Sitting of 17 February 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 26th February.
Pontefract Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 26th February.

NEW WRIT.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the University of Durham, Victoria University of Manchester, University of Liverpool, University of Leeds, University of Sheffield, University of Birmingham, and University of Bristol, in the room of the Right Hon. Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, who since his election for the said Universities bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham."—[Sir Godfrey Collins.]
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask you, Sir, if this is the time to make a protest against the universities having any right to send Members to the House of Commons, because I do not see why a few individuals in a university have any prior right over, say, Beardmore's works. Weir's works, Armstrong's works, or any other body of working men? Why should a university be a privileged body? I want your opinion on it, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can bring in a Bill to abolish university
1896
representation. That is the way to proceed.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will do that.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not in order to move on this occasion that a New Writ be not issued, or to vote against the issue of a Writ?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Writ, of course, can be rejected, but it is in accordance with the present law. The proper way to proceed would be to move to alter the law.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    COSTS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the total costs of the League of Nations is borne, respectively, by the other members of the League excluding Great Britain, France, and Italy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): As the details asked for by the hon. Member involve many figures, I will, with his permission, Circulate them in the OFFCIAL REPORT.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask whether the voting power is pro rata to the amount paid by the various nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. That would destroy the work of the League.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to ensure that the contributions of these nations who constitute the Council of the League should at least be equal, so that membership of the League should involve an equal obligation on all nations, members of the League of Nations to enjoy that privilege?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I think that question shows a complete misapprehension of the character of the League of Nations. If you are to set up a money qualification for the Council that the

    1897
    State with the smallest revenue shall pay the same contribution as the State with the largest revenue, you could not carry on the League as now constituted.
    Following is the answer:
    Scale of allocation of the expenses of the League for 1926, 1927 and 1928 for countries other than Great Britian, France and Italy:

    Country.

    Units.

    Abyssinia

    2

    Albania

    1

    Argentine

    29

    Australia

    27

    Austria

    8

    Belgium

    18

    Bolivia

    4

    Brazil

    29

    Bulgaria

    5

    Canada

    35

    Chile

    14

    China

    46

    Colombia

    6

    Costa, Rica

    1

    Cuba

    9

    Czechoslovakia

    29

    Lenmark

    12

    Dominican Republic

    1

    Esthonia

    3

    Finland

    10

    Greece

    7

    Guatemala.

    1

    Harti

    1

    Honduras

    1

    Hungary

    8

    India

    56

    Irish Free State

    10

    Japan

    60

    Latvia

    3

    Liberia

    1

    Lithuania

    4

    Luxemburg

    1

    Netherlands

    23

    New Zealand

    10

    Nicaragua

    1

    Norway

    9

    Panama

    1

    Paraguay

    1

    Persia

    5

    Peru

    9

    Poland

    32

    Portugal

    6

    Roumania

    22

    Salvador

    1

    Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Kingdom of)

    20

    Siam

    9

    Spain

    40

    1898

    Country.

    Units.

    South Africa (Union of)

    15

    Sweden

    18

    Switzerland

    17

    Uruguay

    7

    Venezuela

    5

    693

    Total number of units, 937.

    IRISH FREE STATE (BOUNDARY AGREEMENT)
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government of the Irish Free State has deposited the Agreement of 1925 amending the Anglo-Irish Agreement in regard to the boundary between the Free State and Ulster with the League of Nations; and if the British Government has recognised, or proposes to recognise, the juris diction of the League of Nations to arbitrate in this matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first part of the question, I am informed that the Irish Free State Government have issued instructions for this action to be taken. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative. In this connection, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen on the 17th December, 1924.
    Colonel GRETTON: Was not the previous agreement between the British Government and the Irish Free State deposited with the League of Nations, and the British Government on that occasion made a caveat that they did not consider that agreement subject to arbitration?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That matter was dealt with in the answer to which I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to refer I will read the relevant part of it:
    "His Majesty's Government have in of Nations that in their opinion the terms formed the Secretary-General of the League of Article 18 of the Covenant are not applicable to the articles of agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921. The ground for this action was stated in the letter addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General was that since the Covenant came into force His Majesty's Government have consistently taken the view that neither it nor any

    1899
    Conventions concluded under the auspices of the League are intended to govern the relations inter se of the various parts of the British Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1924; col. 963, Vol. 179.]

    COUNCIL (COMPOSITION).
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps will be taken to ascertain the views of the Dominions before the representative of the British Empire on the Council of the League of Nations votes on a question which so vitally affects their interests as that of the addition of new permanent members of the Council in addition to Germany?
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that, by Article 4 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, it falls upon the Council of the League, with the approval of the majority of the Assembly, to name new permanent members of the Council, and of the fact that it is the British Empire and not Great Britain which is a permanent member of the Council, he is in consultation with the Dominions with regard to the possible admission of Germany and other nations to permanent membership of the Council; and whether he can assure the House that the representative of the Government at the forthcoming meeting of the League will not give a vote regarding such applications unless and until the Dominions express their concurrence with the policy advocated by His Majesty's Government;
    (2) whether he will give an assurance to the House that His Majesty's Government will consult the Dominions in every case when an application for permanent membership of the Council is received from a member of the League of Nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By the terms of the Covenant a permanent seat on the Council is attributed to the British Empire but the extent to which that representative can speak on behalf of the Dominions depends upon the circumstances of each particular case and the character of the communications which have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments. The Dominions have separate representation in the Assembly and their representatives there act on the instructions of their own
    1900
    Governments although frequent consultation of all the Empire delegates takes place. His Majesty's Government are already in communication with the Dominions on the matters referred to in these questions.
    As regards the future, I can readily assure my hon. Friends that we shall pursue the same policy of consultation with the Dominions with reference to other applications for permanent membership as in reference to any other international issue of importance.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is there any prospect of the question of the extension of the numbers of the Council of the League coming up at the meeting in March?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is every prospect, almost amounting to a certainty, that it will come up.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the representation of Canada on the Council of the League is as important to the future peace of the world as the representation of Brazil?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I rather deprecate invidious comparisons of that kind. The sympathy of the British Government with the desires and aspirations of any one of his Majesty's Dominions has been expressed again and again.

  NEAR EAST (BRITISH OBLIGATIONS).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any questions relating to our obligations in the Near East were considered during his recent discussions with Signor Mussolini?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is in the public interest that I should be asked to state what subjects were or were not discussed in informal conversation which took place when the Prime Minister of Italy did me the honour to dine with me at Rapallo, but, no new obligations were undertaken or suggested on either side.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1901
  whether any proposals have been made recently by the Soviet Government for the settlement of claims of British subjects in connection with confiscation of properties or repudiated debts?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. No proposals of this nature have been made by the Soviet Government to His Majesty's Government.

  EGYPT.

    COTTON (PURCHASES).
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government has carried out its declared intention of purchasing cotton with the object of holding up the price; and, if so, to what extent?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Egyptian Council of Ministers decided on 13th January to increase the Government purchase of spot cotton to a possible limit of half a million cantars, with the object of maintaining a 75 per cent. premium in the price of fully good fair Sakellarides over American cotton. If and when this quality of Egyptian cotton reaches 36 dollars per cantar, Government intervention will cease. I have no information regarding the extent to which effect has been given to this decision.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Was this policy first submitted to the British Government for approval, or was it done entirely without their knowledge?
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it against the interest of the world to have this interference by Governments to artificially govern the price of raw materials; and will he make representations on behalf of this country to allow the price of cotton to follow its natural course?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the answer to my hon. Friend is in the negative, but I should not like to make that statement definitely without having an opportunity of reference. As regards the question of the hon. Member opposite, I think any operation of this kind must be judged upon the merits of the particular circumstances in which it is applied and the particular way it is carried out. I cannot see that any arrangements that
    1902
    are made to preserve a steady supply of vital raw materials are injurious in the long run to consuming countries.

    ELECTORAL LAW.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new electoral law has been put into force in Egypt; whether he has received an assurance that the enforcement of this law would be in accordance with the Egyptian Constitution; and whether the date on which the new elections are to be held has yet been fixed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The preparation of the new electoral lists necessitated by the law promulgated on 8th December is in progress with a view to elections being completed in May. Four electoral laws have been passed since the Constitution. Technical objection has been taken for one reason or another to all except the first law. The present law is, however, held by the legal advisers of the Council of Ministers to be in conformity with the principle laid down in the Constitution, that elections should be held on the basis of universal suffrage.

  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS, DENMARK.
  Commander FANSHAWEasked the. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the progress of any negotiations that are being carried on by His Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen with the Danish Government regarding the fees charged for licences to foreign commercial travellers in Denmark and whether any negotiations are in progress with the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish Governments on the same subjects?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen has for some time past been in communication with the Danish Government on this subject, and has lately made renewed representations, to which an answer is now being awaited. Representations have also been made to the Norwegian Government, who have not yet replied. It has not, so far, been considered necessary to make similar representations to the Governments of Sweden or Finland, but appropriate action will be considered if there is found in practice to be a real cause for complaint.

  PARTY TRAVEL TICKETS (BELGIUM AND FRANCE).
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is now any objection to extending to the holders of so-called party tickets who travel in groups of 25 the arrangement at present obtaining for the holders of week-end tickets to certain ports in Belgium and France enabling them to visit these countries without holding a passport, in view of the fact that the issue of party tickets is much more carefully controlled than that of week-end tickets, and that they are specially designed to enable persons of moderate means to take a Continental holiday?
  Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS): My right hon. Friend has been asked to reply. He finds that some 20,000 people yearly take their holidays in this manner, and the privilege is not restricted to British subjects. My right hon. Friend is informed that the return of these travellers without passports would add to the existing difficulties of administering the Aliens Regulations.

  FRENCH CUSTOMS TARIFF.
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Government has under consideration the question of increasing its Customs tariff; and whether he will make representations to that Government pointing out that such increases of duty would have an adverse effect on the trade of this country?
  Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware of the intention of the French Government to increase the French import duties on elastics to 30 per cent. in the near future and in due course to 60 per cent.; and whether he is prepared to make representations to the French Government in the interest of the British trade in elastics with France?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. It would appear that the French Government contemplate a further general alteration in the level of their Customs tariff, to bring it into correspondence
  1904
  with the current value of the paper franc. The French Government are being approached, with a view to their giving adequate notice of any increased duties that may be imposed, in order that existing contracts may be carried out as far as possible, or failing this with a view to the exemption at least of British goods shipped before the promulgation of the law. To go beyond this would not, I think, serve any useful purpose.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: In the event of the French Government increasing their Duties, will the Government consider an increase of our Duties on sparkling wines?
  Sir F. NELSON: Does the hon. Gentlemen's Department appreciate the great difficulties which British manufacturers would experience in supporting any arrangement which His Majesty's Government may come to with France in regard to the French debt, if in the meantime tariffs are placed on the goods they manufacture?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind, but I do not think any good purpose would be served by my giving expression to any opinion now.
  Sir F. NELSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the elastic manufacturers, such a tariff would have the effect of completely putting them out of business?
  Mr. SAMUEL: That may be so, but I cannot very well take up one item from a great many.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE" (LORD KITCHENER AND COL. FITZGERALD).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the small boat in which the late Lord Kitchener and the late Colonel Fitzgerald left the "Hampshire" on 5th June, 1916, has been purchased by a private individual; and whether this boat can be acquired by the Admiralty as a national relic?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): As regards the first part of the question, I cannot find the slightest evidence that Colonel Fitzgerald's body was found in

    1905
    this boat or that he or Lord Kitchener ever set foot in it. The Admiralty evidence based on contemporary official reports and confirmed by recent inquiries is that Colonel Fitzgerald's body was picked up at sea by the rescue vessels the night of the disaster, 5th June, or early next morning. It was identified and reported to the Admiralty on 6th June. I take this opportunity of adding that the stories recently circulated in the Press, either that this distinguished officer was picked up alive some days after the loss or that his body was disfigured, me false.
    To revert to the boat: The boat in question is a 16-foot skiff dinghy which belonged to the "Hampshire" in 1915 and wits approved to be replaced by a new one in May, 1916. It is therefore doubtful whether it was on board "Hampshire" on 5th June. The evidence which the Admiralty has published—as to the attempt to launch the "Hampshire's" boats—is that efforts were made to get Lord Kitchener into the captain's galley, an entirely different boat, but the weight of evidence is that no boats, but only rafts or floats, got clear of the ship. A fragment of a boat which came ashore in the Orkneys is already in the Imperial War Museum. Another boat came ashore near Thurso on the mainland. A Press report in 1922 falsely stated that this latter boat was a dinghy and contained Colonel Fitzgerald's body. It was, in fact, a 27 or:30 foot whaler, and was empty. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that this particular boat was picked up the day after the tragedy, off Hoy Head, by one of our patrolling trawlers? Does not the hon. Member think it desirable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that all the information in the possession of the Admiralty should be published?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The whole of the information in the possession of the Admiralty has been published.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is it not a fact that all the evidence at the Admiralty tends to show that Lord Kitchener never left the "Hampshire" after the explosion?
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Member say what steps the Government propose to take in view of the information which has come to hand with regard to the gross misrepresentation now being perpetrated by certain newspapers?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the Admiralty be prepared to call witnesses who can be produced from the 15 men who were survivors from the disaster? Will they be prepared to receive their evidence?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The evidence of these survivors, all of them, is in the possession of the Admiralty. It is on that evidence that this statement is made.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Were they not all, after they had been interviewed, dispatched to different parts of the world?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes; but, surely, recollection within 12 hours of the disaster would be more clear than it would be at this time of day.
    Commander FANSHAWE: As a member of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the ship, I should like to ask the hon. Member if he is not aware that only 12 men were saved alive from the "Hampshire," and that it is not true to say that more than 12 men survived the disaster?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: That is absolutely true.
    Mr. BECKETT: I have not had an answer to my question.

    SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to reduce sheerness Dockyard to a care and maintenance basis; and, if not, will he explain why?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I have already replied in the negative to a similar question from my hon. Friend on 16th December last. There is at present ample repair work to keep this dockyard employed, and it could not now be dispensed with unless leased to a private firm who could themselves undertake repair work or without the prior expenditure of considerable sums on buildings elsewhere, which, in existing circumstances, would not be justified.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not the same argument which is applied to Sheerness apply equally to Rosyth and Pembroke. None of them are manning ports? Is it the opinion of the Admiralty that Sheerness is of greater strategical value than the other two?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: No, but it is suitable to undertake the repair work which is necessary.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Member say whether the Admiralty contemplate dispensing with another dockyard, or do they not?

    COOLIE LABOUR, SINGAPORE.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to report the results of the investigation with the Colonial Office into the demand of the Singapore United Rubber Plantations Company, Limited, that less wages should be paid to coolie labour employed at the naval base, on the ground that it is tending to raise the cost of local coolie labour?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Information has now been received from the Admiralty Officer in Charge of Works, the Colonial authorities and the Rubber Growers' Association, from which it is clear that the wages of the Admiralty employés are in excess of the wages of those employed by the rubber planters; but, having regard to the different nature of the work upon which they are employed, the Admiralty are not satisfied that there is sufficient ground to order a reduction in the rates at present in force.

    ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether naval economies being effected will include the abolition of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" and other yachts?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The only yachts now in existence in the Royal Navy are the Royal yacht "Victoria and Albert" and the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" There is no question of abolishing either of these vessels.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the "Enchantress" necessary for the fighting efficiency of the Navy?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: No, but it is very useful otherwise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When we are economising on the seagoing practice of the Service, is it right to keep this luxury vessel?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: It does not cost anything.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is not the case. The hon. Member says the "Enchantress" costs nothing. That is not true. We have had that question up before.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not my duty to be censor of Minister's statements.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it by some miracle that the "Enchantress" costs nothing?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: She is laid up, and has been laid up?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member has given an obviously inaccurate answer, no doubt in error. A vessel, even when laid up, has to have care and maintenance. She has to have her engines kept in repair. How can the hon. Gentleman say that it costs nothing?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I meant relatively.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It was a "moutho graphical" error.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what provision has been made to transfer the families of men from Rosyth to other dockyards; and if it covers railway warrants to sons of transferred men up to 18 years of age?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: It has been decided, and notified to all concerned, that the established workmen to be transferred from Rosyth to the Southern Dockyards will have reasonable removal expenses for themselves, their wives, their children and their homes, defrayed from public funds. The term "children" includes sons under 16 years of age and unmarried daughters dependent on and residing with their fathers; it also includes any sons over 16 years of age who, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, are necessarily dependent on their parents. The undertaking does not in general cover the travelling expenses of sons over 16 years of age.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these families are contemplating bringing their furniture into the southern yards, and will he take steps to prevent them adopting a course which will result in their having to store their furniture owing to lack of housing accommodation?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: That is rather a matter for them.
    Mr. WATSONalso asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware fiat a deputation of limbless ex-service men, employed at Rosyth, interviewed the admiral-superintendent on the 10th instant regarding the notice of discharge served on one of their number; whether he is aware that this man is instructing a non-service established man in his duties, which he is expected to take over after the 13th; if this is in accord with the admiral - superintendent's Memorandum NO. 2697/25; and will he take steps to prevent disabled ex-service men being replaced by able-bodied men so long as these duties are available?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Every possible consideration is being and will be given to the -disabled ex-service men at Rosyth with a view to their continued employment so long as this is compatible with the efficient and economic working of the establishment, and does not involve injustice to other men. I regret that an assurance cannot be given of the continued employment of a disabled ex-service, man where, as in the case referred to by the hon. Member, this would mean eider the transfer of an established workman, with his family and his home, to another dockyard, or the superannuation of an established man.
    Mr. WATSON: Did the hon. Gentleman not give an assurance previously that so long as these jobs continued the disabled men would be kept in them? In this case the job is to continue for some time and this man is already discharged.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken. I gave an assurance that as long as work suitable for the disabled man was available he should have it., but I am afraid that in this case it impossible.

    SCAPA FLOW (SALVAGE OF GERMAN VESSELS).
    Sir F. WISEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government has any arrangement in regard to profits with Messrs. Cox and Danks, who are raising the German War vessels at Scapa Flow?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: No, Sir. The vessels sold to Messrs. Cox and Danks have been paid for at fixed prices.
    Sir F. WISE: Would my hon. Friend say whether there is any agreement in contemplation?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

    OIL TANKS, TRINCOMALEE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the oil tanks now being erected at Trincomalee will be completed; and whether it is intended that they shall be available at any time to merchants vessels as well as to vessels of His Majesty's Navy?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: It is anticipated that these oil tanks will be completed in April, 1926. The oil fuel would only be available for issue to merchant vessels in case of emergency.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask what the cost has been, and whether it includes the cost of building of railway through 120 miles of country?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I must have notice of that question.

    ATLANTIC FLEET.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of battleships, battle cruisers, light cruisers, and destroyers there are in the Atlantic Fleet; and how many Flag Officers and Commodores are serving in that Fleet in addition to the Admiral Commander in-Chief?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The details asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend are as follow:

    Battleships

    5

    Battle cruisers

    2

    Cruisers

    6

    Destroyers (including flotilla leaders)

    38

    of which nine have special complements and are normally stationed at Port Edgar, nine are maintained in reserve at Port Edgar, and two have special complements for particular duties.
    The term "light cruiser" is not now in use, all vessels previously so described being included as cruisers. The number of flag officers serving in the Atlantic Fleet, in addition to the Commander-in-Chief, is three Rear Admirals, and there are also two Commodores. The above figures do not include His Majesty's Ship "Agamemnon"—an old battleship used for target service—or her attendant destroyer "Shikari," which normally works with the Atlantic Fleet.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    FARM TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the farm training centres for young men; and whether it is contemplated to train families and women also for life on the land here and overseas?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I am glad to say that excellent progress is being made at the Claydon centre with the training of about 100 young unemployed men for employment overseas. Another centre, near Brandon, will shortly be opened. The training of families and women for life on the land would raise different problems, and I will consider the suggestion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether employment on the land of England is excluded from the curriculum of these schools, or whether it is possible to train in these establishments people who are to cutivate smallholdings and allotments on the land of England?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will look into that suggestion.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to use unemployment benefit and outdoor relief for the maintenance of young men and families on training farms in preparation for life on the land here and overseas?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards unemployment benefit I doubt if the statutory conditions could be held to be satisfied in the case of persons under training for work on the land, but the point is one which can be decided only by the statutory authorities in relation to the circumstances at particular cases. Extended benefit clearly could not be granted inasmuch as it is one of the conditions that claimants will normally seek to obtain their livelihood by means of insurable employment. The point about outdoor relief is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of obtaining statutory power to employ the unemployment benefit in this way?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will gladly consider the proposal, though it raises a number of difficult questions.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it a fact that these men, trained in these training camps are already passed as suitable under the conditions required by the Dominion Government?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know that, at any rate, the majority of them are.

    BENEFIT (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed workers who are temporarily employed by the local authorities for short periods are being deprived of benefit because the Unemployment Insurance stamps for such periods are not recognised; whether he is prepared to accept the value of such stamps; or, if not, on what section of the Unemployment Insurance Act he bases his refusal to put such stamps to the insured persons' credit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The practice is the opposite of that suggested. I

    1913
    am not aware that stamps properly affixed to books are not recognised, but I shall be happy to inquire into any case if particulars are furnished.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, PONTNEWYDD.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of. Labour whether he is aware that nearly 600 of the unemployed at Cwmbran have to walk to Pontnewydd to sign the register and draw unemployment pay, and that this entails a walk to Pontnewydd and back of three miles, often in inclement weather; and whether he can see his way to open a branch office at Cwmbran, or fix up some room temporarily, to enable these men to sign the register?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that Cwmbran is about one mile distant by level main road from Pontnewydd. I do not think the circumstances justify the extra expense involved by opening a new office.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that it is three miles back and fore, and that these people must have clothes and boots in order to do the journey, especially in this wretched weather, and will he reconsider his decision with a view of opening something temporarily?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I always try to consider the circumstances in each case, as to the number of men and women that have to walk a distance, and also the cost. It is after weighing together the cost and discomfort that I have to come to conclusions.

    MOTORIST'S CASE, SOUTHAMPTON.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a recent case at Southampton in which a motorist, convicted of riding without the requisite lights, asked to be allowed to delay the payment of the fine imposed upon him until he received his next weekly unemployment pay; and if he will have the case investigated to ascertain whether it is one in which the grant of unemployment pay is justified?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I saw a Press report of the case in question and had already instituted inquiries. I have now ascertained that the applicant was drawing standard benefit. The question whether he still satisfies the conditions
    1914
    for benefit is before the statutory authority.
    Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend put himself into communication with the statutory committee and ascertain whether this man, who is able to drive his motorcar, is entitled to unemployment benefit provided by the State?
    Mr. BECKETT: May I point out—
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is there any evidence that the motor-car belonged to the man?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The ownership of the motor-car is a matter of doubt at the present moment. We are keeping a constant watch on the case, and the development of it.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everybody drawing interest from War Loans who can do without it shall have the interest stopped?

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Labour whether there is difficulty in finding suitable women to fill this vacancies for domestic servants, amounting to 4,594, for whom situations existed at the Employment Exchanges of Great Britain on 7th December last; and whether he will take steps to notify the Exchanges that benefit will not be continued to women who are suitable for this employment and who refuse to undertake it provided a reasonable standard of conditions as regards wages, leave, and leisure time can be arranged for such employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As is well known, there is considerable difficulty in filling vacancies for resident domestic servants in private houses. The Exchanges fill a number of such vacancies each week and have already definite instructions to the effect suggested in the second part of the question, provided of course also that there is no reasonable objection, e.g., in the form of distance or family circumstances of the applicant.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, if these women go into private domestic service, they at once contract out of insurable employment; and will

    1915
    the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in most cases these women since leaving school have been in insurable occupations, and that it is not the duty of the Exchange to ask them to transfer out of the occupations to which they have been accustomed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member is not correct in his inference. Of course, as to whether women in such cases have or have not been in insurable employment in the past, the fact is that if they have been, and if they go out to domestic service—which employment is not itself insurable—they do not necessarily lose their insurable status.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that as soon as they go into private domestic service they go into a non-insurable occupation; and that, before they can get the stamps upon which benefit will be paid in the future, they must be in insurable employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The main point is this. It is just the same in the case of women who go into domestic service, as in the case of men who temporarily take up work on the land. In either case the job which they are to undertake is not in itself insurable, but they do not simply for that reason lose their status as insured persons, unless they take it up permanently or show the intention of taking it up permanently.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing disposition among the parents of these girls not to allow them to go to domestic service owing to certain cases in the Law Courts; and will he take steps to secure that those women who are transferred to domestic service, are sent to homes where the parents can be assured of their being properly treated?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We look into the propriety of the employment in any case.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I press the Minister, if his last answer is correct, as to whether he has any staff employed as investigators into the homes of those people to whom girls are transferred as domestic servants? [HON MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put that question down. That point does not necessarily arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. A question has been put on the Paper which, in fact, reflects on certain women by suggesting that they do not want work. Are we not entitled to see that these women have no such reflection cast upon them?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter. Question 35.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order, Sir. Are these girls not as much entitled to ask their employer for a character as the employers are entitled to ask the servant girl for references as to her character! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Order yourselves!
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We can roar "Order, order!" until further orders, as well as hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members should allow me to deal with one point at a time. There is no point of Order in the question put by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order. I want to submit that a statement has been made from the other side regarding my motives in putting down this question, which statement is quite improper. This question does not cast any aspersion upon any class, and I very strongly object to the suggestion that it does.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask if it is not a reflection upon these women to suggest, as this question does that benefit ought to be refused to them. Does not that mean that the hon. Member is inferring that these women are not genuinely seeking employment? That is the reflection.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is most offensive.
    Sir F. HALL: Is an hon. Member entitled after you, Sir, have called the

    1917
    next Question on the Paper—as you did in this case—to raise further Supplementary Questions and to go back upon the previous question?[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are redly preventing their colleagues from being heard. I do not think it is necessary to prolong this matter.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Why does not the hon. Member apologise? [HON. MEMBERS "Order!"]
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We can shout "Order!" as well as they can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] You can name me if you like.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is one which rests in my discretion, and I must be allowed to deal with it in my awn way. Mr. Pilcher.

    REDRUTH-ILLOCAN DRAINAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Minister of Labour what is the present attitude of the Central Unemployment Committee in regard to the demand for a grant for the proposed Redruth-Illogan drainage scheme; and whether, in its decision, the Committee will be guided by the fact that in the Mid and West Cornwall district over 3,000 men are now unemployed and unemployment benefit payments exceed 24,000 a week?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that the Unemployment Grants Committee have been unable to approve the scheme mentioned which was to cost £127,000 and to last two years. The Committee in reaching this decision had all the facts before them, including information as to the volume of unemployment in the Redruth district.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AWARDS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Labour whether unemployment benefit is paid to men who may recently have received large awards in respect of workmen's compensation; and whether this is in accordance with the Regulations?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A person receiving workmen's compensation is not thereby disqualified for unemployment
    1918
    benefit. The position is not altered if he has compounded the weekly payments for a lump sum. Such a person must, of course, show that he satisfies the usual conditions for benefit, including the condition that he must be capable of work.

    TRADE UNION ADMINISTRATION.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour the amount paid to the trade unions for the administration of benefits for insured persons for the years 1922–23, 1923–24, and 1924–25?
    Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: The amounts paid to associations in respect of the cost of administration by them of unemployment benefit during the three years in question were:

    £

    1922–23

    149,237

    1923–24

    66,743

    1924–25

    55,114

    Mr. PALING: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage of the cost of administration?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I could not.

    WOMEN, STEPNEY.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many women applied at the Stepney Employment Exchange for unemployment benefit during each of the six months ending 14th February; in how many instances was all benefit refused and the cause of such refusal; and in how many cases was benefit refused after less than a month's payments had been received by the applicant, and the cause for such refusal;
    (2) how many women applied for unemployment benefit, at the Stepney Employment Exchange during each of the six months ending 14th February; and how many claims from these women were disallowed and the reason for such disallowance?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply to these questions involves a considerable number of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving all the available information.
    The following is the statement:

    APPLICATIONS for UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT by WOMEN at STEPNEY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

    —

    25th Aug. to 14th Sept., 1925.

    15th Sept. to 12th Oct., 1925.

    13th Oct. to 16th Nov., 1925.

    17th Nov. to 14th Dec, 1925.

    15th Dec., 1925, to 11th Jan., 1926.

    12th Jan. to 8th Feb., 1926.

    Total.

    Total Applications for Benefit.

    Fresh and Repeat Claims.*

    154

    170

    279

    177

    300

    146

    1,226

    Applications to Local Employment Committee for Extended Benefit.†

    Considered

    …

    …

    75

    29

    41

    70

    53

    110

    378

    Allowed:

    For 12 weeks

    …

    1

    2

    2

    —

    —

    —

    5

    For less than 12 weeks

    63

    23

    31

    47

    35

    50

    249

    Disallowed:

    Not reasonable period of insurable employment.

    2

    —

    7

    19

    14

    15

    57

    Not making reasonable effort to obtain work.

    3

    4

    1

    2

    2

    28

    40

    Single peasons

    …

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    1

    Married women living with husbands to obtain whom they can look for support.

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    17

    20

    Aliens

    …

    …

    6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    6

    Total disallowed

    …

    11

    4

    8

    23

    18

    60

    124

    * Includes repeat claims made by the same individual.

    † Statistics of the number of applications for Standard Benefit disallowed are not available.

    ADMINISTRATION (COST).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the total cost of the administration of the Unemployed Insurance Acts during 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total cost of administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts during the financial year ended 31st March, 1925, was £4,494,760. This sum, which was repaid by the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer, includes the cost of the Employment Exchanges so far as they deal with insured persons.

    CONTRIBUTION.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid by employers, insured persons, and the State, respectively, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The amounts contributed under the Unemployment
    1920
    Insurance Acts during the calendar year 1925 were approximately as follow:

    £

    By employers

    20,030,000

    By insured persons

    17,760,000

    By the Exchequer

    13,250,000

    BENEFIT, 1925.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the whole amount of benefit paid to insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total amount of benefit paid under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during the calendar year 1925 was approximately £45,800,000.

    EXCHANGE, BLACKWOOD, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the work of the Employment Exchange at Blackwood, Monmouthshire, is

    1921
    carried on in a small room in a shop that will only hold six persons; that there are at present nearly 500 unemployed there; that these men and women have to wait sometimes over two hours in the cold and rain to register, etc.; that many of them have poor and insufficient clothes and bad boots, and that, consequently, their health is endangered by this needless exposure; that there is a hall available for which the unemployed them-salves have offered to pay, but they are told they cannot go there unless there are over 500 unemployed; and will he take steps to rectify these grievances?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that there are under 400 persons claiming unemployment benefit at Blackwood. A quarter-hourly timing system is in operation and provided that claimants keep to the time table there should be no overcrowding or necessity for waiting outside the premises. Extra accommodation therefore ought not to be necessary, but if unemployment should increase extra accommodation would be obtained as has been done in the past.

    ROTA COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that numbers of unemployed have been summoned to meetings with the rota committee to which the committee had not been summoned, or if summoned did not receive notification till too late to attend the meeting, and that unnecessary hardship and expense is being imposed on these people, some of whom have to travel long distances; that imemployed women who live at Argoed, in the Sirhowy valley, have to meet the Iota committee at Bargoed, in the lihymney valley, although the unemployed men from the same place meet them at Blackwood, which is only a mile and a half away and in the same valley; and will he take steps to have these matters put right?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware that there is ground for this complaint and should be glad to know of any cases which have come to the knowledge of the hon. Member. I am making inquiry into the cases referred to in the second part of the question
    1922
    and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    BUILDING TRADE, SALTCOATS.
    Lieut. - Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that two housing schemes have had to be abandoned in the Burgh of Saltcoats owing to the high cost of building and the shortage of building labour; and whether he will call the attention of the neighbouring Employment Exchanges to the good prospects of employment in the building trade in the district in question?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiry made, and will cornmunioate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    COAL MINERS.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of coal miners unemployed in South Wales and the other coalfields, respectively, during each month from July, 1925, to February, 1926.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures are being extracted, and as soon as this has been completed I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    PERTH-INVERNESS ROAD
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the numbers of men sent by the Dundee Employment Exchange to work on the Perth-Inverness road; whether he is aware that these men are paid upon an hourly wage basis and get no pay during periods of inclement weather when work is impossible; that) as a consequence, some of these men have been able to earn as low as 12s. 2d. and 12e. 6d. per week; that there are complaints as to living conditions and costs of commodities at the contractor's stores; and how many men have refused to work under these wages and conditions and have been refused insurance benefit at the Labour Exchange in Dundee?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Up to 6th January, 128 men have been sent from Dundee to this road. It is customary to pay for such work on an hourly basis for the hours worked. Men on the job who will work when work is regarded as

    1923
    possible earn from 35s. to 40s. a week, and reports I have received indicate that there is no reasonable ground for complaint with the conditions or the accommodation. The site is in an exposed position and this fact, with the recent bad weather, may account for complaint of insufficient earnings. I am inquiring into the last two points raised by the hon. Member and will communicate again with him.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If I can show the right hon. Gentleman official wages sheets for a week, proving that men have only been able to earn 12s. 2d. a week, and that these men, who could stick it no longer, have been refused benefit at the Dundee Employment Exchange on the ground that they have refused employment, will he go into the whole matter and get this scandal stopped?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly, I will go into the whole matter again, but I would remind the hon. Member that work of this kind for men from Dundee and similar towns was only set up at the urgent request of hon. Members, in order to try and meet the situation. Of course, if he will communicate facts to me of that kind, I will gladly get the thing gone into.

