Sitting of 17 November 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    PRESENT SITUATION.
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement as to the present situation in China in general and of British residents in particular, as regards their personal safety, security of property, and commercial interests?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The advance of the Southern forces into Central China does not appear to have adversely affected the personal security of British residents, nor does it appear to have involved any serious danger to British property, although there has inevitably been some risk to and disturbance of British establishments lying directly in the army zone. The anti-British agitation in Szechuan has led to the destruction of some British property at Chungking, and it has been considered advisable for women and children to leave that port. The position of British commercial interests in South China was dealt with in the reply given on the 10th instant to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle North. As regards mid-China, conditions are still uncertain, and it would be premature to pass judgment.
    Captain FAIRFAX: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can make any statement about the seizure of the British ship "Sunning" at Swatow by pirates?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I really think I ought to have notice of a question of
    1828
    that kind. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in case of need, there is a sufficient naval force at Hankow to ensure the safety of British residents?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would much prefer that questions as to conditions of such delicacy and difficulty were put on the Paper; if hon. Members will kindly do so.

    TARIFF COMMISSION.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the last meeting of the Chinese Tariff Commission was held; and whether it is intended to issue a Report?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The last formal meeting of the Tariff Conference was held on 9th April; since then it has been in suspense. It would therefore be premature to consider the question of any official publication of its transactions at the present stage.

    BOXER INDEMNITY COMMISSION.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Report of the Boxer Indemnity Commission will be available?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report is in the printer's hands and will be presented as soon as possible.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the present practice of extra-territorial jurisdiction in China has yet been received; and, if so, when it will be published?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report has not yet been received, but should arrive in the course of the next day or two. The question of publication will then be considered.

    WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of serious charges made by Chinese against the action by His

    1829
    Majesty's Ships "Cockchafer" and "Widgeon," and the armed British steamer "Kiawo," on 5th September, at the port of Wanhsien, he will publish a Report on the subject?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by me on 10th November to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting.
    Captain FOXCROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware these malicious libels are being repeated in this country, and can he take any steps to prevent their repetition here?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would come under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Minister.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the signatory States to the International Opium Convention of February, 1925, have ratified that convention; when it is anticipated it will come into force; and whether the International Opium Convention signed at The Hague in 1912 continues in operation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A ratification of the International Opium Convention has been deposited on behalf of His Majesty covering all the parts of the British Empire other than Canada and the Irish Free State. Of the other signatories, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, only the Sudan and Portugal have deposited ratifications. The Convention will not come into force until the requisite number of ratifications prescribed in Article 36 have been deposited. In September last, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted, at the instance of the British representative, a resolution urging the Governments of all States members of the League to ratify or accede to the Convention, so that the necessary ratifications might be deposited before the end of the present year, and His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that the remaining signatories will ratify with all possible despatch. The Hague Convention of 1912 continues in operation as between the States parties to it.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further papers will be published on the work of the Preparatory Commission of the League of Nations for disarmament; and whether the calling of a Conference on disarmament is now contemplated?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Since the first report of the Preparatory Commission was published, neither the Commission nor any of the sub-committees have issued a report, though a lengthy report by the Military sub-Committee has been agreed upon. As soon as reports are issued I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion. At the last Assembly a resolution was passed asking the Council to convene the Disarmament Conference before the next Assembly unless material difficulties rendered this impossible. In coming to a decision as to the date of the Conference the Council will doubtless take into account the progress made by the Preparatory Commission.
    Commander BELLAIRS: With reference to the long delay of the Conference on disarmament, is not the proposal of the League of Nations delaying the possibility of a Washington Conference which might result in some reduction of armaments?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the delays have been unreasonable or other than might have been expected. As far as I know, those who take the keenest interest in this subject feel that time must be given for any satisfactory result to be obtained, and that no advantage will be derived by hurrying the matter unduly.

    MANDATES COMMISSION (QUESTIONNAIRE).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the public interest which has been aroused in the matter and in view of its general importance, he will communicate to the House before its despatch the text of the reply which His Majesty's Government propose to make to the Council of the League of Nations on the subject of the so-called questionnaire prepared by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply of His Majesty's Government to the League was despatched on 8th November. I have given directions for the presentation of our reply (together with whatever is required to make clear to what we are replying) as a Command Paper to both Houses.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any report to make to the House with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in Egypt arising from the conversations with the Egyptian Foreign Minister during his recent visit to this country?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no decisions were taken or sought, but I took the opportunity to assure His Excellency of the sincere desire of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with the Egyptian Government and received his assurance that the Egyptian Government shared to the full this friendly wish.
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that Lord Lloyd gave a long statement to the Imperial Conference on the policy of His Majesty's Government in Egypt, this House may be furnished with more than the rather bald statement we have had to-day?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's question does not arise out of his question on the Paper, which is, as to the communications which have passed between myself and the Egyptian Foreign Minister in London. The supplementary question is as to what statement Lord Lloyd made to the Imperial Conference. Statements made on foreign affairs to the Conference are in their nature private and confidential, and by the desire of the Conference will be kept confidential, but I am always at the service of the House if it wants a statement.

  GERMANY (FORTIFICATIONS, KONIGSBERG AND KUSTRIN).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, seeing that the German Government have constructed fortified works at Konigsberg and
  1832
  Kustrin, which violate Article 180 of the Treaty of Versailles, any remonstrance has been made to Germany on the subject; and whether it is proposed to call for the dismantling of these works?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is at present under the consideration of the ex-Allied Governments and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this question.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that these works have been constructed in such a manner as not to be detected by anyone except those with a knowledge of German military secrets, and will he consider bringing the matter before the Allied Conference at Versailles?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend heard either part of my answer to his question. I will repeat it—the matter is at present under the consideration of the ex-Allied Governments, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this question.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND URUGUAY (ARBITRATION TREATY).
  Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the general obligatory Arbitration Treaty between Great Britain and Uruguay, ratified in February, 1919, is not included in the collection of analogous treaties recently published by the League of Nations; whether this is due to the Treaty not having been deposited with the League; and whether, if so, having regard to the importance of the principle embodied in this Treaty, he will arrange for its being so deposited?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe Treaty referred to by the hon. Member was, like most of the Arbitration Treaties entered into by this country from 1903 onwards, concluded prior to the existence of the League of Nations, and such treaties of earlier date do not come within the purview of Article 18 of the Covenant of the League. All Arbitration Treaties since concluded by this country, and all renewals of such treaties, have been duly registered under that Article. There is, of course, no objection to communicating

  1833
  this Treaty to the League should the League desire at any time to be furnished with it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARMOUR-PLATE (EXISTING PLANTS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the nature of the inducements he is offering to the manufacturers of armour plate to maintain their existing plants and technical staffs, in view of the fact that, at present, owing to the operations of the Washington Convention, four out of the five existing plants are not required?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The inducement offered to the manufacturers of armour plate to maintain their existing plants and technical staffs is that each manufacturer has been given a share of the orders for armour plate at prices which take into account the higher cost necessarily involved in producing small quantities.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it equally necessary, in order to give this encouragement to private firms, to maintain the plant and machinery at His Majesty's Dockyards?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not refer to armour plate.

    DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether, in view of the recent discharges of apprentices just out of their time at His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, the Admiralty propose to advertise the dockyard entrance examination for next April and offer 50 or 60 appointments for apprentices; and whether the Admiralty will reconsider the advisability of taking this course under the present circumstances;
    (2) whether he is aware of the anxiety felt by the schoolmasters in Devonport at the hopelessness in the outlook of their most intelligent pupils who have hitherto been encouraged in their studies by the prospect of a career in His Majesty's service in the dockyard; and whether he will consider the position of
    1834
    the young men in Devonport who in normal circumstances would be going into the dockyard, and draw up a plan covering some years ahead so that there may be more certainty of employment for apprentices at the end of their training?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The numbers of apprentices to be entered in His Majesty's Dockyards next year have not yet been fixed. In determining the numbers for each dockyard, the Admiralty will take into account, as far as possible, the anticipated state of employment in the respective dockyards during and immediately after the apprenticeship of the new entrants; but it is not possible to determine, with assurance, the numbers of employés required in five years' time. No undertaking can be given committing the present or a future Board of Admiralty to the retention of workmen who have served their appenticeship in the dockyards if and when it is necessary to make discharges.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great disappointment of these young men, who are encouraged to take a special course and give proof of the highest ability, if the moment they are taken out of the dockyard they are discharged without any prospect of employment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is one of the unfortunate consequences of economy, but I do think that these apprentices are able to learn work which is, I hope, very useful to them in dockyards outside.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Could the right hon. Gentleman not make plans for some time ahead, so that schoolmasters might know what the prospects are?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already said that it is impossible to make plans for five years ahead.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask whether the First Lord can see his way to retain some of the ex-apprentices who are being discharged and lower the number of new entrants?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will consider what the hon. Member has said. I do not quite realise what the effect of his proposal would be, but I will take it into consideration.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to increase our scale of armaments in order to satisfy the desires of the Liberal party?

    LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VALERIAN" (PENSIONS).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the widows and dependants of the Royal Naval ratings who were lost with His Majesty's ship "Valerian" will receive the scales of pensions for dependants laid down on page 164 of the Appendix to the Navy List, April, 1926, in addition to the widows' pension provided under the National Health Insurance Act, observing that the naval pension is a condition of service and that all naval ratings contribute to the widows' pension through National Health Insurance?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANThe claims of the widows and dependants of the ratings who were lost in His Majesty's ship "Valerian" will be dealt with under the conditions and scales of pension laid down in Order-in-Council of 7th November, 1924, particulars of which appear on page 164 of the Appendix to the Navy List, April, 1926. Their position under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers in the concluding portion of his question, will be governed by Section 24 of that Act, and in this connection I would refer him to the reply which was given to him on the 18th November, 1925 [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 357], in connection with the loss of His Majesty's submarine "M. I."
    Sir B. FALLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great difference that exists between the sailor who contributes to National Health Insurance, and loses his life for King and country, and the man who pays for National Health Insurance and unfortunately loses his life in civil life, in which case his widow receives up to £600 in cash?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of the difference, but I will look into it.

    ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARIES (OVERTIME PAY).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
    1836
    whether the crews of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries employed overtime in scraping and painting confined spaces are held to be entitled to the extra pay for work in confined spaces in addition to overtime rates, observing that recently payment was refused in the case of the crew of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Limol"?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Extra pay for work in confined spaces of R.F.A. "Limol" is always paid for, but overtime rates are not paid in addition, as time off in lieu is given.

    DOCKYARDS (FIRST-AID).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether first-aid dressing boxes are supplied for use in all departments and shops in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth; if so, whether a workman or workmen qualified in first-aid are available for service with these boxes; and, if not, whether, in view of the large number of men employed in the dockyard and the incidence of minor injuries, he will take steps to provide first-aid dressing boxes and qualified men?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: First-aid dressing boxes are kept available for use in all the principal workshops and departments of the Dockyard; and arrangements are made to ensure that as far as possible the services of any workmen qualified in first-aid work shall be utilised when occasion arises for recourse to the dressing boxes. As my hon. Friend was informed in answer to his question of 10th July, 1924, the present arrangements for dealing with accidents in the Dockyard are considered to be adequate.

    KING'S HARBOUR MASTER, ORKNEY.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE (for Sir ROBERT HAMILTON)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the duties and the emoluments of the King's Harbour Master in Orkney?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In addition to such ordinary duties as appertain by Statute and Order in Council to a King's Harbour Master of a Dockyard Port, this officer is retained in the interests of the Admiralty while the salvage operations on ex-German men-of-war are in progress. He also acts as agent for the Imperial War Craves Commission in all questions

    1837
    concerning Lyness Cemetery. His appointment terminates in May next and the question of the appointment of a successor or combining this post with that of another Admiralty officer will be considered.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXTENDED BENEFIT, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for extended benefit in the Middlesbrough area during the last six months; the number granted and refused; and similar figures for the corresponding period a year ago?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): During the six months ended 11th October, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Middlesbrough Local Employment Committee was 35,930, of which 33,564 were recommended for allowance and 2,366 for disallowance. The figures for the corresponding period of 1925 were 28,109, 26,091 and 2,018, respectively.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in the Middlesbrough area in which he was unable to accept the decision of the rota committee as regards applications for extended benefit during the past six months?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During the six months ended 11th October, 1926, the number of cases in which the recommendations of the Middlesbrough Local Employment Committee in regard to applications for extended benefit were not accepted was 97 out of nearly 36,000 dealt with.
    Mr. THOMSON: What are the reasons for suggesting that the Minister of Labour knows better than the local committee the merits of each case?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member knows that under the Act the ultimate decision is placed on the Minister. That discretion is placed upon him by Parliament, and that discretion he is bound to exercise. But, as I have told the hon. Member, the number of cases where he
    1838
    has disagreed with the local committee is less than one-third of 1 per cent.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he will furnish information regarding schemes undertaken or projected for the provision of work for the unemployed in 1926–27, including schemes arranged by Government Departments, schemes under the auspices of the Unemployment Grants Committee etc.?
    Mr. BETTERTON: On 25th September, 1926, the date of the last available return, work was proceeding on 588 schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee, and on 41 other schemes approved by the Committee work had not commenced. The corresponding figures for the Ministry of Transport were: schemes in operation, 435; schemes approved but not commenced, 57. Since the 25th September, 15 further schemes have been approved, and 23 are still under consideration.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is there likely to be any further extension owing to the position the country is in?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is a wholly different question, and I must ask for notice of it.

    POPLAR AND STEPNEY.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who applied for extended benefit at the Poplar and Stepney Exchanges, respectively, for the last six months; and the number which were refused?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During the six months ended 11th October, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Poplar Local Employment Committee was 5,193, of which 3,290 were recommended for allowance and 1,903 for disallowance. Corresponding figures for Stepney for the same period are: 5,743 cases considered, 2,802 recommended for allowance and 2,941 for disallowance.

    BENEFIT (IMPROPER CLAIMS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the evidence disclosed in the Report of the Ministry for 1925 as to a widespread

    1839
    abuse of the Unemployment Fund, it is proposed to take steps to make it more difficult for undeserving persons to receive benefits from the fund; and whether, as the evidence shows that the payment is used to a large extent to provide funds for betting, drinking, and entertainment instead of for food, clothing, and house rent, he will consider whether it would be possible to arrange for some part of the benefit in suitable cases to take the form of food and clothes vouchers instead of money?
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this question is in Order? It is full of innuendoes and it is a brutal libel on better men than the man who is asking the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must confess that I have not myself read the Report on which the hon. and gallant Member bases his question. I take it that he is not going beyond what is stated in the Report? He ought not to do so.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I must dissent entirely from the suggestion that there is widespread abuse of the Unemployment Fund. I am satisfied that the steps taken to safeguard the Fund against improper claims are in general effective. Payment of benefit by means of vouchers would require legislation. It is one of the points on which it is open to Lord Blanesburgh's Committee now sitting to make a recommendation. At present I do not think I ought to say more than that proposals of this kind have been examined departmentally from time to time and have been found to present a good many difficulties and to be open to the possibility of serious abuse.
    Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Has not the reply of the Minister borne out the point of Order of my hon. Friend, that this question is an abuse of the Rules governing questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The reply has shown me that if my attention had been a little more close I would have struck out the word "widespread" in the question.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the reply bears out the point raised in the question, although perhaps I should not have used the word "widespread"?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Was not the word "widespread" deliberately put into the question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The page of the Report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is page 72, which shows that the number of persons prosecuted last year was 2,034 out of a total of something like 3,000,000 claims, or less than ·07 per cent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: A great deal of my time is occupied in taking adjectives out of hon. Members' questions. This one escaped me. It shows the value of our rule that hon. Members must not introduce their own adjectives on the Paper at Question Time.

  DRIFT NET MENDING (TRADE BOARD).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour what are the rates agreed upon for those employed in the industry covered by the Drift Net Mending Trade Board; whether such rates are being paid; and, if not, what steps the Minister is taking to enforce payment of the rates and conditions?
  Mr. BETTERTON: For workers other than home workers the Drift Net Mending Trade Board have fixed a minimum time rate of 6d. an hour, and for home-workers a minimum piece rate of 5s. 6d. per net. The application of these rates to workpeople employed by boat-owners is contested, and it has been indicated to the Department that, pending legal decision, the rates will not be paid, and are in fact not being paid. A test prosecution is accordingly being taken, and it is expected that it will be heard at an early date.
  Mr. KELLY: Can we have an idea as to what is meant by "an early date"?
  Mr. BETTERTON: It means exactly what it says. We are bringing a prosecution in the local Courts within the next few weeks.
  Mr. KELLY: In view of the many months delay on this question, can the Minister give any assurance that we are likely to have this scheme before the end of the year?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I have certainly every hope that it will be heard long before that. It may be that the matter will be carried further by one side or the other, in which case, no doubt, the magistrate will be asked to state a case.

