lord Burnham with the greatest possible respect, yet I think I ought to say that I do not think his opinion is universally held by his colleagues and by the Postmaster-General. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships may be a little reassured on that subject.

EXCESSIVE SPEED OF HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES.
EARL OF RUSSELL EARL OF RUSSELL had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government how many convictions there have been of heavy motor vehicles for exceeding the speed limit, and to move for a Return showing for the month of February, the number of prosecutions of heavy motor vehicles other than omnibuses, and the number of convictions in the Counties of Surrey and Middlesex.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, you may recollect that a few weeks ago a Question was raised by my noble friend Lord Rathereedan about the speed at which heavy motor vehicles travel and the damage that they do to the roads. A discussion ensued, and I thought, I confess, that the Question was a little cavalierly dealt with by the noble Lord who then replied for the Government. He asked whether more police were required, and stated that it would be an expense. He also suggested that everything was done that could be done. He did not seem to me to meet the real point, which was whether prosecutions are, in fact, undertaken to any extent against these heavy vehicles for exceeding their statutory speed limit which, as your Lordships know, is twelve miles an hour, and I believe sometimes less in the case of the heavier vehicles. It is, of course, the excessive speed of these vehicles which does the enormous damage to the roads and causes the immense expenditure to the ratepayer and the great drain on the Road Fund, on money which might often be very usefully spent on improvements, and so on, instead of upon making up roads which these vehicles have destroyed.
No one wishes to prevent this road transport from continuing. No one

1083
wishes to prevent it from competing with railway transport, although it is tending to make our railways non-paying, but I think that the public at large, who pay for the roads, are entitled to ask at any rate that that traffic shall be conducted with some regard to the law as it stands, and I confess I am inclined to think that prosecutions in respect of these heavy vehicles do not, in fact, take place. The noble Lord who is going to reply to my Question tells me that he cannot give me anything like an accurate figure as to the number of convictions for exceeding the speed limit without an expenditure of time and research which would not be worth while, so I will not press him for it, but I am anxious to have a Return, which seems to me to be a not very difficult Return to make, for one month—and I have chosen the month of February—showing the number of prosecutions of heavy motor vehicles, other than omnibuses, and the number of convictions in Surrey and Middlesex. Neither of those counties is very large, but both have considerable heavy vehicular traffic, and enormous damage is done to the roads. I am sorry that my Notice on the Paper does not specify prosecutions and convictions for exceeding the speed limit, but that is what I intended. It seemed to me that such a Return would show whether, in fact, the police are active in this matter or not. Light cars are in some counties prosecuted, very often quite unnecessarily, but they do not damage the roads in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who would have supported me if he had been here, also feels this very strongly. If that Return were to show, as I rather feel it might, that these vehicles are left to work their sweet will quite unchecked on the roads of this country, then I think that something might be done. I think your Lordships would feel that the matter ought not to be left there, because we are wasting money and we are destroying good roads illegally and unnecessarily. I understand that the Home Office may find it difficult to give these figures, but I should be very glad to take to-day any figures that the noble Lord (Lord Desborough) can give me. But if those figures are limited, and do not include some rural counties, I feel that I might have to recur to the subject, because figures relating only to London would not give us the information we
1084
want, which is as to the destruction of the country roads. I think this is important, for the purpose of founding further argument upon the same Return.
Moved, That there be laid before this House a Return showing for the month of February, the number of prosecutions of heavy motor vehicles other than omnibuses for exceeding the speed limit, and the number of convictions in the Counties of Surrey and Middlesex.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, my noble friend opposite previously put his Question to the Ministry of Transport, but this time I think his inquiries, as they refer to prosecutions, would be more appropriately directed to the Home Office. His Question is divided into two parts. First of all, he asks His Majesty's Government how many convictions there have been of heavy motor vehicles for exceeding the speed limit. That, of course, is a very wide inquiry and it gives no limit of time or space as far as I can understand it. It refers to the whole country, and perhaps to Northern Ireland, from the way in which it is worded. I have also tried to find out what is a heavy motor vehicle and it is defined in an Order made in 1904 under the Motor Car Act of 1903 as a motor car exceeding two tons in weight unladen. That opens a very wide field. I expect that my noble friend's Daimler, if he has one, will come within it. Some Daimlers, I know, are over two ions in weight unladen, and whether my noble friend wants returns as to these I do not know. Anyhow that would open up a very wide field of inquiry, and I do not know whether my noble friend wishes this rather arduous and rather difficult inquiry to be made in reference to the whole country. I am afraid the Department I represent have no definite information at present on that subject and they would have to get a return of the convictions, as I suppose they could, throughout the whole country. Whether that would be a very useful basis of comparison, I do not quite know.
With regard to the Motion for a Return showing the number of prosecutions of heavy motor vehicles other than omnibuses, and the number of convictions in the Counties of Surrey and Middlesex for the month of February, I am afraid I cannot give the whole of those details. But I can give the figures in regard to the Metropolitan Police district, though