    UNEMPLOYED WOMEN (MEDICAL TEST, GOVAN).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of women who are signing at the Govan Employment Exchange have been called upon to undergo a medical examination by medical doctors at the Exchange; whether he can state the reasons for this course and its purpose; whether the medical examination is compulsory on those called to undergo it; if not, whether women so called upon can refuse without prejudice to their claims for benefit; and whether he can state under which Statute these powers are operated by his Department?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I presume the hon. Member refers to a test which is being carried out with my consent by the Industrial Research Fatigue Board. Acceptance of the test, which is carried out by a woman doctor and a woman assistant, is absolutely voluntary, and does not affect benefit in any way. The proposal of the Board was considered by
    1924
    a conference of women representatives of local employment committees in Glasgow who considered that it would be useful.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that women who are going to the Exchanges are told that they are to be examined by a lady doctor without being told it is voluntary, and being led to assume that, if they do not undergo this medical examination, their claim to benefit will be prejudiced, and probably disallowed; and, further, since this has been done with the right hon. Gentleman's consent, will he now withdraw that consent and have the Exchange used for the purpose for which it ought to be used, that is, finding unemployed people employment, and not allow—[Interruption.] Are these the gentlemen of England.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather too long with his supplementary questions. He really must have consideration for others.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is a very serious matter.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But I want to point out this is really a very serious matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is not a serious matter to men who are well paid.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait to hear the reply of the Minister.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must not draw the inference that women are led to undergo any examination without being told it is voluntary on their part. I will undertake to make inquiries, or, rather, to send down in order to ensure chat it shall be made quite clear that it shall be entirely voluntary and unconnected with benefit. On the other hand, I am always willing to say that inquiries by the Research Board are for the general good, and I should be very sorry to stop them.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I want to know by what right the Ministry of Labour puts this particular examination upon the women who are going to these Exchanges for unemployment benefit. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that satisfactorily, I am going to move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would you like your women to be examined?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has all eady said, in reply to the hon. Member, that he will send word to make it quite clear that this is entirely voluntary.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour what right his Department has in asking those women, even voluntarily, to undergo this examination in a Government office that is set aside for a specific purpose?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My reply is ichat it is a perfectly right and proper thing at the proper request of any citizen to do what is a service to the general community.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I give notice that at the conclusion of Questions, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. WINDSORasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large number of claims to unemployment insurance benefit which have been rejected on the ground of no reasonable period of employment and not making reasonable effort to obtain employment, he will state, as regards the former, what period of employment is necessary to secure a further hearing by a local employment committee, and as regards the latter, what evidence is necessary in order to secure a further hearing by a local employment committee?
    Sir. A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As a general role, where applications for extended benefit have been rejected either on the ground that the applicant has not had a reasonable period of insurable employment in the last two years, or on the ground that he is not making reasonableeffor's, another claim to such benefit is not subsequently entertained until the applicant can show either that he has done eight weeks' work or until a period of six months has elapsed. Special circumstances, however, may take any case out of the simple application of the general rule.

  WAGES VALUE AND COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the percentage increase in the gold value of wages paid in this country due to the rise
  1926
  in the value of the £ sterling for the period January, 1925, to January, 1926; and whether he can give the percentage fall in the cost of living for the same period?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 31st December, 1925, weekly full-time rates of wages averaged between 1 and 2 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The cost of living figures at the present moment indicate a decrease of a little over 3 per cent. below the corresponding figure for a year ago. I fear that I cannot give an authoritative statement as to how far either the increase in the nominal rates of wages or the decrease in the cost of living figure is due to the rise in the value of the £ sterling.

  HOURS OF LABOUR (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Labour whether Japan has yet ratified the agreement as to hours of labour arrived at by the International Labour Conference at Washington in 1919; and the number of hours that her cotton mills work a day?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is that Japan has not yet ratified the Washington Hours Convention. With regard to the second part, according to statistics supplied by the Japan 'Cotton Spinners' Association, and published by the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Associations, which are the latest figures in my possession, the working hours in cotton mills in Japan, in the year "1924, averaged 91 per shift, two shifts being worked by the mills per day.
  Mr. T. SHAW: Has this country ratified the Washington Convention?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that these cotton mills in Japan have machinery running for 22 hours per day; and can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government have refused to call Japan to the Conference in regard to the proper ratification of the eight-hours days: and, further, can he say if he is prepared to propose an international boycott of any country where goods are produced in violation of the signatures appended to this document?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question does not arise.
  Mr. RILEY: Have the Government any information that Japan is not prepared to ratify the Washington Convention if Great Britain and France do the same?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) as to whether Great Britain has ratified the Convention, I am glad to give him the information for which lie wishes, and it is that, as yet, we have not done so. With regard to the questions by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) I am not aware that in Japan these mills are working for 22 hours a day, but if the hon. Member has any fresh information on the subject, I shall be glad to get it. As regards an invitation to Japan to attend this preliminary conference, the only reason for inviting a limited number of countries, in the first instance, is that if agreement is to be ultimately reached among the larger number, the best way to success is to see whether some of the countries involved cannot first come to agreement among themselves. Obviously, it would be more practical to proceed in this way than to endeavour to find agreement in the first instance among the 30 or more countries concerned.
  Mr. RILEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question, which was, whether the Government have any information that Japan will ratify the Convention when Great Britain has done the same.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not to my remembrance at the moment. If the hon. Member will put the question down or ask me privately, I will give him whatever information I have with regard to it.
  Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that lots of countries have signified their willingness to sign this Convention if Great Britain will do so first?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is the case in one or two instances, but in only a few.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether he can announce the date of the
  1928
  forthcoming conference of Ministers of Labour; and whether its sessions will be open to the public?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The date that has been suggested to the foreign Governments concerned for the opening of the conference is 15th March. It will be for the conference to decide whether its sessions shall be open to the public.

  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (STANDING ORDERS).
  Captain REIDasked the Prime Minister whether for the convenience of Members, he will consider the desirability of so amending this Standing Orders that on those occasions when Government business at present ends at 8.15, it would in future be brought to a close at 7.45 or 8 o'clock?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not prepared to ask the House to alter the hours of business as at present arranged.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (WOMEN TEMPORARY CLERKS).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Labour how many women temporary clerks are employed in the Employment Exchanges; how many have had from 5 to 10 years' service; and whether it is the policy of the Ministry to gradually replace such women by young trainees?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of temporary women clerks in the Employment Exchange service is at present 756, 246 of whom have had from 5 to 10 years' service. It is the policy of the Department to recruit permanent staff only to the extent likely to be required for the minimum volume of permanent work. I may add that the temporary women staff have had several opportunities of qualifying for permanent posts, and nearly 400 have secured such posts in my Department.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that a good many of these women have been turned off after years of service, varying from 5 to 10 years, when they have proved themselves efficient and capable,

    1929
    and is it fair that they should be replaced by young trainees, most of whom these very women who have been turned off have had to train?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down any detailed question. I can give him an answer on the general policy, which is that temporary work is filled by temporary clerks, but that they are given an opportunity, if they are good enough, of recruiting for the permanent service.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that. Exchange officials themselves have declared that with a larger number on the permanent staff their work would be done much more expeditiously and efficiently?

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures showing the comparison of numbers engaged on the total staff of the Ministry for the following dates, 1st January, 1917, 1st January, 1924, 1st tiatluary, 1925, and 1st January, 1926; and whether he anticipates any reduction of numbers during the present year?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The staff of the Ministry working on the dates mentioned—apart from cleaners—was as follows:

    1st January, 1917

    5,877*

    1st January, 1924

    14,511

    1st January, 1925

    15,316

    1st January, 1926

    14,574

    * Excluding officers engaged on services subsequently transferred to the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland.

    The highest number reached was 28,407 at 1st July, 1921.
    In addition there were the following numbers of industrial stiff at Government instructional factories:
    1,019 at 1st January, 1924; 654 at 1st January, 1925, and 407 at 1st January, 1926. The corresponding staff at 1st January, 1917, was not under the Ministry of Labour.
    The number of staff required this year depends principally on the number of registered unemployed, but no efforts are spared to restrict the number to the narrowest possible limits compatible with efficiency.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR GAZETTE.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether any steps have been taken to improve the form of the Ministry of Labour Gazette with a view to increasing its circulation and make it self-supporting?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Consistent efforts have been made with the object of increasing the circulation of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, by attempting to make its contents of more general interest, within the limits necessarily imposed on an official publication, for which strict technical accuracy is a first essential. Among other improvements, I would call attention to the increased use of diagrams to illustrate the statistics. The matter continues to receive attention, and should be glad to consider any practicable suggestions which the hon. Member or any others of those who use the Gazette may like to make. The number of copies of the Gazette sold in the last six months of 1925 was nearly 18 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1924, and that for January, 1926, over 20 per cent. higher than for January, 1925.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what effect these diagrams and other improvements have had already on the circulation?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: An increase of 20 per cent. this January over the sales of January a year ago.

  UNLICENSED CATERING TRADE.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to lay before the House of Commons the results of the recently-completed official inquiry into conditions in the unlicensed catering trade?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I stated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. W. Graham) on Thursday, the 11th February, I hope that the Report in question will shortly be available.

  SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to

  1931
  the increasing number of Supplementary Questions asked in this House, and how very unfair it is to those who have questions later on the Order Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I wish all Members would take it to heart that, if they occupy too much time in Supplementaries—I have always been myself against any hard and fast rule—they are depriving their colleagues of their proper opportunities.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the proper thing that Ministers to whom questions are addressed should give satisfactory answers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not remember an occasion when Ministers' answers were always considered satisfactory.

  SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  Mr. HAYES (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make regarding the Marine Wireless Dispute; whether the parties concerned have met since Saturday last; whether any further meeting has been arranged; and whether he can hold out any hope of an early settlement?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Prolonged discussions took place at the Ministry of Labour yesterday between representatives of the Ministry and the representatives of the parties to the dispute. Arrangements have been made for these discussions to be continued this afternoon. I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment.
  Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman or his Department at any time made any proposal to the parties, and, if so, can he give any information?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid I cannot answer these points of detail.
  Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether, at any time, he has himself interviewed the parties jointly or separately, and, if not, in view of the seriousness of this question, will he undertake to see the parties?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will undertake to see that everything is done
  1932
  which can properly lead to a proper settlement of the dispute. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not see them yourself?"] If need be, I would certainly see the parties myself, but I have to be judge of the best way in which the negotiations should be carried on.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister inform us whether any representative of the employers at any conference has been entrusted with powers to agree to the terms of the men?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With the permission of the House, I do not think it well to continue to answer questions while the dispute is going on, and while every effort is being made to try to reach a satisfactory settlement. It can only prejudice the chances of a settlement being arrived at.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter of importance to the men to know whether a representative of the employers has been entrusted with any power to conclude an agreement?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far down the Order Paper he proposes to go to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the first six Votes.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The first six Votes—will that mean an all-night sitting?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see any necessity for that.
Mr. STEPHEN: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the House, in connection will these arrangements, what the Government intend to do in regard to the Estimate of the Ministry of Health that was withdrawn the other day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say when that will come up again.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman says the first six Votes, does he mean the whole of the six Supply Votes on the Order

1933
Paper in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or does he mean to include the Public Works Loans Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: No. Had I meant what the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to, I should have used the word "Orders."
Motion made and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 128.

Division No. 28.]

AYES.

[4.3 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

Dawson, Sir Philip

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Albery, Irving James

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Dixey, A. C.

Jephcott, A. R.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Edmonton, Major A. J.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Atholl, Duchess of

Elvedon, Viscount

Knox, Sir Alfred

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

England, Colonel A.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Balniel, Lord

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Berry, Sir George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Loder, J. de V.

Bethell, A.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Looker, Herbert William

Betterton, Henry B.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Lord, Walter Greaves

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Fermoy, Lord

Lougher, L.

Blundell, F. N.

Fielden, E. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Boothby, R. J. G.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Forrest, W.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Frece, Sir Walter de

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Brass, Captain W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacIntyre, Ian

Briggs, J. Harold

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

McLean, Major A.

Briscoe, Richard George

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macmillan, Captain H.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Gates, Percy

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Macquisten, F. A.

Brown, col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

MacRobert Alexander M.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Goff, Sir Park

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Bullock, Captain M.

Grace, John

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Burman, J. B.

Grant, J. A.

Malone, Major P. B.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Margesson, Captain D.

Campbell, E. T.

Gretton, Colonel John

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Meyer, Sir Frank

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Harland, A.

Moles, Thomas

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)

Chapman, Sir S.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Christie, J. A.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Haslam, Henry C.

Murchison, C. K.

Clarry, Reginald George

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootle)

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

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Nuttall, Ellis

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Oakley, T.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hilton, Cecil

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Cope, Major William

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Couper, J. B.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Craig, Capt. At. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

Homan, C. W. J.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Pielou, D. P.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Pilcher, G.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Preston, William

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Price, Major C. W. M.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Radford, E. A.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hume, Sir G. H.

Raine, W.

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Huntingfield, Lord

Ramsden, E.

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

Hurd, Percy A.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Remnant, Sir James

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Watts, Dr. T.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wells, S. R.

Ropner, Major L.

Storry-Deans, R.

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Rye, F. G.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Salmon, Major I.

Tasker, Major R. I.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Templeton, W. P.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Sandon, Lord

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wolmer, Viscount

Samson, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Womersley, W. J.

Savery, S. S.

Tinne, J. A.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Shepperson, E. W.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Skelton, A. N.

Waddington, R.

Wragg, Herbert

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smithers, Waldron

Warrender, Sir Victor

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir

Somerville, A. A. (Wirdsor)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Harry Barnston.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

NOES.

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Scurr, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Sexton, James

Barnes, A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barr, J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Batey, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sitch, Charles H.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromfield, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snell, Harry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Buchanan, G.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Kelly, W. T.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Cape, Thomas

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

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Kenyon, Barnet

Stephen, Campbell

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lansbury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Compton, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Taylor, R. A.

Connolly, M.

Lee, F.

Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Thurtle, E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Crawford, H. E.

Mackinder, W.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

MacLaren, Andrew

Varley, Frank B.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Wellhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Maxton, James

Warne, G. H.

Day, Colonel Harry

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

Montague, Frederick

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Fenby, T. D.

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gee, Captain R.

Naylor, T. E.

Westwood, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Oliver, George Harold

Whiteley, W.

Gillett, George M.

Owen, Major G.

Wiggins, William Martin

Greenall, T.

Palle, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colna)

Paling, W.

Winton's, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Groves, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Windsor, Walter

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Rose, Frank H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harris, Percy A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Heyday, Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Hayes.

MEMBER'S VOTE (VALIDITY).
Mr. THURTLE: I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the correct procedure to be adopted in order to challenge the validity of a vote that an hon. Member of this House may give, on the ground of private interest. According
1936
to the Rule 141 of the Manual of Procedure
"A member may not vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. If he votes on such a question his vote may, on Motion, be disallowed."
The point I wish to pot is this: Whether such a Motion, challenging the validity

1937
of a vote, has to be put down immediately after the Division has taken place, or whether it may be put down at some suosequent time?
Mr. SPEAKER: Any point of the sort that is taken must be taken immediately after the vote is given, whether in Committee or in the House, whichever the case may be.
Mr. THURTLE: Further, Sir, may I submit to you that there is no Standing Order governing the matter. The Select Committee of 1896 in this matter of Members of Parliament's personal interest recommended an effective Standing Order should be adopted. Such Standing Order never has been adopted by this House. If present procedure is peisisted in it really takes, away the effective right of a Member of this House to challenge the validity of a vote, because it is not competent for Members to decide immediately after a Division whether a Member has so voted or not. It is not until a Member has had time to peruse the Division Lists that he can discover how a vote has been given.
Mr. SPEAKER: In the absence of a Standing Order, we are governed by the general practice of the House. That practice is quite clear, It is that the challenge to a vote given in a particular case must be made immediately following the division in which the member has voted.
Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point, Mr. Speaker. How is an hon. Member to know—what method can he take to know—how another member has voted? It is impossible.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that "immediately" is interpreted as being immediately on the publication of the Division List, and that that requires that it must be immediately on the publication of the list that the Motion has to be tabled? That, Sir, would meet the point raised, and would meet the common sense of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: In the last 50 years it has always been held that complaint or challenge must be made immediately after the vote has been given in the Committee or in the House.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you, Sir, how a member is to know whether an hon. Member has voted or not? I quite see the point you are making, but we cannot tell how the vote has gone until we zee the Division List.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not "immediately" after the publication of the list, Sir?
Mr. SPEAKER: Immediately the vote has been given. I myself remember some years ago a case arising when it was suggested that a member had so voted, and the matter was then immediately raised.
Mr. THURTLE: I apologise for raising the point. Might I ask for your further guidance in this matter? Is it within the competence of the Chair to rule whether or not there is a direct pecuniary interest involved? I submit this point: whether the vote of a Member who is a director of a public company which receives a direct subsidy from the Government does or does not create a pecuniary interest in the particular subsidy?
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I—
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman look at the ruling which has been given, he will see that a general rule is qualified by further words, that the matter is not one of general interest to His Majesty's Service, and not a matter of public policy. It is for the Chairman or the Speaker, whichever it may be, if the point be raised, to rule upon.
Mr. D. HERBERT: The hon. Member who put the question spoke of another hon. Member being a director. Is not the point this: Whether or not that director receives fees? Presumably, if he be a director not receiving fees, there is no interest which should make any obstacle as to his voting.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must be excused from giving any opinion on a general proposition like that. A matter of the sort will be dealt with if and when it may arise.

UNEMPLOYED WOMEN (MEDICAL TEST, GOVAN).
Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House

1939
for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the illegal action of the Minister of Labour in placing the Employment Exchanges at the service of the. Industrial Research Fatigue League, and asking unemployed women to undergo medical examination in a manner that leads these women to believe they will lose benefit if they refuse."
Mr. SPEAKER: First of all, in reply to the hon. Member, if there be any illegal action, the Courts are open, and the Minister can be brought to book in that way. With regard to the matter itself, I cannot hold that it is a question sufficiently definite urgent public importance to come under the Rule.
Mr. MACLEAN: If I delete the word "illegal" Mr. Speaker, will that make the wording better?
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can you give us a form of words?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am always anxious to help hon. Members if I can do so.
Mr. MACLEAN: In what way can we meet the point, and move this Motion for Adjournment when the Exchanges are being used in this manner, and where women are being led to believe that unless they submit they will lose their unemployment benefit? I want to know in what way I can arrange the Motion to bring it before this House so as to obtain the Adjournment?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not submitted his Motion in writing, and that makes it difficult for me to rule. I can only deal with it as he read it out. It does not seem to come under the Rule in regard to definiteness, and after the Questions and Answers we have had, I do not see how it can be made out to be urgent.
Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Motion not state definitely enough that the Ministry of Labour are doing something definite that is injurious to hundreds and thousands of women who are signing on at the Employment Exchanges, that we hold that this is not part of the work of the Employment Exchanges, and that we are calling in question the action of the Ministry in doing this particular thing.
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot argue the matter with the hon. Member.
Ballot for Notices of Motion.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I put this Motion for the Adjournment in other terms?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Mr. G. HIRST: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of food supplies, and move a Resolution.
  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of international conventions, and move a Resolution.
  ECONOMY.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of economy in theory and in practice, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Deportment."
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I do this, not only with the object of inducing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give some explanation to the Committee of the expenditure under some of these heads, but also in order to draw attention to the fact that the Government's finance schemes are involving a continuous increase in the number of officials who are employed by the Revenue Department. Questions have been put in the House from time to time whether or not the New Duties imposed under the Finance Act of last year and the Safeguarding Duties would involve any increase in staff, and, if my memory serves me rightly, the answer was given in the House that it would not involve any increase in the staff. Now, when the Supplementary Vote comes forward, we find provision made to meet the cost of work in connection with the New Duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1925, and that under that subhead alone no less than £16,000 is required for what is only a portion of the financial year. Under the next subhead provision is made
    "To meet cost of work in connection with the new duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1925."
    It is a sum of not less than £24,000. It is quite clear that either this Supplementary Estimate is wrong or the answer was wrong, and I hope the Financial Secretary is prepared to explain how it is that answer was given at Question Time and
    1964
    we are now presented with a Supplementary Estimate for a total sum of £40,000 additional expenditure on the very point with which the question dealt.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): When were those questions put?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the exact date, but my hon. Friend behind me tells me the statement was made in answer to a question by him, and there were other questions by hon. Gentlemen both above and below the Gangway just before the House rose for Christmas. The increase in the number of officials required in the Customs and Excise Department is becoming of increasing importance, for the total salary account of this Department now runs to very nearly £4,000,000 per annum. That is an enormous amount to take from the revenue which is collected, and it emphasises the argument, used again and again in this House, that whenever a tariff is imposed and indirect taxes are thus placed upon the subject, the cost of collection is out of all proportion to the charge which is imposed by direct taxation, say by an increase of the Income Tax, the Super-tax, or Death Duties. The collection of our revenue under any of those direct headings can be undertaken with little or no addition to the number of officials required in the Inland Revenue Department whereas the system of taxation which has been adopted by the Government leads inevitably to an increase in the numbers of staff. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what additional numbers have been required, whether their work is imposed upon them owing to the Silk Duties in the main, and whether the Safeguarding Duties which were carried through Parliament just before the House rose at Christmas also involved the Department in an increase of staff.
    The cost of these duties does not end with this Vote. There is little doubt that the impediment which has been placed in the way of trade has in itself imposed further heavy costs on those directly engaged in it. When we speak of the total cost of these extra duties being something like £40,000 for this short period, we have also to remember that there is a burden thrown upon those engaged in these trades, the traffic in which is impeded.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now going into the policy of import duties. Though he would be perfectly in order in discussing the administration involved in the Estimate, but now he is going beyond these particular items.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of course, I shall not discuss the policy of import duties at but I want to point this out to the Committee, and ask for a reply from the Financial Secretary as to whether he regards this sum as the total charge falling on the subject, because there are also a large number of indirect charges which make these extra burdens all the more severe and against which the taxpayer has a right to express his protest.
    The CHAIRMAN: But we are not dealing with those indirect charges here.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite agree that there is no money taken on this Vote for those indirect charges, but the work of these officials and the restrictions they impose must of necessity be of the greatest disadvantage to those engaged in these various trades. There is an anticipated saving under other subheads of which no explanation is given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let us know what these anticipated savings are. But the main paint to which I would direct attention is that the method adopted by the Treasury for the raising of revenue had added heavily to the cost of this Department, and from month to month will undoubtedly add to the burden thrown on the Exchequer for the collection of these duties.
    Mr. McNEILL: I confess I was a, little disconcerted by what the right hon. Gentleman said about a question being put shortly before the House rose which was answered by the statement that no increase of staff would be required. I can only suppose that he is referring to some question which I have not now got before me with reference to the duties which were being imposed at that time. If that be so, the answer holds good, for it has nothing to do with the duties referred to in the present Vote. On the 24th November the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hall (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    "Whether there has been an increase, and, if so, what increase, in the number of
    1966
    Customs and Excise officers, respectively, since 23rd July last; and if there has been an increase, what additional expense has been incurred?"
    In reply to that, my right hon. Friend said:
    "I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that, as he was informed in reply to a similar question on the 23rd July, it is not possible to apportion an increase of staff to Customs and Excise work, respectively, as many officers are employed on both. The net increase in the staff of the Customs and Excise Department since the 23rd July up to the 31st October has been 140. The total staff is approximately 11,500. The net annual cost of this increase is approximately £23,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1925; col. 1147, Vol. 188.]
    Consequently, I think I am right in saying no answer could have been given which led the House to suppose that the particular duties referred to in this Vote would not involve any additional cost. I think it will be fair to say that, in its main aspects at all events, this Vote is what we know in another connection as "a consequential amendment." The Finance Act passed in the course of last summer imposed a number of additional duties on such articles as silk, lace, embroidery, hops, motor-cars, musical instruments, clocks, watches, films, and so forth. Of course, as those duties were only imposed during the summer, no provision for the cost of collection was made, or could have been made, at the time when the original Estimate for this Department was framed. The two items which are, in that respect, "consequential amendments," which are to provide for the cost of collection, are the provision for the cost of work in connection with the duties at the head office, amounting to £16,000, and the first division under Subhead "B," which provides for the cost of the Department not at headquarters but in what is called the out-of-doors part of the administration, and this comes to £24,000.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken tried to intimate to the Committee that the cost of collection of these duties was likely to be so heavy as to make them very unsound finance. That is not my view. It is quite true that I cannot tell at the present time what will be the actual cost of collection for the whole financial year, but on the scale of this Supplementary Vote I do not think

    1967
    the cost of collection will be disproportionately heavy. The actual proceeds of the taxation up to the present time, although we have not nearly completed a full financial year, amount to a sum of over £3,000,000. Consequently, the total of those two items of £16,000 and £24,000 can hardly be called, I think, very onerous as the cost of collecting this amount of revenue.
    Another sub-division to which I ought to call attention is the sum of £17,000, which is set down as
    "Further provision for bonus owing to the average cost of-living index figure proving higher than anticipated."
    That is an example of what I have already defended, if it need defence, on other Votes, namely, what I regard as wise under-estimating. It is very difficult at the beginning, or rather some weeks or months before the beginning of a financial year to say what will be the average cost-of-living index figure throughout the coming 12 months, and as the bonus is based upon that figure the salary portion of the cost of administration will depend upon the rise or fall of that figure. It is very important to get as near as we can to a forecast of what that figure will be The amount of skill shown by experts in these matters in getting so near as they do to a forecast of a very problematical and fluctuating figure of that sort fills me with admiration. When these Estimates were being framed, there was some difference of opinion as to whether the index figure should be taken at 80 or 75. To be on the safe side, to make sure of not requiring to come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate, we might have taken the figure of 80, and, if that had been done, then, instead of asking for a supplementary sum now, there would have been a considerable, a substantial sum of money to surrender at the end of the financial year. The figure which was taken was 75, and as a matter of fact the cost-of-living index figure worked out at 77 and a fraction, and the consequence is that at the end of the year we find ourselves to a certain extent short, and it is necessary to ask the House for this sum of £17,000.
    There is one other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention. I think at the moment he was on the point of straying from order, but he did
    1968
    intimate that there was a great impediment to trade through the duties. I suppose his point was that the administration of these duties necessarily imposed a certain amount of impediment upon trade. Of course, when these duties—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must warn the right hon. Gentleman also that he must not pursue this matter.
    Mr. McNEILL: I have not the slightest intention of dealing with the matter in a way which would be out of order, I submit. If I am told that the Committee are not to be allowed to make any attack upon the extra staff which has been employed to administer these duties, no one will be better pleased than myself; but if there is to be any attack whatever upon the necessity for extra staff imposed by these duties, then I submit I am entitled to say that that extra staff has not, in point of fact, had the effect of impeding freedom of trade, and the ordinary operations of the merchants concerned.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure that I made my meaning clear. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) was proceeding to argue, not only that the New Customs Duties had imposed a charge for the staff, but that they impeded the proper circulation of trade, and it seemed to me that that was not relevant to this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am pleased to hear that. I shall be glad to be relieved of that task; it certainly simplifies my reply. Parliament has already imposed this taxation. I have shown that it was impossible to forecast the cost of the taxation, but having imposed that taxation the House cannot logically object to the small sum which is now being voted.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not looked up the actual answer, but my recollection is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House to understand that there would be no increase in the staff. I remember that I had a series of questions on that point, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly gave us to understand that the present staff would be able to carry on without any extra staff.
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was in his place some few months ago when the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exactly to the opposite effect.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the anticipated savings.
    Mr. McNEILL: There is a, saving of £12,000 in the Superannuation Grants in the case of the Customs; on Officials Travelling Expenses there is a saving of £5,000; and a further saving of £5,000 under the heading of Miscellaneous small items, making the total £22,000.
    Mr. HARRIS: We have just had a very interesting and clear statement from the Financial Secretary, but I am not quite clear about the contingent liabilities. I think I am right in saying that the full extent of this work has not yet risen to its peak load. At the present moment the principal business of the Board of Customs is collecting drawbacks. I am informed that every day the number of claims for drawbacks is increasing. The large stocks of silk in the country at the time the new tax was imposed have taken a good many months to exhaust, therefore the full force of the new tax is only now being felt. I know that nearly the whole of the Customs staff is working overtime. I am also informed that a large number of members of the staff of the Customs service have been engaged dealing with drawbacks. I want to know, in calculating the cost of this administration, how much has been allowed for the purpose of paying for the extra work caused by these drawbacks. Obviously, with so many articles, it would involve a great deal of work. I know that thousands of forms have been passed through every day and that large sums have had to be returned to exporters under the new duties. I am informed that so heavy has been this work during the last two or three months that the Customs officials found it impossible to examine all the cases, and have had to call in the assistance of another Department. I come in close contact with traders, and I am told that so heavy has been the call on the time of the Customs officials on account of their new responsibilities that they have had to neglect the carrying out of the details
    1970
    of their ordinary office work. The number of articles exported on which drawbacks are being claimed is increasing. Articles like silk ties, webs, braces, stockings, ladies' jackets and blouses, all contain a certain percentage of silk and the dealers are claiming drawbacks. That means the filling up of a large number of forms and the making of claims for rebates. It also means that the officials have to examine the goods.
    If it is really true that there has not been a large increase in the staff, all I can say is that in the past the Customs officials have been very much overworked We know, however, that that is not the case. The work is increasing every day, and if these people are to be properly paid and not overworked, there is bound to be a large increase in the staff next spring which will have to be provided for in a Supplementary Estimate. The increased work is caused by the drawbacks and not by the collection of Customs. Heavy work has been placed on the officials by this extra labour, and I hope the Financial Secretary will make it clear how far this extra work has been caused by drawbacks.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Before I give a vote upon this Estimate I want to raise a complaint against the Department. I take this course in order to give the Minister an opportunity of giving me an answer to a complaint which has been universal so far as the work of the Customs authority at the ports is concerned, in dealing with ordinary travellers. I have recently had the experience of travelling over three frontiers, and two of them were foreign frontiers. I agree that the work of the Customs officials in regard to the two foreign frontiers is being very efficiently and courteously done, with the minimum of discomfort to the travellers, but, unfortunately, on our own frontier we were herded together in a shed, and we waited for over half an hour, and we had a long list of articles pushed under our noses by the officials, and we were asked if we had any of those articles to declare.
    That list took 20 minutes to read and then we were allowed to go through. After our experience at the two foreign frontiers, I think our experience at our own frontier was humiliating. Those of us who think the system might be improved have a chance on this Vote of

    1971
    asking for some improvement. So far as courtesy and efficiency are concerned, I have never met any Customs officials who are the equal of our own in this respect, but they are asked to perform an impossible task, and I suggest that either the system should be simplified or the Customs officials should be on the boat before it lands and make their examination on the boat, where it could be done far more efficiently and more conveniently.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now raising the question of Customs administration.
    Mr. SHAW: Before we can pass this Vote we must be assured that the Customs are being efficiently managed.
    The CHAIRMAN: That should be done on the Vote for the salary of the Minister on the main Vote and it does not arise here.
    Mr. AMMON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing the administration of the Customs, because under Item B, £24,000 is required for:
    "Provision to meet cost of work in connection with the new duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1925."
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be said that the discomfort is caused by passengers having silk goods about them.
    Mr. SHAW: These new duties are responsible for passengers having a long list of articles pushed under their noses with a demand to know whether you have anything of that nature in your luggage, and as this Vote is in order to pay these officials I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether I have not here an opportunity of calling attention to a point upon which economies could be made in the Service which would perhaps obviate the necessity for this Vote. By adopting economies and better management, and a more efficient system there would be no need for this Vote 4t, all. On the Hook-Harwich boats the officials might examine the luggage on board, and this would be quicker and much more convenient. If I could get an assurance from the Minister that he will consider this matter with a view to facilitating the passage of travellers I shall be perfectly satisfied.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I wish to support what the right hon. Gentleman
    1972
    the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has said. I agree that there is a very considerable difference in the way passengers are treated when they travel from the Continent to this country. A large number of the ladies who travel to this country from the Continent bring in a lot of silk goods, and therefore the examination by the Customs officers takes very much longer than it used to do in the past. I think, however, that a matter which could be considered by the Customs authorities is whether it would not be possible, when travelling between this country and the Continent, to have the luggage examined on the train or on the steamer, because the system adopted at the present time causes considerable delay. No doubt many hon. Members have experienced the great difficulty of getting their luggage passed through. I think it would be more convenient to all travellers if the right hon. Gentleman would do something in the direction suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston.
    Miss WILKINSON: I want to call attention to this amount of £16,000 to meet the cost of work in connection with the new duties. It seems to me either that thus sum is nothing like enough, or else it is too much. It is nothing like enough to deal with the enormous amount of work entailed by the new duties imposed by the Finance Act in regard to the different interpretation of these new duties which is being put upon them by the Board of Trade. Probably a few simple rules might obviate the necessity of spending so much money in this respect. During the past few months the following goods have been brought specifically to my notice as having to come through the Customs. They are all goods containing a very small amount of silk—they cannot be described as silk goods, but they have a quantity of silk in them which is so small that it almost passes the wit of man to decide what its value is. They are as follow:

    Christmas cards with a silk and cotton cord intertwined. The cord is not wholly silk, but partly cotton and partly silk.

    Tiny dolls with a very small silk bow on the hair of each doll.

    1973

    Toys with a tiny silk tassel.

    Other toys with tiny silk buttons.

    Books with book-marks not consisting wholly of silk, but containing threads of silk.

    Lace with a silk thread.