  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that an increasing number of poor persons are being deprived of the resort to the Courts because of the heavy costs which must be incurred; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting larger powers to County Court Judges by increasing the maximum figure which may be the subject of action in such Courts?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip).My right hon. and learned Friend has no reason to suppose that there is any foundation for the suggestion made in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The facilities given to poor person litigants in the Supreme Court have been greatly increased during recent years. My right hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to propose any extension of the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the County Court.

  LAW COURTS (ARREARS OF WORK).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that prior to the Long Vacation the work at the Law Courts was much in arrears; and whether he will consider the advisability of creating three new Judges for the trial of cases outside London?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware that before the Long Vacation the work at the Law Courts was in arrear. The number of cases set down for hearing in the King's Bench Division at the commencement of the present Sittings was less than the corresponding number at any Michaelmas during the previous seven years. There were, on the other hand, slight increases in the number of cases set down for trial on that date in the Chancery Division and in Probate and Divorce, but my hon. and learned Friend has no reason to suppose there is
  1842
  any arrear in either of these. The aggregate of cases set down in all divisions is less than in any of the last seven years except 1923, when it was practically the same. My right hon. and learned Friend does not think the facts justify the adoption of the suggestion contained in the second part of the question.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

    CLOCK TOWER LICHT (DIVISIONS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will, for the benefit and convenience of Members of this House, consider the advisability of causing a green or red light to be visible from the Clock Tower, in order to give warning of Divisions?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): There does not appear to be any widespread desire among Members of either House that additional warning of Divisions should be given. My right hon. Friend therefore regrets that he is unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several Members have missed Divisions which they would have been able to catch had some warning been given?
    Captain HACKING: Is the suggestion that had a red light been shown there would have been a better attendance?

    PANELS (HOUSE OF LORDS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state the names and nationality of the artists and their assistants commissioned to make designs for the ten panels representing the various British Colonies in connection with the new decoration of the Upper House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): This is entirely a matter for the House of Lords Offices Committee, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he has no information on the subject.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an American named Dean Cornwall has been appointed as first assistant to the artist; and does he not think we have enough British artists to do the work?
    Captain HACKING: There is no charge upon public funds in connection with the work, and this House has no authority in the matter.

  POOR LAW.

    CASUAL WARDS.
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the number of wards, mentioned in the Survey of Casual Wards, which took place in 1923, where either the cleanliness was not good or no night clothes provided, and consequently the clothing was not taken from the casuals according to law and dried and disinfected if necessary (Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, Regulation 7); and whether he will at once call for another survey like the last, and enforce the law where it provides for cleanliness and decent accommodation for the destitute wayfarers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The condition of the casual wards has received my right hon. Friend's constant attention, and substantial improvements have already been obtained. His inspectors continue to press upon the guardians the need of remedying such defects as those referred to in the question. He does not, however, think that there would at the present time be advantage in another such special survey of the wards, which are, of course, regularly inspected as part of the ordinary duties of the inspectors.

    CONSOLIDATING BILL.
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Health whether, in his new Bill for consolidation of the Poor Law, he will preserve the legal right of the necessitous poor to relief given by 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, and all the responsibilities of the guardians if they fail to give it; the legal responsibilities of the relieving officers if they fail to give it in cases of sudden or
    1844
    urgent necessity; and of the overseers if they fail to give it in those cases where by law they are bound to give it?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is not within the scope of a consolidating Bill to make any amendments of substance in the law which it consolidates. All existing rights and responsibilities will, therefore, remain intact.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce the Poor Law Reform Bill this Session?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. SCURR: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be convenient for the authorities to have the actual proposals of the Ministry before them?
    Sir K. WOOD: That might be a desirable course to take.

    GUARDIANS DISQUALIFICATION, BRISTOL.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the seat of a member of the Bristol Board of Guardians has been declared vacant because she received treatment following a motor accident in the vicinity of that institution; that it was impossible to remove the patient owing to the serious nature of the injuries, and that the cost of maintenance as a private patient was repaid, in addition to the specialist's fees; and whether he is in a position to give an assurance that this special type of disqualification shall be dealt with in the Measure of Poor Law reform which he proposes to introduce during 1927?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of this case which presents a striking illustration of the anomalies prevailing under the existing law. He is not in a position to say when amending legislation will be introduced, but this matter should certainly receive attention whenever such legislation is considered.
    Mr. BAKER: In view of the Minister's statement, will he not give the House an assurance that this matter will be put right at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think I have already indicated our anxiety to deal with this matter when a suitable opportunity occurs, which I hope will be soon.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: As this was an accident and as the treatment was purely emergency treatment and has since been paid for, is it not possible to see that despite this inadvertency she shall retain her seat?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid not under the existing law.

  TOTTENHAM AND WOOD GREEN JOINT DRAINAGE COMMITTEE.
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Tottenham and Wood Green Joint Drainage Committee compelling all its employés to be members of their respective trade unions; and if he proposes to take any steps to counteract pressure of this description?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not received any official representations on this matter, and he is communicating with the committee.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it possible in a case where the majority of a council protest against such a resolution being carried out, to get an injunction in the High Court to prevent it being carried out?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is a legal point.
  Sir F. HALL: If, after communication with the committee to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, he finds the facts are as stated in the question, will steps be taken to see that those men who do not belong to the unions are not precluded from work?
  Sir K. WOOD: We must ascertain the facts in the first place.
  Major MALONE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Tottenham Council rescinded that objectionable resolution last week?

  POSTAL SERVICES (CHRISTMAS).
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Postmaster-General if he has settled what are to be the arrangements regarding postal services during the Christmas period; and whether it will be possible to have a delivery on Sunday rather than on Boxing Day?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I think a delivery on Boxing Day, which will include a large proportion of the Sunday postings, will serve a more useful purpose than one on Sunday.

  ERIBOLL ESTATE, SCOTLAND (SALE).
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what precedents exist for selling a Sutherland sheep stock at a Martinmas valuation; and on what grounds it was decided to sell the Eriboll sheep stock at Martinmas without advertisement or public notice?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am not in possession of comprehensive information as to the precedents that may exist for selling a Sutherland sheep stock at a Martinmas valuation, but I am aware that a Whitsunday valuation is usually adopted in such transactions. Eriboll estate had been offered for sale by public auction on three occasions on the basis of a Whitsunday valuation of the sheep stock and no bids had been received; and, therefore, when an offerer was forthcoming who was prepared to pay the upset price at which the property was last put up at auction I decided that his offer should be accepted, although it was conditional on a Martinmas valuation for the sheep.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not the fact that there is not one precedent for this valuation and that it may make a difference to the public of from a quarter to one-third of the whole value of the sheep stack?
  Mr. RILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the grounds on which this decision is arrived at?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The grounds were that the estate was not going to be useful for the original purpose for which it was bought and it was sold in the public interests.
  Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish the precise terms of the

  1847
  agreement under which the estate of Eriboll was sold, the minute of reference to the arbiter at the sheep stock valuation, and copies of any papers containing instructions or information conveyed to the arbiter by the Board of Agriculture or by the Board and the purchaser jointly?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As I indicated in a reply which I gave to a supplementary question yesterday, I shall be prepared to give to any hon. Member the result of the arbiter's award when it has been made.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Minute of the reference to the arbiter so that we can see exactly what are the terms on which this sheep stock has been valued?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I think that is quite unnecessary.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Major OWENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that unanimous agreement has been reached between the participating countries, the Government will proceed immediately to ratify the Washington Hours Convention?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to answer this question. The present position in this matter was explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) on the 11th November. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this answer.

  EMERGENCY POWERS REGULATIONS (PROHIBITED MEETINGS).
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of meetings banned by chief officers of the police under the powers vested in them by the Emergency Powers Act in England, Wales and Scotland respectively to the last convenient date?
  Captain HACKING: During the period 1st May to 19th October my right hon. Friend issued authorities for the prohibition of meetings or processions on 21
  1848
  occasions in England and one in Wales. On the 19th October he gave a general authority to Chief Constables, and under that authority 40 meetings have been prohibited in England and 23 in Wales up to and including Sunday, the 14th instant. Any question as to action under Regulation 22 in Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether application has to be made to the Home Secretary for the banning of these meetings by Chief Constables?
  Captain HACKING: No. As I said in my answer, the Home Secretary has authorised Chief Constables in the country that they can issue a ban without any special authority from him.
  Mr. BECKETT: Have all the meetings that have been banned been meetings held by one side in the dispute, or have meetings by the Economic League and other meetings of that kind calculated to produce disorder also been banned?
  Captain HACKING: I must have notice of that question.

  PETROLEUM ACT, 1926.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Home Secretary what appointments, if any, are to be made under the Petroleum Act, 1926?
  Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend is not making any appointments under this Act, and it is not anticipated that any will be required.

  PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.
  Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture the total estimated loss on the Patrington Farm Settlement?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The accumulated loss shown in the accounts of the Patrington Farm Settlement to 31st March, 1926, is £71,006 on the farm profit and loss account, and £29,451 on the estate account. The combined accumulated loss on both accounts is £100,457. This loss is arrived at after taking into account hypothetical interest charges on Exche-

  1849
  quer advances to farm and estate accounts, headquarters administrative expenses, and provision for depreciation of buildings and farm implements. A large part of the loss mentioned is due to interest charges over a period of eight years.
  Mr. FENBY: Has the Minister any information as to how much the ex-service men settled on the Patrington Farm Settlement have lost?
  Mr. GUINNESS: We have not got any specific information about that. These ex-service men hoped to share in the profits on a co-partnership basis, but unfortunately there were no profits to share. We have undertaken that we will give them every possible consideration in paying expenses for removal in any cases where they can get occupation elsewhere.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does this not show the danger of embarking on any schemes of land nationalisation?

  WEST INDIES (PASSENGER TRANSPORT).
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House what steps he has taken to assist the West Indies with regard to the situation that has arisen of the threatened reduction of passenger transport facilities between these islands and Canada, and also the limited passenger service between the islands and this country?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The provision of transport facilities between the West Indies and Canada is regulated by agreement between the Colonies and the Govern-

  1925.

  English Schools.

  Vernacular Schools.

  Malay.

  Tamil.

  Chinese.

  Average number of pupils enrolled

  13,876

  29,227

  8,153

  15,409

  Number of pupils exempt from school fees.

  3,427

  All free.

  —

  —

  I regret that I have no information as to the number of free places in the Tamil and Chinese Vernacular Schools.

  ment of Canada. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot hold out any hope of the possibility of further subsidies in aid of passenger communications between the islands and this country.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that passenger facilities between Jamaica and the Mother Country are now smaller than they have ever been, and will he endeavour to assist one of the oldest Colonies to keep in touch with the Mother Country?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is clearly a question that should be addressed to the Treasury rather than to myself. Obviously, the question of giving a subsidy for further passenger accommodation is not one within the mere discretion of the Colonial Office.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that the question of an air service is being considered in the West Indies, which would help the passenger service?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is true.

  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (EDUCATION).
  Mr. SCURRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of children in the Federated Malay States who are receiving education in the English schools, and how many are receiving free education; and the number in the vernacular schools and the number receiving free education?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the information desired by the hon. Member is of a statistical nature, I am causing the particulars to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The particulars desired are given, in the following table:

  AFRICAN COLONIES AND PALESTINE (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the imports and exports from 1st January, 1926, to date of Uganda, Kenya, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, and Palestine; and what percentage of the imports into these countries is British?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The returns in the case of these territories are available up to varying dates, though the information asked for in the second part of the question is only partially forthcoming. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures:
  Tanganyika Territory.—January to July, 1926.
  Imports: £1,830,908, of which 40 per cent. represents imports from Great Britain.
  Domestic Exports: £1,455,731.
  Kenya and Uganda.—January to July, 1926.
  Imports: £4,241,352, of which 41 per cent. represents imports from Great Britain.
  Domestic Exports: £4,423,935.
  Nyasaland.—January to August, 1926.
  Imports (excluding specie): £462,558. Of the percentage representing British goods or imports from Great Britain no statement is at present available.
  Exports (excluding specie): £543,330.
  Northern Rhodesia.— January to April, 1926.
  Imports (excluding specie and Government imports): £450,045. Of the percentage representing British goods or imports from Great Britain no statement is at present available.
  Exports (excluding specie): £72,262.
  Palestine.£January to June, 1926.
  Imports: £E3,267,661, of which 10·3 per cent. represents imports from Great Britain.
  Exports: £E669,021.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
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, 196; Noes, 81.

Division No. 460.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

England, Colonel A.

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

Campbell, E. T.

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

Albery, Irving James

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Fermoy, Lord

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Christie, J. A.

Fielden, E. B.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Clayton, G. C.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Frece, Sir Walter de

Bennett, A. J.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bethel, A.

Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Betterton, Henry B.

Cooper, A. Duff

Gates, Percy

Boothby, R. J. G.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Glyn, Major R. G. C

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Goff, Sir Park

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Grace, John

Braithwaite, A. N.

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

Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

Brass, Captain W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Grant, Sir J. A.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William clive

Dalkeith, Earl of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Briggs, J. Harold

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Burman, J. B.

Drewe, C.

Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F (Dulwich)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Harrison, G. J. C.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Smithers, Waldron

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Malone, Major P. B.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Haslam, Henry C.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hawke, John Anthony

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

Murchison, C. K.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

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

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Nuttall, Ellis

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hurd, Percy A.

Oakley, T.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

Perring, Sir William George

Waddington, R.

Jacob, A. E.

Pielou, D. P.

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

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Warrender, Sir Victor

Jephcott, A. R.

Radford, E. A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Raine, W.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Ramsden, E.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Watts, Dr. T.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Remnant, Sir James

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Rice, Sir Frederick

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Ropner, Major L.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Lougher, L.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wise, Sir Fredric

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

MacIntyre, Ian

Savery, S. S.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

McLean, Major A.

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

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Skelton, A. N.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hayes, John Henry

Ritson, J.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hirst, G. H.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, Walter

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Scrymgeour, E.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Scurr, John

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sexton, James

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bondfieid, Margaret

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Bromfield, William

Kennedy, T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Buchanan, G.

Lansbury, George

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C

Lawrence, Susan

Taylor, R. A.

Cluse, W S.

Lee, F.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Dalton, Hugh

March, S.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Maxton, James

Townend, A. E.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Montague, Frederick

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Morris, R. H.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

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

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Fenby, T. D.

Oliver, George Harold

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

Owen, Major G.

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Palin, John Henry

Whiteley, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Wiggins, William Martin

Grundy, T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Windsor, Walter

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

Potts, John S.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayday, Arthur

Riley, Ben

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (JUVENILE SOCIETIES) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they

  1855
  had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B; Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, Sir Thomas Davies, and Captain Eden; and had appointed in substitution: Admiral Beamish, Captain Brass, and Mr. Hilton.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES Hoer; in the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the provision of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers and the improvement of such accommodation, by authorising the giving of financial assistance towards the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health under the said Act, including any contributions made by him towards any expenses incurred by a local authority in making grants under the said Act in respect of dwellings, subject always to the following conditions:

  (a) the application for assistance must have been received by the local authority before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one;

  (b) in calculating the amount of a contribution no account shall be taken of such part, if any, of the grant in respect of the dwelling as exceeds either two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant was made, or the sum of one hundred pounds:

  Provided that where a grant is made by the provision of periodical sums the amount of the grant shall be taken to be an amount equal to the capital value of the sums to be so provided, calculated as on the date of the completion of the works;
  (c) any such contributions shall be made by way of annual payments for a period of twenty years from the completion of the works in respect of which the grant was made and shall be an amount equal to one-half of the estimated average annual payments falling to he made by the local authority in respect of the charges on account of loans raised by the authority for the purposes of grants, or which would have fallen to be so made if the sums expended by the local authority on account of the grant has been raised by means of loans."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): It is my duty this afternoon to ask the Committee to give its sanction to the payment out of the
  1864
  Exchequer of certain contributions in aid of the provision and improvement of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for persons who are substantially in the same position. The Committee will remember that in the Bill—the Second Reading of which was passed by this House on 3rd August last—provision is made for assistance for this purpose, either by way of loan or by way of grant, but as Exchequer contributions are only contemplated in a case where assistance is given by way of grant, I propose, in the very few observations with which, I think, it is necessary to trouble the Committee, to confine myself to that side of the proposal.
  It will be seen, by reference to the Resolution, that the giving of contributions by the local authority, aided by grants from the Exchequer, is accompanied by certain conditions, and to those conditions I will call the attention of the Committee. First of all, there is the limiting condition with regard to time. It is proposed that the operation of the provision enabling these grants to be made, shall last only for a limited period of time—namely, five years, and application for assistance under the Bill must, therefore, be in the hands of the local authority before the 1st October, 1931. I think the reason for that limitation is fairly obvious, because the number of houses and other buildings which can be affected by these proposals is strictly limited, and it is very desirable, in the opinion of the Government, that if they are to be improved, they should be improved at the earliest possible moment. We have, therefore, provided a limit for the time during which the special terms shall he available, and we think we have given all reasonable opportunities for people to take advantage of them.
  The second limiting condition is a limitation of amount. It is provided under the Resolution that the contributions of the local authority and the Exchequer put together shall not exceed two-thirds of the total cost of the alterations which are to be carried out, and, moreover, that they shall be subject to a maximum sum of £100. It is also provided that the Exchequer grant is to be half of the total contribution made by the local authorities, and it thus follows that the expense of the proposed alterations