1085
I am afraid they will not quite satisfy my noble friend. These figures have been supplied by the Metropolitan Police and they show that the total number of prosecutions of heavy motor cars, other than omnibuses, for exceeding the speed limit during the month of February, 1925, was 86 and that 83 convictions resulted.
EARL RUSSELL: Does that exclude the County of London?
LORD DESBOROUGH: Those are the figures supplied by the Metropolitan Police in regard to the Metropolitan Police area for the month of February, for the Counties of Middlesex and Surrey.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord will not misunderstand me. There is a portion of Surrey which is not in the County of London and there is a portion of Middlesex which is in the Metropolitan Police area. The Metropolitan Police area, of course, also includes London. I do not know whether those figures exclude London.
LORD DESBOROUGH: These figures have been supplied by the Metropolitan Police for the areas and for the time stated in the Question, as I understand. That is what they were asked to supply and I think that is what they have supplied. Included in the latter number are thirteen convictions obtained in the County of Middlesex, that is, in the Metropolitan Police area, and six in that portion of the County of Surrey which is in the Metropolitan Police area.
EARL RUSSELL: Then there were nineteen convictions in the two counties.
LORD DESBOROUGH: This is the answer from the Metropolitan Police. I do not know whether it is satisfactory or otherwise, but if the noble Earl would like me to pursue the researches I think I might help him a little further. If I can possibly avoid it I do not wish to embark upon a roving commission all over Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I would give him further information upon anything within limits of time and space. I could provide it privately if he wished. The Home Office do not desire to undertake a roving commission; it is rather too big and too expensive in these days.
EARL RUSSELL: I have not, of course, asked for any roving commission except
1086
as to the first. The figures the noble Lord has given relate to the Counties of Surrey and Middlesex and as I understand the noble Lord's answer, which I think he is not quite clear about, this 86 presumably refers to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area while the thirteen and six, making the nineteen convictions, refer to that part of the County of Middlesex which is in the Metropolitan Police area. Records are kept of convictions in police courts, the number of these convictions is obviously fairly small, and it does not seem to me to be very difficult to obtain the figures for the balance of the convictions for Middlesex and Surrey. I shall be quite willing to take any other counties if it is more convenient to the noble Lord. If he would prefer to give the return privately and see whether he can satisfy me. I need hardly say that would suit me just as well.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, perhaps I may he allowed to make a suggestion. I know from experience of Quarter Sessions that when the Chief Constable makes his report upon the amount of crime there has been in the county during the preceding quarter he classifies the various offences which have been committed, and it is fairly easy, as a rule, for one who attends Quarter Sessions to gather the nature of the chief cases which have been brought before the police courts for the quarter. I cannot help thinking that if the noble Lord were to write to the Chief Constables of Middlesex and Surrey they would refer to their books and would be able to supply the information which the noble Earl is seeking. I do not think there would be any difficulty about the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to he a litle confusion about the area involved in the Question. If the noble Earl would be so good as to confer with my noble friend as to what it is he wishes exactly, I am sure that my noble friend would be most happy to do what he can.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I am sure we can get at these figures. As the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has just said, there is no real difficulty about it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BETHLEM HOSPITAL.
Petition of the Mayor and Commonalty and citizens of the City of London, the Masters, Guardians, and Governors of the House and Hospital called Bethlem, praying lor leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the removal of Bethlem Hospital to the Monks Orchard Estate at Addington in Surrey, and Beckenham and West Wickham in Kent, and for the disposal of the existing hospital premises and convalescent home, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
COLONIAL BANK.
Petition of the Colonial Bank praying for leave to introduce a Bill to provide a new constitution for the Colonial Bank and to re-incorporate the same, to re-organise its capital, to confer further powers on the Bank, to repeal existing charters and Acts, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
PORT OF LONDON BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 19th and the 25th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
BEDFORDSHIRE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE. AND HUNTINGDONSHIRE ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 25th of March last appointing certain Lords a Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.

MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL, PROVISION.
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Leeds Corporation.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Mersey Tunnel.
And also the Certificate that compliance with the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee has been proved in the case of the
Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation Bill.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Tuesday next.
IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.
AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) BILL.
Referred to the Examiners.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.
House to be in Committee on Thursday, May 7.
AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Bledisloe.)
IMPORTATION OF PEDIGREE ANIMALS BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Bledisloe.)
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.