    These all represent considerable consignments of goods that are being sent into this country by traders. Traders in this country want these goods as quickly as possible, but some of them are having enormous difficulty in getting their goods through the Customs; they are held up in their own shops for want of stock which they have ordered; they can never get to know from the Customs whether their goods are coming or not, and endless delay is being caused. I suggest that, in considering this amount of £16,000, either the right hon. Gentleman needs a very much larger sum, in order enormously to increase the number of these officials who hale to decide whether a tiny silk bow on the head of a tiny silk doll is subject to duty or not, or else a very much smaller amount is needed, which could surely be brought about by the right hon. Gentleman or someone connected with his Department excluding altogether from the operation of the duties goods with an infinitesimal amount of silk in them. Really, the amount of the tax that the right hon. Gentleman's Department gets from these goods, when they have gone through all this mass of detail, is not in any way commensurate with the cost that is involved.
    Then there is a second point that I would like to suggest in connection with this Vote, and that is as to whether the procedure can be speeded up with regard to the importation of silk dresses, especially models, imported into this country. I may say that my interest in this matter is not personal, but purely from the trade point of view. Recently the Government, I think, sent the President of the Board of Trade to an exhibition in order to point out the necessity for buying British models, but, while sympathising entirely with that point of view, I must point out that certain traders have ordered models from Paris for certain definite dates, and have even gone to the trouble and, expense of sending over a buyer in order to bring back those models as personal luggage. There has been no question of attempting to evade these duties; they
    1974
    have offered every kind of deposit that the Customs liked in order to get them here by a definite date, only to be told that it is quite impossible, and the goods are being held up and an enormous amount of trouble is being caused. I want to suggest that, at a time when everyone is appealing for an increase of trade, and everyone is desiring an increase of trade, surely as much as possible should be done to make trade between this and other countries as simple as possible. The effect that this very costly machinery is having is to handicap traders considerably, and a great deal of irritation is being felt, particularly in the distributing trades. This could be obviated if a little more common sense were used in the Department concerned.
    Mr. O'NEILL: As, Mr. Hope, you have allowed a slight development of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) with regard to the examination of luggage at the frontiers of this country, I should like to add a word in support of what he said, and of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). There has recently been a certain amount of correspondence in the Press on this matter. I do not know how far it really comes within the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary is at this moment responsible in this House, or how far it is a matter for the railway companies, but this question of the examination of passengers' luggage on arrival in England from the Continent has become nothing short of a public scandal. For example, at Victoria Station, where I arrived the other day from the Continent, one has to undergo an examination of one's luggage in the open air, probably in bitterly cold weather—
    The CHAIRMAN: Surely this cannot be connected with the new duties?
    Mr. O'NEILL: As I started by saying, this matter has been allowed to develop, and I thought I would say a word upon it. The point which, I suggest, is in order, is the point referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge, namely, that, owing to the duties imposed by the Finance Act of last year, there is

    1975
    a very much more rigid and strict examination of passengers' luggage, and, consequently, better accommodation is required for the purpose of carrying out this examination than was the case a few years ago. At Victoria Station, as I have said, the conditions are really a scandal. Whether it is a matter for the railway company, or for the Customs officials and the Treasury, I do not know, but surely there ought to be some means, by joint co-operation between them, of bringing about a, re-arrangement of the present conditions. I remember, in contrast to that, arriving last year at the Gare d'Orleans in Paris, from somewhere in the South of France. When one arrives at the Gare d'Orleansand probably it is the same at other stations—one's luggage is taken out of the train, put on a moving platform, and carried up until it, arrives in the Custom House, and one's registered luggage is actually there for examination practically as soon as one is oneself. I merely throw that out as a suggestion, as this point has been raised. It is a matter in which I know the public at large take a great interest, and I hope this ventilation of it in this House will draw further public attention to it, and will lead to some improvement of the present very bad conditions.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill), and the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut. Commander Burney), are supporters of the present Government, and I am very surprised at this protest on their part. Do they not know that the policy of the Government, and especially of the Treasury, is to discourage people from going abroad and spending their money in foreign places? Why should it be made pleasant, when the slogan now is "Buy British Goods," for people to go to Monte Carlo and places of that kind? Let them go to Hastings or Blackpool.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is building an enormous Puperstructure upon this provision for Customs officers.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I was only repeating a point raised by the hon. Members opposite, and I will come to an end of that. I apologise to
    1976
    the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for my interruption just now. I was simply judging by the effect of the answers previously given to me, and I had not been able to find the question, having been called out of the House for a short time. I wish to draw attention to the actual figures that have been given so far. On the 23rd July last—and this bears out what the hon. Member for East Middles brough (Miss Wilkinson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) said on this matter—I was told that the number of the staff in the Customs and Excise Department on the 1st July was 11,329, and that the only increase since, in view of the new duties, was 56.
    Mr. McNEILL: The number was 11,500.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The number given on the 23rd July was 11,329.
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that my right hon. Friend answered a question also on the 24th November.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I am coming to that. On a, total of over 11,000, there was only an increase of 56, and the general impression made upon me was that the increase was trifling, and that these new duties had not put any extra work on the Customs staff. If that impression was not intended to be conveyed, of course I express my regret, but, in view of the complicated nature of these duties, and of the Excise work as well, and the heavy work due to drawbacks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has just referred, this increase of 56, or 140, as it is now, is obviously inadequate. We have had some evidence of that from what has been said about the difficulties of passengers. The real trouble is that there are not enough Customs officers to go round; there would not be enough officers to spare to-day to put on board the steamers to examine the baggage there, or to carry out an examination on the trains between Dover and Victoria. I do not think any suggestion was meant to be conveyed that the Customs officials were discourteous; I think they do their best and are reasonable, but the fast of the matter is that too much is being nut upon them by these absurd duties. I

    1977
    have crossed a great many frontiers since the War ended, and, as a matter of fact, I have never had my baggage looked at anywhere except at our own Customs stations—they seem to pick out a Member of Parliament for special examination, and I do not blame them. They are not discourteous, but it is a great nuisance, and these men are obviously overworked. It takes a very long time to clear the passengers through, and it must be remembered that not every package is opened, but only one or two in about five or six; they could not possibly make a thorough examination. Obviously, this increase of 140 is only temporary.
    Let me allude to another matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a reply to my later question, and then, as the Financial Secretary has said, the total staff was approximately 11,500, there having been an increase of 140, and the net annual cost of this increase was approximately £23,000. I observe that the amount has since become a great deal larger. It is now £16,000 for the headquarters' staff, and there is another £24,000, less bonus, for the Customs stations. The right hon. Gentleman also said it was impossible to differentiate between Customs and Excise work respectively. I cannot understand why that is not done. Surely, the same officers do not do the same work? Surely there are specialists at the ports, and so on, who are quite different from the Excise Officers. There may be a very good explanation, but on the 3rd December, 1925, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green asked this question:
    "Whether there is any increase in the number of men employed in Customs work since March last, and whether any men have been lent for this work by other departments, and, if so, how many?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1925; col. 200, Vol. 188.]
    For the answer to the first part of the question, my hon. Friend was referred to the answers to my previous questions, and the answer to the second part was in the negative. Apparently there had been no lending at all from other Departments. Is that still the case?
    Mr. McNEILL: To the best of my knowledge and belief that is so. I was not aware that there had been any lending, or any suggestion that there had.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is quite obvious, from what we have heard in this discussion, and in view of the really heavy work that is now coming along, that there will have to be a considerable further increase later on, as some of us prophesied at the time, though it was denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. I think I am right in saying that he said it was most improbable that there would be any increase at all. Of course, we shall divide against this Vote because we intend to strongly object to, and resist, these duties as an impediment on British trade and absurd and ridiculous in their incidence and in their procedure.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am grateful for the way in which the Committee has accepted this Estimate, because there has really been, as I anticipated, no serious criticism on the Vote which is presented. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) have suggested that they understood that there will have to be a still further increase of staff. I am not going to prophesy. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right in saying that the Customs officials are very much overworked at present. I know they are working most admirably, and I think it is quite possible that they are overworking. It may be that, if we are on the eve of a revival of trade, as we all hope, the amount of drawbacks will increase. I hope it may, because that means that there will be increased export trade for this country. If so, it is quite possible that there will be a reinforcement of the Customs officials who are dealing with it.
    I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that they are not as a matter of fact getting through their work. My information is quite the opposite, and' is that, at first, when these new duties were imposed, it was not unnatural that there should be a certain amount of uncertainty, both in the minds of the officials, who had to administer and the traders, who had to submit to the taxation. But all difficulties were extraordinarily rapidly got over, owing to the complete good feeling and co-operation

    1979
    which existed between traders on one side and the Customs Department on the other. They had meetings of the large trades concerned, of the woollen trade and other trades; they set up committees; they had joint meetings with the Customs officials who issued pamphlets explaining exactly how the machinery of the new taxes was to be carried through. They had very little friction, and before many weeks had passed practically all difficulties had disappeared. At the present time, it is, I think, quite a mistake to suppose that there is any holding up of goods at the Customs or that there is any serious delay to trade. I believe that if one could examine every serious allegation of the kind it would be found that it referred to a considerable time from the present, and that on investigation it would be found that at the present time things are going quite smoothly.
    I have already been warned how difficult it would be to keep in order if I referred to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), a challenge supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill). All I will say is this, that in the main the questions which the hon. Gentlemen brought up, questions of inconvenience caused to travellers by the examination of luggage and by the want of accommodation at Victoria Station and elsewhere, are really not matters for which the Customs Department are responsible. After all, they have to examine the packages which arrive at the terminus of the railway, and they are not responsible for what sort of building that terminus may be.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the proper quarter as to whether it would be possible for passengers' luggage to be examined either on the boat or on the train between the Channel ports and London?
    Mr. McNEILL: If I am in order in referring to that, I would say that that is a very hotly contested point. We have already examined it to a certain extent, and anybody who reads the correspondence in the "Times" will know how sharply opinions differ on that point. There are, indeed, travellers who say that the maximum of inconvenience would be
    1980
    caused if the luggage were examined on the steamer and on the train. It would require a whole corridor train, and that is not always possible. At all events, it must not be taken that we are carrying out, an inconvenient system of examination now in place of a known and acknowledged better system, because that is far from being the case. I believe that if we were to carry out the suggestion made as to the examination of luggage, we should have much more serious and widespread criticism than at the present moment.
    There was a point of importance raised by the hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), who is not now in her place. She referred to the inconvenience and vexatiousness of taxation levied on articles which contain an infinitesimal quantity of silk. She gave a number of examples, where a quite infinitesimal amount of silk entered into the manufacture of the article. She said, and if her conception of the way in which the taxation was carried out be accurate she would be justified in saying, that that must cause a very great deal of very hard work and probably necessitate- a large addition to the Customs staff. She intimated, in view of the amount of work which that must cause, that this figure of £60,000 was too small instead of being too large. That might be quite true if, in point of fact, these articles were subjected to individual taxation and taxes assessed upon them. She took the example of some small toy or something of that sort, with a little silk bow attached to it. All those questions—and they were very large ones—did at first cause a considerable amount of difficulty to the Customs authorities. They consulted with the trades who import articles of that sort, and that is just one of the problems which by the exercise of good will and common sense has been completely smoothed away. What happened is this. They have arrived at certain categories of these goods. If we take dolls with a small silk bow attached to them or cigars which are tied up in bundles with a small silk ribbon, there is no attempt in those cases to assess the duty on the individual article. They are lumped together into big categories, and the flat rate is taken on the average amount of silk in a number of these articles. If you take 1,000 dolls it is easy to ascertain how much silk is in the little how of silk over 1,000

    1981
    dolls by a system of this sort. They have arrived at an agreed figure, and it does away with all the questions which the hon. lady brought before us.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how under the original Finance Acts the Customs officers have the right to discriminate in that way? Are they not bound to carry out the law?
    Mr. McNEILL: They do carry it out, but they carry it out with common sense. Obviously, if every individual knick-knack had to be assessed and an ad valorem duty had to be put on that individual article, it would cause a very great deal of unnecessary trouble, and no one would he any the better even if you could arrive at a more accurate result. The law of averages is a universal law, and applies to knick-knacks and dolls as it does to other things.
    Mr. AMMON: Would the hon. Member meet the other point raised by the hon. Lady as to the delays of certain articles in the Customs, articles which are essential to trade and which lose their value and spoil trade is they are delayed too long?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me of that point. I am afraid I cannot say if at the present moment there is any definite arrangement for dealing with models used in the business of dressmakers, to which I think the hon. Lady referred. There has not, as far as I know, been any arrangement, and I am not persuaded that any arrangement could be made, or that there is any strong case for exceptional treatment. I understood the hon. Lady to say that there was a good deal of holding up in the Customs and difficulty in getting through. I have already dealt with that point, and I would have asked
    her, if she were here, to say whether any complaints of that kind have been made recently. My information is that everything is going smoothly at the present time, and there is no such difficulty existing.
    I would like to say that at the beginning of these duties there was a good deal of misconception, which must now have almost passed away, but may still survive—misconception as to when the duties of the Customs House begin. We found at the outset that in the great majority of cases where complaints were made as to delay, the delay was not on the part of the Customs officials at all, but on the part of the agents of the consignees; because it is the duty of the consignees to present the goods at the Customs House, with a statement of their dutiable contents, so far as dutiable goods are concerned. It is not the duty of the Customs House to deal with the matter until the goods are so presented. It has often been either the railway company or the wharfinger, or some other agent acting for the importer, who did not understand at first what his duties were in the matter, and when it was examined it was found that the cause of the delay was there, and did not lie in the Customs House at all. It is conceivable that some dressmakers who have been having difficulty with some models imported from Paris may not yet have learned what the machinery is in that respect, and that may account for the delay which the hon. Lady referred to. I will inquire into it, but, speaking broadly, one can say that trade is not now being at all delayed or hampered by the operations of the Act.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding é59,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 268.

    Division No. 29.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Compton, Joseph

    England, Colonel A.

    Baker, Walter

    Connolly, M.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Barnes, A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Gillett, George M.

    Barr, J.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

    Greenall, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Crawford, H. E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Briant, Frank

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Groves, T.

    Bromfield, William

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Buchanan, G.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Cape, Thomas

    Duncan, C.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Clowes, S.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Hayes, John Henry

    Owen, Major G.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Palin, John Henry

    Sutton, J. E.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Paling, W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thurtle, E.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Riley, Ben

    Varley, Frank B.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Warne, G. H.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Scurr, John

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Lawson, John James

    Sexton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lee, F.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Whiteley, W.

    Lunn, William

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Mackinder, W.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Windsor, Walter

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wright, W.

    March, S.

    Snell, Harry

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Maxton, James

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Montague, Frederick

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir

    Maylor, T. E.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Robert Hutchison.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Stephen, Campbell

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Albery, Irving James

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainshro)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

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

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

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

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

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Berry, Sir George

    Dawson Sir Philip

    Hilton, Cecil

    Bethell, A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Blundell, F. N.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Edmonson, Major A. J.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hudson Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Huntintfield, Lord

    Brown, Brig, Gen. H. C, (Berks, Newby)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Burman, J. B.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gates, Percy

    Joynsor-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gee, Captain R.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lane Fax, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Charter Brigadier-General J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Christie, J. A.

    Grace, John

    Leder, J. de V.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Grant, J. A.

    Looker Herbert William

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grattan Doyle, Sir N.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lougher, L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hanbury, C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Harland, A.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Macquisten, F. A.

    1984

    1985

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Meyer, Sir Frank.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Waddington, R.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Moles, Thomas

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sandon, Lord

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Savery, S. S.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)

    Wells, S. R.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Neville, R. J.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

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

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Oakley, T.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Pilcher, G.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Preston, William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wragg, Herbert

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Radford, E. A.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Raine, W.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Ramsden, E.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Major Cope and Captain

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Margesson.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: I wish to raise a point in connection with the item for Widows' and Orphans' Old Age Pensions. I understand a number of Temporary Commissioners have been employed in assisting widows to make their claims, and in investigating the claims when they are made. I wish to ask if any temporary women officials are employed in this work? One would naturally think that where widows are concerned in making applications for pensions a woman official would be the best kind of person to undertake that work, and I wan to ask, before I agree to this Vote, whether there are any women officials employed?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think that question would really be better put on the Supplementary Vote for the Ministry of Health. The hon. Member will be able to get a fuller answer then.

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £847,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
    1986
    of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office including Telegraphs and Telephones."
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Committee would probably like a word from the Front Bench in explaining this Supplementary Estimate. Perhaps it would be convenient, if I took the biggest item first, is for some £600,000. This is mainly a re-vote, and the circumstances are as follows: After the Sutton judgment was delivered in March, 1923, a number of test cases were taken to the Court of Appeal, whose decision in November, 1924, was to the effect, in every case, that the claimants had made good their claim. The Government thereupon decided to pay the claims in full as quickly as possible. That necessitated a Supplementary Estimate of £2,350,000, which was presented in February last and which we hoped to be able to pay during the course of the financial year. We knew we could not pay all the claims during the last financial year, and therefore the sum of £150,000 was allowed in this year's Estimates for the payment of those claims. As a matter of fact, although the Supplementary Estimate was presented last February, the

    1987
    Consolidated Fund Act only became law on 27th March last, which meant that in the Post Office we had four days in which to pay 32,000 claims. I think the Committee will agree that that was an impossible task. The staff at headquarters worked exceedingly hard and did everything they possibly could. I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the way in which that work was carried out. When the clock struck midnight on 31st March we had only paid 21,000 out of 32,000 claims. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimate became inevitable.
    To the extent of £500,000 this item is re-vote. The remaining £100,000 is accounted for by the fact that since 31st March a number of claims have been presented from boy messengers and learners who had, as part of the terms of their engagement, been promised appointments when they reached adult age. They would have secured such appointments had they not voluntarily enlisted during the War. The Postmaster-General has been advised that these claims were also covered by the Sutton judgment and other judgments; therefore they have 'been met and paid in full. That necessitates an extra sum of 2100,000, and accounts for the appearance of that large item on this Supplementary Vote. Practically all the payments in regard to the Sutton judgment are now completed. I think the Committee will he glad to know that.
    The next considerable item on the Estimate is for wireless broadcasting, £223,000. This is merely handing over to the British Broadcasting Company monies to which they are entitled under their agreement. All the monies collected in respect of wireless licence fees have to be surrendered by the Postmaster-General into the Exchequer, and the authority of Parliament has to be obtained before the Treasury can pay out their share to the British Broadcasting Company. In our Estimates this year we estimated that the number of wireless licences would entitle the British Broadcasting Company to a sum of £350,000. As a matter of fact, they have been paid £573,000. Therefore, this Supplementary Estimate is necessary. The Committee knows that this does not cost the country a single farthing.
    1988
    In regard to Item K, "Engineering Materials," I ought to explain that the sum in the Estimate is practically all for ducts and cables for telephone development work, and is due to bigger purchases of these materials than had been estimated last year, and also quicker deliveries on the part of the contractors. The last fact especially is one at which I think we ought not to cavil, and telephone enthusiasts certainly ought not to be very much disturbed about it. The item only appears on our Estimates because of the date 31st March. All telephone engineering materials are purchased by the. Post Office out of the Vote, and when they are used for development work they are charged to the telephone capital account. If it so happens that by Slat March there is a somewhat larger supply of stores on hand than was estimated for, that naturally has to be accounted for in Supplementary Estimates. This amount of material will be absorbed at the present rate of telephone development in a very few weeks. It represents a small fraction of the £5,000,000 worth of stores which the Controller of Stores purchases every year.
    In regard to anticipated savings of £86,000, the Committee will be interested to know that there is a saving on salaries, engineering contract work, and Post Office Savings Bank Department. In regard to the appropriations-in-Aid, it is mainly a payment from the Minister of Health on account of the work the Post Office has been doing in regard to the inauguration of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act.
    Mr. AMMON: We have had a lucid explanation of the Vote by the Noble Lord. In these times, the Committee will have taken note of the word of commendation paid by the Noble Lord to the energy displayed by civil servants who have had to deal with the paying out of the very large sums of money which have arisen under the claims made in connection with the Sutton judgment. The civil servants, unfortunately, come into a good deal of adverse criticism, and it is good sometimes that we should get tributes from those who are in a position to know exactly what the civil servants have done in certain respects. The payment of 21,000 claims within four days

    1989
    is certainly a record of work of which any Department might be proud.
    I understand that the Postmaster-General's "push" in regard to telephone development has resulted in a great extension of the work and that he is buying in advance the materials necessary in order to anticipate the growth in this particular Department. This is an instance of business efficiency on which we may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time we may extend our congratulations in respect of the service that is being rendered to the community. With respect to wireless broadcasting, the Noble Lord said that the whole of the amount in the Estimate is to be handed over to the British Broadcasting Company and that it has not cost the country one farthing. I demur slightly to that statement. It does not mean that we pay it out directly in the sense that the State may be losing a certain amount of money, but we ought to have further information as to the expenditure of this particular company.
    We are asked to vote £223,000 under this particular head to a company financed by Parliament and placed in a specially privileged position. We are faced with a position to-night in which we are called upon to vote this very large sum of money, although we really have no knowledge how the money is being expended, and we have no check upon it. The Post Office and other Departments have to come to the House and give very detailed statements of their administration and their estimates, and the Post Office has to give detailed statements of its commercial accounts, but the British Broadcasting Company is not called upon to do anything of the sort, although they have the support and the guarantee of the State behind them, and they have the machinery of the State behind them, to a large extent, in collecting their revenue. Therefore, we ought to have further information so that we may be put into the position of having some knowledge how the money is being expended, whether it is being expended wisely and whether the existing conditions should be allowed to continue.
    Rightly or wrongly, there is an idea that extravagance prevails. One does admire to a great extent the work which
    1990
    has been done by the British Broadcasting Company, and the way in which they have endeavoured to meet public needs. Nevertheless, a feeling is growing up in certain quarters that the business is being run extravagantly and that the money is not being expended along the most economic lines. I wonder whether the Noble Lord or the Postmaster-General will he in a position to give the Committee some further details as to how the money is expended by the British Broadcasting Company, what relations exist between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Company, whether the Post Office have access to the books and the items of expenditure, whether they are passed under public audit and whether the Committee can be assured that the money is being expended in the wisest possible manner.
    With respect to Civil Pay (Arrears), I gathered from the Noble Lord that there are two or three items under this head. One is known as the Sutton judgment and the paying out of claims which have been judged as coming under that decision of the Court. Then there are cases which have been set aside for decision as to whether or not they fall within the ambit of the Sutton judgment. The Committee would like to know whether we have reached finality in that respect. I think the Noble Lord said that we had.
    Lord WOLMER: Yes.
    Mr. AMMON: The Noble Lord spoke only for the Post Office in that particular connection.
    Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.
    Mr. AMMON: Are there any other cases, marginal cases, still open for interpretation, or have they all been settled and is the Treasury alone going to have the last word in these particular matters? There is a further class of case which comes outside the Sutton judgment, known as the earmarked appointment case, affecting those whose promotion was interrupted by military service.
    Could we have any further information as to the miscellaneous sources from which the Postmaster-General hopes to get further income? I should also like to know to what extent he gets reimbursement for services rendered to the Ministry of Health in connection with the new Pensions Act. Is the payment he receives

    1991
    from that source only for the amount of stuff he carries through the post, or does he get any consideration for the extra staffing, in counter clerks, and otherwise, which has become necessary in order to meet this extra work? Every fresh piece of social legislation imposes burdens on the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and the Post Office has to carry out the work in some way or another. The Committee ought to know, in going into these accounts, whether the Post Office is getting proper reimbursement for the whole service it renders to Government Departments, and not only for the postage materials which are being carried.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should like to draw attention to the question of telegraphs and telephones. No greater calamity ever befell the country than the taking over of the telegraphs and telephones by the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] There is no doubt about it. Both these services were paying enterprises until the dead hand of the State was laid upon them. The telegraphs were taken over because they were supposed to cut into Post Office monopoly.
    Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Member in order in discussing the question of nationalisation upon this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. I cannot appreciate the hon. and learned Member's point yet.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is not right. I am not discussing the question of nationalisation in any shape or form. I am making some comments upon the expense of running the Post Office telegraphs and telephones.
    The CHAIRMAN: To which of these items does the hon. and learned Member connect his argument?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: To Item K, Engineering Materials. Those are very expensive materials. They are far too expensive. In 1922 I discovered one man who was having a telephone put in by the engineering department, and it took 11 men to put in that one telephone. The Postmaster-General cannot be told too often of such cases.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. and learned Member refers to Item K, which relates to
    "Additional provision due to heavy purchases of ducts and cable for telephone development which will not be issued to works within the financial year, but when issued will be chargeable to the Telephone Loan; and to deliveries by contractors maturing for payment somewhat earlier than was expected.
    The amount of labour employed on the actual setting up of wires and posts appears not to be covered by this item.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But it is the cost of material. I will show how I can link the item up with my statement. I have had a long correspondence with the Postmaster-General as to the possibility of connecting up the large island of Islay in Argyllshire, which yields a revenue equal to more than the whole of the Post Office surplus.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know the very narrow limits within which discussion on Supplementary Estimates has to be conducted. This is an item for the purchase of materials and it has nothing whatever to do with the actual carrying out of work and nothing whatever to do with Argyllshire. I am, therefore, afraid that the hon. and learned Member must defer his argument until the main Post Office Estimates are reached.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am assured that it is the cost of material for making this submarine cable to the island that makes the Postmaster-General demand from my constituency a guarantee of £2,300 a year before he will give them telephone facilities. There must be far too much paid for material to contractors; otherwise it would not cost so much, and this important and fertile island, which yields so much revenue, would not be cut off from the mainland.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure that the Committee will sympathise with the inhabitants of the beautiful island of Islay in the harsh way they are being treated by the Post Office The hon. and learned Member did not remark on the island's natural beauty, and spoke only of its fertility. I know it also, and its beauty is a most remark able feature about it. I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member in that matter, in his premises or his deductions.

    1993
    I wish to raise a matter about the item under Sub-head P, "Wireless Broadcasting." The amount here is £223,000, apparently because the number of licences has been more than was anticipated For issuing a licence the Post master-General charges 2s, ed., and 7s. 6d. goes to the British Broadcasting Company. After a certain number of licences have been issued there is a reduction. The charge of 2s. 6d. by the Postmaster-General on a 10s. licence is preposterous, and the Post Office must be making an enormous profit. In the first place the charge has not been authorised by this House; it has not been preceded by the ordinary Financial Resolution. How much do the Post Office authorities reckon that it costs them to issue these licences over the counter? It is no more trouble to issue a wireless licence than to issue a game licence or a gun licence or a dog licence. I am told that the bookkeeping charges for similar work by commercial firms is less than one shilling per cent., and that they would be glad to do the Stork for that charge and would make a profit on it.
    How much profit is the Post Office making on the 2s. 6d? At what figure do they reckon the charge for the extra staff that is needed for issuing these licences'? What are the overhead charges? The greater part of this 2s. 6d. should be clear profit for the State. In that case it is a tax on the subject, and has not been approved by the House, and is illegal. The Post Office may say that they provide certain services. What are the services that they provide for 2s. 6d., compared with the services that the British Broadcasting Company has to provide for the 7s. 6d? The Company has to erect broadcasting stations, to supply programmes, to pay the artists, to pay for the services of the Savoy Band or its successor. I was talking the other night to a gentleman who lives in Warsaw. He said that every night of his life he heard the Savoy Band broadcast from the station in London, and he thought it very remarkable. I, too, think it is remarkable. All this sort of thing has to be provided by the Company, as well as the "bright talks," including semi-political addresses by the President of the Board of Trade—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to give a, general lecture?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No, I was drawing the attention of the Committee to the tremendous lot that is expected for the 7s. 6d. taken by the British Broadcasting Company, and to the fact that the Postmaster-General charges 2s. 6d, for simply issuing a licence. The Postmaster-General may say, "But I relay the programmes along my telephone wires." Yes, he does, at an hour when the wires are not very much in use; and extremely badly they are relaid. The telephone wires are suitable for broadcasting talks and speeches but not for broadcasting music; the oscillations are not sufficient in the present wires. The situation will have to be faced presently. If the Postmaster-General is to give value for the money that he retains he must lay down special telephone wires, and these, incidentally, will be of much more value for long distance telephone talks. In case he makes that excuse I would point out that not one penny extra has he spent for telephone relaying; he has not laid down a single wire in addition, and the service that he gives is inadequate and not up to the standard that the public has a, right to expect. That is the case which I make, and I think we are entitled to some explanation of the matter. The last point I want to make on this very large item of £223,000 is one worth discussing. The right, hon. Gentleman ought to charge much less for issuing licences and allow more money to go to the British Broadcasting Company.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the original agreement between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Company. This particular item in the Estimates, I understand, represents an automatic increase owing to further licences having been issued. It appears to me that the only matter for discussion is whether the figures are accurate and whether there is any particular reason to account for this increase, or whether the Post Office Might to have foreseen it. I understand that there is no increased charge at all, but that this has to be brought into account because the receipts have already been surrendered to the Exchequer. It is purely an accounting point, and policy cannot come into the question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I will not pursue the subject, except to correct what I said just now. The profits of the British Broadcasting Company are limited, and therefore the extra money would go to the public. That is why I mentioned the matter. It is said that the additional payment is more than balanced by the increase in licence fees. It will be even more profitable if the cost off issuing these licences was anything compared with what we would expect the ordinary overhead charges of a comparative business to be.
    Commander FANSHAWE: I was very pleased to hear the Assistant Postmaster-General speak about the development of the telephone service, and of the material provided under Item K for that purpose. I see in this item that ducts are mentioned. If ducts are being used for underground cables will the Postmaster-General give his attention particularly to the telephone service in the West of Scotland in this respect?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled out Argyllshire, and I must rule out the West of Scotland, too.
    Commander FANSHAWE: I wish to raise the point, particularly, about the underground lines. With this development going on, I hope that the Postmaster-General will cast his eye towards us and not leave us out of his reckoning.
    Mr. W. BAKER: So far as an opening statement on Supplementary Estimates is concerned, we appear to be improving as we go on. Certainly the opening statement of the Noble Lord was the most informative of any that we have received during the present Session. I was very sorry to hear him say that practically all the claims have been met, not because I regret that they are paid, but because I fear it is true to say that a number of cases are still outstanding, and the difficulties in these outstanding cases are due to points of interpretation. I need hardly remind the Postmaster-General that the litigation with regard to these cases has been going on over a long series of years, and that there is a great deal of irritation caused by the delays on points of interpretation. I ask him to use every ounce of his influence with the Treasury to secure a very early settlement.
    1996
    6.0 P.M.
    Will the Postmaster-General give us some information as to the remuneration received by the Post Office and referred to as "receipts from miscellaneous sources" under Appropriations-in-Aid? I should be inclined to say that the Post Office is underpaid, or unpaid, for many of the very important services that the Department is called upon to undertake in these days. There are such matters as health insurance unemployment insurance. War Savings Certificates, licences of various kinds and old age pensions. I should welcome an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will make careful inquiry as to the relations between the Post Office and the other Departments in regard to remuneration. Another point concerning the work done for other Departments, in connection with the contributory pensions scheme, is that this new legislation has made a tremendous increase in the work of the Post Office. The general increase I am assured, taking the year 1923–24 and comparing it with 1914 and rendering it in terms of finance, includes £64,000,000 for work concerning War pensions and allowances, £85,000,000 in so far as War Savings Certificates are concerned, and £9,000,000 in connection with War Loan dividends. That is in addition to the other great increases which have taken place in difficult and specialised work. I hope the Postmaster-General will pay special attention to the conditions of service of the men and women who are constantly called upon to undertake these new and difficult forms of work, and I trust he will see that their services are recompensed on something like an adequate scale. I am particularly anxious to see the Post Office go further in the matter of telephone development. I may illustrate my point of view by relating an experience of my own during a recent visit to South Africa. I stayed at a very isolated sugar plantation and I was surprised to find that the South African Government were able to supply the owner of that plantation with a telephone at an annual rent of £8 per year. I was informed that this was made possible by a special grant from the Government for the development of the rural telephone service.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): On the particular item we are coasidering questions of local telephones cannot be discussed.
    Mr. BAKER: With all respect I submit that under the heading of "Engineering Materials" it is definitely stated that additional provision is being made for telephone development, and in view of the modern methods of the Post Office telephone development is not confined to the City of London and other large centres.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That item only refers to development which has already taken place and not to fresh development.
    Mr. BAKER: Again with respect, I submit that the development cannot have taken place, otherwise the material would have been put to use, but having regard to your ruling, Sir, I will leave the point on this occasion. There is also the question of the relation between the Post Office and the. British Broadcasting Company I regret that a policy of secrecy has been followed with regard to the British Broadcasting Company's administration, especially as regards expenditure on salaries and similar items, and I wish to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Ammon).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the question of the policy of the British Broadcasting Company, but the only question which arises on this Vote is in regard to the accounting in connection with this sum of money.
    Mr. BAKER: I submit that a previous speaker was permitted to cover all this ground—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and the allocation of the money received by the Postmaster-General appears to be a proper matter for discussion and criticism.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that the Committee cannot go into a question of policy on an item of this sort.
    Mr. BAKER: I submit that supplementary estimates serve a particularly useful purpose in so far as they make possible a discussion of details which is not possible on the main Estimate. On the main Estimate discussion usually
    1998
    takes the form of a full dress Debate, and it is not possible in those circum stances to review points of detail. However, I am anxious not to come into conflict with the Chair or with the Committee, and I leave this question of the British Broadcasting Company the more readily as I fervently hope we shall not be troubled with that institution very much longer. I notice that as the authority responsible for collecting the cost of wireless licences the Post master-General has been pursing a policy of prosecution during recent weeks and I wish to know how many persons have been prosecuted for failing to take out wireless licences? I should also like to know if I am mistaken in the impression that the poorer districts of London have been specially selected for these prosecutions. It may be accidental, but the prosecutions which have come under my notice relate to places like the East End of London where the parsons concerned would appear to have some justification, on economic grounds, for failing to comply with the law in this respect. I appeal for even-handed treatment in this matter, and if prosecutions are to take place they should take place in the districts inhabited by more comfortably placed classes as well as in the poorer working-class quarters.
    Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: If it is in Order to do so, I desire to make some comment on Item K. Under Item K we are asked to vote £190,000 for a telephone development grant which will not be issued to works within the financial year. The criticism I should like to make upon that point—if I am in order—is that this grant should be issued for works within the financial year. The ground on which I make that criticism is that there has been considerable delay in telephone development, and the mischief which we have suffered in this connection might be remedied if this grant were brought into use more speedily. I am very anxious not to offend against the Rules of Debate in Committee, but I thought it was legitimate to suggest that things would be better if this grant came into operation more promptly. If I were in order in doing so, I would also submit that greater promptitude in telephone development would make it quite possible to supply the customers of the Post Office at a cheaper rate, and that in my constituency of Londonderry the

    1999
    farming part of the population would be immensely benefited—and I hope the Post Office themselves would also derive great benefit—if farmers could be supplied with telephones at a rate which they can afford to pay. If it is not in order, however, I will not make the remark.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The point that I desire to raise may appear to the Postmaster-General to be a very small one, but it is very important to those who are concerned with the widows' pension scheme. This sum comes into an Estimate—either a main Estimate or a Supplementary Vote—for the first time, as "£80,000 appropriation in aid"—that being the sum which has apparently been received by the Post Office already on account from the pensions fund established under the widows' pensions scheme. I wish to know if an agreement has now been reached between the Minister of Health and the Postmaster-General as to the percentage to be paid from the widows' pension funds to the Post Office for work performed in paying out pensions. I do not think that there is any reason to call for an increased payment to the Post Office on account of the sale of stamps on this score, because the total number of stamps sold will almost certainly be reduced by reason of the fact that the age limit of the insured will in future be 65 and not 70. The total number of stamps to be sold by the Post Office consequent on the introduction of the scheme will therefore be reduced and there cannot be an increase of work on account of the sale of stamps. The value of each stamp has, of course, been increased, but not the total number. I ask, therefore, what is the percentage basis of payment from the widows' pensions fund to the Post Office on account of the payment of pensions? I ought to add, that so far as I can gather, the payment of these pensions by the Post Office has been made very promptly indeed, and I have heard no complaint, on that score. The Post Office secures a warrant from the Ministry of Health to pay the pension and all the Post Office does is to pay the money; the determination of the award of the pension rests with the Ministry of Health.
    I desire to make just one observation on the sum of £223,000 touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Central
    2000
    Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It was very refreshing to hear a dissertation from him on music, and I hope we shall now see more harmony in the Liberal party in consequence. When I complained on one occasion that the transmission of B.B.C. music was not good I was told I ought to buy a new wireless set, and I am not sure whether the same observation would apply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is not, however, in order to dwell upon this item; but I feel sure the Postmaster-General will appreciate how important it is to those who administer the Widows' Pensions Scheme to know what is the exact percentage due to the Post Office for paying out widows' pensions and children's allowances.
    Major CRAWFURD: I gather from the rulings which have been given from the Chair that Item P, dealing with wireless broadcasting, can only be dealt with on an accounting basis, and I hope to confine myself within the limits which have been laid down. There are two factors in this sum—the additional provision required for the British Broadcasting Company, which will be balanced by receipts from licences. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) drew attention to the costs of administration in respect of the amount which the Government receives from these licences, and I desire to put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman based on figures taken from the Post Office accounts. I find in the Post Office Commercial Accounts that the total sum received for licences issued to the public was £599,261, and I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me if there is any improvement on the state of things disclosed by the figures which I will quote.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Is the hon. and gallant Member quoting the figures for 1924–25?
    Major CRAWFURD: Yes, and I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that the concluding figure which I shall give will be improved upon by the accounts of which this Supplementary Estimate is a part. The total for that year received was about £600,000, as I have said. The Government's share of licences was £127,000, and there is then