  1865
  will be borne in three equal shares by the owner, by the local authority and by the Exchequer. Each of them will contribute one-third of the cost, and the maximum amount which will be demanded of the Exchequer in the case of any single house will be £50. There is also in the Resolution a condition as to the method in which the contribution is to be made. It takes the form, which is familiar in housing legislation, of an annuity for 20 years. The contribution in that form will be made in respect of the loan charges contracted by the local authority which borrows money for the purpose of making these contributions.
  The conditions which are embodied in the Resolution do not include all the conditions which are found in the Bill. In Clause 2 of the Bill there are other conditions limiting the amount of the improved value of the dwelling, and also specifying that a certain minimum sum must be expended to enable contributions to be made. I have deliberately left those particular conditions out of the Resolution, for the reason that none of them, it seemed to me, was vital to the principle of the Bill, but more a matter for discussion in Committee; and it would hardly have been fair to the Committee to tie their hands in discussions on those points by drawing the Resolution in such a rigid form as to exclude any such discussion. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about the Resolution itself, nor do I think it necessary to go over all ground which I covered when describing the Bill on Second Reading, but there are just a few points on which I might add a word in connection with the Bill. These concern, first of all, the nature of the work which we contemplate will be done; secondly, the persons to whom the contribution will be made; and, thirdly, the character of the local authority which we propose shall be the responsible body.
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the last point, I can hardly see how that can arise on this Resolution; otherwise we should have a repetition of the Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had thought that as the Exchequer contribution had to be paid to a local authority and administered by them, that possibly the nature of that authority would be
  1866
  relevant to the Resolution; but if that is not, so I do not wish to press that point.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the successful operation of this Resolution depends on the character of the local authority and their powers of repayment, I could not object to his observations on that point, but, obviously, it would open the way for a much wider Debate than I thought was contemplated.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case I think I will omit all reference to the authority, and leave that to be discussed, as no doubt it will be fully discussed, in Committee. As to the nature of the work, that will be found described in the Second Clause of the Bill, where certain particular kinds of alterations are specified. I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the words
  "and other buildings."
  I am at a loss to understand why objection should be taken to those words.
  The CHAIRMAN: Those words are merely a repetition of the words in the long Title of the Bill, and their inclusion or rejection will make no practical difference, and therefore I do not propose to accept that Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have one more try, and say that the only other point to which I had proposed to make any allusion was the person to whom the contribution was to be paid. I am not at all sure whether I shall be in order in doing so, after what has fallen from the Chair, and I think I will confine myself to this observation, that in putting conditions into the Bill we have endeavoured to secure that the Exchequer contribution shall inure to the benefit of agricultural workers and of other persons in substantially the same condition as they are, and that it shall not be diverted to the personal profit of the landlord, or to other tenants who are not of the character described in the Resolution.
  Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: Will this Measure apply to crofters' houses in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no reason why it should not.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will elucidate further—
  The CHAIRMAN: A habit has grown up of putting questions immediately after a Ministerial statement, and sometimes developing those questions into speeches. I would remind hon. Members that on the present occasion we are in Committee, and that the Minister and others can speak more than once. If the hon. Member will defer his observations, I will keep an eye on the quarter of the House in which he sits.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I feel somewhat nervous in rising as a result of the attitude of mind towards the discussion that the Chairman revealed when pulling up the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution; because I do not know that I can hope to succeed, where he has failed, in keeping within the very narrow limits which have been laid down for the discussion. We on this side object to the Resolution as we objected to the Bill of which the Resolution is the soul. There is one interesting thing about the Resolution to which, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to refer. It reveals to the Committee more clearly than anything which has yet been said or introduced the real mind of the Government with regard to working-class housing. We are invited to-day to increase expenditure on the patching of old houses. Later in the Session, according to information submitted by the Prime Minister, we are to be called on to reduce the public expenditure on the provision of new houses. That is a reversion of the traditional Tory policy. Anything which the party opposite has done in the way of contributing to a solution of the housing problem during recent years is something into which they have been forced and for which they deserve no credit. The traditional policy is that while houses are legally healthy and commercially profitable, they ought to be privately owned. It is only when they become unhealthy and unprofitable that the State is expected to come in as a relieving officer to the owners. The party opposite are traditionally hostile to Socialism in new houses, but they are traditionally favourable to Socialism in regard to slums. They have a happy knack of
  1868
  serving this policy in phraseology calculated to appeal to the highest human sentiments. When we are dealing with the city it is described as a slum clearance. Pictures are drawn of the conditions in which the people in the slums dwell, and a slum dweller is painted almost as a person who brought his slum with him into the world. In fact, it is considered part of his original sin, and a Conservative statesman poses as his redeemer. If people on this side of the House for any reason raise an objection to the expenditure of public money on a policy such as this, then they are painted as defenders of the slums and oppressors of the poor.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in going so very far from the subject?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is only stating certain premises. I am awaiting the conclusions; but I cannot wait indefinitely.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience, and I will not trespass upon your ruling, or on the feeling—I hope the shameful feeling—of the hon. Member opposite, or upon your impartiality in the Chair. In this Resolution the policy is referred to as the improvement of houses. Of course, this is a very respectable garment, but I think we are entitled to examine what is underneath. According to the Resolution, financial assistance is to be given for the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings for agricultural labourers, and persons whose economic conditions are similar to those of such labourers. I want to draw the attention of the Committee, first of all, to the fact that this financial assistance is asked for a particular section of the population. This is what Conservative speakers are accustomed to call class legislation. The stockbroker and the company promoters are not to share in the beautiful buildings which are to accrue from the expenditure of this public money. On the other hand, their ill-gotten gains are to be levied for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and persons who may hope one day to be as poor as the agricultural labourers are now.

  1869
  I think Conservative speakers are accustomed to call this legislation for the favoured few and to regard the policy as in some way a violation of one or other of the Ten Commandments. I think this is important, and I submit it because I am afraid of trespassing on your ruling. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the money we are asked to vote here is not to be spent solely on the repair of dwelling-houses, but it is to be spent partly on the reconstruction or alteration of new buildings. I think that is a very important part of the Resolution, and one which the Committee is entitled to have made clear.
  The CHAIRMAN: The operative words are in respect of dwellings.
  HON. MEMBERS: And other buildings.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I may have misread the Resolution. I submit this point for your ruling because it is very important at this stage, and at this point we should have a ruling. If the sum asked for here is voted by the Committee to-day, will it be within the power of the Minister, or the party to whom he delegates his authority, to spend a part of that money on the alteration or reconstruction of any building that is not now a dwelling-house?
  The CHAIRMAN: The words are limited to dwellings.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call your attention to line 6 of the Resolution, which says, "and other buildings"?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that those words are quite inoperative, and have only been put in to identify this particular Bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR: In the first Clause of the Bill as printed the word "buildings" is used, and it says "houses or buildings" and not other buildings. As we have had no explanation from the Minister on this point in his Second Reading speech, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, could now give us a ruling as to what that means?
  The CHAIRMAN: The money must be spent only on dwellings. I think that is quite clear.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not my usual custom to come to the assistance of the Government, but I hope I am not mis-
  1870
  interpreting their view when I say their intention was to use the financial resources of this Bill for the purpose of reconstructing or altering other buildings that are not in the nature of dwelling-houses for the purpose of being used in the future as dwelling-houses. If your ruling is to stand and it is to be quite clear that through the passing of this Measure the House is not putting any power into the hands of the Government or of its delegates to reconstruct such buildings and convert them into dwelling-houses, then, I think, a considerable portion of our opposition to the Bill falls to the ground.
  The CHAIRMAN: The contribution must be for a dwelling, but, whether a dwelling may include an out-house or not, it cannot be a contribution to general agricultural improvement. I do not say that it cannot be used for conversion into a dwelling of something which is not now a dwelling.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that to some extent clears the air. At any rate, it confirms my view of the Bill, and it harmonises with the acquiescence expressed by the Minister of Health in the view when I submitted it to him. The money that we are asked to vote here, as you have ruled, may be used for the purpose of so altering a building that heretofore has not been used as a dwelling-house that in future it may be used as a dwelling, and the Committee is entitled to consider the class of building to which this provision may be applied. You, Sir, have referred to out-houses. I do not know what is the legal distinction between an out-house and a stable, but I have no doubt that a shrewd lawyer would include a stable within the description of an out-house. At any rate, it is well known that part of this money, in pursuance of this policy, may be used for the conversion of stables into dwelling-houses.
  Scattered all over the country, and particularly in the country districts, we have a large number of stables that are no longer required for their primary purpose by the owners. No real gentleman now drives out in his carriage and pair; indeed, no real gentleman would house his favourite motor car in one of these obsolete stables. Yet it is a pity, in the view

  1871
  of these English gentlemen, that this property should be allowed to decay. There is a shortage of housing accommodation in the country. A gentleman may feel that for one purpose or another he requires another labourer. There is no housing accommodation available for that additional labourer, and, even if there be, the wages which the gentleman is prepared to pay to the additional labourer would not, if it were all spent in rent, meet the present economic rent of a healthy, desirable house. So, what should me more natural than that there should emanate from the political party of that gentleman a proposal to put the labourer where he would not put his car? We have now reached the stage where "Stables for the workers" is a plank in the Conservative programme.
  After all, if you consider the history of that party, this is not a long step in degeneracy from where they have already arrived. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says—sotto voce, I suppose, is the term—that this is a speech for the platform. This is not a Resolution for the platform, unless it be for the platform in which we are to see the temporary seclusion of the Conservative party. As I was about to say before being interrupted from a quarter from which we do not expect interruption, this is not a long step in the degeneracy of the Conservative party with regard to the housing of the working classes. We have all been accustomed to the policy of large dilapidated houses, once occupied by the rich, being made do for the poor. Those who have some experience of local authority work, and I am sure those who are acquainted with the work of the Ministry of Health, know quite well that these houses are usually the slummest of the slum. They were not originally constructed for a large number of families and to make them hygienically suitable for their new purpose would very frequently cost more than the erection of new houses. No one expects local authorities or anyone else to spend unnecessarily on the provision of shelters for the poor. Any old thing is supposed to do. So, no matter how far these fell short of human requirements, the poor were packed into them in a manner which resulted in an accumulation of disease and in unnecessary human distress. As I have said, this is only one
  1872
  step further. Instead of asking the workers to be content with the leavings of the rich, they are now inviting them to be satisfied with the leavings of the animals. I do not know how long the Conservative party, on the slippery slope, may be content to rest even here. One day they may find fresh uses for their kennels, but for the moment, and perhaps only for the moment, a Conservative statesman, if I may paraphrase words well-known in English poetry, treats the agricultural labourer as
  "A little higher than his dog,
  And a little lower than his horse."
  Naturally, we cannot subscribe to such a policy. We rate the agricultural labourer a little higher than the horse, indeed, although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard it as extravagance and, perhaps, blasphemy, we rate the agricultural labourer as higher than the stockbroker and higher than the company promoter. In our opinion, he is more essential to the life of the nation, and being more essential to the life of the nation than either of the professional gentlemen to whom I have referred, he ought, in our opinion, to be at least equally well housed.
  Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Why does he always vote against you?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: He knows who are his friends. That is why he votes against them.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Hon. Members opposite are naturally irritated at a public exposure of their real views regarding the treatment of the man from whom they obtain their daily bread. Some of them may be inclined to say that they agree with us that the agricultural labourer is worthy of a better dwelling than the one contemplated in this Resolution. They will, I hope, tell us that they agree with me that he is worthy of a better dwelling than the rejected stable of a horse—
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: What authority has the right hon. Gentleman for saying this?
  Mr. WHEATLEY—or the out-house towards the conversion of which this money will probably be used. But they say that we must face the economic facts. Stockbrokers and company promoters have very good houses—
  Major COLFOX: And trade union leaders!
  Mr. WHEATLEY— — because the economic facts of the present system entitle them to that type of house. They say, in regard to the agricultural labourer, that he must be prepared, like all other sections of the community, to face the economic facts in his desire for a higher standard of living. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, Hear!"] I am very glad that an hon. Member on the other side, speaking, I suppose, for his party, agrees to that being the view that is behind the Government. But this Resolution does not ask the agricultural labourer to face the economic facts. This is a Resolution which asks for a subsidy. The economic facts, as submitted by the party opposite, are that the farmers of this country cannot, out of the price which they obtain in a competitive system for their produce, pay a standard of wages that will enable their labourers to pay the economic rent of a healthy and a desirable house. That is the view of the party opposite, and I have no doubt that there is a considerable amount of substantial foundation for that view. I do not think that the farmers of this country have any monopoly of hard-heartedness. I believe that there must be among them many humane gentlemen who would prefer to pay £4 a week than 30s. a week to their labourers. But the party opposite would say that the economic facts are against them, and not only are they unable to pay anything like a decent living wage, but they are unable to pay the labourers the wages that would allow those labourers to pay the economic rent of even the very small houses that are provided for the working classes to-day; and so, instead of facing the economic facts, and saying to those labourers, "The economic conditions do not allow you to have any kind of house," they come and ask this Committee to vote national money to subsidise the agricultural industry to an extent that will enable it to house its workers according to the standard contemplated in this Resolution.
  Had the Government or the party opposite stuck to the economic facts, could understand it, but this is not a Resolution based on recognition and acceptance of the economic facts; it is a Resolution that recognises but ignores the
  1874
  economic facts, or, in so far as it does not ignore them, says, "The agricultural industry is essential to the life of the nation; the agricultural labourer is essential to the life of that industry; the industry itself, in a competitive system, cannot provide the requirements, even the very minimum requirements, of the agricultural labourer, and, therefore, we come to the whole nation, of which the agricultural industry is an essential part, and we ask the whole nation, out of its surplus, to provide the subsidy that will enable the agricultural labourer and the agricultural industry to live." That is the attitude of the Government; that is the policy adopted by the Government; and, as I have said, if they had stuck to an economic basis, one could have sympathised with their difficulties, but could have understood their policy.
  I do not say that I am opposed to the general principle behind this Resolution. I am prepared to go very much further and to say I am prepared to accept it whole-heartedly. But what I do object to here is the particular form of this application. The Government ask us to provide money, and thereby to accept responsibility for the housing of the agricultural workers. They say, "The farmers can no longer accept the responsibility; we come here and we ask the State to provide money, and thereby to accept the responsibility, for the housing of these people." What I object to most strongly is that, while asking the State, or asking this Committee, to accept responsibility for the housing of these workers, they ask us to spend our money on houses such as these. If the State is to accept responsibility for housing agricultural workers, should not the State house those workers in a manner creditable to the State? And is anyone in any quarter of the Committee going seriously to argue that it will be to the credit of the State that these workers will be housed in the conditions in which they will domiciliarily exist when the provisions of this Resolution have been put into operation? It is not as if the State could not afford to house its agricultural workers properly. The State spends £300,000,000 in paying interest on the War debt to people who have surplus wealth. In my opinion, the agricultural labourer has a prior claim on the generosity of the State. We have millions

  1875
  of people in this country, giving much less useful service to the country than the agricultural labourer, who revel in luxury and in surplus wealth. We on this side would use part of that surplus for the provision of a decent standard of living for that section of our workers who are probably the most useful in the maintenance of Britain's prosperity.
  I want to say, in conclusion, that this policy is based on a. belief that there is no future for British agriculture. It is based on the idea that it is folly to provide new houses in those districts, and that, as the end of British agriculture is in view, you should devote a certain amount of public money to patching up the old houses, because they will serve the purpose for the short time for which houses will be required. That is a most pessimistic and, I submit, a most unpatriotic view to come from the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It comes from you!"] If I am wrong in my interpretation of the views of the party opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are!"]—why should they not pursue a policy of erecting houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are!"] —healthy dwelling-houses in which we may have a healthy agricultural community half a century from now? Why should they be supporting a Government whose policy it is to withdraw the necessary financial support from the erection of new houses, and to divert only a part of it to the patching and maintenance of the old? It is because, in their soul, they know that the system for which they stand offers no permanency to Britain and no permanency to any of its particular industries. We on this side of the House take a more optimistic view of our country. We believe that the agricultural labourer will outlive the company promoter; we believe that, long after the company promoter has been forgotten, the agricultural labourer and this country will survive; and so, wishing to provide for the future of the agricultural industry, our policy is that public money, when it is to be spent, should be spent in the provision of new, healthy beautiful houses, to which the agricultural labourer, on account of his valuable service to the country, is entitled, and we wish to offer the most strenuous oppose-
  1876
  tion to the standard of housing provided for in this Resolution.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I am not interested in the imaginary stables which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), are to be found in our villages, but am much more concerned about the derelict houses and empty cottages which, unfortunately, are to be found in our rural districts. To give one instance, which may interest hon. Members above the Gangway, there are no fewer than 120 cottages which have become empty and derelict in a very small agricultural district within the short space of living memory, the whole population being, I believe, roughly speaking, under 3,000. I am concerned about those cases, and I think they need the first attention of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made one remark which I think ought not to go unchallenged, because it would be apt to mislead the public. In talking about buildings, he rather suggested that, even when these are remodelled, they would still be unfit for habitation. It is, however, a direct provision of the Bill that the local authority must be satisfied—[Interruption.]—is it the case that hon. Members above the Gangway have no faith in democratic control?—that
  "the dwelling will after the completion of the works be in all respects fit for habitation as a dwelling by persons of the working classes."
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the economic condition of the farmer will not allow him to pay a wage to the labourer which will enable him to pay an economic rent. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have gone a little further, and would have told us what is his remedy for that position. We know the economic facts. They are exactly as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The labourer's wage at the present moment is not such as will enable him to pay an economic rent on the present cost price of any building which is put up by way of a house. I am afraid I should be out of order in suggesting that the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would have been a duty which would have fallen on the urban dweller, and I will not pursue that. There are one or two practical points to which I should like to refer in con-