    2001
    an item "Interest on Balance, £17,000," which is not explained, leaving the total Government receipts at £144,600. That is what the Goverment actually had, and then the total charges and expenses are £90,310, leaving a surplus to the Government of £54,346. On the total figure of £600,000 received for licences, a large proportion of which is paid over, the figure of expenses, £90,000, works out at 1s. 6d. per licence, or 15 per cent., for adminisirntion of the total amount received; if you take the total amount that remained over to the Government, the expense is more than 100 per cent. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the reason for this, since apparently the issue of these licences is only an accounting matter, and if there has been any improvement in the current year.
    Sir FRANK NELSON: One hon. Member asked the Postmaster-General for so rte information as to prosecutions in regard to wireless sets for which licences have not been taken out. I hope my right hon. Friend will take no official cognisance of what I have to tell him, which is that I discovered the other day that. I have had a wireless set for over nine months without taking out any licence at all I rise to ask what principle the Post Office act upon in discovering who has and who has not a licence, and what is the cost of arty service of inspectors to go round in order to find out these facts. I can see that in any house that has an aerial it is easy for someone to say, "Here is a wireless set," and to go in and find out if there is a licence, but now, I am told, new sets are coming in for which no aerial is necessary at all. In fact, I am in treaty—and here again I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take no official cognisance of what I am saying—to buy one of these new sets for which no aerial is necessary. Therefore, how will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to find out whether or not I have a licence?
    I hope I am as much an adherent of economy as any hon. Member in the House. In fact, so insistent apparently do some of my constituents think I am on economy that I had a deputation the other day from some Post Office workers in my own constituency, and I was con siderably impressed by the statement they put in front of me to the effect that not only was their work in the payment out of widows' pensions greatly increased, but
    2002
    their responsibility was also increased. Therefore, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has not under consideration any slight increase in the emoluments of those Post Office servants who are more especially concerned in the payment out of the large sums of money under the Widows' Pensions Act, having regard to the extra amount of work and responsibility that are thrown upon them.
    Mr. SHORT: I should like the Postmaster-General to explain what is the exact relationship of the Post Office and the Treasury in connection with the payment of these arrears and outstanding claims under Item Q. There were a number of civil servants who entered the Army voluntarily, but who did not secure-the permission of their Departmental chiefs, and I asked the question some time ago of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the present Minister of Agriculture, who led me, I think unintentionally, to believe that these volunteers would be brought within the provisions of what are now known as the Sutton and later judgments. I understand, on the other hand, from further information, that these men will be excluded, and I should like the Postmaster-General to say whether his Department or the Treasury is the determining factor in so far as the interpretation of these judgments is concerned. I can assure him that there is a great deal of anxiety in many quarters respecting the exclusion of men who believe that they have a legitimate claim arising out of these judgments.
    In the second place, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, under Item K, what proportion of this expenditure of £190,000 is to be made for the provision of automatic telephones, and, in connection with that matter, if there is any expenditure, what displacement of labour takes place in consequence of the provision of automatic telephones as distinct from the present system. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say to what extent the question of the provision of automatic telephones is affected by this Vote. Finally, I come to the question of wireless broadcasting, and I think we are entitled to a little more elucidation and fuller information respecting the relationship of his Department with the British Broadcasting Company, as to what control exists, and what power his Department possesses over the programmes which are circulated by the British Broadcasting

    2003
    Company. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I would remind him that when citizens of this country go to a post office for a licence, they do not go merely for the purpose of paying 10s. to him, or 2s. 6d. to him and 7s. 6d. to the company, but they go to secure some enjoyment from the programmes which are circulated by the company.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the question we are discussing. I have already explained that this particular item is only a matter of accounting.
    Mr. SHORT: This accounting arises entirely out of the fact that members of the community go to purchase a licence, in consequence of which I understand that 7s. 6d. is handed over to the British Broadcasting Company and 2s. 6d. goes into the coffers of the Post Office authorities. I submit, with all due respect, that the only reason why we purchase licences is to secure some musical or other entertainment through the British Broadcasting Company, and if it were not for that fact, of course, we should not purchase these licences. I think it is only right that the Post Office should have some authority in connection with the British Broadcasting Company and the programmes they provide. I regard these programmes in many cases as innocuous inanities, suitable only for invalids and imbeciles!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may or may not be in order on the main Estimate—I am not prepared to say at the moment—but it certainly is not in order on this Vote.
    Mr. SHORT: I have only to accept your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, but I must confess my regret that it is not possible for us to pursue this matter, as I think a great measure of public opinion is being generated in opposition to the programmes of the British Broadcasting Company, but I shall content myself with having said what I have.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have to thank the Committee for the way in which they have received this Estimate. At the same time, I have to confess that I am in some difficulty in replying, because a number of my colleagues have put questions to me, and then have discovered that they had strayed beyond
    2004
    the confines of order, and I am somewhat apprehensive lest I may incur the same reproach myself, but I will do my best to avoid it. I have been asked some questions with regard to the position of the British Broadcasting Company, and the relations between the Company and the Government, and the State generally, to which it is not in order for me to reply, but, if it were in order, I should ask the Committee to excuse me from replying, because the Committee may be aware, and very probably are, that at this moment the whole question of the future control of broadcasting in this country is being examined by a very strong Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Crawford. I am told the Committee have finished their labours, and are now engaged in preparing their Report, and I believe they hope to present their Report some time in the beginning of next month.
    After the Report is received and considered by the Government, it will then be a question, doubtless, either of representing to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that an opportunity should be given for discussing the Report or, alternatively, if legislation be required—and personally I should think it would be very probable that legislation will be required—in consequence of the Report, then, of course, we shall have the fullest opportunity of discussing the question. Therefore, under any circumstances, I should ask the Committee to excuse me from discussing this question at the present moment, but perhaps I may be allowed just to repudiate in one sentence an aspersion that was cast by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who complained that some unsatisfactory broadcasting at the present moment was due to faulty relaying by the Post Office telephone wires. I have had no complaint whatever from the British Broadcasting Company in regard to that matter, and I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not now present to hear that.
    I was asked some questions about the Sutton Judgment. The claims presented under the Sutton Judgment and the post-Sutton Judgment are practically at an end now. There is no outstanding class of claims, but there are quite a number

    2005
    of smaller outstanding individual oases, in which the facts are obscure Relatively speaking, however, the amount outstanding is comparatively insignificant. A number of hon. Members asked me questions about the item which appears among the appropriations-in-aid relating to repayment of the pensions accounts by the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. SHORT: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to that matter, do I understand that all outstanding claims in connection with Civil Pay Arrears, that is, claims which up to the moment are not admitted, have been ruled out entirely, and if so, have they been ruled out by his Department or the Treasury?
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Broadly speaking, all claims have been paid up which are founded on the Sutton or post-Sutton Judgments. I was proceeding to say something about relations with the Ministry of Health, and the payments which appear in this Vote. That is an interesting point, and it is a new point. Hitherto, in regard to all other services practically performed by the Post Office for other Departments, credit has been given to the Post Office, and it has been duly shown in the commercial accounts, but no credit has been given in the Appropriation Accounts, which are purely cash accounts. However, when the Pensions Act was being passed, arrangements were specially made that this credit should be made by payment to the Post Office, and should appear in the Appropriation Accounts.
    Mr. AMMON: That is to say, you get payment for services rendered, in addition to the ordinary postal payment?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We get payment for actual services rendered. The actual amount paid in the three months will be about £50,000. What it will be for the full year it is a little difficult to say yet, but it will be something between £150,000 and £200,000. It depends on what the work turns out to be. That, I think, is a satisfactory depaiture, because it attempts for the first time to reflect in the Apropriation Account what is properly reflected in the Post Office accounts, and there is here some relation between the services rendered by the Post Office and its fiscal accounts.
    2006
    Then I am asked about wireless prosecutions. It is quite true that there has been, since the House gave me power under the Wireless Act, progressive and steady activity in the way of prosecuting infringers, and I am glad to say with the most satisfactory results to the general revenue. There have been 49 prosecutions ordered, 43 cases have been actually heard, and 42 of those cases have been successful. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) feared that something less than even-handed treatment may have been meted out in selected areas. I can assure him that is not the fact. The areas would naturally be selected from the point of view of giving warning, and as far as possible they have been all up and down the country. One of the first prosecutions was in my constituency, and the one which came next was in my Noble Friend's constituency. Then I was asked a question about the cost of administration. The hon. Member is quite right. The figures he gave are approximately correct—some wnere between 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, of course, in thinking that represents the work done over the counter. It represents a great, deal more than that It represents, so far as actual counter work is concerned such things as sending out renewal warnings every year. But it also includes, of course, all the rest of the machinery, accounting, prosecutions, and the inspection about which the hon. Member for the Stroud Division (Sir F. Nelson) invited me to give some details.
    Sir F. NELSON: If it is not disclosing official secrets, will the right hon. Gentleman disclose the methods of inspection?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I must decline.
    Major CRAWFURD: I ought to have drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the £90,000 expenses, there is an item of £50,000 under the issue of broadcasting licences.
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Roughly speaking, something between 1s. 1d. and 1s. 2d. is the actual counter work, the renewal arrangements and the general administration including certain protective measures. On the whole, and as far as I have been able to go into it myself, I do not think there is much

    2007
    prospect of getting down the expenditure, which, I think, on the whole, is a reasonable expenditure. It may be that as things go on, and perhaps there is more general readiness in payment evinced by some people, we shall be able to get the amount down. A great deal depends on that. Perhaps in a short time we shall do it, but at present I do not see much prospect of it. Then I was asked a question about sub-head K, "Engineering Materials." As my Noble Friend has already explained, it is a purely temporary discrepancy between supply and demand, very largely because of the exceptionally bad weather which has prevailed during the last few weeks, which has prevented us getting on quite as fast with the actual work of laying the cables as could have been expected. And therefore, the cables have not yet been charged to the capital account. I was asked whether any automatics were included in the Vote. There is actually comprised in that figure no automatic machinery.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make one point clear as to the £80,000? Does the Ministry of Health pay a percentage to the Post Office on the total amount of pension paid away, or does the Post Office pay on the time taken up for the work done?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The latter.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: With regard to the engineering materials, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not buying any foreign materials? Secondly, would it be correct to say that if the telephone loan had been issued this Supplementary Estimate would not have been required, and in that connection can he say when the telephone loan will be issued, and as a corollary to that, can he give an assurance that, subject to the issue of this loan no further Votes will be required from the House in this connection? The only other point is in regard to the Vote of £600,000. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the whole of the legal costs of the Sutton Judgment have already been included in the Vote?
    Mr. CONNOLLY: There is one question I would like to put to the Post-master-General
    2008
    on a matter that has been dealt with in the House at Question Time once or twice with regard to the cables, ducts, etc., that we have received at various times from Germany. In these days, we are all urging upon each other the necessity to get everything we possibly can at home. I see the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. I am only taking his own answers in this House, and the explanation he has given is that all these things are of a special nature, or of a special efficiency, and that they are not being received in very large quantities.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No; what I said was one particular set had been bought for experimental purposes.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: But have you not given replies in the House with regard to the main cables?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The same applies to them.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I think the fullest information ought to be given at this stage. At Question Time we can only deal with things in a perfunctory way, and at this stage of the Estimates we ought to have the fullest information with regard to anything we get from Germany.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should be more than happy to give the information. In the first place, as regards the particular things he mentioned, neither is included in the Vote, nor is there anything in the expenditure under sub-head K which includes any foreign material.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it not correct to say that, so far as concerns a very large telephone exchange in the north, some of the main cables have been bought from Germany? If that be so, is not this the proper time to have a thorough explanation of it? Is that on account of the efficiency or because patent rights arise? I would like to know, and I think the Committee are entitled to know the full facts before passing these Votes.
    Commander C. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say the material comes entirely from our own country. I think all of us are glad of that. With regard to the Civil Pay Arrears, it is not very pleasant for the taxpayer to

    2009
    have to pay the £600,000. We do not mind so much if it really goes to those doing real, useful work in the Post Office, but. I see at the end of the paragraph that there has been a certain number of cases admitted since the Estimate came in, and I would like to know what percentage of the £600,000 actually went in salaries, and what percentage went in legal fees, if any. The other point I wish to raise is in connection with ducts and cables. I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what amount of wastage there is in these materials between the time they actually come to land and the time they become chargeable for telephone work, because there is always a considerable wastage, and I think we might have some sort of estimate of that wastage. The other point which really interested me is the sentence in Sub-head K:
    "and to deliveries by contractors maturing for payment somewhat earlier than was excepted."
    May I ask if one of those new contracts which are maturing somewhat earlier than was expected is a contract for a very large number, we will say, of penny stamps in lieu of three-halfpenny stamps?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask whether it could not now be arranged that a station which is not recognised as a substation, but is one of the offices under the General Post Office of Dundee, should not be classified?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular item does not come under the present. Vote.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to ask in regard to the advertising of intoxicants in the stamp albums. Is it in order to mention that matter?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member is not in order.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I feel the matter is a most important one.
    Mr. KELLY: I wanted to raise one point in regard to Sub-head K, which deals with engineering materials, and the provision due to heavy purchases of ducts and cable for telephone development. I suppose that under that head of "Cable" there is included telephone wire? I am not quite sure how narrow is the official interpretation of the word '' Cable." The hon. Member who spoke
    2010
    from the Back Benches on the other side expressed appreciation that some of this had been purchased in this country. I want, however, to be quite satisfied that trade union conditions are operating in the works where this cable and telephone wire is manufactured. There are some works from which there has been purchased both cable and telephone wire, in Surrey and in North-West London I am quite sure that these particular firms are not obeying the conditions that operate in the industry generally, and which are agreed upon by the Cable Trade Joint Industrial Council. I hope the Post Office will be a little more careful as to whom it gives out its orders, and, even if purchased at a little advance, to see that trade union conditions operate. I am not permitted, I take it, in view of your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, that there is under this heading no purchases abroad mentioned, to deal with that matter? I shall have to wait until the main Estimate conies along.
    In regard to civil pay under the Sutton Judgment, I am not at all sure that the whole of the cases are in this figure. We have discovered that not only in the present Department, but in other Departments, there are many people who are discovering that they come under it. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to be responsible for other Departments, but I really should like an answer to the question as to whether the legal costs are included in this, or whether this is the sum which is going to the individuals concerned? I hope the Post Office, no matter who is in charge, will not have recourse to the Law Courts to decide wages questions. There are one or two other matters with which I should like to deal, but for the moment I would ask some explanation as to whether the Post Office have satisfied themselves as to the conditions under which the cable and wire is made and whether the whole of the money in the Vote is going to those who are entitled to it under the Sutton Judgment?
    Viscount WOLMER: In respect to the question of the Sutton Judgment, the money is required simply for the purpose of paying it to those who are entitled to it under the law. In respect to the other question put, the money is issued to the Post Office by the National Debt. Commissioners as and when it is asked for. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question

    2011
    about the rate of wages paid in certain cable works. I can assure him that if he will bring clear evidence to the notice of the Postmaster-General or myself that the Fair Wages Resolution is not being observed in any works we shall most certainly go into the matter.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I put a point or two to the hon. Gentleman.
    Viscount WOLMER: What the hon. Member has in mind, I think, is the fact that there has been one cable purchased from Germany for the Post Office for experimental purposes. It is only a very small percentage of these purchases that are not British-made goods. Ninety-nine-and-a-half per cent. of Post Office purchases are British-made; but we have to buy foreign inventions to test them.

    DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLIGENCE).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade."
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The explanation that I would like to give to the Committee I shall endeavour to make as short as possible on this particular Vote. The first item of £20,000 is for this year's British. Industries Fair, which in 1925 was suspended for the first time since 1915, owing to Wembley being open, for it was felt very undesirable that the two exhibitions should clash. We came to the conclusion that the exhibitors who had previously exhibited were right in asking us to re-establish this Fair this year, seeing it had done good in the past. We were able in past years to give employment arising out of it to people at home. I want to acknowledge the valuable help we have received from the Press this year.
    The £20,000 (under Subhead F1) is for publicity. The Advisory Committee suggested that we should have a considerable campaign of advertising, not so
    2012
    much to attract buyers at home as those abroad: in order to get the type of buyers we especially want, that is to say, the overseas buyers. We are asking only for £20,000 for advertising, the reason being that in the original Estimate of 28,000, £5,000 was provided for publicity, and we therefore only have to ask the Committee now for the extra £20,000 to meet the total £25,000 for advertising.
    I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that we have this year over 750 exhibitors, including a group of 50 exhibitors of rural industries, against 650 in 1924. The Dominions have come in this year for the first time. I think hon. Members understand that it is not contemplated to allow the general public to buy at all. The only people desired are trade buyers, and particularly those from Overseas. I have received news this afternoon from our staff at the Exhibition to the effect that the number of buyers attending on the second day was twice as many as on the corresponding day of the last occasion. I myself was there yesterday till 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and I made various inquiries about how sales were proceeding. One seller told me that he already had paid his expenses on the first day for the whole of the time he hopes to be open. Another said his seven assistants were all selling to buyers at one and the same time. Another said he had taken £150 on the first day, and he was more than pleased with it. Another said orders obtained at the fair would enable him to keep his men at work for a considerable time. Another said that he had received many orders from visitors, from the Argentine, and other parts. This is the very thing we want.
    Many inquiries are made which do not at once result in purchases, but I trust that the firms, and especially the small firms, will personally follow up these inquiries. If a greater amount of business is to be done by our smaller firms they must keep in personal touch with buyers abroad. They must look after old customers, and make new ones, and supplement the advertising methods which we adopt in this country by more personal contact with buyers in their respective cities abroad. Speaking as one who has earned his living in trade, I think that we have in the recent past too much depended upon the printed word—which is a very good thing—we ought to

    2013
    keep in closer touch by visiting our customers, and then by personal salesmanship and individuality put our goods before them much more closely and clearly, and by persuasive salesmanship use every opportunity to help trade on. We can produce and make in this country, but we have not always given all the attention we should to the selling part of our organisation. This fair will help us in that direction. Goods have to be sold after they have been produced, and goods will not sell themselves after the labour troubles have been got over.
    7.0 P.M.
    There is an item at the foot of page 14 in the Estimates for £5,000 for the International Exhibition of Decorative Art, Paris. The reason for that sum is that on previous occasions we were given permission by this Committee to spend the sum of £5,000 in connection with this International Exhibition. The bills have not come in at the time they ought to have come, and I have not been called upon to pay that money out. It is therefore possible to appropriate back £5,000, but it will have to be revoted next year. The next item is the Dunedin Exhibition for which we are asking 27,500 more. When the expenditure for this exhibition was first thought out we made up our minds that it would cost £25,000, but the Treasury would only let us have £20,000£18,000 for this year and £2,000 for next year. We were imbaied with the wish and the spirit, of which I am sure the Committee will approve, to try to carry out this expenditure as economically as we could. We found, however, we could not do the work with the amount the Treasury allowed, and the consequence is that instead of the £20,000 which was first estimated for we shall have to get permission for £25,500 this year and £4,500 next year, making £30,000 in all; but in this Estimate we are only now asking £7,500, and the remainder will have to come in next year.
    This exhibition has been a great success up to the present. It is the first exhibition since 1906–7. The United Kingdom official exhibits show the present and past history of Great Britain. We are exhibiting the recent developments of the Navy, Army and Air Force as at Wembley; the Port of London Authority have lent us exhibits, and Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to lend us historical prints and plans from the House for
    2014
    Dunedin. We have models of textile machines and models of locomotives. On the business side, the Federation of British Industries have organised a collection of commercial exhibits. On the whole, I think, the Committee will agree with me that it is money extremely well spent and that it will do a great deal of good. Fifty thousand people attended on the opening day. The Prime Minister of New Zealand was very pleased with it, and he said he wished every child to see it who could grasp its meaning. The amount of two sums of £500 shown for salaries, wages, travelling expenses, and allowances represent a curious piece of bookkeeping. We ask for £1,000;n two sums, but as a matter of fact it will not cost the public purse one penny, because there is £1,000 recovered from the Export Credits Scheme as shown on page 15. The Appropriation-in-Aid which we thought would pay a considerable amount of the revised estimates we are asking for will not be as much by £9,000 as we had hoped. That is accounted for on page 15 under Section H. We are getting £5,000 less from the Paris Decorative Art Exhibition than we thought we would, made up of £2,000 less for letting, £2,000 less for advertisements, and 21,000 less for sale of catalogues, making £5,000 in all. As we are taking £1,000 from the Export credits, the nett sum that appears on page 14 in the deficiency Appropriations-in-Aid item is £9,000, instead of £10,000. If there are any other points which I have not made clear, I hope hon. Members will put their question to me and allow me to reply to them.
    Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: I only want to ask a question. It is not really connected with this Vote, but it is a matter which covers many other Votes as well, and I ask it with a genuine desire to understand it. No one has been able to explain to me how this Vote has been prepared. The total expenditure in connection with the participation of His Majesty's Government in the Dunedin Exhibition was originally estimated to amount to £20,000, of which £2,000 would be provided in 1926–27. Looking back, I find that the original estimate was put down at £18,000 for 1925–26 and £2,000 for this year. Then I read:
    "It is now estimated;that the total expenditure will amount to £30,000, of which £4,500 will fall to be provided in 1926–27."

    2015
    that is the same year. It therefore follows, we are told, that a further sum of £7,500 is required. I confess I cannot in the least understand that.
    Mr. SAMUELMay I be allowed to explain at once? I said, quite frankly, that the original Estimate was £20,000, of which £18,000 was to be paid in one year and £2,000 in the next year. We did at the start not think we could do this work on £20,000, but the Treasury pressed us to try with that sum, and we did try in order to keep expenditure down. When we came to meet the bills which we incurred with every care for economy, for carrying out this. Dunedin Exhibition transaction we found, after sending our men out there and making careful investigations, that the total amount would have to be £30,000 if success were to be attained, and the consequence is that we have to ask the Committee this year for £7,500 more than the £18,000, making £25,500, and next year we shall have to ask for £4,500, making £30,000 in all instead of £18,000 and £2,000, which would represent the original Estimate of £20,000.
    Sir P. HASTINGS: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I did not understand the position before.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. The first is in regard to the British Industries Fair. I always understood that that Fair more or less paid for itself. If there was a deficit, it was made up the following year. The Government advanced the money for the year, and, if there was a deficit, on the following year there was an extra amount put on to the various people who were advertising their goods to make up the amount the Government had advanced. I am very pleased to hear the good accounts which the Minister has given in regard to this Fair. In regard to the export credits, I am sorry to see that there is an additional staff, and additional provision is required to meet the increased bank and legal charges. This export credits scheme has never been a success at any time. At no time has a larger amount than £26,000,000 been advanced under the export credits scheme, and I believe that at the present time the amount advanced is £6,043,267. Why is
    2016
    there this additional expenditure in regard to staff and bank and legal charges. I realise that the Minister knows more about this matter than I do, because he used to sit on the Committee, and I would appreciate an explanation on these two points.
    Mr. LUNN: I do not see where the question of labour troubles comes into this Vote, and I did not quite understand the Minister when he opened his speech by dealing with labour trouble. If that were a matter which came under the Vote, many of us on this side of the House would like to take up the point.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I on this point ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it will be in order for any other Member on this side of the House to follow the hon. Member on the question of labour trouble?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. When I spoke of labour trouble, I did not mean strikes or anything of that kind. I meant that we were so concerned with the troubles of the production of goods and had been so occupied with that aspect that we almost lost sight of the methods necessary for selling them. Goods do not sell themselves. We have forgotten that we must look after the difficulties of the selling end in conditions of severe foreign competition, just as we must look after the producing end. And selling goods is a very great art, requiring extreme skill and personality in the salesman, quite apart from the valuable aid of advertising. The troubles and difficulties of turning goods into money only begin when the troubles of production have been surmounted. It is easier to make than to sell in these times.
    Mr. LUNN: I am glad we have got that explanation, but I do not see where the term "labour troubles" comes into it. I think this is new Supplementary Estimate. I do not remember any occasion previously when we had a Supplementary Estimate for the British Industries Fair. Like the hon. Member who preceded me, I understood that the British Industries Fair paid for itself. As a matter of fact, I think the Birmingham section has paid for itself ever since it was instituted. I do not know what the position is with regard to the London section, but there has been an Estimate already of £28,000 for the British

    2017
    Industries Fair, and I would like to know if any of that amount is to come from the taxpayers ultimately or whether the whole of it will be recovered from other fairs that are running. Now, over and above that, we have a Supplementary Estimate for an additional £20,000 for advertising. I have seen very little advertising of the British Industries Fair; except when going on the Underground from Baker Street to the White City to see the Fair, as I did this week, I have seen no advertising of this Fair anywhere. If it is not done in this country, but in foreign countries, I would like to know what supervision is exercised over it, and who sees whether this money is being well spent or otherwise.
    The Department of Overseas Trade is a business department, and all the money spent upon it is spent on behalf of business men in this country, and, if they would only admit that they do get the support they do from various Government Departments, instead of protesting that the Government ought not to interfere with trade, I should feel more pleased with them. I am not partioularly complaining, because I want to see trade come to this country, but I do hate hypocrisy, and they are getting assistance. We have a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000 for advertising British goods somewhere, though we do not know where. The only statement made by the Minister is that he estimates that he will receive £5,000 less from the rents for space than he expected sometime ago. He told us there are 750 exhibitors at the Fair, whereas there were only 652 two years ago, and with that development surely he ought to have looked for a gain instead of a loss of £5,000. I think it is very unwise estimating that places an item like that in the Estimate.
    With regard to the question of economy and safety in providing money for an exhibition of this kind, why did not the Department, after first settling that the exhibitors should be allowed to sell goods at th- Fair, persist in that idea? This year, for the first time, the public are admitted to the Fair at the White City, and I believe thousands of people will go who in previous years did not have an opportunity of visiting it. It is a wonderful exhibition of British skill and
    2018
    British enterprise in manufacture. Men and women are very fanciful and eager to obtain an article which nobody else happens to have, and at the British Industries Fair one sees hundreds of articles which are not to be seen in the shops and stalls. Had the Minister stuck to his policy of allowing exhibitors to sell goods, he might have charged more for space, might have had more space occupied, and would have got far more visitors, who would have been pleased to buy there articles which they will never again think of buying.
    Why should we eater for the middleman all the time? Where we have an opportunity to bring the producer and the consumer together we ought to do it. It is my personal view that the Government caught not to hand out money to any section of the community without having some regard to that aspect of things. Thousands of visitors who will go to the exhibition this week and next week will see articles they cannot see elsewhere, and they would purchase them if they had the opportunity. I know of one article costing more than £20 which would have been bought had it been possible for it to be sold, or had it been possible even for the visitor to be told the name of the dealer in his locality from which he could obtain it. Parliament ought to do more in the direction of encouraging the producer and consumer to come together, instead of for ever supporting the middleman. I have no objection to the distributor, he is a necessity in many cases, but where we have an opportunity such as we have at this fair we ought to encourage the actual manufacturers of the goods to hand them over to the people who desire them. If that had been done, the Minister would not have had to come here to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.
    One little point to whirl: I would like-to allude is that, as I walked round the fair and looked at the stalls of the manufacturers, I did not see two instances of firms having the Royal Warrant; but as I came from the fair, riding on an omnibus, I saw many stores and shops, which do not manufacture anything, but only sell goods over the counter, with the Royal Warrant. That is another instance of the middleman being supported. I know how

    2019
    beautiful this fair is, as I have seen it on two occasions, including the present one, and I would support anything that will bring trade and work to this country, but I think the Government ought not to ask the taxpayers for money in cases where the people concerned should find it.
    The hon. Member who preceded me criticised the Export Credits Department and the work it has done. I think if he went carefully into the matter he would find a great deal of trade has come to this country during the last four or five years as the result of that particular scheme. At the same time, I do not understand this additional item in the Estimate for additional work, and I think, when the Minister comes here to ask for more money, he ought to tell us of the progress of that particular section of his Department, and how much more trade was done than was done in the previous year, when a less amount sufficed. The Committee ought to know how busy the Export Credits Department is. I do not care how busy it is, even if it went to the limit of spending the full £26,000,000, because that would be bringing work to this country. I would like to see the Export Credits Scheme very much extended, and applied to the only country left out, which is Russia. Then, I think, there would be far more work. But even as things are, I would ask: Is additional work being done, what is the amount, how many cases are before the Committee, and how much more trade is being done in connection with this additional grant, which the Minister tries to modify by referring to another item in the Estimate which really does not concern the case at all?
    In putting these points to the Minister, I do not wish him to regard me as being critical of the British Industries Fair. During the last hour I have been told by one man, who is sitting in the Gallery at the present moment, and who has come from one of our Dominions, that at the Fair to-day he was able to buy goods at 36s. a dozen which last year cost him in Germany 48s. a dozen, and that he had given an order for 20 gross. If our people can meet customers in that way, we shall be getting trade for this country and work for our people, which is the all-important matter, and, as I have
    2020
    often said, and as I sincerely believe, is the only cure for unemployment.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I hope I shall be in Order in referring to the building in which this exhibition is held, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying to my hon. Friend that I hope in future he will give consideration to the possibility of using one of our own national buildings for the purpose of these exhibitions. I will not belabour that point, but I hope my hon. Friend will remember it. With regard to Export Credits, I would like to ask what is the total amount of business that has been done? The Minister referred to two cases where he has to pay £500—G.1 and G.2—and is to get back £1,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid. I believe in business concerns being run on the basis of paying their own way, but when a Government undertake a business it is not necessary that profit should be made; their estimates ought to be so near that they are able to make both ends meet. I find a large amount debited to wages and allowances and all sorts of things, and that may be perfectly right, but in an ordinary business it could not be dealt with in this way. The commissions are a certain amount and the expenses are a certain amount also, and if we were shown a debit side and a credit side we should be able to understand whether the Export Credits Scheme—without taking into consideration ultimate benefits—is a business concern, and whether it has been able to balance its profit-and-loss account.
    With regard to the Dunedin Exhibition, I can quite understand that when an exhibition is going to be held £18,000 may have to be expended in anticipation the first year, with another £2,000 to come later, and that even after that it may be found necessary to ask for an additional Supplementary Estimate. It seems to me that the proper way would have been not to say that you want £7,500 more, as this Estimate does, but that you want a totality of £12,000, £4,500 being debited to this year. The whole of the expenses in connection with it should have been spread over the time when you are getting your exhibits ready. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to carry over this £4,500 to 1926–27 which in my opinion should have been included in these accounts. With regard to the Paris Exhibition I believe that shows a loss of

    2021
    £5,000 according to the figures which have been given. If the original Estimates amounted to very large sums I can understand that £5,000 would not be a very considerable item by way of underestimation, but if the amount was only in the neighbourhood of £15,000 or £20,000 then £5,000 would bear a large percentage when compared with the actual amount.
    Mr. HARRIS: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member in charge of th:s Vote upon his clear statement of the activities of his Department in promoting these exhibitions, because I think they are all to the good. It is very necessary if this country is going to hold its own to show what are really the activities of this country. There is an idea in the Dominions that this country is out of date and practically dead, and we have to get rid elf that idea and show that we are sti:1 very much alive. There has been a "boosting" of American trade, and there has been a tendency for American tastes to prevail in our Dominions. Therefore the more this country can do by exhibitions to advertise our industrial activities the better it will be for our trade.
    The only criticism I wish to make of the exhibition in New Zealand is that far too much is done there to display our history in regard to the Army and Navy, and models of old engines. I suggest that the Overseas Department could spend money much more profitably showing our industrial activities in the great industrial centres of Lancashire, Yorkshire and London. I am inclined to think that too much accent has been put upon the historical side of our country, and too little upon our present industrial activities. We want to push the national activities of this country at a time like this when there is so much competition for the trade of the world. Very much the same criticism can be applied to the present exhibition at the White City. I am glad to hear such very good reports in connection with this exhibition. I see that, the sum of £20,000 has been spent advertising the British Industries Fair, and I hope the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade will not be offended if I say that I do not think the title "British Industries Fair" is an accurate description of this exhibition, because our great textile and machinery industries are not represented at all. It is really a small exhibition and it is quite
    2022
    a misnomer to describe it as a British Industries Fair, when Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacturers are conspicuous by their absence. If we have an exhibition on a large scale of British industries, we must aim very much higher than this.
    At the British Industries Fair there are some 800 exhibitors, whilst at the Leipsic Fair there are 8,000 exhibitors. We have spent £20,000 giving publicity to the British Industries Fair, but next time I think we ought to go in for something much more ambitious. I think we might have kept Wembley for this purpose, so that this country could have said that in London there was at any rate a real rival to the Leipsic Fair. I think it gives rather a wrong impression to foreigners when they are told that the exhibition at the White City is, a real representation of the industrial activities of this country. The boot industry is hardly represented at all, any many other large industries of the country are conspicuous by their absence. This is really a great fancy goods fair of china, crockery, fancy goods, printing, furniture and similar articles, and I suggest that next year the Government should make this exhibition really a national affair. With reference to the remarks made about the export credits, I hope the Government will not be influenced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), but go on with their useful activities in connection with the Overseas Trade Department. The export credits have done much to stimulate and help a great many small trades.
    Sir F. HALL: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I raised no objection to these export credits, but I asked the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade to give us an account of how the credits and debits had been dealt with.
    Mr. HARRIS: Far from discouraging this particular work, I hope the Government will see that due advantage is taken of the money placed to the credit of this Department, and the power it has of helping the smaller manufacturers should be more widely known, so that those small manufacturers will realise that in the Government Departments they have a useful friend to help them to gain some of the markets they have lost, and help them to establish new markets.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I am afraid the hon. Member who has just

    2023
    spoken was arguing against the policy laid down by his own party when he criticised the Government for having this exhibition in Dunedin. After all, the Liberal party is the one party which has endeavoured to prevent us assisting the Paris Exhibition in a practical way. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing the discussion on those lines, but there are one or two points with which I wish to deal. What I wish to ask is, Was any pressure put upon the Government to prevent the authorisation of exhibitors to sell their wares to the various visitors? We are now asked to vote the money for this exhibition, and I for one would be the last to criticise the object of the British Industries Fair. At the same time, we do want the arrangements made as efficient as possible, so that the amount spent by the Government should be the absolute minimum. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has told us that one exhibitor on the first day took a number of orders sufficient to show a profit large enough to pay the whole of the expenses of his exhibit. In my view, if the rents of the exhibition could have been increased, probably the Government would not have had to come to the House of Commons for any money at all. Therefore I think it is a pertinent question, which I hope the Minister will answer, as to whether anyone interested in the retail trade or otherwise put pressure upon the Government representative to prevent the authorisation of exhibitors to sell their wares.
    Another point I wish to raise is in regard to advertising. The Government originally made an Estimate of £5,000 far this purpose, and now we are asked to vote another £20,000. I understand that this money has been spent without getting any authority from this House. That raises the point which was discussed earlier in the Debates on the Supplementary Estimates two or three days ago. We find the responsible Minister makes a small Estimate and greatly exceeds it, and then he comes forward with a Supplementary Estimate, although the House has given him no authority to spend that amount of money, however arbitrarily it may have been spent. The Government spend this money, and then they come to the House of Commons and say, "Here
    2024
    is the bill. Will you please pay it?" The Government have been appealing to the country on the score of economy, but it seems to me that some different kind of procedure is required in regard to many of these Supplementary Estimates. On these matters I know that back-bench Members have no control over the Departments. In this case the Estimate has been increased by 500 per cent.
    Another question I wish to ask is in regard to advertising. Is the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade responsible for his own advertising, or does he employ agents? So far as the advertising is done in other countries, does he work with other Government Departments or employ his own staff? I have seen very little advertising in regard to the British Industries Fair, and I think it would have been much better if the advertising in the first place had been done upon a much larger scale. If that had been done and large sales had taken place in the exhibition, the representative of the Government instead of coming here for a Supplementary Estimate of £32,500 would not have had to come to this House at all for any money.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not propose to discuss the question of the British Industries Fair. When I visited it the other day I found it a very interesting exhibition. The point I wish to raise is with regard to export credits. In my constituency there is a very considerable interest taken in the question of export credits insurance risks. Under the Item G 1, we are asked to vote additional money to cover the cost of additional staff temporarily engaged in connection with the administration of the Export Credits Scheme. In view of the fact that in July last the Government appointed a Commission to go into this matter, I presume there is some paid official connected with it, and this is a matter which naturally arises. I want to know how that Commission is proceeding, and whether we can be given any information as to the prospects of an early report.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to go into these very intricate points as best I can, and I will take them as they arose. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) is perfectly right in his remarks about the £28,000 and the £48,000. We have embarked upon a new policy by finding

    2025
    £20,000 extra for advertising, but, as my hon. Friend very properly suggests, we hope to get back most of the £28,000 from the rents. But not all. The view my hon. Friend takes is quite in accordance with the facts, except that we have added to the policy of earlier years by providing this £20,000 for advertising. With regard to the Export Credits Scheme under G1 and 2, the two amounts of £500 each for which we are asking are for expenses of noting, law and bank charges, travelling expenses, in connection with dishonoured bills and with salaries, the latter including, I believe, the extra salaries of Trea:sury officials who will help in expediting the settlement of outstanding claims. This is what I may call costs of salvage.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), who well knows the intricacies of insurance, asked about the premiums. We receive premiums for the convenience which the Government gives to those who get assistance under the scheme, and those premiums are applied against losses by bad debts and management expenses, as is done by insurance concerns. These two items of £500 cancel the other single item of £1,000 which appears at the bottom of page 15, and which is simply an allocation of that amount out of the general total of the premiums received for doing business, and is put against the two sums of £500 each.
    Sir F. HALL: Perhaps I may put the point to my hon. Friend in this way. As I said, I do not want to see a profit made, but can he tell me whether the premium that is charged by the Government is sufficient to cover the whole of the expenses referred to here, or, in other words, whether there is a balance on the debit side or on the credit side, and, if on the debit side, how much it is?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Why does my hon. and gallant Friend ask that? He knows much more about insurance than I do, and he knows that there are the normal insurance risks, and that both management expenses and losses on risks have to be provided for out of premiums. If he is referring to management expenses, which are only a very small proportion of the total outgoings of an insurance scheme, I can, of course, say that the premiums charged to the public for doing this export credits business cover the management expenses; but my hon. and
    2026
    gallant Friend must not assume that there are not large losses on risks in this scheme, just as there are in fire insurance and other forms of insurance.
    Some hon. Members have said that they have not seen much advertising at home in connection with the British Industries Fair. That is because most of the advertising has been done abroad. If, however, I had come down and told the Committee that I had followed the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), and had spent a great deal more than £20,000, I should have had my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford down upon me like a hundredweight of bricks. I agree in principle with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge; I would have liked to be able to spend £100,000 instead of £20,000, because I think we should thereby have attracted many more buyers from abroad to come over here; but we had to cut our garments according to our cloth.
    As to the advertising method adopted, the Department employed a gentleman who is very well known to hon. Members, and who at one time was himself a Member of the House—Sir Charles Highamto superintend the advertising. He was assisted by a 'Committee of exhibitors representing both London and Birmingham, and I think they did their work extremely well. I was asked if I was responsible for the advertising. Of course, I am responsible to the House, but I could not have done the work, nor, if I may be allowed to speak of my staff, could anyone in my Department, with the best will in the world, have done the work half as well as those who administered the advertising campaign for my Department. They were experts in these matters, and the exhibitors themselves were continuously in touch with Si-Charles Higham, and saw that eve-ytlung that should be done was done W&MD hon. Gentlemen say that they did not see these advertisements, they must remember that, as I have said, most of this advertising, obviously, was done abroad for the specific purpose of attracting overseas customers to come to the Fair.
    I want to impress upon the Committee—and this has reference to certain observations which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn)—that what we wanted was to develop small firms and help them to extend their

    2027
    export trade. By means of publicity we have brought foreign buyers here, so that small firms at home might be able to get into touch with foreign buyers in a way which would not have been otherwise possible.
    I will deal presently with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) about this Exhibition not being a national Exhibition. By means of this advertising, firms abroad have had brought under their eyes the goods of these small firms, who could not themselves have afforded to pay for overseas advertisements; these small firms have been able actually to see the buyers and will, I hope, follow up inquiries; the buyers have been able to see the makers and their goods, the firms get to know the names of buyers, and to know what the buyers want; they learn by word of mouth from the buyers what their particular predilections are. That is the reason why we are especially glad to have the small makers in the British Industries Fair. Some of the great firms have remained out. The large firms are perfectly well able to look after themselves; it is the small exporting firms that we need to develop. Since I have been in the Department of Overseas Trade I have learned a good deal in the course of my duties, both at home and abroad, about openings in the large number of small trades which are quasi luxury trades. I repeat the words "small trades"; some are capable of great development. Their products are not really luxuries; they have become part of the ordinary amenities of life among our working people and our middle-class people.
    For the most part these goods have hitherto been brought from abroad for home consumption here and export to overseas customers. We ought ourselves to make and sell these small-trades goods. These small trades are just those which can be developed by such a method as this fair. They are light trades, in which women can work, so that they will help our woman labour, and take the pressure of it from men's labour. The goods are small and light, and can easily be carried about and shown by commercial travellers. In aggregate, they can add large sums to trade and much employment, and supplement our
    2028
    great heavy industries. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green asked where were the great industries, like coal, and iron, and textiles? Well, they know their own business better than we can tell them. We welcome all British products at the two fairs, and we are asked, Why do we not bring them in? It is, however, for exhibitors to decide. While, however, in London we have only taken certain types of goods at the fair, I may point out that there is to-day a splendid exhibition at the fair in Birmingham, which takes other types of productions—
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order, on a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000 for extra publicity for the British Industries Fair, for the hon. Gentleman to advertise all the exhibitions that are taking place anywhere in the British Empire?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a very good exhibition, and that it is worth while advertising it.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was listening with the greatest interest to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about this particular fair, but when he set out upon what seemed to be a tour round the Empire, I thought it was time to enter my protest.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was led into this primrose by-path by the remarks of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, who asked why we did not make it a national fair, whatever that may mean. One reason is that Birmingham is taking certain trades more suitable for the Birmingham Fair than for the London Fair. The question was raised as to pressure that might have been put upon me in regard to sales to the public. Let me say quite frankly that, if the policy which has been advocated by certain hon. Members had been persisted in by my Department, of allowing or being a party to anything which allowed buyers among the general public to buy at the fair from the wholesale exhibitors, we should have immediately defeated the primary object of the fair. And, what is more, I have not the slightest doubt that the manufacturers would not have come in. Probable buyers were strongly opposed to selling to the general public by manufacturers.

    2029
    The manufacturers have their novelties, which they make for shopkeepers, and it would have been very unfair to shopkeepers had the public come in and bought these novelties before they were shown in the shop windows. We thought that matter over very deeply and very carefully, and we came to the conclusion that the one aim and object we ought to have in view was to increase the home and export trades and to increase the power of the manufacturers to employ people, and we decided that the policy at which we arrived and have carried out was the best for the object we had in view.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich asked about the item of £4,500 in connection with the Dunedin Exhibition. There are certain expenses to be embarked upon, the exhibition will not close till May, and we cannot carry over an unspent sum beyond the financial year, owing to the Treasury system of book-keeping. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I think, while referring to what he described as the Exports Credit Scheme, had in mind a scheme for insurance against bad debts in the export market. I have taken a great deal of thought about this matter, and I am quite aware of the interest in it which is shown by my hon. Friend's constituents in Leicester. A Committee has been sitting in connection with it, of which the Chairman is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), and 'which includes a Director of the Bank of England, and, I think, the Chairman of Lloyds and other highly expert gentlemen who have kindly assisted me. I am hoping that in a few weeks they will produce their Report, which, if necessary, we can discuss here. The matter has by no means gone to sleep; it is very much alive, and the time is just arriving when the Committee's Report will be ready. I feel a personal interest in it, and the Committee has examined this subject very thoroughly.
    Sir F. WISE: Will it be available to Members of the House.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly, I hope so. I do not think there are any other points with which I have not dealt, but if I have omitted anything I shall be glad if hon.
    2030
    Members will draw my attention to it, and I will, of course, do my best to answer it.
    Sir F. HALL: I do not want to trouble-my hon. Friend, but, as he asks to have his attention drawn to any other points, perhaps I may say that there is just the point with regard to the £5,000 in connection with the Paris Exhibition. Can my hon. Friend say what was the percentage of that with regard to the Estimates? I only want to see whether the. Estimates were fairly near.
    Mr. SAMUEL: This £5,000 is put in here because we have to conform with the book-keeping of the Treasury. It is a deferred re-Vote. Speaking broadly, whatever the Paris Exhibition Estimate was—I do not want to confuse the Committee by quoting the figures in detail—I do not think, speaking off-hand, that we shall exceed that Estimate. In other words, the Estimate and result are fairly near.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for expenditure in connection with a British Government Exhibit and Sundry Displays at the British Empire Exhibition, 1925."
    8.0 P.M.

    ROYAL CONSTABULARY PENSIONS, ETO.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to his Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances, and certain extra Statutory Payments."

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £195,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the

    2031
    payment of Old Age Pensions, Administrative Expenses in therewith, and for Pensions Blind Persons Act, 1920."

    OVERSEA SETTLEMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants in Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and the Free Passage Scheme for Ex-Service Men and Women."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wanted to ask just one question from the Minister in charge, but he is not here. I thought the Colonial Secretary would be in charge. I should have thought that as the Whips are keenly anxious to get work done that the Minister would be present. The point I wished to ask was in connection with these voluntary societies who are going to take part in this work of emigrating men abroad, and I should have thought that the Minister in charge would have been present, but it is obviously no use for me to put the question in his absence. Would I be in order in asking the Financial Secretary to withdraw this Supplementary Estimate? I will move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, on the ground that the Minister is absent.
    Mr. McNEILL: I hope that the hon. Member will not press this. I was going to ask him to give a moment's indulgence to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary who is, however, now here.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him even on his somewhat late appearance. As regards the voluntary societies, I should like some information as to the character and composition of these societies which are administering these grants which we are being asked to pass. I think it is important, and on this subject may I ask a question? I do not know whether it will be quite in order, but I do hope the right hon. Gentleman can give me some information. I am having a fair number of constituents of mine who are out of work and anxious, as everybody is, to get something in view in order to get things going, and some of
    2032
    them have a chance of going to Australia, but they cannot go because you are now insisting on them taking their families, or, in the event of their not taking their families, that you should have a guarantee that the families will be kept while they are settling down and earning a living until they begin to send money back. The difficulty is that in some cases people who emigrate are not anxious to take the whole family, because there might be boys mentally deficient or the wife might have some deficiency which debars her from going abroad.
    The consequence is that the man himself has no method of guaranteeing to keep his wife and family. Although parish councils could do it, in Scotland it is illegal for parish councils to guarantee to keep a man's wife for any time, and the consequence is we have men who are very willing and anxious to go abroad but the Department at tint present time is not keen—I do not say they are debarred altogether—on allowing men to go abroad under such circumstances. I am not at all keen myself in seeing the separation of wife and husband, but I would like to ask the Colonial Secretary if in this country a broader policy and one that is more tolerant to people in circumstances like that cannot be adopted. If he can satisfy himself as to the character and behavious of the man in the past and can get satisfactory assurances on this point, then he might try and extend his clemency in exceptional cases and allow the man to go. The last point I want to put is with regard to the voluntary societies. I have had one or two inquiries in connection with difficulties which have arisen, and I would like the Colonial Secretary to give us an account or rough outline of the voluntary societies and the character of their work.
    Mr. MAXTON: I should imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect to get this Vote to-day. I certainly assume from the fact of his absence at the time when the Estimate came on that he did not expect to get it to-day, and he is probably not primed with information on this matter in the way we usually have been accustomed to have it from him. I do not think the Prime Minister expected to get this particular Vote to-day, certainly not before 8.15. During the right hon. Gentleman's absence from the Committee there has been considerable

    2033
    progress made with these Estimates, and I think he will readily agree that if there were only some eight or nine of the most efficient Members left in the House we would always get on much more speedily.
    This question of oversew settlement and this particular Vote, raising, as it does, the very vexed question of spending public money through the agency of voluntary organisations mainly of a religious nature, is one which some of us here do not think ought to be allowed to go through without very adequate and very full explanations from the Minister who is responsible, and particularly we want to have some information of the meaning of the footnote on page 35 of the Estimates. It seems to be a most unusual procedure in connection with puhlie funds. The footnote says:
    "The expenditure out of these Grants in Aid will not be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the unexpended balances, if any, of the issues made out of the Grants will not be liable to surrender by the payees at the close of the financial year."
    That indicates that this Vote is on a very different basis from practically all other Government expenditure. There is no footnote here that explains fay who three voluntary societies are, or whether those societies mentioned here, namely, the Salvation Army, the Church of England Council of Overseas Settlement, and the Empire Community Settlement Committee, are the only voluntary organisations which are receiving money, or whether there are others, which I certainly have come across, such as the Rorran Catholic voluntary organisation, which, I gather, is very active and efficient, particularly with reference to the emigration of people to Canada. I would also like to know if there is any voluntary society that takes care of those individuals who are either not associated with any particular religious sect or have objection to being taken out to a colony under the auspices of a particular religious organisation.
    Then there is a further point to which I would like the Colonial Secretary to give his attention, namely, whether he has made any comparison as to the efficiency and the popularity of the work when it is done by these voluntary agencies as compared with the same kind
    2034
    of work done directly under State, auspices. I gather that in Australian emigration a very large proportion of the work which is done in other cases of emigration by voluntary organisations, is done by actual Government agencies both on this side and on the arrival of the emigrants at the destination. There are British Government agencies on this side and on the other side Australian Government agencies doing the same class of work that is done in the case of Canadian emigration by societies like the Salvation Army, the Church of England Council and the Empire Community Settlement Committee. It seems to me that with the various powers that the Governments have at their disposal, the work could be done much more efficiently, much more economically, and in a way that would be much more pleasing to the individual emigrants by definite and direct Government agencies acting through men specially appointed for the work rather than through voluntary organisations which must, one or another, be offensive to different sections of the community. I would also like very much to have from the Colonial Secretary some idea as to where the anticipated savings come from on the main Estimate. There is here an item of anticipated savings on other sub-heads of £3,490, leaving the total Vote that he is asking for at the present time—
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene one moment. I have no intention of taking this Vote, of course, beyond what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. It will not be taken any further to-night, but on a subsequent occasion. I quite realise the importance of the point brought forward, and it would be impossible for me—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think in the circumstances it would be more convenient that the right hon. Gentleman did move to report Progress.
    Mr. AMERY: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ROAD FUND.
  Mr. DIXEY: I beg to move:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, no money should be taken, allocated, or spent out of the Road Fund for any purposes other than for the purpose of construction, repair, and maintenance of roads and bridges."
  This question of the Road Fund is of such great importance that it demands the attention of this House. I represent a constituency which is typical of many rural constituencies, inasmuch as its comparatively poor ratepayers bear the burden of a large number of what are termed unclassified roads. My constituents look with feelings of considerable alarm at any attempt to tamper with this specially earmarked fund. I move this Motion with no feeling of hostility towards the Government. I move it because I consider it is a subject which it is to the interest of all parties in the House to have fully discussed, and on which, to my mind, the fair opinion of the House should be obtained. The Road Fund was formed in 1920. Mr. Neal, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, with the consent of the Coalition Government, met a committee made up of members representing the motor industry, vehicle owners and representatives of district councils, and a voluntary arrangement was come to as to taxation for this purpose. May I refer the House to a Debate on the Road Bill at that time? I attach considerable importance to what was laid down by Mr. Neal, who was piloting the Bill through the House, as being the foundation of this Fund. He said:
  "Something has been said as to the absence of Parliamentary control over this fund. This fund is very much in the nature of voluntary taxation of a particular kind. The motorists have consented to raise money by this particular tax on the definite undertaking that the money shall be expended in the improvement of roads. It is a national object which they are helping in that direction, and it is one which is most urgently needed. The roads have to be brought up to a condition to deal with modern traffic, and to be maintained in that condition. Therefore, this fund, specially arranged by taxation of a particular class, is specially safeguarded against its expenditure being diverted from the use for which it is raised to the relief of general taxation. Bearing in mind the difficulties of the matter, I am sure my right hon. Friend would desire to have any assistance that can be given to him in order to see that this fund is reasonably and properly
  2036
  applied to the purpose for which it is designed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1920; col. 1529, Vol. 135.]
  My first contention is that the Fund was formed by a special agreement between the Coalition Government and this body of individuals and authorities who came forward quite voluntarily with ideas to the Government, and upon those voluntary ideas this Fund was formed. Before any attempt is made to divert that Fund from those specific purposes I strongly recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some effort should be made to bring these parties again into contact or, if there is any idea of diverting any part of this money to the relief of taxation in any other form, I suggest, first and foremost, that the whole question of this motor taxation should be gone into afresh and that these parties to the voluntary agreement should be once more brought together and properly consulted and the whole question of motor taxation should be gone into. To my mind it would be highly improper to interfere or tamper in any way with this Fund without some steps in that direction being taken. In addition to the pledge given by Mr. Neal to the House of Commons, I understand there was a further consultation between these committees representing the highway authorities and motor users. A definite pledge was given by a right hon. Gentleman for one of the Birmingham Divisions who was at that time a Member of the Government. It seems to me that it must be for the benefit of legislation that we should, as far as possible, have continuity in the Government of the country, and the decision of one Government on a matter such as this should, as far as possible, be carried out by the Governments that succeed it, and in the interest of continuity of Government it is inadvisable to alter anything that is done in that respect without consultation with the parties concerned.
  I should like to draw attention to two or three points in support of my Motion. First of all, I take the position of the highway authorities. I represent a constituency which is suffering very keenly indeed because we cannot keep our roads in proper repair, as our ratepayers have no money. My ratepayers are largely farmers, and I am not ashamed to say I am very pleased to try to help them

  2037
  to-night. But it is no good, to my mind, talking about relief for agriculture, or credits for agriculture, unless we are prepared to show the farmers that we are going to do our level best to help them with regard to their rates. I say perfectly straightly to the Government that we in the agricultural districts have not had enough money out of the Road Fund. The ratepayers in the agricultural districts cannot afford to pay higher rates than they have to pay at present, and we cannot afford to spend more money on the roads, and if there is this huge surplus in the Road Fund it shows that the Treasury officials have manipulated the Fund to keep something in reserve to snatch at a critical time.
  It seems to me very extraordinary that yeti can find any number of roads up and down the country which are unclassified and which have to stand a tremendous amount of motor traffic, and hon. Members' pockets are full of letters from their motoring constituents complaining of the bad condition of the roads. That is because a large number of district councils cannot afford to keep these roads in proper repair. One knows quite well that where you have a main road the Government pay a certain amount of contribution to the upkeep of the road, but where there is an alternative route one cannot get that road made because the Government say, "You have a main road and therefore we cannot make you an alternative road." Despite that fact, these alternative roads, particularly in my Division of the Lake District, have to carry tremendously heavy motor traffic. In the holiday months they carry chars-abane traffic and in the winter months they carry ordinary heavy vehicular traffic. If there is this big surplus in the Road Fund which is not wanted for the benefit of the ordinary roads, some of the surplus might be voted fairly to the relief of the unclassified roads. It is not merely a question of a few hundred thousands of pounds, but millions might be devoted to the unclassified and second-class roads throughout the country.
  There is one further point in connection with roads. A large portion of the roads in the very busy holiday parts of the Lake District—I hope the House will pardon my references to my own constituency, but this is a very vital matter there—are dangerous roads. There are
  2038
  all sorts of by-roads which have to be used. All sorts of bad corners have to be passed, and the reason why we cannot make improved conditions there is because we have not the money to spend in straightening out the corners and making the traffic generally safer. I say to the Government that the first consideration they should give is to making traffic safer and better for the people of this country. Therefore I respectfully submit that the local authorities have a strong and unanswerable case in saying to the Government, "If you have this surplus money, money which was earmarked for a specific purpose, and if you do not want the money for that purpose, you might give it to us to relieve the ordinary taxpayers in our rural districts."
  There is a further point in connection with this question, and that is the position of the motorists. It is not a popular thing in this country to stand up as a representative of the motorists. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the motorists of this country, according to the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the arguments of the doctrine of laissez faire, they are already being heavily taxed. We are told that the whole of the McKenna Duties are paid by the motorists of this country. The solid bedrock argument of the Free Trader is that the consumer pays. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I acknowledge to be an authority on the doctrine of laissez faire, will correct me if I am wrong. According to that doctrine, the consumer in this country, meaning the motoring public, are already paying a large revenue to the Government. Hon. Members opposite assert that.
  The motorist of to-day is a very different type of individual from the motorist of years gone by. There are many people—I say this gladly as one who looks forward to the time when, like the United States of America we shall have one in five of our population owning a motor car—who own their own cars, and I think these people have a logical grievance against the right hon. Gentleman or against what the right hon. Gentleman is credited with designing to do. These motorists have paid voluntarily and they have never complained. Speaking frankly as a motorist, I consider

  2039
  it is wonderful the way the motorists have put up, without a loud shout of complaint, with the state of some of the roads in the country. I represent a district where many of the roads are almost impassable for a car. You jog along from one pot hole to another pot hole and you wish you were anything else but a motorist. It is very creditable the way in which motorists have gone on paying willingly for their licences for their cars, considering the state of some of the roads. They pay very high licence fees. This affects the user of the road very much, because owing to the fact that the licences are so high large numbers of motorists simply take out a licence for the summer months. That means that the motorist apportions his travel not over the 12 months, but within a few months. That is bad for trade and also bad for the user of the roads. The motorists are entitled to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "If you find that you are deriving too much revenue from the fees you ask us to pay, and if you have a surplus which you do not require for roads, reduce the price of the licences which we have to pay."
  A large number of my hon. Friends on this side are not in sympathy with my Resolution, but despite that fact. I feel bound to go on with it. I always fear the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I understand, is going to reply in this Debate, and that fact makes me the more nervous. Nevertheless, I feel it to be my duty to point out in the Resolution that despite what people may say about motorists they have a real grievance here. The motorist has a right to say that this money was earmarked for a specific object and that if that object has been fulfilled and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied with the conditions of the roads and there is a surplus, they should have part of the balance. That is an argument which, until I hear a reply, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer deems to mention it, strikes me as an argument of some force.
  I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question of unemployment in trade believe that in the full development of the roads of this country, the main arterial roads and the rural roads, we could improve the trade of this country
  2040
  immensely. We could find a large amount of work for people who are unemployed. In the Debates on unemployment which we have had in this House hon. Members on both sides including myself, have vied with each other in demonstrating to the people how keen they are on the subject of unemployment. By developing the roads, we could produce a great amount of work. If we were to spend some of the millions which are in hand at the present time in the Road Fund in real practical road development, to the benefit of the country, we could find work for very many people who are out at the present time. By so doing you not only improve the condition of the people of this country, but also you improve the condition of trade. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man with strong views and a man whom it is very difficult to shake. In that he is rather like the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chancellors of the Exchequer always seem to be very difficult people with whom to deal. I think it is the duty of the Conservative party to represent to the Chancellor that it is his duty to go very carefully into this question with the people who were consulted originally. They are entitled to be called together before any further taxation is entered on, and it is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get from them proper and adequate information before he decides to take any such action as that which is projected.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Motion, because it is one which gives the House of Commons an opportunity of voting on a question that is vital to every ratepayer in the country, an opportunity of expressing an opinion on a matter that is not one of vital party politics, and an opportunity on our side of the House of voting on a matter that is not in any sense or shape an attack on the Government. As to the framework of the Motion, it may be suggested by some that in the Motion we are asking the House to declare for all time that the Road Fund money shall be devoted to nothing but roads. Nothing of the kind. What is the present position? Under the original Road Development Act of 1909, followed by the Roads Act of 1920 and the Ministry of Transport Act of 1919, it was arranged by Statute that the present motor taxes should form a

  2041
  Road Fund, and that the Road Fund should be devoted entirely to the maintenance, improvement and construction of roads, with one further proviso, that sc far as new construction is concerned the Ministry would be limited to taking no greater part than one-third of the Fund. What we are saying now is that the Statute shall remain in force, that it shall not be altered, and that for the time being the roads of this country require every penny of that Fund and more if they can get fit.
  I support what my hon. Friend said about the pledge that was given when the taxes were imposed, and I believe it is desirable that pledges given in this House should be honoured. But I do not rely upon them. I take the ratepayers' point of view and not the motorists' point of view. The line that I take, individually, is that I quite recognise that, as circumstances alter, decisions come to by our predecessors may have to be altered as well, and if such a case could be made as that the yield of this motor taxation was so great that there was great extravagance in spending it on the roads, I would support any proposal made to avoid that extravagance. But the case that I make here to-night, on behalf not only of rural ratepayers, who have my special interest, but of ratepayers and all the inhabitants of the country, is that that time has not arrived and that no such case can be made. I will show that every rural and every urban authority, every county borough and county council, is at its wits' end to know how to meet the cost of the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of its roads.
  What is the position of the Road Fund? It has been in operation only since 1920, and if report be true—we do not know this—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is pressed for money, wants to put his finger into this Fund. If we give him leave when he brings in his Budget, what reliance can we have that his successor, or his further successors, may not say, "Here is a nice opportunity of getting a million or two without any trouble. We will dive further into the Road Fund." In 1921–22 the Road Fund produced £12,500,000. In 1924–25 it produced £16,000,000. Owing to the economy that we are practising now, I cannot get the figures for this year; they are not to be got in the Vote Office, though I have
  2042
  tried there every day. I think we may take it, however, that the receipts during the year that expires in March next will be about £17,000,000. What is done with the money? About £10,000,000 is granted for the maintenance and upkeep of first-class and second-class roads in England, Wales and Scotland; about £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 goes to new construction; about £2,500,000 goes to rural roads, but not for their maintenance—it goes to a system administered by the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport to bring up such of the best of those roads as they can find to first-class pitch, to be taken over as first-class or second-class roads to receive a grant. For this year a further £1,250,000 was granted for the same purpose.
  In this country there are something like 140,000 to 150,000 miles of roads. Forty thousand miles received grants out of the £12,500,000 or £14,000,000. One hundred thousand miles of rural roads did not receive, a, shilling for upkeep or maintenance, and it was only by the efforts that we made on their behalf that we forced. I will not say a reluctant Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I believe this Chancellor is with us, but forced a reluctant Government to grant £750,000 to come into operation on 1st April next. We are, therefore, in this position, that there is of this money £10,000,000 which goes to the first-class and second-class, roads. The county councils, who are responsible for main roads, will tell you that it will not pay for more than one-tenth of the roads where work has to be done. The rural authorities, as I have said, are at their wits' end to know where to get money. They have £7 10s. a mile, which is a mere bagatelle. Yet this is the time when it is suggested, as we hear in the distance, that there is to be an attempt made to diminish this money for our roads.
  The present road grants represent about 1s. 9d, in the in relief of county rates on the rateable valuation in England, about 1s. 5d. in Scotland and about the same figure in Wales. May I call attention to a further point? Fifteen or twenty years ago, before motor traffic had increased to anything like its present volume, the highway rate in many places ranged from 3d. or 4d. in the £ up to 1s. What is it to-day? It varies from 3s, to 6s. in the £ and is steadily increasing. I have here figures,

  2043
  not from my own county at all but from Caistor, in Lincolnshire, where the highway rate for the five years 1910 to 1914 averaged 2s. to 3s. in the £, and for the five years from 1921 to 1925 it has averaged about 6s. 3d. in the £. I will read a letter from the council of East Grinstead Rural District, in my own constituency, which is as follows:
  "I am instructed by this Council to bring to your notice the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the Road Fund for purposes other than road works, and to point out the following:

  (1) That the amount of money available for road improvement and widening schemes is already insufficient.

  (2) That mechanically-driven traffic during the last two years has increased by as much as 300 per cent., and that, having regard to the probable further increase in this character of traffic during the next few years, serious accidents may ensue if road improvement and widening schemes are delayed.

  This Council submitted a large scheme of road improvement and widening, but owing to lack of funds the Ministry were unable to make a grant to the whole scheme as submitted, and only granted same in sections. … The Council has now made application for a grant for a further scheme (in sections), and such scheme will amount to £35,000 to £40,000."
  I have here a communication from God-stone Rural District Council's surveyor in answer to one of the inhabitants—this is in Surrey, and I have nothing to do with it—who complained of the injury done by the traffic of heavy lorries. The letter is as follows:
  "The Clerk has handed me your letter, and in reply I am aware of the condition of the road near Waterside, Lingfield, but unfortunately nearly all the water-bound roads in this district are in a similar state, brought about by the recent frost and snow and heavy rains and the traffic of the district. To reinstate these roads will cost thousands of pounds, and even at the present moment the addition of 6d. to the existing highway rate would not be sufficient to cover the expenditure, so what to do I do not know, and I am afraid our district roads will have to remain in a bad condition for some time to come."
  With regard to the more general condition of the roads, I will take the opinion of the Director-General of Roads (Sir Henry May-bury), of the Ministry of Transport, who in a speech delivered in Harrogate in June last, when there was no suggestion of any diversion of the Road Fund, said:
  "What of our roads? Are we keeping pace with requirements, and what of the costs? That there is a great deal of important
  2044
  road work going on in the country over a wide area will be conceded, but I very much fear that if the rate of increase in mechanically-propelled vehicles continues the roads will not be sufficiently commodious to accommodate them. A great endeavour should be made that all important roads in rural districts should be improved."
  He mentions some of the necessary improvements, and goes on:
  "These necessary improvements will be long delayed if they can only be undertaken year by year as financial provision can be made out of the Road Fund and the local rates."
  I would now call attention to the view of Lieut.-Colonel Prescott, the County Surveyor of Hertfordshire, who says:
  "In my opinion we are only at the beginning of the road problem. It is, I think, common knowledge that highway surveyors cannot even now keep pace with the volume and weight of the traffic on their roads. … Miles and miles of first class roads require widening, strengthening, and resurfacing; second class roads have yet to be tackled on a very extensive scale; and the third class or rural roads have scarcely been touched. Let us unite in bringing together all our forces and in using our influence to prevent the roads of this country from being starved to death."
  That is the case which I would make on behalf of the rural roads. Let us look at a more general question, namely, the question of taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to reply I ask him to answer this point. I take him to be out for economy and I back him up in that to the utmost of my power, but I submit there is no economy in taking from the taxpayer and adding to the burden of the ratepayer. The ratepayer has to pay rates whether he earns profits or not. The taxpayer on the whole mainly pays taxes out of the profits of years, and therefore although it is against my own interests, I am out for the ratepayer every time, and I protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if he has this intention—coming down with a proposal of this kind at Budget time when we on this side of the House have no chance of opposing him because we do not want to see him displaced. If he has that intention I hope he will think better of it. I ask him whether, having regard to the ratepayers' interest, not only in the rural districts for which I more particularly speak, but in every urban, county and borough area, whether he is going to persist in trying to save the taxpayer at the cost of the ratepayer.