  1877
  nection with the Bill itself. I understood from the Minister of Health that the Bill would provide for the building of houses, but, if I understand the Bill aright, it is a Bill for
  "the reconstruction and improvement of dwellings and other buildings."
  There is another point that I should like cleared up, with regard to the repayment of loans. A grant, I understand, is not to be repaid, but, if a loan is made, then it is to be repaid. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the responsibility for the repayment is a personal one, or whether it is merely the value of the dwelling itself. A man obtains, say, a house which is covered by a mortgage. That mortgage contains two things. It contains, in the first place, an undertaking and covenant by the man to repay the money personally; and, in the second place, it contains a charge on the property itself as security for the repayment. I suggest, for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, that no house can at the present moment be put up in a rural district which will not be, in three or four years' time, of less value than the actual cost of its construction, and it is, therefore, rather important for the building owner to ascertain whether he will be personally responsible for the repayment of that loan regardless of the fact that, owing to economic causes, in all probability the value of the house itself will be a good deal less than the money which he has borrowed. My suggestion would have been that, instead of asking people to build houses themselves and take the whole risk, as I think they must under the provisions of this Bill, serious attempts should be made, at any rate in the rural districts and country villages, by the housing authority, to provide these houses itself at the cost of the State, and that the risk, which is a serious one, as to the value of the building in the next three or four years, should be undertaken by the State, and not by the individual.
  Major G. F. DAVIES: I hope it is not unseemly for two Members who bear the same name to speak together on this matter. I cannot help thinking that those of us on this side who have had the pleasure of listening to the very humorous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health,
  1878
  will regret that his interventions in Debate of late have not been more frequent. We can only presume he meant to be taken as humorously as his speech sounded to those who listened to it. We could not help being reminded of two adages in the course of the stream of eloquent electioneering with which he favoured us, that no stream can rise higher than its source, and that "unstable as water thou shalt not excel." In his remarks, in which he went out of his way to twist everything in the Resolution and to try to bring in all manner of irrelevant material which could not possibly be affected by it, he spoke of owners, farmers and capitalists, but failed to give any consideration to that person in whose interest alone this Measure has been brought forward, that is, the tenant of cottages in agricultural areas. We have had various Housing Bills, which have, achieved unexpected success in the way of numbers and the short time in which they have been produced and in the fact that they have been largely produced by that section of the population who were most in need of assistance and improvement in their housing conditions.
  But with all those Measures on the Statute Book, and all of them assisted, as in my opinion they needed to be in order to produce the results, by Government subsidies, we have found there has been one important part of the community which has been untouched, and that is the cottager employed largely in agricultural pursuits or others germane thereto and therefore in a similar economic position, and that after all is the outstanding consideration in regard to this Measure. Here is a large and essential portion of the population who have been untouched by the advantages which have been provided for every other branch of the country. That is not the fault of those who framed the Measures. We come back once again to the economic facts of the situation. Therefore what we need, it seems to me, to concentrate upon is not whether this is going to give some assistance to the wicked landowner, not whether it is going to bolster up the inefficient farmer, not whether this is going to convert stables into palaces, but whether it is going to any extent to improve the outlook for getting better cottages and

  1879
  living conditions for those agricultural workers in the community, concerning who we do not talk such claptrap as we have already had to listen to, but whose interests we are much more familiar with and have much more seriously at heart than hon. Members opposite.
  After all, the outstanding fact is that not only are new cottages not being built under these conditions, for very obvious reasons, but the available housing gets steadily worse for two or three reasons. One is that cottages are taken by such people as village policemen, employés of railway companies, industrial workers earning the better wages that industry, when it is not interfered with by senseless industrial disputes, is able to earn, and therefore the available supply of cottages for those for whom they were intended is constantly diminishing. We have also the week-ender, who comes in and buys one or perhaps two cottages, making them into one, and does his share in reducing the available housing for that section of the population towards which our efforts are directed to-day. Finally, we have this situation, that the unfortunate and much-criticised landlord, whose business, privilege and responsibility it has been in the past to provide houses for the agricultural worker, has been put in a position, on account of the depredations of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that he can no longer carry out those responsibilities, much as he wishes to do so. Even the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, not very long ago in a public speech, said precisely what I have been saying just now and said that was a reason, among others, why his conclusion was that there should be nationalisation of the land and the State should come in and do it all for them. We on this side of the House do not believe in that form of legislation, but we are faced with conditions that need to be dealt with.
  How can we apply to the agricultural worker in the rural districts those housing benefits which have been secured for others by existing measures. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary hopeful line of advance though I do not think anyone suggests it is going to solve the question. There are large numbers of people, large and small, perhaps just the
  1880
  owners of one or two cottages, who see them deteriorating but cannot afford to make the proper repairs and they are rapidly becoming untenantable. Compared with them a good sanitary cow stall would be an infinitely better habitation. If that kind of thing can be checked, if sufficient assistance can be given to the owner to enable him to contribute a certain portion towards building, assisted by local authorities and the State for the other two-thirds, I look to see in a reasonably short time a material improvement, by means of the financial measures in this Bill, in the condition and the improvement of the houses of our agricultural workers. I am satisfied that if we, who are closely interested in and connected with the land, are given opportunities, not only such as this, but others which may perhaps be discovered by experience to be wise and applicable, if they come within the limits of economic laws, can improve the housing conditions of workers in the rural areas and prevent their cottages being taken by others who are more fortunate and can pay higher rentals for them, we shall have gone a long way towards securing an improvement of the general conditions of the countryside which will stem the drift from the country to the town and keep those who were born in the country and know it and love it in those surroundings where they are best able to develop their manhood and their life.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am glad the Government have had finally to do what we said it was necessary to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken referred to senseless industrial disputes. If he referred to the present dispute, I would remind him that it was not the miners who locked out the coal-owners but the coalowners who locked out the miners. But it was not for that purpose that I rose. My mind is exercised as to the scope of this Measure. The Resolution refers to
  "persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers."
  In the mining world the owners are, or ought to be, responsible for the housing of their workers. I have to admit that for the last 10 or 15 years they have forgotten their responsibilities, and have not found houses for the workers but have given them some financial assistance in place of free houses. There are thousands