  2045
  Motor cars are increasing at the rate of 2,000 a week. I believe it is right to say there are 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 motor vehicles on the roads to-day, and I should place the proportion of private cars to commercial cars at about 800,000 private cars and 600,000 commercial cars, and as regards the cars which are called private cars, a large number are used for business purposes. On Saturday I was canvassed by two commercial travellers in a country district each in a motor car. That being the position, I do not think the commercial vehicle—the heavy vehicle—pays enough, but I do say this, that if there is any money to divert from this Fund, in justice, so far as commercial vehicles are concerned, it ought to be given in reduction of the tax that they pay, because it is a tax on the cost of production of our goods, and it is unfairly handicapping the production of those goods in their competition with the rest of the goods produced in this country. I appeal to every Member who is conversant with the ordinary canons of taxation as to whether that is not a perfectly correct view of the case. I believe the Chancellor has some idea that the motor cars, so far as they are private cars, ought to pay something from a luxury point of view. Do not they do it already? I know that my motor car costs me three-halfpence a mile in taxes, which is rather heavy.
  The development of our roads, main second class and rural, is a most vital thing, in my view, to the benefit of the whole community. It is, I think—and every Member of the House will probably agree with me—the greatest blessing that we have to lessen our big towns and cities by getting our factories transferred into the country, and that can only be done by motor traffic being able to go backwards and forwards. The greatest advantage I can imagine for a man working in a cotton mill six days a week, in a hot, stuffy atmosphere, is, if he can afford it, to get on a char-a-banc and go for a motor run into Derbyshire, and see the beautiful country. I say that that ought to be encouraged, and that the transfer of goods and the transfer of people is the most social service that we can render. If this Motion is not carried, this House is to be asked to declare that it is satisfied with an assurance given, as I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For my part, I could accept
  2046
  either the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, or that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown), which do not alter the effect of the Motion, but when we come to the other Amendment, we are asked to rely on an assurance that the Chancellor is not going to give out of the Road Fund less money than we have had before. He could not give less to the rural roads, and I hope somebody may speak on behalf of the county councils and the big municipal boroughs, and say what they' think of that proposal in regard to their roads. Lastly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he is going to cause political death to a lot of my friends who sit for some seats that never returned Members on our side before, if he sacrifices the rural country ratepayer in order that the taxpayer may benefit.
  Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House, being prepared to accept the assurances which have already been given, that the amount of money assigned to the upkeep of roads, and particularly of rural roads, will be increased and not diminished, and wilt not be a fixed but an expanding amount, and also that a wider measure of discretion will be given to local authorities in their expenditure, is of opinion that it should await the full statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in accordance with constitutional practice."
  9.0 P.M.
  I move this Amendment in no spirit of hostility to motorists or to motor traction on the roads—I, myself, have owned and driven a car for 23 years—but because I think the Motion is extremely badly timed, and also because I consider that the administration of the Road Fund needs a very serious overhauling. I do not think I need say much more on that point than the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion, who have absolutely condemned the administration of the Road Fund as far as it affects the minor roads of the country. With regard to the timing of this Motion and the bringing of it on to-day, I always think that on these Private Members' nights we have a distinct element of sport. First of all, there is the excitement of the ballot, and then a lucky winner, who does not always think himself lucky. At any rate, the winner of the ballot has the choice of what covers he

  2047
  will draw, and what old fox he hopes to get away. I notice that Members on either side as a rule prefer to draw the covers on the opposite side of the valley, but to-night, for some reason, we are drawing the home covers, and we are drawing them at an unfortunate time, because this is a season when we do not wilfully hunt a vixen, and just now, for very much the same reason, there should also be a close season for Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  It would be highly improper and most unconstitutional for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reveal the secrets of his Budget to-night, even if they are sufficiently prepared for him to be able to do so. In my humble opinion, he went a very long way in reply to a deputation a fortnight ago. He gave that deputation enough information, I should have thought, to remove their worst anticipations, although I am afraid he has not removed the load of care off the shoulders of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). It is no good; we cannot continue to press the Chancellor at the present moment. Where are we going to end if we start private Members' Motions on Budget questions in anticipation of the Budget? We all hope, I am sure, that the Income Tax will be abolished in the next Budget, and the tax on tea, and the tax on beer, and many other things, but if we bring these forward as separate Motions, on private Members' nights, it is obviously treating the House in a farcical manner, because we know we cannot get any declaration from the Ministry. I think this Motion has been brought forward owing to an agitation that is going on throughout the country, and that agitation is, to my mind, ill-founded. It is simply an intelligent use of catch-words, such as "Raiding the Road Fund." We, on this side, have a strong dislike to the idea of raiding anything. Hands off the Road Fund. The very words "Hands off!" act as a sort of battle-cry again and again to hon. Members opposite. Look at the literature that is being sent out. I have here a booklet on the subject—I am afraid I did not have time to read it—issued by the "Municipal Journal." I looked up Somerset, and found:
  "If the country council is deprived of the assistance of the Road Fund, it is stated
  2048
  that an approximate rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound will be required to make up the deficiency."
  Who in the wide world suggested that the Somerset County Council is to be deprived of the assistance of the Road Fund? It has never been hinted in any quarter, and one can imagine nothing less likely, and yet people take the trouble to print and circulate this sort of thing free to Members. It is a particularly unfortunate time to bring in this Motion because we, at any rate, on this side, and I think most Members in the House are anxiously awaiting an Economy Bill. Economy is essential to a return of prosperity to trade in this country, and we should do all we can to support it. Yet immediately the suggestion is made that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to control expenditure on education or to check more closely the administration of the Road Fund, up goes a scream of protest from interested parties. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anything you did for economy would be bound to touch a certain number of vested interests and I think it is the duty of everybody who has economy at heart to support the Government in the measures they introduce for economy.
  Then with regard to the Motion itself, I should like to ask the Proposer and Seconder, does the converse hold good if no money is to be taken out of the Road Fund except for the construction and repair of roads and bridges? If that be accepted, will those who contribute to the Road Fund undertake to maintain our existing roads out of the Fund? If so, I think from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, there is a great deal to be said for the proposition. Having heard the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder, one would almost gather that the motor-users were paying for the roads. As a matter of fact, they are paying about 27 per cent. That is all that the Road Fund represents to-day. In America they are paying from 50 to 75 per cent. If they accept that argument, well and good. If not, their attitude is extremely one-sided and illogical. If the Road Fund is intended to pay for the roads, then road-users should be sufficiently taxed to pay for them, or else the Road Fund is only a part contribution to the roads. The greater part of the cost is borne by the

  2049
  community at large, and, therefore, it is the community at large that is entitled to dictate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what shall be done with Ike Fund. The coat of the roads was £15,000,000 in 1910, £25,000,000 in 1919, and £50,000,000 to-day, and the Road Fund pays about £15,000,000. They are net nearly paying for the increase due to motor traffic on the roads.
  There is another thing which I dislike about this Motion, and that is that it is unlimited as to time and circumstances. In all circumstances, does this hold good? Supposing the Income Tax goes up to 10s. in the pound, are we still to be making these great motor roads? Supposing the beer tax goes up to 1s. a glass, are we still to go on tunnelling under the Mersey, the Severn, the Channel, and any other suitable obstacles? Then we are told to-night that there has been a pledge given to motorists. I think even the Mover of the Motion agrees that it is not usual for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be bound by the policy of his predecessors. I do not suppose right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they ever return to office, a calamity which I trust will be long deferred, would undertake to be bound by the financial policy of this Government. There is another aspect of this so-called pledge to motorists which I think is generally overlooked. There is another class of road-user with another form of licence. For many years I took out licences for horse-drawn carriages. The wording is somewhat peculiar—"Carriages drawn by horses or mules with four or more wheels." We all know that horses and mules have legs and not wheels, but I do not suppose a modern Ministry of Transport would know a little detail like that.
  At any rate, for years we have paid our carriage tax, and for years that money went into the general fund of taxation of this country. Then, all of a sudden, in 1919, I believe, you got a Ministry of Transport, and without a word of apology or a "by-your-leave," away goes the licence money of the horse owner, and it is plunged into the motorist's road fund—a gross injustice. There are some of us who live in country districts where horses and mules can still be seen. We hear
  2050
  of these great London motor tracks, Out what chance have my mule and I of ever reaching the promised land flowing with bitumen and liquid cement? We can never get there, and even if we could, how is my mule to stand on its legs—or wheels—on the treacherous, greasy surface? And if pledges, why not pledges to dog owners? We pay taxes, and why should not the money paid for the dog licences go to research work in distemper, and so on? Then why should the beer-drinker not go to the Chancellor and tell him what is to be done with the tax paid on his glass of beer'? We do not want to see these watertight compartments with different forms of taxation. If we are not careful, we shall drift into the principle of one tax one Ministry. We have a Road Fund; therefore, a Ministry of Transport. I pay another tax, a tax on gardeners, and I have a fear we may find a Ministry of Arts started for landscape gardening because we pay a tax on gardeners.
  Another argument that has been used is that the Road Fund relieves unemployment. I believe that, as far as that is true, it is all to the good, but the bulk of relief of unemployment comes from the Unemployment Grants Committee. In any case, I would much prefer to see unemployment dealt with in the Ministry of Labour Vote, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that we may know where we stand. I think it is a great mistake to mix up these different things. Money for unemployment, I think, should come under a separate Vote. I should like the Road Fund to take: its proper place in the Finance Bill; then we should have a fair chance of discussing it. Do we realise that during the life of the Ministry of Transport it has only twice come up for discussion on Supply days, once in 1920—just after it had been started—and once again in 1925. On the last occasion, we were only allowed a three hours' discussion, while for the rest of the evening we were compelled to discuss on Electricity Bill, which did not even exist! If we can get the Road Fund into the Finance Bill, then we shall all have a fair chance of finding out what it is, where we stand, and of criticising it.
  The Minister of Transport, when the Ministry was originally started, controlled

  2051
  the railways. When it ceased to control the Railways, the Ministry immediately started to try to build up on an utterly uneconomic basis heavy road traffic in competition with the railways. There, I am sure, is where a very great waste of money comes in. I see a good deal of the traffic on the Southampton to London road through Winchester, and on the Bristol to London road, through Bath. These gigantic lorries go through beautiful towns shaking the buildings to pieces and paying an utterly inadequate sum towards the cost of maintaining the roads. If the motor lorry were made to pay fairly in the way of taxation it could not possibly compete against the railway line running alongside the road, except where a door-to-door delivery is of vital and urgent importance. We are subsidising from the Road Fund, and the ratepayers are subsidising at the present time, this uneconomic road traffic. If the lorries pay their fair quota—and I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to deal with the question—if they only pay a fair tax, then the heavy traffic would again very largely return to the railways, and the result would be a reduction of expenditure on the roads which would benefit the ratepayers and a reduction in railway rates. In both these cases it would mean that the change would be of great benefit to trade, the farmers, and others.
  I note that in the North of Ireland they have just increased the tax on heavy lorries from anything between 100 per cent. to 233 per cent. A motor lorry weighing 5·5 tons and upwards now has to pay £100 tax against our £30 tax. Take the chars-a-bane. There again I should like to see every vehicle run for profit examined and tested as to its capacity. The driver, too, should be tested as to his skill and health before he is allowed to take charge of a char-a-bane full of passengers; otherwise he is not only imperilling lives but also perhaps considerably damaging the roads. That is a Measure that the Minister of Transport ought to have brought in long ago. I welcome the promise that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the sums available for road maintenance, and to give greater freedom to local authorities, by which I understand the removal of the present extravagant
  2052
  percentage grants. The present position is hard on the local authorities, and the suggested re-arrangement will be helpful to them. We cannot afford to pay these great motor taxes. We rely upon the Chancellor to deal with the Road Fund as well as all other expenditure, so as to secure fair and proper value for its expenditure, and a fair distribution of the money.
  The present position reminds me of a story from "Punch." It is about a little girl who went into a butcher's shop, and was asked by the butcher what she wanted. The reply was that she wanted a motor-car and other things. "But," she added, "it is not what I want: it is what mother wants; mother wants 4d. worth off the scrag end." That is the position to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the position of the head of a household who has under her control a lot of extravagant children. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to see that the revenue collected from the State is laid out to the best possible advantage without extravagance on the part of anybody. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) wrote a letter to the "Times" on 12th February in which he said:
  "It is clearly desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, irrespective of party, should be free to make such use of all available resources as he believes to be in the national interest.'
  That is, I say, descriptive of the proper position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a good deal more in the letter which, personally, I do not consider to be sound. We want to see a reduction of the rates and taxes. From that point of view I consider and welcome the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will await their fulfilment in due constitutional season.
  Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am at some loss how to proceed. My hon. Friend behind me the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) has spoken to the Motion he has on the Paper. The hon. baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) told us that it did not matter, and he proceeded at once to speak to some other Motion—
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I did nothing of the sort.
  Colonel BROWN: I came to the conclusion that the hon. baronet was speaking to the Amendment which we have on the Paper. There is one little point I should like to deal with and that is the question of rates. We have been told that the Highway rate before the War was 2s., and that now it was 6s. I have the figures of the rates for 1919–1924. The payment for highway roads is about £303000,000 a year, and there has not been, therefore, a very great increase in the expenditure on roads. The question of pledges was raised. When these pledges were given I was in the House, and I regard them with great respect. The only comment I have to make is that in 1919 we made a great many pledges, some of them wise and some of them unwise, and many of them cannot now he fulfilled merely because conditions and times have altered. Nobody would suggest that they should be and I submit that here is a pledge which, owing to the growth of the Road Fund and the changes of conditions which nobody then foresaw, makes it impossible for anyone to expect that it should be fulfilled. In 1919 the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, estimated that the gross receipts from this source would be £8,000,000. As we know, that figure has more than doubled, and very likely will be trebled in a year or two. Nobody can suggest that all this money should be allocated to the roads.
  The Seconder of the Motion spoke about economy. It is always curious, when economy is spoken about in the abstract, that it is so popular, but whenever you begin to apply it, there are a thousand and one reasons why it should not be applied to various things. It is said that the Road Fund is necessary in order to keep down the rates. What happens? The Ministry of Transport has induced the county councils to expend large sums by paying 75 per cent. of the cost, and they have left on their hands large new roads which require upkeep and expenditure. Although there may be a grant from the Ministry of Transport, there is an increased expenditure left upon the roads permanently on account of that new work. The only way to get economy is to get down to the root causes of expenditure. That is what the Chancellor of the
  2054
  Exchequer is proposing to do, and he is perfectly right, in the interest of the country as a whole. It seems very unreasonable that we should not, when there is a large sum available, take what we can for the taxpayer.
  This Road Fund has been raided ever since it has been started, and why should the Income Tax payer not have a chance of raiding it as well as every other class? The City of Liverpool managed to scoop £2,500,000 out of it. Surely the taxpayer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have a perfect right to see that, in the interests of national finance, this Fund should be supervised, so that they can see how money is expended from it. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the general support of the country behind him in this case. What would be the position if this Motion were passed? The hon. Member for Penrith would be able, to go to his constituents and say, "I fought for the Road Fund; I kept it intact, and I enabled money to be spent on building a bridge over the Forth, on building a tunnel for Liverpool, on making a road from Glasgow to Edinburgh, or a road from Dover to London." But he would also have to add as an after-thought, "I have not been able to return any money to the Exchequer, and quite likely your Income Tax is higher than it need have been because of all this other expenditure."
  There is only one further word I want to say. We hear of this Fund being under Treasury control. It cannot be under any real Treasury control because it is earmarked for spending and for nothing else. There is no chance of making any saving of any kind. I submit that it is a very serious thing when you have a Fund which is rapidly mounting up to a sum that is half the cost of our Army, that the Treasury and the Government should have no control over it, and no way of checking how it is expended. I think it is of the highest importance that the Government, by the means the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests, should take power to control this Fund and to say that, just as other services must be trimmed down to the bone, so also the Road Fund must be scrutinised and trimmed down to the bone. On this question my Friends and I will support true economy and will not allow ourselves to be led astray by false theories put forward

  2055
  by certain hon. Members who are on this occasion supported by the Labour party.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: While the last four speeches were being delivered, some Members on this side of the House, myself included, have been wondering whether it is a real battle that is taking place on the other side or only a sham fight. Some of us have lively recollections of very similar speeches which have been delivered by Members representing agricultural constituencies on that side of the House; but when it came to the acid test of the Division Lobby, they all turned out to be nothing more than hot air.
  A point that has not yet been made by any of the four speakers on the other side is that this is not merely a threat on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but something which is operating already. Since August last no money has been paid out from the Road Fund for new undertakings in this country, or for any improvements, and local authorities are already at their wits' end to deal with abnormal unemployment. During the time the Labour Government were in office several schemes were prepared, and hon. Members now on the other side of the House continually twitted the Labour Government about them, asking how much longer they were going to be before they put them into operation. Those schemes are still in abeyance. If I had time, but I do not want to take up time, I could enumerate the schemes, but hon. Members opposite do not now appear to be at all concerned at the reason why they are now being definitely held in abeyance, and why local authorities have been informed, to use ordinary language, that "There is nothing doing." I suggest that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer solves no problem at all, and that he is really playing the old game of shifting the burden from the State to the local authorities. The more poverty-stricken a local authority is, the heavier is the burden placed upon it.
  Another point is the breaking of specific and definite pledges which have been given. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking in this House on 24th September. 1909, said:
  "May I point out that not one penny of this money will be touched for Exchequer purposes. … The money raised will all be
  2056
  spent upon the roads of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th September, 1909, col. 901, Vol. 11.]
  On 27th April, 1920, Sir Eric Geddes, then Minister of Transport, said:
  "Unlike any other part of the Budget, this is a specific Act to assure a specific revenue, to be devoted to a specific object. It is to raise, roughly, £8,000,000 a year. For what? From whom? From road users for the improvement of the roads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1920; col. 1134, Vol. 128.]
  Mr. Arthur Neal, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in 1920, said:
  "Motorists have consented to raise money by this particular tax on the definite understanding that the money shall be expended on the improvement of the roads."
  The last quotation I will make is from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Transport, delivered in this House on 30th March last year:
  "What the House ought to bear in mind is that the Road Fund is a national fund instituted for the purpose of maintaining and improving the main communications of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1925; col. 996, Vol. 182.]
  Hon. Members opposite are now trying to say, "Well, after all, there are ways of getting round these pledges." Supposing the predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were sitting on that Treasury Bench now, and it was the Labour Government which had proposed to break these specific pledges? What would the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been like then? Is it not easy to picture the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being entertained to dinner by some motor association, delivering one of those wonderful speeches about the treachery of the Labour Government in threatening to rob the Road Fund, and finishing up with one of those eloquent perorations, in which nobody in public life in this country can excel him, appealing to all honest men to get together to prevent such things?
  May I give the House some figures? I am sorry the hon. Member was so anxious that we should stop spending more money on the roads and get back to the happy days of mule transport, has now left the House. I will take the figures for the last five years. On 1st August, 1921, there were 828,220 motor vehicles licensed in this country, and five years later, in 1925,

  2057
  that number had increased to 1,475,829, an increase of 78 per cent. If we delete motor cycles and hackney carriages, and take only private motor-cars and commercial vehicles, the figures then become—in 1921, 372,000, and in 1925, 805,000, an increase of 116 per cent. These are the circumstances in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to the information the public have recently got, has decided to call a halt to improvements and developments in our road system. I will venture to repeat a sentence from a speech delivered by Sir Henry Maybury, Director-General of Roads, who has probably forgotten more about transport and roads than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ever likely to know. Speaking at a meeting of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, held at Harrogate on 25th June, before any suggestion had been made about diverting the Road Fund, Sir Henry Maybury said:
  "I very much fear that if the rate of increase in mechanically-propelled vehicles continues, the roads will not be sufficiently commodious to accommodate them.'
  He added:
  "The necessary improvements will be long delayed if they can only be undertaken year by year through the financial arrangements the Government have made by the Road Fund and the local rates."
  I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, Is that statement from the Director-General of Roads true, or is it not? If it is true, what has the Minister of Transport to say? Is the Minister of Transport content, in view of that statement by his own Director-General, whom everybody everybody looks up to as the authority on the roads of the country, to remain dumb while the Chancellor of the Exchequer plays ducks and drakes with the Road Fund? One at least of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side who has taken part in this Debate seems to consider that there is very little opposition to this proceeding on the part of the Chancellor. It is my information, and the information of every other Member who has taken any interest in the subject, that every local authority in the country from Land's End to John o' Groats is opposed to this proposal. I hope the speeches which two hon. Gentlemen opposite have delivered to-night will bring good cheer to the hearts of the local authorities in their constituencies when they read them to-morrow. On
  2058
  26th November, 1925, the following resolution was passed at the Roads Transport Congress:
  "That this Congress, representing 715 local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, emphatically protests against the diversion of any part of the Road Fund from the purposes for which it was originally established, and for which it is urgently required."
  I hope the local authorities who passed that resolution will closely study to-night's Division, if there should be one.
  In a recent speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered in the provinces, I think at Leeds, he referred to Circular 1371, the education economy Circular, as the first ship of the economy fleet to put to sea, and said it had met with a rather stormy reception, that it had been battered, and that it had temporarily put back into dock for necessary repairs. Meantime, Memorandum 44 has gone out to do some scouting. If the education Circular and this Memorandum was the first ship of the economy fleet, then I think we are justified in saying that this is the second of the economy fleet. The first ship they put out to sea in the economy fleet was in charge of the President of the Board of Education and it had a very stormy passage. In this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the bridge himself and the Minister of Transport is merely accompanying him as the cabin boy.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: With the "Jolly Roger" at the fore?
  Mr. MORRISON: If the first economy ship does its duty then, of course, all educational improvements must cease, and if the second ship does its duty then we shall have no more money for road development. The more hon. Members on all sides get a, clear idea of what this policy means the better it will be. It is no good calling this economy because it is not a policy of economy at all, but a policy of stagnation.
  Major CRAWFURD: I am sure the House will be with me if I say one word of commendation in regard to the speech of the hon. Member who proposed this Motion, more particularly gallant in view of the circumstances in which he is placed. I would like to make a comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto), whose opposition to this Resolution was

  2059
  apparently based on the argument that it was inopportune, and in support of that contention he regaled us with metaphors from rural and sporting life and he told us that there was a close season for vixens, and there should be a close season for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  This reminds me of those who have been engaged in studying more modern things and of researches that are now being made in regard to an obscure line of medical science called the determination of sex, and it seems to me that it is something of that sort which the House is considering to-night. The hon. Member who has just sat down made several quotations in support of the theory that the present position of the Road Fund is the result of a pledge, or a series of pledges given in the past. I am sure we shall all agree that there are circumstances in which pledges given in the heat of electoral stress or Parliamentary situations may be, if not disregarded, at any rate watered down, and in the particular case of the Road Fund these pledges were disregarded with universal consent during the war period. I would remind hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House, that this particular matter has been the subject of perhaps more repeated pledges than any other matter which has -come under the consideration of Parliament, and the members of the present Ministry are particularly involved in this. In spite of the most careful researches, I have not found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed himself in this sense, but certainly the present Foreign Secretary made it perfectly clear that the then Opposition, the Conservative party with which the right hon. Gentleman is now associated, would not have consented to the tax on motors if it had not been perfectly clearly understood that it was to be used purely for road purposes.
  Then there is the present Home Secretary who time and again on quite a dozen different occasions, the last being as late as October last year, has used the phrase so often used in this connection, that this tax was in the nature of being a voluntary tax. He is one of His Majesty s Ministers who was entertained by the motor community
  2060
  at dinner, and on that occasion he said:
  "This tax was in the nature of a voluntary tax agreed to by motorists on the understanding that it, was to be devoted to that particular purpose."
  In spite of that we a-re told that the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering do not rest upon the question of a pledge given by him or anybody else. This is not an economy measure but a measure for further expenditure. May I submit one or two small considerations to prove my point? Take for instance these facts. If you are engaged in opening up a new road through a congested local district I am told that of the money expended as much as 90 per cent. may be paid for land, buildings and compensation, and only 10 per cent. may be spent upon the actual work involved. If, on the other hand, you carry out a road improvement under the provisions of the Act passed last Session dealing with road widenings, if you carry out a road widening, you may only pay 15 per cent. for the land and buildings and 85 per cent. on the actual work of the construction of the road. If road improvement, road construction, road repair, and road maintenance is going to be diverted by the action of the Government it is perfectly obvious that for the same expenditure of money in the future we shall get a great deal less in the way of improved road transport in this country.
  I am told that if you take an average road not very well made up, and not made with the best materials, the annual cost of maintenance is something in the neighbourhood of 2s per square yard; but if you take the same road properly made up with the best materials, including all the capital expenditure the annual cost of maintenance is only 1s. 6d. per square yard. So that the effect of these proposals is going to be to keep back the reconstruction of roads, and consequently it is going to throw upon other local authorities in this country an increased charge for maintenance in the future for every yard of road that has to be repaired. If you take the figures given by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and consider their effect you are simply putting an intolerable burden upon local authorities, and this will have the effect of deliberately holding up road improvements.

  2061
  I am told that if you compare the cost of the upkeep of roads before the War with the present cost of upkeep, taking into account the increased charges for wages and material, you will find that those roads which have been assisted from the Road Fund, in spite of those increased charges, cost less to-day than the same roads cost before the War, and this shows that the expenditure on roads for these purposes and upon road maintenance is not an extravagance but an economy. We have not only to consider the effect on the local authorities who will have to pay increased charges, but we also know that the effect, in the long run, will be to stop road-making. We have also to consider the effect on road transport itself. If you take, for instance, a commercial lorry, which may cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,000, I believe it is an average figure that on good roads, with average care, a lorry of that kind may be expected to give good service for about 10 years. If it is run on bad roads that period may be reduced to 4 or five years, so that the saving per annum on that head alone would amount to £85 per year in the case of every vehicle. That, of course, affects the cost of transport, it affects the cost of commodities, and in no sense of the word can it be regarded as an economy or as a help to trade.
  There are, however, much wider considerations, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman, if he is replying to the Debate, to give replies on one or two considerations of this kind. Take, first, the urgent need for the planning of new arterial roads through neighbourhoods that are not yet developed, and, secondly, for planning new arterial roads through neighbourhoods that are developed. I believe the London Traffic Committee held an inquiry only a few weeks ago into the congested condition of traffic in the neighbourhood of Finsbury Park, and the conclusion they came to was that that congestion is simply and solely the result of neglect in the past, whereby a crowded area had been allowed to grow up without such arterial roads running through it to carry the traffic. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way, and if road construction in this country is checked or stopped, new congested areas are going to grow up—new places like the Elephant and Castle and Finsbury Park, great
  2062
  bottle-necks which will prevent the free flow of transport. That is going to be the first evil effect. Apart from the definite ill effects which are bound to follow, there is the holding up of other improvements that might have taken place. I ventured, as long ago as last May, to make in this House a suggestion to the Minister of Transport to the effect that a part of the Road Fund should be used to provide a capital sum for much needed reconstruction of our roads, particularly in crowded centres. I am very pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Home Secretary, speaking on the occasion in October last to which I have already referred, said this:
  "Why should not a loan of £20,000,000 be raised for the provision of new roads, and the surplus above the present need of £15,000,000 to £17,000,000 be applied to paying off that?"
  10.0 P.M.
  I go further, and say that, if the Road Fund is allowed to be kept for the purposes for which it was intended, and if you take £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year and capitalise it from the Road Fund, if; would be possible to get from £75,000,000 to £80,000,000 with which could be carried out much needed improvements in the roads. That would go some way towards solving the present problem of unemployment and it is a contribution which the Government might have made to that problem. I do not know what is going to be the fate of this Resolution or of the Amendment, but I hope very much that the House will be allowed to come to a decision upon the one or the other. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution referred to his fears in meeting such a doughty adversary as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I well remember that, when the Ministry of Transport Vote was being discussed, there was a chorus of criticism from hon. Members opposite, and particularly from the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), with regard to rural roads and other purposes for which money was wanted. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman cannot have been spending a very happy evening to-night, and he is regarded as mild in comparison with his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it is perfectly clear that, not only in the country, but in this House, there is a large volume of opinion

  2063
  against the making of this change which the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates. I hope that, whatever else happens, the House will be allowed to come to a decision on this matter, and that hon. Members opposite, who are, perhaps, receiving to-night also their first lesson as to the real function of a private Member, will not, on this occasion, at any rate, be bullied into whitewashing the black sheep of the Government, and will take their courage in both hands and will take him into the Lobby with them.
  Sir EDMUND TURTON: As one of the Members of the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to take this opportunity of thanking him for the extreme courtesy with which he received us, and listened to our arguments. But I am afraid I cannot quite congratulate him upon the reply he gave us in answer to those arguments. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) was good enough to suggest that this Motion was in his judgment inopportune. On the contrary, I think we are indebted to the hon Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) for having taken this opportunity of bringing the matter before the House and allowing us to impress, so far as we can during his absence, upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer our views in regard to it. The hon. Member for Frome suggested that, because we have now arrived at a time of the year in hunting circles when you do not hunt a vixen, this Motion ought not to be brought forward. As an old master of hounds, I quite agree that we do not hunt vixens at this period of the year, but what we do look out for is a travelling dog fox. We are in hopes that we shall run the old fox to ground to-night, and we shall not dig him out unless on certain conditions.
  The hon. Member for Frome also ventured to suggest that the Somerset County Council—which is the county council operating within the county borough of Frome—was not of much importance in this matter. The whole of the county councils throughout England and Wales are absolutely unanimous on this point, that it would be lamentable if their activities were in any way curtailed, and if any portion of this Fund were diverted from the object for which they want it. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  2064
  is not present at the moment, because I think we are entitled to know from him the figures which he suggests he is prepared to give us in the forthcoming year or 18 months. According to the figures which I have been able to get out, I think he will not disagree with me when I say that the total amount given for the classified roads, for grants to the rural district roads, the £500,000 for poor places, and the 2750,000 for helping bridges, comes only to £12,250,000. We have every reason to anticipate that the total amount that will be raised from this tax will be at least £17,250,000, and while, of course, we are not entitled to ask the secrets of the Budget, yet when the right hon. Gentleman holds out the promise that it shall not be less than we have had in the last year, I think we are entitled to ask, does he intend us to understand that that will only amount to £12,250,000? If so, we want to know what he is going to do with the other £5,000,000.
  I have promised that I would not occupy more than 10 minute, but I do want to put this point of view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers. It is the most wasteful kind of economy to stop this necessary work. We have today something like 40,000 miles of main roads. Of these only some 10 per cent. have been reconstructed at the present time. To-day, because they are not reconstructed, we are obliged to pour in tons upon tons of tar macadam and other road materials for repairing. Any road engineer will tell you that, you are pursuing an extremely wasteful course in regard to this matter. The roads, unless they are reconstructed and have proper foundations upon which you can lay the road material, do not last three years, whereas it is well known that when a reconstructed road has a firm foundation, properly laid and trade, it will last for 10 years at least. I do want also on behalf of the county councils to guard myself against saying that we are going to be limited by any assigned revenue whatever. We do not consider we are to be bound by that particular amount. We have always protested on behalf of the town councils that we were entitled to go to the Exchequer and get from them such sums as we ought to have, and which are necessary to be pail, and I do not hesitate to say on behalf of the county councils of England and Wales that this proposal would be a most lamentable thing, and would put back all the necessary works

  2065
  that we are doing. Indeed we cannot stop. We shall be obliged to go forward, and that will be a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, which is unjust, immoral and wrong.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The difficulty of this Debate is that it must be conducted to-night in the absence of any knowledge of the precise proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce, and we can only proceed in a discussion of this kind on the statements which have so far been made, and endeavour to put certain points of detail, and I trust also of broad principle. This controversy, as the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) made perfectly plain, dates from the Development Act of 1909, and was embodied in a, definite form, particularly in Section 3 of the Roads Act of 1920, when this Road Fund was established and when there was incorporated in the Act what appears to be a definite understanding, if not a contract, with the State. But whether we call it a contract or not, it must be perfectly-plain to every Member that it was clearly laid down in that important Act of Parliament that the whole produce of these Motor-car Duties for, at all events, a considerable time ahead, would be specifically allocated to the maintenance and improvement and provision of new roads. It is undeniable that in the intervening time there has been a remarkable development of the motor-car industry in Great Britain, and I suppose nobody in 1920 could have foreseen that there would be apparently at the disposal of this Parliament the very substantial sum which we are discussing to-night.
  One point of important principle is involved. I gather from the replies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered to the deputations which he has already received on this subject that at no time can the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury in this country concede the principle that there is to be specifically allocated from revenue large sums to any particular task, and that those sums are to be beyond the reach of financial adjustment. In other words what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attacked in that connection is anything in the nature of an assigned revenue. Let me make it perfectly plain that I speak for
  2066
  all my colleagues on this side when I say that we have no affection whatever for assigned revenues in the State. Undoubtedly anything in the nature of an assigned revenue is so much bondage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, but in this connection there is a complete reply to an argument of that kind, because even if we admit the very large increases which have taken place in this Fund, it remains true that we have enormous arrears to discharge with the extra amount at our disposal, which can be put to economic use with greatly increased results.
  What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to say to the taxpayer at the present time under this proposal? As I understand his scheme, he proposes to say to the local authorities and to the road users in this country "We shall not diminish the amounts which we intend to place at your disposal, and in point of fact we may even increase them, but we reserve the right to take for the general body of taxpayers in Great Britain such sums above the provision of the amount in this year or any succeeding year, which sums presumably may amount to three, four, or five million pounds, or to whatever number of millions it may be." At the very best it must be a very limited gain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but against that limited gain of an immediate character we have to set the obvious disadvantages that this proposal involves.
  But before we come to the disadvantages at all let us suppose for a moment that any proposal of that kind was embodied in the Finance Bill in this country. What would it mean? It would mean that you tear up for all practical purposes Section 3 of the Roads Act of 1920, in that you at least limit the contract embodied in that Act, and you would then land in this position as regards taxation, that you would be taking from a certain class in the community, using a certain article on the roads of this country, so many millions in specific taxation for general purposes, which I venture to think is not a principle that any student of finance can for a moment defend. If it is proposed to tax people under some new head of taxation, then clearly it is our duty to make it part of the ordinary Income Tax practice of the country which, at all events, has some relation to ability to pay,

  2067
  whereas in the controversy in which we are engaged the appropriation of so many millions of money from a special source for general purposes might not be related to ability to pay at all. So that when we begin to analyse it from the point of view of taxation this is in every way a dangerous proposal for the Treasury to adopt. Turning to some of the obvious disadvantages of the scheme, there is little doubt that it will react almost immediately on the motor-car industry and upon domestic transport in Britain.
  Hon. Members in other parts of the House have made it abundantly plain that there are, first of all, great arrears in road maintenance and development which need to be undertaken. There are further innumerable roads which are in a state of disrepair. The motor car traffic proceeding over those roads at the present time—and we are depending to an ever increasing extent on internal motor transport—is finding the cost of maintenance very largely increased owing to the condition of the roads. Assume for a moment that we restrict the improvement and development of these roads—and that policy is already in progress—to that extent we handicap an industry of very great and increasing importance when other schemes of rural development are considered. That is one element of this difficulty
  All who remember the discussions on the Roads Act, 1920, and more particularly on Section 3 of that Act, will agree that there was a very definite understanding that there would be the growing produce of this fund and that the motorcar industry would get the benefit of it, and that the great increase in the number of motor cars of all kinds in use in Great Britain would march side by side, so to speak, with the increasing resources at their disposal. That is a very important principle to which I think the House might well direct its attention to-night, because, in effect, if this idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adopted it is a reversal of that very definite understanding of 1920, and a reversal in circumstances which in no way justifies it. There must be an immediate reaction upon the whole motor-car industry, and I go so far as to say that in certain parts of the country, where you have manifest dangers on your roads at present, you must restrict the demand for motor cars and
  2068
  kindred vehicles, so that you will tend also to restrict the yield of the duties by a device of this kind. That is the first line of immediate loss in this proposal that the House ought, to keep in view.
  There is another, and I think a much more human proposition. All our authorities, in reviewing the problem of unemployment, have with considerable regret directed attention to the fact that since the conclusion of the war we have expended about £250,000,000 in unemployment relief for little or no tangible asset to which you and I can point to-night. I agree that that vast expenditure has to some extent created a little purchasing power within limits, but it has been poured down the drain, and you have not created anything it respect of it at all, or at all events anything worth having. Here on the other hand is a department of our national effort in which you have been trying to use certain public resources in a time of stress for the purpose of providing immediate employment, and also for the purpose of giving you an asset of very great value in general economic development. In the past four years, as the official statistics of the Ministry of Transport have made plain, you have spent in this connection £34,000,000 in wages to men who have been engaged either in the construction of new roads or in the maintenance and improvement of existing roads, and the capital value of the work in which they have been engaged has been put as high by some authorities as £54,000,000. I agree there is the qualification that some part of that still remains to be overtaken, but in any case could we have a finer illustration of an endeavour to put the most economic face upon a difficult enterprise in time of stress?
  There is not the least doubt that if the fund is limited or restricted, if this artificial element is introduced and progress is arrested, one or two things immediately become plain. What is going to be the saving under that head, for the sake of two or three millions of money, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the local authorities? Surely you will either continue to pay unemployment donation, with your State contribution thrown in, as against the Chancellor's saving or you will in Poor Law relief throw a greater burden upon local authorities. That is precisely what is happening every day in

  2069
  this country at the present time. That leads me to the third part of my remarks on the proposal now under discussion. It is utterly impossible to divorce this proposal from the general tendency of Government legislation and Government proposals in regard to the broad problem of the relationship of the State to local expenditure. Hon. Members behind me have referred to Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44 in connection with education. Unless these services in education, roads and the rest are to be restricted—our case is that they cannot be restricted with safety under existing conditions—we must face an increasing burden upon local authorities in Great Britain. That is our statement of the position.
  What is the attitude and what are the circumstances of our local authorities? First of all, we have a group of necessitous areas in this country who are imploring the Treasury at the present time for assistance, and whose case is under investigation. They demand some relief from the burdens placed upon them, burdens which we say have been unfairly placed upon their shoulders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may stave them off temporarily, but there is not the least doubt that accommodation of some kind for these distressed areas must be offered in the near future. Here is an aggravation of their problem. On the general question, we raise from local rates about £160,000,000 a year in Great Britain, £142,000,000 of which are raised in England and Wales. That sum is twice the pre-War burden of local rates in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer embarks upon a proposal of profound and immediate importance for the local authorities, because wherever these dangerous and inadequate roads exist, the pressure is most urgent and most acute in the locality, where the people are hard up against the accidents which occur from time to time. If this fund is to be restricted, the local authorities must face bigger obligations, and you got no benefit in the reduction of local rates.
  That leads me to my final proposition, that a device of this kind is intended to relieve the ordinary taxpayers in Great Britain and so to encourage industrial recovery. That is the theory underlying the speeches of the Chancellor
  2070
  of the Exchequer. You gain absolutely nothing if you impose that burden upon the local authorities, because the ultimate thing that matters is the aggregate burden you have to carry. When you analyse that aggregate burden, surely there is no hon. Member who is familiar with economic and financial problems who will dispute for one moment that a local rate is a more serious burden upon industry than a national tax. That is plain. The local rate is much less closely related to the principle of ability to pay. It may be that only a handful of millions of pounds are involved in this proposal, but the whole scheme and principle of the thing is of vital importance to 44 millions of people in this country. Accordingly, on the terms of that plain and simple analysis, I suggest that there is no economy whatever in the suggestion, and that, on the other hand, there is dead loss. On those grounds, I feel that the House would do well to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Winston Churchill): This has been a very instructive and, indeed, enjoyable Debate, and no part of it has been more instructive, and, I will add, more enjoyable, than the lucid, terse, well reasoned and moderate speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But the right hon. Gentleman admitted, with his usual candour, that he suffered under a great disability, that he was attacking a fortress which had not yet been built, that he was discussing a question which has not yet been proposed, that he did not know what the Government were going to do, and that, consequently, however sincere his will, however great his abilities, he was somewhat hampered in delivering an attack. That really is the case which the Government have to meet. The position is not disclosed, the case is not before the House. I am certainly not going to be guilty of such a constitutional breach as to go into the merits of the question on behalf of the Government to-night.
  The Debate has been useful in bringing out many opinions. I make no complaint on behalf of the Government that the Motion has been placed on the Paper. I make no complaint at all of the speeches

  2071
  that have been made. But I think that if this Debate—the speeches in which the Government will carefully consider and study, and which has afforded a good opportunity to Members in all parts of the House to express their opinions—if this Debate were to go further and take the form of an expression of the opinion of the House in a Division, that would be a matter of which the Government would be entitled to complain, and to complain on grounds which do not affect a single administration or a particular Minister, a particular Bill, a particular Session, but which are of a general and lasting character.
  It would be an innovation in our Parliamentary practice if, after rumours had been set in motion, because things had been put into the newspapers, because reports and stories had been circulated about what the Government may do, or will do, or are likely to do in some forthcoming Budget, it was held that the House of Commons could come forward and endeavour to put barriers in their path and to circumscribe their actions before the case has been stated, before a proper Parliamentary occasion had arrived. That would be an innovation, and it would be an innovation which any Government would be bound to ask its supporters and friends to resist. The financial situation, I am assured from many quarters, is both difficult and complicated, and from time to time I am told that it is awful and hopeless. However that may be, whatever be the difficulty both in regard to the consideration of the general field of expenditure and in regard to the consideration of our resources of revenue, at any rate that situation will not be adequately or satisfactorily dealt with if it is dealt with piecemeal, either by the Government or the House of Commons.
  What we have to look for, if we are to do what is best for the country, best for the interests of all the people in the country, at the present time, is a comprehensive solution, and we have to try to find that solution with a general picture of the situation in our minds. If we are going to veto "raiding the Road Fund" to-night why should we not also proceed to veto "raiding the Sinking Fund" to-morrow—or touching the Income Tax, or the duties on beer and
  2072
  tobacco, or the Death Duties, or any other of the sources of revenue? If the whole ground is going to be marked out in advance, then I say the difficulties of the financial situation as far as the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are concerned will be enormously increased. If we are to find the whole field cumbered with the barbed wire of Motions and Resolutions of the House of Commons when we get to the moment of making our proposals to Parliament, it will be very hard indeed.
  I am told I am exposed on every side to criticism. Minatory notices are put up on every side—"hands off "this and hands off" that![HON. MEMBERS: "Keep off the grass!"] Yes, I am warned to keep off the grass and my hon. Friend below the Gangway wishes to run me off the road. Other hon. Gentlemen are eager to threaten me with being warned off Newmarket Heath. It is hard enough in all conscience to solve the problems with which we are confronted but it would become utterly impossible, if at every stage we were to be faced with anticipatory vetoes, restrictions and limitations, which would either mean that we were precluded from taking actions which we might consider necessary to propose to Parliament, and which Parliament might subsequently consider it right and proper for us to propose, or on the other hand put into a position, bad for the Government and bad for the House of Commons, of violently overriding some decision which had been come to formally on the Floor of the House.
  No, Sir, I venture to submit that such a procedure would be altogether injurious and damaging both to the Government and to the House of 'Commons, and still more damaging to the general public interest. If we were going to have these limitations upon our right to propose to the House what we think best—I am going to make a very startling proposition to the House—it would surely be much better that those limitations should be prescribed by the House with some knowledge of what the case was, and what the Government proposed to do. If the House on such an occasion, without knowing what was the financial situation, without knowing what were the remedies which the Government were prescribing to deal with it, without knowing the whole case, without even knowing the particular plan in regard to the topic now

  2073
  under discussion, were to take a decision, I am sure the House would not do justice to itself. Nor would it do justice to the Government if it were to judge the matter without even hearing the case stated on behalf of the responsible Administration. We do not condemn the meanest criminal unheard. Even the travelling dog fox, to quote the vulpine analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for the Frome Division (Mr. G. Peto), would be entitled to a fairer run than that.
  The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said that he was not attacking what the Government were going to do; he was only criticising what I was credited with designing to do. I submit that to attempt to censure in advance an Administration, not upon what they are doing, but upon what they are credited with designing to do, is a proposition that is outrageous, monstrous, and inherently repulsive to the breast of any fair-minded man. Please give us a chance to state our case, and how can I state the case about the questions, the very difficult and complicated questions, connected with the Road Fund to-night? How can I discuss how much should be given to rural roads, how much should be given to these great arterial roads, in what way the taxation should posed so as to allow for a proper increase, having regard to the growth both of the Fund and of the services requiring to be fed from the Fund? How can I deal with all these matters to-light? How can I explain the policy of the Government—and the Government have arrived at decisions in principle upon that policy—upon this subject to-night?
  I should have to reveal the Budget two months before the day it is due. This tender plant, which is now growing in a carefully guarded hot-house, would have to be dragged out prematurely, exposed to all the seasonable severities of our ferocious climate. And we should not only have to expose the Budget, but to take one particular fragment of the Budget, and, tearing it violently from its context, commend this mutilated object to the favour of the House at the tail-end of a Wednesday night's debate. If I were to do so, it would be unfair to me and to the Government, but would it be fair to the House? How could the House decide, in the 20 minutes which are left to it, even if I were to unfold the few poor secrets
  2074
  we yet preserve? How could I expect the House to make up their minds upon them, and to give due consideration to them before the decision takes place? The procedure would be absurd, and is it not much better for us to adopt the regular, constitutional procedure which the House has been accustomed to follow for so many years?
  Let us see what is that precedure. First of all, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to study the financial situation, with a view to the annual Budget, during the whole course of the year. For this purpose he is equipped with the highest possible technical assistance, and for this purpose he is also armed with the best information which is available from every source. Then, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived at conclusions, it is his duty to submit them to his colleagues, and, ultimately, to the Cabinet as a whole, and it is the duty of the Cabinet, who, after all, represent many different points of view, to examine, criticise and canvass his proposals, and either approve, disapprove or modify them. It is then the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to open the Budget to the House of Commons, but he does not do that until the Cabinet has made up its mind what, in its honest judgment, is best for the country in all the circumstances which prevail.
  The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), the other day at Question Time, asked rather an illuminating supplementary question. Nearly all the most valuable admissions made by people are unconscious. He suggested that, before the Cabinet considered these matters of the Read Fund, before they attempted to come to any conclusion, they must, first of all, obtain the opinion of the House of Commons. That is a complete inversion of all our constitutional procedure, which is all based on the decision of a Government as to what is right, and the decision of Parliament upon the proposals of the Government. The right hon. Member for Platting, no doubt, had in his mind some future Government in which he might be forced to take part, in which there would be some anterior power, whose approval would have to be gained before any particular proposal could be put on the agenda. We stand on the old procedure.

  2075
  When the Budget has been opened on the responsibility of the Government of the day, there begins the duty of the House, and the House, which has always regarded finance as its central business, as, indeed, it is the means by which this House has obtained its great power, has carefully prescribed the most elaborate procedure for examining every detail of the Budget of the year. There are the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means on which the Budget is introduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Road Fund?"] I have not the slightest intention of being diverted. There are the discussions in Committee and on Report, and when all these stages have been gone through, as everyone knows, the main part of more than two months of the Parliamentary Session is occupied in the discussion of the Budget.
  Every opportunity will be afforded of examining every aspect of this question, should it be included in the Budget, in the regular procedure, and I suggest to the House that it is far better to take a decision at the right and proper time, with full information, than to seek to prejudge difficult questions without any opportunity of the facts being laid before Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Road Fund!"] I have already said that nothing in this world, no threats, no appeals would induce me to stray for a moment into the subject of the merits of the Road Fund. I am strictly relevant to the question at issue, the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Frome.
  There are some hon. Members on this side of the House who will say "How are we to express our anxieties, how are we to warn the Government, of the dangers which we foresee if they act in a sense of some of the rumours which are printed in the newspapers?" To that I have a simple reply. They should warn the Government in every way except by carrying a formal Motion to-night. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) drew a distinction between a Vote against the Government on a Motion like this, and a Vote against the Government in the course of the Budget. I dare say there are some hon. Members who will say: "Suppose
  2076
  we do not agree with your plan when it is presented, will it not be much harder for us to vote against it on the Budget than now?" Again my answer is fairly simple. It is undertaking a far greater responsibility for a Member of Parliament to condemn the Government unheard than it is to condemn the Government when their full case has been stated at the right time. The one is an aggressive, unkindly departure from constitutional usage; the second is the discharge of a regular Parliamentary duty. I am addressing these arguments to supporters of the Government rather than to their opponents. The Opposition naturally wish to drive the. Government into a corner, and, naturally, wish to drive the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the position where he will either have to commit some disreputable financial lapse, or propose some extremely unpopular tax. That is the reason why they raise these standards of menace on this side and on the other, while every avenue is carefully fenced off and barred with the red flag. If the supporters of the Government were weak enough or foolish enough—
  Mr. KIRKWOD: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will read the Amendment before the House, I think he will see that it is relevant.
  Mr. CHURCHILL:—were foolish and mean enough to be drawn into these sort of traps, they would be accounted thoroughly justified in having exposed the weakness of the Administration and its supporters, and would, no doubt, be duly, rewarded for their shrewdness.
  All I can say to our opponents is, let them have confidence in the procedure of the House of Commons. That is no weak rod on which to lean. The procedure is ample. Nothing can be passed through this House that is not thrashed out until every one is sick and tired of it. As far as the Government is concerned, and its supporters, I would say let them have confidence in the Administration; give them a reasonable measure of confidence. I think a year ago, almost to a night, a Motion on a private Members' evening was put on the Paper by Conservative Members, requiring the Government,

  2077
  most imperatively, to introduce a Measure of widows' pensions that- very Session. We had been working already for many months on a system of widows' pensions. [An HON. MEMBER "The widows were weary waiting for them."] They were not waiting for them so wearily as they were when the hon. Gentleman's supporters were in power in 1924. The position of the Government was one of great difficulty at the moment, because their supporters felt very keenly on the subject, and they were utterly unable to disclose what their plans were.
  The Minister who replied made a speech, rather like the one I am making to-night, in which, without actually saying the door was open, he gave the impression that it was not entirely shut. Yet, when the time came, so far as those who supported this Motion—and there were many on this side of the House—were concerned, they found full satisfaction of their wishes, and that the Government were carefully considering all the information and views which reached them from every quarter. It may well be that when this Road Fund policy is put before the House of Commons—if it should be put before the House of Commons—the apprehension which is felt to-day in this quarter or that will be fully met, and that in its proper place, in its proper situation, in regard to the general financial problems with which we have to deal, our solution of these difficulties will be found to be harmonious and satisfactory.
  But if I urge the House to-night not to commit itself, or to try to fetter and hamper the Government in regard even to the proper promulgation of their plans—if I ask them not to commit themselves in that sense, neither do we desire them in any way to commit themselves in the opposite sense, nor do we desire that any Member who votes for the Amendment should be committed to approval of the policy of raiding the Road Fund, of touching the Road Fund, or having anything to do with the Road Fund. Everyone who supports the Amendment will be perfectly free to take whatever course his Parliamentary and public duties may require him to take when he knows what are the facts. The issue, is not whether the Road Fund should be raided, or whether the Road Fund should be sacrosanct; it is simply
  2078
  whether we should adhere to the Parliamentary procedure enjoined alike by unbroken tradition and by obvious common sense, and on that issue I must make it quite clear that His Majesty's Government entertain a decided opinion.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated the Party to which he gives his financial wisdom with, I think, the contempt and derision which they well deserve. At any rate, those who introduced the Motion will now have an opportunity, after the expressions that fell from them, to show at least their constituents, and the hard-pressed local authorities for whom they spoke, what they think of the bantering attack which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made both upon them and upon their local authorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the position is not disclosed, although those who moved the Amendment have pretended that they have received assurances. After the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement I do not know, and I do not know anyone in the House who knows, what those assurances may be upon which that Amendment was put forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to make out that this issue, like all other questions of taxation, is to be left finally for settlement at the time of the Budget, but there is a difference between this matter and an ordinary question of taxation.
  Upon this issue definite contracts have been made, definite pledges have been given, and it is the duty of the House of Commons not merely at Budget time, but at all times when contracts are threatened, to put up some effective defence: and I warn hon. Members opposite that later on, when proposals are made regarding contracts on the National Debt., they may then remember the point now made—that it is quite free for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make what arrangements he- thinks fit and, through his Budget, to bind the party that supports him to the attitude he has taken. I hope those who submitted the Motion will be warned of the danger that confronts them.
  Mr. SNOWDEN rose in, his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think this is a matter an which the House should decide

  2079
  whether or not it wishes to come to a vote on the Question. I propose to put the Question to the House.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 230.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scurr, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sexton, James

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barr, J.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Simon, Ht. Hon. Sir John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Broad, F. A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clowes, S.

  Lee, F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Connolly, M.

  Lunn, William

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Mackinder, W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  McLean, Major A.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Waddington, R.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Warne, G. H.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsiey)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Webb, Rt. Hon, Sidney

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Westwood, J.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Wragg, Herbert

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Groves, T.

  Remer, J. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Ritson, J.

  Hayes.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  NOES.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Albery, Irving James

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Cope, Major William

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Couper, J. B.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Burman, J. B.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Balniel, Lord

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

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

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Bethell, A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Christie, J. A.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Blundell, F. N.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Elveden, Viscount

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  England, Colonel A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sandon, Lord

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Skelton, A. N.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Gates, Percy

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Smithers, Waldron

  Goff, Sir Park

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Grace, John

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Grotton, Colonel John

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Merriman, F. B.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hanbury, C.

  Moles, Thomas

  Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Harland, A.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Tinne, J. A.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nall, Lieut. Colonel Sir Joseph

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Neville, R. J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

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

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otlty)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Pielou, D. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Pilcher, G.

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

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Preston, William

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Raine, W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Ramsden, E.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con'l)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Rye, F. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Samnel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Harry Barnston.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ROAD FUND.
    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
BRITISH ARMY.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS
  WIESBADEN (PRISONERS).
  WIESBADEN (PRISONERS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  STATIONS IN EGYPT.
  STATIONS IN EGYPT.
  CAIRO TO CAPE TOWN FLIGHT.
  CAIRO TO CAPE TOWN FLIGHT.
  EQUIPMENT.
  EQUIPMENT.
  HENLOW AERODROME (MARRIED QUARTERS).
  HENLOW AERODROME (MARRIED QUARTERS).
  IRAQ (OPERATIONS).
  IRAQ (OPERATIONS).
  AIR SERVICES (MAILS).
  AIR SERVICES (MAILS).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (POSTERS).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (POSTERS).
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  SIERRA LEONE GOVERNMENT RAILWAY (WAGES DISPUTE).
  SIERRA LEONE GOVERNMENT RAILWAY (WAGES DISPUTE).
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  CURRENCY.
  CURRENCY.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  GERMAN LOANS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
  GERMAN LOANS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE (PROMOTION).
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE (PROMOTION).
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, BRISTOL.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, BRISTOL.
  PLYMOUTH,
  PLYMOUTH,
  UNFIT DWELLINGS.
  UNFIT DWELLINGS.
  OVERCROWDING.
  OVERCROWDING.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MATERNAL MORTALITY.
  MATERNAL MORTALITY.
AGRICULTURE.
  CREDITS.
  CREDITS.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (STAFF).
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (STAFF).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  RELIEF WORK.
  RELIEF WORK.
  DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT, LEVEN, FIFESHIRE.
  DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT, LEVEN, FIFESHIRE.
  FAMILY INCOME (ASSESSMENT),
  FAMILY INCOME (ASSESSMENT),
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  MOTOR INDUSTRY (CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS).
  MOTOR INDUSTRY (CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (SMOKING IN LIFTS).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (SMOKING IN LIFTS).
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
  CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT).
  CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT).
  NEW HEBRIDES.
  NEW HEBRIDES.
  GERMANY (ARMY OF OCCUPATION)
  GERMANY (ARMY OF OCCUPATION)
  SAAR VALLEY.
  SAAR VALLEY.
  NEW SCHOOLS, BRISTOL.
  NEW SCHOOLS, BRISTOL.
  ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS).
  ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.
  GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT.
  GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT.
  LICENSED HOUSES (HOURS OF OPENING).
  LICENSED HOUSES (HOURS OF OPENING).
  COMMUNISTS (POLICE SEARCH).
  COMMUNISTS (POLICE SEARCH).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."
  WOMEN GRADUATES, LONDON UNIVERSITY (FRANCHISE).
  WOMEN GRADUATES, LONDON UNIVERSITY (FRANCHISE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EARL JELLICOE.
John Rushworth, Viscount Jellicoe, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., having been created Viscount Brocas of Southampton, in the County of Southampton, and Earl Jellicoe—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CHORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CONNAH'S QUAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DARWEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MARGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WALTHAMSTOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGOMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Halifax Corporation Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Halifax Corporation Bill [H.L.], clause 15, at end to insert: "Nothing in this section shall exonerate the Corporation from any obligation imposed upon them by law to pay compensation in respect of lands to which the enactments relating to agricultural holdings, allotments or market gardens apply."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the instruction is intended to protect tenant farmers, market gardeners and also allotment holders. Under the Bill as at present drafted these people will be turned out of their holdings without any
145
compensation for disturbance or any compensation for tenants' rights, but I am very pleased to say that I shall not have to trouble your Lordships with the proposed instruction this afternoon as the promoters of the Bill have undertaken that when the Bill is considered in Committee in this House they will insert the words which I have put down on the Paper. I have only to say that I am much obliged to the promoters for having met me in this matter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for adopting the course he has taken this afternoon. For reasons which I need not go into, I infinitely prefer the procedure under which Amendments are made in Committee to amendments made by instructions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the undertaking which the promoters of the Bill have given. There will, of course, be no difficulty in carrying it out in Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is expedient, in order to establish that continuity in national education which is essential to its efficiency, that there shall be duly constituted a small Council, to be known as the Board of Education, whose function shall be to advise the President thereof, and upon which, in addition to the administrative heads of the principal departments of the present so-called Board, there shall sit elected representatives both of the local education authorities and of members of the teaching profession.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion for which I have the honour to ask your favourable consideration this afternoon is not one of merely departmental importance, but is one which concerns the whole future of this country. I desire to say at once that in raising it I shall, so far as possible, place it on the broadest basis of national interest. I hope I may be given the benefit of sincerity in that matter, since I have on frequent occasions, on political and on non-political platforms, pleaded that education should be regarded as above Party politics. My justification for raising
146
the issue at this moment is the dismay and despondency noticeable throughout the whole country at the present and prospective state of national education. It is surprising that any one so much wedded to verbal exactitude as the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refer to that despondency in a recent speech as a sectional opposition. It would be difficult to find any epithet so ill-chosen. Any one who has studied educational events of the last two and a half months must be aware that from men of all sections of society, from men holding political opinions of every sort and kind and, above all, from those organs of the Press which normally support the Government, there has been an almost undeviating opposition to the proposals now put forward by His Majesty's Government.
However that may be, I do not wish to raise this question from the point of view of Party politics. I have the honour to be too closely connected with a variety of educational movements to do that, and it is my duty constantly to speak on non-political platforms on behalf of the teaching profession as a whole. I should like to assure the Government that this Motion is not aimed specifically at those who are at present in power, but rather at the system of government now administered by them; it applies to all Governments alike in the past of whatever persuasion they may have been. Nevertheless, as it happens to be a Conservative Government in power to-day, I can hardly hope to make my argument intelligible without reference to their acts as they are recent and current events, and it is difficult, however much one may desire, entirely to avoid controversy in this matter.
I ask you to consider the present state of national education, and what it was. At the end of 1924, during the last General Election, all three Parties committed themselves in their Election manifestoes to the development and progress of our national system of education. From everyone who was at all interested in it there went up a sigh of relief that there was at last some hope that education would be removed from the political battleground; everyone felt and hoped that whichever Party was returned to power educational progress, at any rate, was fairly safe. A Conservative Government was returned and

147
it is not too much to say that when it took office it entered upon a period, educationally speaking, in which the atmosphere was more serene than it had been at any time since the present Education Department was formed. The great onslaught upon educational progress which had been launched under cover of the Report of the Geddes Committee had spent its course. The question of salaries which had troubled educationists for a long time past was in progress of being settled and was, in fact, settled in the middle of last summer. Well might the President of the Board have looked forward to a period of harmonious and steady progress.
I remember being present at a dinner, in January of last year, at which the President of the Board was the principal speaker. In the presence of a great number of representative persons from local authorities and directors of education, he made a speech which was universally applauded by everybody in the room, saying that he hoped that now that we had entered upon this more settled period educational authorities would plan a five years' programme. He dwelt in a manner that was very encouraging upon the vital necessity of looking ahead in that way if there was any hope of programmes being conceived efficiently, adding that we had to recognise that continuity in education vas the greatest need of all. Upon that oasis, since that time until December of last year, the President of the Board made speech after speech up and down the country advocating progress. I would even go so far as to say that during the whole of the first ten months of office he never ceased to urge upon local authorities and others responsible for education the need of progress and development.
The happy augury of that which I have tried briefly to detail was further confirmed by the words uttered in the summer of last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were quoted in the debate in your Lordships' House on December 15 last year by my noble and learned friend Viscount Haldane. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that economy, but not in education, was the policy of the Government. He added that this nation could not afford economy in education and that the Government had no intention of economising in education. No attempt
148
whatever has been made, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by any Minister or anybody speaking on behalf of the Government, to reconcile that policy with the present policy of the Government or with the present utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now from every Ministerial mouth we hear the cry of economy—economy in education as in every other Department—and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House puts the epithet "ruthless" in front.
It is hardly any wonder that the people of this country, being confronted with these two entirely conflicting positions, are extremely puzzled. Further, the documents that have been issued by the Department of Education have gradually made bewilderment more dark than it was before. There have been three such documents in the last two and a half months: the now notorious Circular 1371, followed by an explanatory Memorandum from the Department of Education and followed again by what is termed Administrative Memorandum 44. There have been debates in your Lordships' House and in another place on these documents and I do not wish to traverse any old ground that can be avoided. It will be enough to say that as each of these three documents was issued all the influential organs of the Press, and more especially those which habitually support the Government, denounced them all and called for the immediate withdrawal of one after another of them. They used very harsh terms. They said that these documents were chaotic and unintelligible. That is not altogether surprising since the President of the Board has said that they do not mean what they say. Circular 1371 had very few friends indeed among any people who had any knowledge of or interest in education. I can think of just six people in this country who found something not altogether bad in that circular. Administrative Memorandum 44 has not, so far as I am aware, had one defender anywhere. In fact, one of the editors who had thought Circular 1371 not wholly bad has said of Administrative Memorandum 44 that it is an "uncouth and fearsome document."
As for the second of the three documents, the explanatory Memorandum issued officially by the Department of Education, it contains a very surprising sentence which runs as follows:—

149
"The general policy embodied in the circular is based on educational grounds rather than on grounds of economy."
I should not like to go so far as to say that this statement is wholly untrue, but I will say that there is not a shred of evidence in support of it. The circular itself contains nothing whatever about educational efficiency. From first to last it is based upon grounds of economy, and one cannot understand how such a statement could have been made. It is satisfactory, at any rate, to know that in Administrative Memorandum 44 that argument has been entirely discarded. It has never carried any weight with any person who knows anything whatever about our educational system.
It is interesting to recall that Circular 1371 was the subject of a debate in another place and received what I can only describe as the support of a purely Party vote. I say that because, although it received a fairly substantial majority, it was suspended the very next day. Nevertheless, it is not dead. It has been used as a threat over the heads of local education authorities, and, since then, the estimates submitted by local education authorities have been returned to them for the purpose of being drastically reduced, and any pretence that this is for the progress of education has been dropped. Up and down the country no one who is at all concerned with education can possibly have helped hearing the charge of breach of faith very definitely made against the Government. The programme on which the Government was launched—and it has been re-affirmed quite recently—was one of instituting smaller classes and of sweeping away and remedying unsatisfactory and insanitary buildings. We are told that the programme still stands and the charge of breach of faith has been answered in this manner: Both the President of the Board of Education and the Prime Minister, in two fairly recent speeches, have referred to this charge of breach of faith, and they said that it could not be substantiated because the classes are now smaller and to some extent insanitary buildings are being swept away. I submit that this does not meet the case or the charge in the slightest degree because this is a reference to the state of affairs at the moment. It is not a reference to the state of affairs
150
that must ensue if the present programme of the Government is carried out.
As a matter of fact, if the present proposals are carried out, the progress that has taken place in the last ten months must not only be brought to an end, but it must be reversed. I think I can establish that. It is well known that expenditure on salaries of teachers takes up roughly 75 per cent. of the expenditure on education. If you are going to reduce the annual expenditure upon education and not reduce the salaries—and there has been a very definite pledge that salaries shall not be reduced—it follows that the remainder will be very much less, and there will be much less to spend upon the development of the buildings and the sweeping away of unsatisfactory and insanitary premises. If, on the other hand, you seek to reduce the expenditure on salaries without reducing salaries, there are only two ways in which it can be done. The first is to reduce the number of teachers which inevitably leads to larger classes, and the other is to substitute for the qualified teacher the unqualified teacher with pay at a lower rate. There is some indication that that is the policy which is to be pursued. It is lowering the status of education, and by no stretch of imagination can it be called progress. I cannot see that there is any way out of the dilemma that if these proposals are carried out there will be a definite halt in educational progress, which is the exact contrary of that to which the Government pledged themselves when they came into office. If there is a way out, at all events no one has attempted to deal with it.
It may be said that these utterances are the utterances of men who were insincere. Certainly I should be sorry to bring such a charge against the Prime Minister, but there is this dilemma: that either those utterances must be insincere or else those who make them have not realised the effects and implications of the policy that they are recommending. I feel that the latter explanation is the right one, because otherwise, apart from challenging the sincerity of Ministers, you would not have constant statements by Ministers completely conflicting one with another. Let me give an example. In Circular 1371 there was not only what one might call a hotch-potch of ideas, since the greater

151
part of it was directed to giving greater authority to local educational authorities and then ended with details which were clearly within the province of any authority responsible for its own expenditure, but the Circular in a most definite way cut down the grant for the admission to schools of children under five years of age from 36 s. to 6s. Yet the President of the Board of Education indignantly denies that that is discouragement.
On the occasion of the debate in this House on December 15 the then spokesman for the Government was Lord Somers. I am sorry he is not present to-day and also for the cause of his absence, which I understand is ill health. In replying for the Government on that occasion, he said, with regard to the question of the admission of children under five, that the President
"considers that it should be discouraged to a great extent as being of little value to the child except in very special localities."
Yet, two days later, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education specifically repudiated the idea that it was discouragement. That leaves one in a state of bewilderment. Lord Somers could not have made that statement without having received authority for so doing from the Government and it is not to the credit of the Government that their accredited representative should be contradicted. Lord Somers went on to explain that this was the "deliberate opinion" of the President and of the Government, and that it was better to devote money rather to higher education. He stated that it was the Government's idea that it was very much better to devote money to higher education rather than to spend it upon elementary education, and to show that it was not the statement of any irresponsible spokesman this view was confirmed by the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, The noble Marquess said:—
"…we look to progress in education more in the development of secondary than elementary education."
I do not wish to seem to arraign this Government only. I am sorry to take illustrations from this Government, but they are the recent ones. Other Governments have made educational mistakes and, no doubt, future Governments will do so if the present system of government is continued. The last statements which
152
I have quoted show clearly that the Government, in coming to this decision, are running counter to the whole of informed educational opinion. If any of your Lordships would care to turn up any report of any meeting of those concerned with either teaching or local administration you will find that this view, which is expressed by members of the Government, is not supported by any single one of them. It is a policy of taking away from the trunk in order to feed the branches. It is further a policy of taking from the many in order to give to the few. That is not only bad democracy but it is unquestionably unsound educational administration.
I am aware that in the Administrative Memorandum No. 44 the question of the admission of children under five has been dropped, but the bias of the Government's policy still remains and I will try to give what I conceive to be the reason. I may appear to be blaming the Government only. I am really blaming the system of government under which these decisions are arrived at, and I say that the statement I quoted of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, shows that he and those from whom he derived that opinion have not had the expert advice to which, as a Government, they are entitled. I am sure that in making that pronouncement of policy the noble Marquess had no idea that it was running counter to the whole of the informed educational opinion on the subject. Then again in that explanatory Memorandum from the Department off Education it is stated—
"It is believed that, in general, when authorities have had time to examine their position they will find little cause for complaint."
Any Government Department which issues a statement of that kind shows that it is out of touch with realities.
If the President really believes that, he cannot know in the least what the local authorities are thinking. That, however, is not surprising. This policy was arrived at and announced without consultation with anybody who really knew about the subject. There was no consultation with any of the local education authorities until after the policy had been decided upon. There was no consultation whatever with any of the leading educational associations. That, I think, is absolutely unquestioned. At any rate, no

153
authoritative advice has ever been advanced at all, and the local authorities have been the first to say that they were not consulted. I think I can say with certitude that none of the great educational associations have been consulted.
It has been said that the circular was only a basis for discussion. In that case there is no meaning in the English language, because the circular is throughout positive in tone, and if one wants further proof the speech of Lord Somers was quite definite. He said that "The President insists on the change of system"; and "it is the deliberate opinion of the Government." Further, the Government sent on the circular to Scotland and said it was their carefully considered opinion. These changes in policy are, as the Government themselves admit and as they said in their circular, "changes of a far-reaching character." By whom has the Government been advised to make them? With whom has it consulted?
If you take the question of the block grant, that decision was come to before the Report of the Meston Committee has been issued. The only evidence that we have about it is a Report in favour of retaining the present basis. I do not want to go into the details of whether the block grant or any other grant is the better. The President of the Board says that that is the only real question at issue. I venture to think that there is a far deeper and more important question at issue than that, and that is whether the time has not come when a Minister should not make pronouncements of policy on education without having had in front of him definitely and officially the best possible advice upon the subject. It is too vital. After all, the President of the Board is in no sense an autocrat, he is merely the senior partner of a number of people concerned in education, and in common courtesy it should be a matter of course that the senior partner should consult with the other partners. It is impossible to carry on a system of government when the decision precedes the consultation, and that is the arrangement to which the present system lends itself.
Who are the present advisers of the President of the Board of Education? He has, so far as I know, no advisers except the, staff of the Department of
154
Education. Far be it from me to make, or even seem to make, the slightest attack upon the Civil Service, certainly not upon the civil servants who form the staff of the Board of Education, many of them my close personal friends and, I am quite sure, extremely devoted and admirable public servants. But, except by pure chance, none of them are teachers, and any experience they may have had of local administration must, if they are senior civil servants, of necessity have been a very long time ago. The Board of Education—a phrase which is constantly used—is, as everybody knows, a misnomer: the Board does not exist except in name. I know that there is a Board, and that the members of it are members of the Cabinet. They are not in any sense experts in education, and they would be the first to say so; and, so far as I know, the Board of Education has never met since it was constituted. The President presides over himself in his own room. That is to treat education as if anybody could understand it. It is a highly technical subject, one to which people, either in administration or teaching, give the whole of their lives to studying its principles and its application. Under our present system the President, with the assistance of his civil servants, is expected to know it all by the light of nature.
Consider the contrast which the Department of Education presents with such another Department as, say, the War Office. Can you imagine the Secretary of State for War issuing an Army Order which is going to bring about what he himself admits to be changes of a faro reaching character in the Army without having consulted one single soldier? That is the position in which the President of the Board of Education must necessarily find himself. Take the Admiralty. Would anybody attempt. to change the principles that govern naval warfare without consulting the sailors? But there is no teacher who is in constant communication with the President of the Board of Education. Or take another Ministry more closely allied, the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Health has a definitely appointed Chief Medical Officer, a doctor. The President of the Board of Education has his Permanent Secretary, who is not a teacher at all, and therefore cannot speak with real educational knowledge.
I know it will be said that the President of the Board of Education has a Consultative Committee, to whom he may refer questions. Well, nobody knows that better than I, because I am the only member of your Lordships' House who is a member of it and has been a member for a very long time. The Consultative Committee, which is as old as the Board, is formed for purposes totally different from the purpose of giving constant advice to the President of the Board. It consists of a large number of people, mainly teachers, with one or two local administrators, and it has referred to it questions of great importance, but none of them of immediate instance. It is now considering one, and has been for the last two years taking evidence upon it. Presently it will produce a Report, which I hope will be valuable, and I hope will be read. But it has never had these changes before it, it has never been consulted about them in any way whatever. Nor could it really form the Council, or the Board of Education, which I have in mind at all. It is far too large. It consists of people who are very busy, who are all of them engaged actively now in teaching or in local administration, who meet on two days in ten months of the year.
I should like to make it clear to the noble Earl who will reply on behalf of the Government that my proposition is one of a wholly different nature. I am not proposing a nebulous advisory body. I know quite well that the President could, and does for any special questions, call together a Committee. For instance, he constituted an Adult Education Committee on which I sat for a number of years until I came to the conclusion that it was not fulfilling any practical purpose. He has no one on hand whose daily duty it is to speak with first hand knowledge either of the point of view of local authorities or of the teaching profession. I have seen it suggested that the Motion which I have the honour to raise this afternoon is not broad enough, in that it does not make provision for other interests which are naturally affected by national education, such as commercial interests, or possibly the interests of parents. To include those would, of course, make it into a large nebulous advisory body, which could not possibly be formed as part of our administrative machinery.
My proposal is a much simpler one. I suggest that within the machinery of the Board there should be set up a small body of whole-time advisers. It is quite obvious that the executive power must remain in the hands of the President—nobody seeks to challenge that. These members should be appointed for a fixed term of years, and they should be elected, some of them from local education authorities, and some from the teaching profession as a whole. There is no difficulty whatever from a practical point of view in putting that recommendation into force. And they would come fresh from actual contact with realities, and those who are teachers would have actual experience of the science and principles of education. The analogy between that and the soldiers at the War Office will be quite close.
I venture to suggest that, looked at in the proper way, this is in no sense a limitation of the powers of the President, but would enormously strengthen his position. I am perfectly certain that, had there been in the past such a body, many errors, not only in the life of this Government but of other Governments, would have been obviated. It is asking too much of anybody who must be an amateur to avoid the many pitfalls in a highly technical subject. We have only had in the life of the Board of Education one Minister who spoke with profound personal knowledge of his subject, just as we have only had one Secretary of State for War who himself was a great soldier. It is not our theory of Government at all that the Minister himself should be an expert, but that he should be surrounded by a body of experts, from whom he can take advice and on whose opinion he can decide.
The question of drastic economy in education is, of course, regarded as a highly controversial one. It may or it may not be necessary; it may or it may not prove to be real economy. That, I know, is a question -in dispute. But no one with the slightest knowledge of our educational system, no one who has been concerned in its administration or has studied it in any way, can possibly deny the paralysing effect of changes, fluctuations and reversals of educational policy. No one knows where he is from year to year. No one can prepare ahead. No one even knows where he is from month to month. The one thing that all educationists

157
demand is that there shall really be a continuity of educational ideals even if there is not a continuity of educational expenditure. It is perfectly hopeless to expect such a continuity if the educational ideals and goals of various Governments are to be different. I cannot help thinking that there is a vital need of some stabilising influence, some small body appointed irrespective of polities who shall be able to exercise a steady and continuous influence of thought upon the educational problem viewed as an educational and not as a political problem. In other words, we need at least to convert the so called nominal Board of Education into a real Board of Education.
I must apologise for having taken so much of your Lordships' time. It is not often that I take up much of it on this particular subject, but this is really a matter of vital concern to the whole future of the children of this country and, therefore, to the country at large. I do not know for certain whether the Government are prepared to accept this Motion or whether they are going to oppose it. If the latter, I would ask them seriously and specifically to answer these questions: Who is the educational adviser of the President of the Board? With whom has he been in consultation who can really speak with educational knowledge? With whom has he been in consultation before the issue of his orders who can really speak with first-hand knowledge of administrative and local machinery? The inspectorate of the Board are very admirable, but all their views are necessarily second-hand. Why not have first-hand views? If the changes and the policy which some of us find reason to criticise are really the product of the unguided intelligence of the Government, may we be told specifically whether it is their intention that this system is to continue indefinitely? I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is expedient, in order to establish that continuity in national education which is essential to its efficiency, that there shall be duly constituted a small Council, to be known as the Board of Education, whose function shall be to advise the President thereof, and upon which, in addition to the administrative heads of the principal
158
departments of the present so-called Board, there shall sit elected representatives both of the local education authorities and of members of the teaching profession.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the terms of the Motion which has just been read to your Lordships show that in placing it on the Paper my noble friend Lord Gorell had a specific object in view. In his speech I think he travelled somewhat outside the specific terms of his Motion, and into various matters connected with the whole system of the rule and government of education in this country. I will endeavour, as he did, to deal with the question on rather broader lines than I was, perhaps, prepared to do when I came down to your Lordships' House this afternoon. In the first place, I entirely and cordially agree with him, as I am sure your Lordships will, that education should be a non-Party question. It is not a political question at all. It is a question which affects the lives of every one of us and of all our children. Therefore, I think we should entirely agree that it ought not to be treated as a political or Party question. Then my noble friend paid a tribute to those of my colleagues in the Government who are responsible for the administration of the Board of Education. He said that he did not challenge their sincerity, and he mentioned the fact that my right hon. friend the President of the Board has been making speeches up and down the country urging progress and development. I am glad to see that my noble friend recognised that in addressing your Lordships upon his Motion.
The next point of importance that he raised, in illustration, perhaps, of the theory which he put forward, was the policy of the Government in regard to the block grant. He said there was no consultation with the local education authorities before this particular policy of the block grant was decided upon. Let me recapitulate exactly what occurred in regard to the issue of Circular 1371, the document to which, of course, my noble friend referred. That circular was issued to give local education authorities as early notice as possible of what was in the mind of the Government in view of the likelihood of the introduction of the block grant system in the financial year 1926–7. The circular, which I hold in my hand,

159
was issued, I think, at the beginning of December. Shortly after that the President and the authorities of the Board of Education met the local authorities and asked them to revise their estimates with a view of cutting out everything which was not essential.
Then, after that meeting had taken place, Administrative Memorandum No. 44, to which my noble friend made several references, was issued for the guidance of local authorities as to what was in the mind of the Board and what they suggested should be in the minds of local authorities in carrying out the revision. The local authorities are now sending in their revised estimates, in the light of which the Board is considering the financial arrangements to be made in 1926–7. I ought to say early in my observations that all the revised estimates have not yet been received. In the meantime, the Board is discussing with the local education authorities the question of the method and basis on which the future grant system shall be administered subsequent to 1926–7. That is the whole history of the issue of the circular and the memorandum.
I will deal with one or two other specific points at a later stage, and I will answer now the main points raised by my noble friend. Although he explained them in great detail, it is a little difficult to see what practical difference the constitution of such a body as he suggests would make. He referred, of course, to the present Board of Education and said with great truth that it is a Board which does not meet. It consists of certain members of the Government, heads of great Departments, who are not necessarily professional educationists. But there is this to be said about the Board as it stands, that all those who are technically members of the Board are also members of the Cabinet and any question of alteration or change in educational policy is bound to come before them in the ordinary constitutional manner. Therefore, in that way the Board of Education as it is, or the members of it, at any rate, are consulted in their capacity as experienced Ministers. That, of course, is not really what my noble friend desires. He suggests having a permanent technical Board which shall advise the Minister in regard to educational subjects; and that the Board shall
160
consist of representatives of teachers and local education authorities, and also heads of the departments dealing with primary and secondary education. It would not be such a very small body. I do not know quite how many members were in the mind of the noble Lord, but the body would be of very fair size even under his scheme.
LORD GORELL: I do not think it would be necessary that it should be larger than twelve at the outside.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will deal now with the point mentioned by the noble Lord regarding the existing Statutory Committee of which he was a very distinguished member. That Committee was formed for the purpose for which my noble friend wishes to constitute his hoard. It was to advise the Ministers in charge of the Board of Education in regard to educational matters. I will also point out that that Statutory Committee contains representatives both of the teaching profession and of local authorities, so that it is not quite accurate to say, as I think my noble friend did say, that the Minister has no other advisers beyond the heads of departments in his own office, and that if these were teachers or members of the local education authorities that was a fortuitous circumstance. I remember very well when I was at the Board that we had the advantage of the advice of the Statutory Committee. I think my noble friend himself was a member of it, and he was rather too modest, I think, in expressing views as to its value. We had the great advantage of the advice of that Committee, and that advice was very valuable and useful and of the greatest assistance in the administration of the Department.
There is another point to which I should like to draw your Lordship' attention. My noble friend's scheme would contain, as he just now indicated, about twelve gentlemen. It would be, I imagine, a statutory body. We should be unable to change or to enlarge it, or to alter its constitution. The present Committee has this advantage, or at least what I venture to consider is an advantage, over a hard and fast arrangement, that it can be varied in any way that the circumstances of the day may indicate to be desirable.

161
The representation upon it can be extended, and the subjects with which it deals can be increased in number. It is a body that it is open to the Minister to consult upon any subject, or any variety of subjects, in regard to which he may deem it necessary or desirable to consult them. That is the present Statutory Committee, but, as my noble friend very kindly observed, there are other Committees.
One of them is the Adult Education Committee, of which also, I think, he was a member. That Committee consists of technical advisers of the Minister, who can call them into consultation whenever he desires to do so. There is also a juvenile Organisation Committee, a body that gives advice in regard to juvenile education. Those who sit on this Committee representatives of boy scouts, of the elementary school teachers, and of boys' and girls' clubs. Therefore, so far as the machinery for consultation with experts is concerned, it seems to me that there is already ample to meet the points that were emphasised by my noble friend. I do not think there is any branch of education in regard to which it is not open to the Minister or the Board or its officials to have an immediate consultation with people who are experts.
I think that the point to which my noble friend was drawing your Lordships' attention, if I did not misunderstand him, was that the scope of the present Advisory Committees is distinctly limited, that they have not, perhaps, that power or influence he would desire that they should have and which he thinks it advisable that they should have. If that be the case, I would reply that the powers and usefulness of existing organisations are bound to be limited by the existing circumstances. I do not think that changing the name, or the composition, or the size of an advisory body would really change its powers. The fact remains that the Minister in charge of the Board of Education is not an autocrat, as my noble friend rightly and properly pointed out, but he is responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of public money. He, and he alone, is responsible to Parliament, and you cannot put that responsibility upon an advisory board or a committee or any one else. Parliament entrusts the Minister with certain sums of money and he has to answer to Parliament
162
on his own responsibility for the expenditure of such money.
Obviously, therefore, the advice which any outside body that is not responsible to Parliament could give must have some limitation. This must be an outside body, however competent it may be, and its advice and powers must be circumscribed in view of the fact that in existing circumstances the Minister is solely responsible for the expenditure of the money entrusted to his Department. Obviously, the Minister must be able to act in an independent capacity. Supposing he thinks something could be done, then, even if his advisers are against him, he must have the power to do that thing. It seems to me, therefore, as so much of the work of the Board of Education is concerned with the control of money voted by Parliament, that the question of financial control is one of paramount importance.
I am, however, very far from suggesting that the advice of experts is not of the very greatest possible importance to the Minister and to the Board of Education. May I give one or two instances showing how that advice is received and acted upon? As your Lordships are aware, many of the duties of the Board of Education are at the present time concerned with detailed administration. So long as they are so much concerned with detailed administration, the Minister, or the Board, must seek advice, and they do seek advice from local education authorities. Local education authorities, as my noble friend pointed out, are intimately concerned with administration, and I should like to assure my noble friend and your Lordships' House that in point of fact the various organisations are continually appointing representatives to confer with the Board of Education upon points of policy as they arise. Sometimes, indeed, the initiative comes from the local education authorities themselves. I remember many cases when I was at the Board of Education when that occurred.
Furthermore, the Minister frequently invites the representatives of local education authorities to come into consultation with him on various matters. I will give my noble friend an illustration of that by saying that the President of the Board has asked local education authorities to set up a committee, and that committee

163
was meeting this very afternoon to confer with the Board on the question of block grants. Clearly, therefore, the Board is not so divorced from the local authorities, and from the teachers and other persons of practical experience in education, as might be inferred from what has been said here this afternoon. I myself was at the Board for some months—not long perhaps, but long enough to know that scarcely a day passes without a consultation with one or other of these representatives of practical education.
I will come now to another point. Criticism has been levelled at the Board on the ground that it is too much concerned with the work of detailed administration, and that, being so much concerned with the work of detailed administration, it is disabled to a certain extent from devoting as much attention as it ought to do to questions of educational policy. Speaking from my own personal experience I am rather disposed to think that that is perhaps the case. I am glad to say that both the noble Lord, the President of the Board, and the noble lady, the Duchess of Atholl, who is the Parliamentary Secretary—the two Ministers who are responsible for the policy of the Board—have indicated that they are in agreement with this view. The programme of the Conservative Party at the last General Election, which I think all your Lordships will agree was of a progressive nature, indicated that we intended to follow a progressive educational policy. In order to do that less stress will gradually be laid upon questions of detailed administration and more stress will be laid on the consideration and execution of general educational standards. If these developments are followed by the Board of Education and by the President of the Board, that Department will gradually become, broadly speaking, less of an administrative and more of an educational body, and the scope for advisory bodies will obviously increase.
Let me now come to a question on which probably my noble friend will disagree with me entirely. I suggest to your Lordships that the institution of the block grant system will certainly tend to develop this aspect of the work of the Board of Education, for by the system of block grants a definite endowment will be given by the Government for certain specific purposes and the carrying out of
164
these purposes will only be subject to the attainment and maintenance by local education authorities of general standards of educational efficiency. The institution of such a system will be of great educational advantage, and it will assist in, the change of the duties of the Board from details of administration and details of control to the consideration of questions of general educational policy. Therefore, by that change, a much larger scope will be given to those who have to advise and confer with the Board, to the great body of teachers as well as to local education authorities.
Having dealt with the main point put forward by my noble friend, I turn to one or two questions of detail on which he suggested certain questions with regard to the outcome of the policy of the Board. I may be wrong but he seemed to express some doubt as to whether the economy proposals of the Government would allow us to do two particular things: First, to carry out our pledges to enable local education authorities to pay salaries in accordance with the awards of the Committee presided over by Lord Burnham, and secondly, whether the economy proposals would allow the reduction in the size of the classes to proceed. I will deal with those two points, and I can deal with the first one very briefly. On February 2 last a Regulation was issued by the Board of Education making the payment of the scales of the Burnham Committee compulsory. Obviously, if the Government issues a Regulation of that kind, it would not do so unless it was intended to provide the wherewithal to pay for them. I may add that there are only three authorities at present who have not accepted the scales, and negotiations are continuing with them. I trust the matter will be settled satisfactorily very shortly.
On the second point my noble friend went into more specific detail. When I was at the Board of Education this question of the reduction of the size of classes was one which we all had very much at heart. In fact, this reduction is not a political or a Party question at all. It was equally in the minds of our successors, who were members of the Labour Government. Your Lordships will remember that at the last General Election one of the first conditions laid down by the Prime Minister in his Election address, when dealing with the

165
question of educational policy, related to this matter of the reduction of the size of classes, and I can say with considerable satisfaction that since the Government took office there has been a progressive decrease in the size of classes, especially in these classes containing over fifty pupils.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Did you say increase or decrease?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I said decrease. I hope I did not say increase.
LORD GORELL: I do not challenge that at all. I think it is undoubted; it is a statistical fact. What I said was that this reduction could not continue if these proposals were put into force.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: All I can say is that it is the policy of the Government to further this reduction in every possible way. It is not so easy a matter as it looks; there are difficulties in the way. For instance, you cannot reduce the size of classes simply by increasing the amount of money granted in respect of teachers' salaries. You have to see that the distribution of the money is properly made and that the larger portion of it goes to the areas which are most crowded. Again, you cannot reduce classes simply by increasing the number of teachers. You must also increase the amount of accommodation available; you must have more rooms. This, in fact, was another point upon which stress was laid by the Prime Minister in his Election address, and I should like to say that a considerable amount has already been achieved by the present Government, or rather by local authorities in conjunction with the Government, in the construction of new premises and the reorganisation of schools. The latest figures, which came in only this morning, show that 134 new elementary schools have been sanctioned for building and the enlargement of 39 more has been approved. To explain my reference just now, when I said I hoped that this programme would be pressed forward, let me draw the attention of your Lordships to Memorandum 44, from which it will be seen that the need of a building programme has been specifically recognised. That building programme is one which will draw children from the old schools
166
in the centre of towns to new schools with smaller classrooms and smaller classes; it will draw children from the old schools to the newer schools on the outskirts of big towns.
I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government adhere to the educational programme they laid down at the last General Election. I have tried to show that no inconsiderable progress has been made in carrying out this programme, but it is impossible to express any definite opinion as to an educational policy beyond the commitments which have already been dealt with until the Government have had an opportunity of considering the revised estimates of local education authorities for the ensuing year. These estimates, as I have said already, have not all been received. A large number have been received, and they are constantly coming in, but until the Board of Education are in a position to consider these revised estimates the Government are unable to decide upon the details of their policy for 1926–27. That, I think, shows that the Government are in close touch with local education authorities and are consulting them with the greatest freedom before they settle on a policy.
As the noble Lord has said, we are faced to-day, as everyone is aware, by a demand for economy in all directions, and while the Government are firmly determined to carry out the programme it has laid down in regard to educational reform, it cannot allow itself to drift into vague commitments without consideration of the cost and without considering and exploring any economy which it is desirable to make in the existing services. I cannot, I am afraid, elaborate or give your Lordships any information of the future educational policy for those reasons, but, as I have said, the replies from the various educational authorities will shortly be at hand, they will be considered by the Government and, when that has been done, we shall be in a position to give your Lordships further information on this subject.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Earl with the keenest attention. He gets up his facts so carefully and accurately that I felt sure that, whatever there was to be said, he would say it. Having listened, I

167
have now to confess that I have listened with the deepest disappointment. My noble friend Lord Gorell put down a Motion the purpose of which was to bring out his view that the Government had embarked upon their present policy without sufficient investigation and knowledge. He gave reasons for taking that view, and he suggested a remedy. The course of the discussion has directed attention lo the state of things rather than to the remedy. We have not got so far as the remedy.
The noble Earl began his speech by giving us an account of the genesis of the famous documents, Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44, and then he told us with great candour that the Government had pledged themselves—as, indeed, they did—at the Election of 1924 to a progressive educational policy. That was absolutely right. Education is one of those things on which we dare not economise. On it depends the future of this country, on it depends our skill, our ability to hold our own, our home markets and our foreign markets equally, and the general condition of the race and of society, and therefore it was not surprising that the Government gave to the country a very warm pledge that in education at least they would go forward and would not go back.
Then the noble Earl told us how that pledge had been carried out. He described the two circulars, and then he proceeded to suggest to us that they had been a good deal misinterpreted and misunderstood. We put, from this side of the House, a very different construction on the matter. Our case against the Government is that they made a cardinal mistake in connection with this question of education. You cannot reduce expenditure on education—at least, not materially—because you are constantly faced with the necessity of increasing it. You can no more reduce the expenditure on this than you can on the Air Force, which is at present, or has been, below what is required for the safety of the country. But in the case of education, what was essential was that the Minister, in fashioning his policy, should bring to bear the best knowledge that it was possible for him to obtain before he formulated his propositions.
The noble Earl told us that it was a great mistake to suppose that there were not plenty of advisers at the elbow of the
168
Minister of Education. There was the Adult Education Committee, and we all know that this was a brilliant Committee which reported under the Chairmanship of the late Master of Balliol. Then there have been other committees. There was the Statutory Committee of which the noble Earl spoke and of which, I think, my noble friend Lord Gorell was an active member. Then there are other committees, there are the local education authorities, and there is an abundance of people to advise. But what the noble Earl did not tell us was of any case in which any of these Committees had advised the Minister to put before Parliament the policy which he is now adopting of intimating reductions. What is the use of Committees if you do not pay any attention to them? It is all very well to collect information and to use what is convenient to you, but if you are going to neglect the points that are vital, how are we to get on?
I know from a speech made and, I think, reported in yesterday's newspapers, that the Minister of Education has told us that he is doing something for adult education. I am very glad to hear of it, but what is he doing for the other things? Let me take them specifically. There is the arrangement as regards teachers' salaries in respect of which we owe so much to the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, for the guidance that he gave and for getting over a difficulty which I, for one, thought almost insuperable until by his diplomatic skill he brought all the parties together. We have settled the salaries of the teachers and the noble Earl says that this arrangement is going to be carried out and that the Government have given their sanction. That is all very well, but at the same moment you tell the local education authority which has to pay these salaries that it is in danger of having its money cut down. Is that the way to make it happy, to improve the progress of education in this country and to encourage people to take part in that movement for progress to which you yourselves are committed and pledged by the most solemn of all pledges? It is idle to talk in that way. But it does not stop there, because the noble Earl went on to speak of the size of the classes. I was for a moment shocked because I

169
thought he spoke of increase, but that, I think, must have been a slip of the tongue.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I may have said it, but, if so, I should like to correct it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am sure the noble Earl did not mean to say it. But if you are going to diminish the money of these local authorities, do you think that they are going to embark on a policy of diminishing their classes? And, even if you are not going actually to diminish their money, you have been talking in a way which has led them to think so. There is not a local authority in the length and breadth of the land that is not in a state of high nervousness at this moment. Why? Because of the way in which it is obvious that the Minister has approached the question. It is not very difficult for anybody who has had experience of how things are managed in Cabinets to see what happened. No doubt it is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that these questions ultimately come before Cabinets, but Cabinets are vastly congested debating societies—too congested for the purpose for which they exist. If it were a Cabinet of two or three, or even of five or six, a Cabinet in which the Minister of Education could work out his case and insist, with the threat of resignation if necessary, on the policy that he had thought out, that would be one thing, but we know what busy bodies Cabinets are and how difficult it is for them to give adequate attention to the whole of their business.
What happens? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a very important person, comes and says that he must have economy all round. We agree, but what we blame the Government for is not discriminating. If there are to be things in respect of which you cannot have economy, such as the national expenditure on the improvement of the training of the race, that ought to be laid down and definitely decided and borne in mind in connection with the demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But here we have had speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did say very emphatically that we must not economise on education. Then, when these proposals are brought into the open, what follows?
170
The Minister of Education at once launches a proposal to the local authorities that there should be an economy in education which must mean a cutting down of their resources. Naturally these local education authorities are alarmed. Naturally you have men like Sir Percy Jackson, who is known all over the country, almost in tears at the prospect in Yorkshire. If you conduct your business in that way you will have the natural consequences, and the natural consequences will be such as have developed themselves in the present instance. I am entirely at one with Lord Gorell in his view that educational policy must he based upon the closest investigation and the closest knowledge. That is so in other departments, but education is a very admirable illustration—almost as much as the defence forces, if not quite as much.
What used to be the case? In the old days you had memorable reports by Sir Michael Sadler upon the educational systems of other countries and Sir Robert Morant pressing these things forward. It is true that they did not always agree, but these things were discussed and brought forward, and the public knew something about them. To-day it is all very well to talk of the Education Minister having sources of information at his elbow, but we should like to know how far he used them. Will the noble Earl get up and say that the present policy embodies recognition of any body of expert opinion? Not one. I do not think he can quote one local authority on the side of the Minister of Education, and I do not think he quoted a single expert. The truth is that this thing has not been gone into. It is not that there is no room for economy in education, but that you have not laid things down and said, "This is necessary, and that is not necessary." These things have not been looked into. There was a Committee appointed to inquire into these matters—Lord Meston's Committee. What is it doing? We do not hear anything of its Reports, or of its recommendations to Ministers. But it is not only that. We have not anything to satisfy us that the Minister, in shaping his policy, has been in consultation with people, inside his office and outside his office, to the extent of determining what is practicable consistently with the plan of developing education and not letting it go back.

171
I have taken two points—the noble Earl, himself, spoke of teachers' salaries and the size of classes—and in both I think I have shown that the policy of the Government in its uncertainty is causing great embarrassment throughout the country. It does not, however, stop there. The noble Earl at the end of his speech said that the policy of the Board of Education in the future would be rather to concentrate on educational things and less upon administrative things. I can only tell him that I am delighted to hear it; but I would like to have a little more than a rather vague promise, and some indication of how it is proposed to go about it. It is not necessary to set up a department, as suggested, to control the policy of the Minister. We all know that the Minister, and the Minister alone, is responsible to Parliament, and that he has got to defend everything he does in Parliament, but there are other ways of setting about the matter.
I remember that when we were discussing the Education Act, 1918, when the Bill came before this House, and it was suggested—indeed, I myself raised a debate about it—that steps should be taken to enable the Board of Education to devolve in a way that it does not devolve at the present time, the Government was so far friendly that the then Minister, Mr. Fisher, put a clause into the Bill enabling that to be done. Not a step has been taken to that effect. I will tell your Lordships what I mean. If you took England you could divide it into seven educational provinces, each about as large as the whole of Scotland. Suppose you did that, what would you get? In Scotland we know exactly what the Minister is doing with regard to education. We have got education authorities all over the country who look very closely into these things and advise us at every turn. All the educational critics are freely able to come to Edinburgh on deputations and go in detail into what the Scottish Minister proposes. We have the whole educational system in a small compassable unit, and we get on.
Why should you not take Lancashire or Yorkshire, or even the West Riding of Yorkshire, and deal with them individually in the same manner? Why not devolve on them the administration of their own money and your grant under their supervision? Why not detail to
172
them inspectors, so that the inspectors might become their officers for this purpose? There would then be a chance of the Board of Education confining itself to first principles and to the study of education, and to doing it effectively?
How is it to-day? A set of regulations are issued by the Board and they apply equally to Northumberland and to Cornwall. They stretch all over the country, as if the country was uniform in respect of education, and it is not uniform. In the North you have far more educational activity than in the South, and the relations between secondary, elementary and University education are possible and are taken advantage of, with the result that there is greater development in the North than is apparent in the South. I want to see every locality free to use its own talent and energy for the discharge of educational duties, and I believe you will save a great deal of money in that way. At present you have a big rigid code, which may suit one part and not another. That is a subject which I have entered upon not for the first time in this House. It is not enough for the noble Earl to say that the Board of Education is proposing to devote itself to principles and to leave to others the details of administration, unless he tells us how it is going to be done, because until he tells us that, whether it be by some such method as Lord Gorell suggested, or as I suggested, or by some other method, we cannot form a judgment.
It is of no use giving to us the kind of speech which the noble Earl, with the very best intentions, has given to us to-day. I know that he faithfully set himself to say the best he could for the Department. It is a lame Department at this moment. It is somewhat discredited, and I have to-night tried to draw your Lordships' attention to the real reasons why it has been discredited. It has been discredited because it did not think before it acted, and did not provide itself with the material and organisation which it ought to have had, before embarking upon a policy like this, which has created unrest among authorities throughout the country. Unless there is a change of this kind there will be growing dissatisfaction with the education organisation of the country, and the Government will be forced to take steps of a much larger description than they have taken at the present time.

173
It is not what the Government have done. I do not know what they have done. It is not what they are going to do. I do not know what they are going to do. But they have put terror into the souls of the unfortunate people who have to administer the educational system, and they have done it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has—I will not say laid down, for he disclaimed anything of the kind in his speech to his own constituents at Woodford some time ago—but he has put before Parliament a general demand for economy, without discrimination as to the urgency of services, which entails uncertainty on the part of those who have to carry out our educational system, and has led to the most mischievous situation in which we stand at the present moment.
On Question, Motion negatived.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The following Lords, viz.:—

Lord Chancellor,

D. Bedford,

D. Wellington,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

E. Plymouth,

V. Grey of Fallodon,

L. Erskine,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Denman,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Parmoor,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

with the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select, and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Standing Orders Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the
174
Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

D. Bedford,

D. Northumberland,

D. Wellington,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

M. Bristol,

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Denbigh,

E. Airlie,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Onslow,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Howe,

V. Churchill,

V. Ullswater,

L. Clinton,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Templemore,

L. Oranmore and Browne (L More worth),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Ritchie of Dundee,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Ashton of Hyde,

L. Emmott,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Chalmers,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Darling.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that it be composed of noble Lords whose names are given in the Resolution which appears on the Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed,

175
and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

M. Lincolnshire,

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

E. Chesterfield,

E. Shaftesbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Onslow,

E. Bradford,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Selborne,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Midleton,

E. Birkenhead,

V. Churchill,

V. Allendale,

V. Finlay,

V. FitzAlan of Derwent,

V. Chelmsford,

V. Ullswater,

V. Younger of Leckie,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Lamington,

L. Monk Bretton,

L. Ampthill,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Dunedin,

L. Atkinson,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Islington,

L. Southwark,

L. Parmoor,

L. Buckmaster,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Stuart of Wortley,

L. Lambourne,

L. Ernle,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That a Special Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Bath,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Russell,

E. Plymouth,

V. Peel,

V. Allendale,

V. Devonport,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Oranmore and Browne (L. Mereworth),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the appointment of a Select Committee to deal with the question of the erection of the Peers' War Memorial.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the erection of the Peers' War Memorial, and to deal generally with matters relating thereto; and that the following Lords, with the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee—

M. Lansdowne,

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Oxford and Asquith,

V. Peel,

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Desborough,

L. Arnold.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to certain

177
criticisms passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate upon the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, and whether they consider that this Act requires amendment. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Magistrate referred to in my Question is Mr. Bingley, and, as his remarks upon the guardianship of infants were widely reported in the Press, I do not think I need apologise for drawing your Lordships' attention to them. I have here a cutting from the Daily Mirror, a portion of which I will read to your Lordships. The report states that Mr. Bingley said:
"The sole preliminary point he had to decide was whether or not the new Act had given the father the right to apply to a court of summary jurisdiction with regard to his child.…If he (the Magistrate) was right, so far from establishing the equality of the sexes, the mother had been put in a much more favourable position than the father. By merely taking out a 2s. summons she could get the case decided, while the father was left to expensive remedies in the High Court. Mr. Bingley did not think that could have been intended, but it was what the Act said. He hoped that the matter would be settled at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Bingley added that the discussion of the Bill in Parliament was very perfunctory, because it was an agreed Bill between the Home Office and the women's societies. Any number of societies existed to look after the rights of women and mothers, but he had yet to hear of a society that looked after the rights of fathers. It might be that the rights of fathers in this case were somehow overlooked in the desire to amplify title rights of mothers."
The Stipendiaries of London are distinguished for their knowledge of the law and for their administration of the law. have no reason to think that Mr. Bingley is less distinguished than his colleagues, and I think therefore that his remarks are worthy of notice. Not being an expert in legal procedure I shall not venture to follow his example.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the attention of the Government has been called to the remarks of the learned Magistrate, who used, I think, somewhat exaggerated language, which he would not have used if he had borne in mind the history of this legislation. The facts are very simple. The law was that the father, as the guardian of the child, had the custody of the child. In the year 1886 an Act was passed giving certain rights to the mother, and as a consequence of that legislation the mother was given the right of applying
178
to the County Courts to enforce or assert those rights. No similar procedure was then set up for the benefit of the father, because he had his very effective rights at common law. That distinction has existed for the last forty years, and I do not think it has given rise to any difficulty.
Last year Parliament passed an Act which laid it down that a mother might apply not to the County Court but to a court of summary jurisdiction, and so it is true that she has the right to apply to that court to enforce her special statutory right. As I understand the Act, and as the Magistrate said, the father has not at present any similar right to apply to a court of petty sessions. Whether that is an inconvenience or not does not yet appear. We have had only a very short experience of the Act. I have not myself heard of any practical difficulty which has arisen; indeed, in the case which was before the learned Magistrate he found no difficulty in disposing of the father's application.
I am disposed to think that, if it turns out that there is a real practical difficulty, it would be wise to legislate on the matter and to give to the father a similar summary right. Of course the purpose of the Act of last year was not to extend the father's rights; it dealt with the mother's rights. That is why I think the provision in the new Act only extended to the power of the mother. I can only say to the noble Lord that the Home Office, who were responsible for this Act, will no doubt keep an eye on the proceedings in the Courts, and if real difficulty arises they will not hesitate to take the necessary action.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I understand from the Lord Chancellor that there is, as the Magistrate says, a difference between the way in which the father is treated and the way in which the mother is treated. That may or may not be a very important difference, but it does show that these Bills which are brought forward in order to establish equality between the sexes do not establish that equality, but, in this particular case, have given a privilege to the mother which the father does not possess. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that the Stipendiary Magistrates in the Metropolis are not only learned in the law but are also well known to possess common sense, which

179
is, in my humble opinion, a very great asset.
The Magistrate in question pointed out that this Bill was an agreed Bill between the Home Office and certain women's associations. I am sorry to say that during the last few years that I had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons this system of Government Departments making agreements with various associations and then presenting a Bill to Parliament, and saying, "This cannot be criticised because it is an agreed Bill," was an extremely bad system. Nothing is agreed until it has been passed both by your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, and no Bill ought to come forward which has been agreed beforehand between certain representatives of various associations and any of His Majesty's Ministers. It only shows how foolish we are to pay any attention to statements made by members of the House of Commons or noble Lords in this House that there is a desire on the part of an association to do certain things. The associations represent nobody but themselves. They are always interfering and trying to do something to advertise themselves, with the result that Acts are passed which lead only to trouble and which we should have been much better without. If any more so-called social reform Bills or Bills for the equalisation of women's rights are brought forward, I hope noble Lords will remember that it is our duty to reject them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, lest any member of your Lordships' House should suppose, from the two speeches which have been made from this side of the House, that this Act has led to nothing but trouble, might I point out that while one magistrate has made remarks which indicate not any fault in, equity but a slight blemish in drafting the Act, other magistrates have expressed the opinion that it was something which was badly wanted Quite a number of cases have occurred in which advantage has been taken of the Act to make application to a court of summary jurisdiction, and in every case but one, I believe, the custody of the infant has been given to the mother. That shows that there was a very real need for the Act and, as I have said, various magistrates, the equals no doubt of Mr. Bingley who has been referred to, both
180
in learning and in common sense, have expressed their approval of it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Might I ask the noble Lord whether they were Stipendiary Magistrates?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot vouch for the precise brand, but they were magistrates, and I have reason to suppose that none of them was inferior to the other. I only wished to make the point that the Act is not one which has led to nothing but trouble, but that it has led to a great deal of good.
[From Minutes of February 16.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Chosen Syndicate [H.L.]

Trent Falls Improvement [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.

BIRMINGHAM ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of Solihull and part of the rural district of Meriden, in the County of Warwick:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ST. HELENS ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Whiston, in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.