  1881
  of houses in our mining villages that are wholly unfit for human habitation, and have been condemned by the local authorities, but because there was no other place to house the people, they have had to exist there all these years. If agricultural labourers can earn, as I have been told, 35s. to £2 a week, at least two-thirds of the married workers in the coalfields in Durham are in a worse position, so that if it is based on the economic conditions of the people who inhabit the houses the Bill must of necessity take in all these houses owned by colliery owners in the villages. I want the right hon. Gentleman to think what he is doing. They talk of the conversion of stables into houses, but no sensible man would put a dog in some of the houses the miners have to live in in Durham. People live there because their economic condition will not allow them to pay for a house elsewhere. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is taking on something larger than the Bill intended. I do not want these miserable dens patched up. That would be adding insult to injury. The position he ought to take up as a sensible Minister would be to get rid of these houses and build new ones in their place. Patching them up will not mend matters and will mean that this state of things will be perpeutated. The proposals of the Bill will give no relief to the tenants and the whole of the money that is spent will be entirely in the interest of those who own the houses.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: As the representative of a county constituency I give this Resolution my whole-hearted support, because I know that in our country districts there are two things needed. We need more houses for our rural population and better houses than we have already got. This Financial Resolution deals with that matter. It proposes to enable our existing houses to be improved. Can anyone with a practical knowledge of our country districts and our rural life deny the fact that there are many houses, I know there are in Scotland, in regard to which if they were reconditioned, and improved, the people living in them would not only have far more inducement to remain on in our country districts, but they would be able to spend happier and healthier lives. This Financial Resolution deserves the whole-hearted support of everyone who
  1882
  has a desire to help the rural life of our country.
  The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in bringing forward his criticism of the Resolution, made a great deal of the point that in the wording of the Resolution it might be permissible for stables to be converted into dwelling-houses. I am sure that the intention of the Government is not in that direction. The intention of the Government is to enable funds to be made available whereby our existing houses can be reconstructed and improved for the benefit of the people. In basing criticism of this Resolution merely upon the fact that it may be permissible to turn an outhouse or a stable into a dwelling-house, is going very far beyond what was really meant. The right hon. Gentleman surely, when he condemns public money being used as a subsidy for improving the houses in our country districts, forgets what we have been doing in the matter of housing reform during the last four or five years. He himself has been responsible for bringing in and passing an Act whereby public money was given as a subsidy for houses in our towns and cities. Is it not right that our country districts should get a share of these public favours? It is because by this Resolution I see a prospect of our country districts getting some of the benefits which our towns and cities have, rightly, had in the past, that, as a county Member, I support it in a wholehearted manner.
  The position of agriculture is a very large question, and to discuss it would go beyond this Resolution; but we all know that the condition of agriculture hitherto has been such that the workers engaged in it cannot pay an economic rent for the houses in which they live. Surely, when we desire to improve the housing conditions of these people, we need to face the facts as they are and, recognising that an economic rent is not possible in agriculture under our present system, is it not right that we should take the next best step and try, by a moderate and safe means, to bring practical benefits to these most worthy people in regard to their houses. As the representative of a county constituency in Scotland, I am sure that this Financial Resolution and the Bill which will be based upon it will be wholeheartedly approved, and if hon. Members opposite desire to oppose the Bill I can

  1883
  assure them that if they go to the country districts in Scotland they will meet with very little support. We can do a useful little piece of business by approving of this Resolution and passing the Bill, and thereby bringing health, happiness and comfort to many deserving people in our country districts.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in line 7, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds."
  As you, Sir, have ruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I move the Amendment which stands in my name. It will be observed by those who have read the Resolution that there is no limit of expenditure which may be incurred under it. In moving this Amendment to put some prescribed maximum upon the amount which shall be contributed by Parliament, I feel sure that I shall have with me hon. Members sitting on other side of the House. This Resolution: is one of which in principle we do not approve, but there is another reason why some definite limit should be put upon the amount to be expended. Hon. Members opposite for a considerable time have been anxiously pursuing economy. Numerous efforts have been made by the Government this year to reduce national expenditure. The financial straits of the Government have been so serious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was impelled to put his hand into the pockets of several funds and extract money to enable him to carry out his responsibilities.
  The financial straits of the Government were so serious that they decided to reduce the State contribution to health and unemployment insurance. In view of so serious a situation, it seems inconsistent and illogical on the part of the Government to come to the House with a new form of expenditure such as has been unknown in this country previously. Moreover, the Minister of Health is now engaged in manipulating a decrease in the contributions to be made by the State under the existing housing schemes. If it be necessary to reduce the subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 at this stage, it seems to be highly objectionable that whilst he is, so to
  1884
  speak, with one hand negotiating a decrease in respect of new houses for the country as a whole, he should, on the other hand, be negotiating expenditure on old houses in the country side. When we have such a position, it cannot be defended. If the financial position of the Government is so serious that it feels called upon to reduce the subsidy for new houses that are being built in towns and country districts alike, it surely is most inexpedient at the same time to provide a subsidy for rural landlords.
  Another reason why we would reduce the subsidy is that it appears to us to be a form of unconditional gift to people who can well afford to do without it. It has always been assumed in our previous housing subsidies that such subsidies were given in respect of houses that would not or could not otherwise be built. Many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have arisen where some enthusiastic person has begun to build a house, and the subsidy has been denied on the ground that as he begun to build the house it would have been built in any case, and, therefore the subsidy could not be paid. That sort of principle, if the Government persist in this policy, ought to be applied to the rural landlord. No one will deny that a large number of rural landlords can well afford to put their cottages into a proper state of repair. Some of them have done so, and more could do so if they were driven to do it, and the law was enforced. Is it right that these people should be subsidised by the State? I think it cannot be defended. Certainly, it cannot he defended as an act by an economy Government.
  There are clearly two sets of cases. There are those landlords who can well afford to improve their cottages and those who cannot. Our submission is that no money should be spent on the former; that the law should be enforced against them, just as it is enforced in some degree against the town landlord. As regards those who cannot afford to put their houses into a state of repair, again we see no reason why public money should be spent upon them if those houses remain in the present hands. If these landlords over a long series of years have permitted their cottages to get into a state of disrepair so serious that they may be permitted to spend under the

  1885
  Bill large sums of money upon them, what guarantee have we that once the cottages have been put into a state of repair, these people are going to be in a position to keep them in a proper state of repair. There is no reason to suppose that whatever. All that this money will do will be to pass over to a number of landlords who cannot fulfil their responsibilities money which will enable them to tinker up their houses prior to another period of general decay.
  If it be true that the rural landlord is in dire necessity and must receive financial assistance, surely a case equally strong can be made out for many landlords of urban dwellings. I would go so far as to say that the neediest landlords to-day are among the small landlords in the towns. No one in any part of the House would dream of coming here with a Money Resolution to permit these town landlords to dip their hands into the public purse in order to put their cottages into order. This money will go as a sort of generous gift to a particular kind of bad landlord, those who fail to keep their cottages in repair in the countryside. I hope that the Committee will see the wisdom of putting some limit upon the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure in this matter. He has established a certain condition. He has put a maximum in the case of each house; but no one knows the number of houses that are to be repaired or how many outhouses are to be converted into cottages. It may well be that the landlords will succeed in restoring their cottages at an enormous public expense, if this proposal were carried out on a large scale. We think that some definite figure should be put into the Bill in order that a limit should be placed upon this public expenditure.
  I put this test of economy to hon. Members opposite as a very real one. They have an opportunity under this Amendment of proving whether they believe in economy or whether they do not believe in economy. They have an opportunity of showing whether they believe in economy of a real kind or whether they are only prepared to sanction economy at the expense of the workers. At a time when our national situation in regard to finance is so serious as to warrant the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the steps he has taken
  1886
  this year at the expense of the masses of the people of this country, the expenditure proposed under this Resolution is entirely unwarranted, and a severe limit should be placed upon the expenditure permitted to the Minister.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I thought that the Amendment meant what it said, I should characterise the hon. Member's speech as being quite phenomenal in its irrelevance, but it is perfectly obvious that the object of the Amendment is to try to wreck the Bill. Taking the actual wording of the Amendment, it proposes that the whole cost to the Exchequer shall not exceed £100,000, although the hon. Member must have read—I presume he has read—the White Paper, in which it is stated it is estimated that, giving an average cost per house of £75 and the number of houses totalling 20,000, the cost would be £60,000 a year for 20 years.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That is only an assumption.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the hon. Member, for the sake of information, whether his £100,000 is meant to be a total sum or £100,000 per annum?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It is intended to be a total sum.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That confirms what I have said, that the Amendment is intended to wreck the Bill. The zeal for economy on the part of the hon. Member comes very strangely from him. What would have been the alternative to this Bill in the proposals of his own Government? There would have been a subsidy of £12 10s. for each house in an agricultural parish for 40 years, so that there would have been a total sum expended, if 20,000 houses were built, of £2,500,000 for 40 years. Did the hon. Gentleman's zeal for economy induce him to put any limit into the Financial Resolution on which his own Bill was founded? That is really a trivial and empty excuse. He says that the subsidy is to be given to the wrong people; but the limitation of the sum that can be expended does not alter the foundation of the subsidy, and, if that is really a serious argument on his part, then it is irrelevant. When he says it is to be given to the wrong people, what authority has he for making a statement of that kind? He says there is a great

  1887
  number of landlords who could perfectly well afford to put their houses in order. If that be so, they will be known to the local authorities. I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, in the Bill there is a provision which says that the local authorities may, in certain cases, refuse to give assistance under the Bill, and a proper ground for refusal would be that the assistance is not required, and that the owner is capable of putting the house in order. As a matter of fact, to anyone who goes about the country and looks with a careful and attentive eye at the houses in the country districts, it will be obvious that it is always the large landlords who keep their houses in good condition, and that the houses which are in bad condition are not the houses belonging to the great squires and the landlords against whom the hon. Member has such a prejudice; these belong to the small people who are without resources. It is unfortunate that the party opposite are so obsessed with their prejudice against landlords in general that they never have room or time to spare for the consideration of the circumstances of the poor landlords.
  We are told that people will not be able to keep their repaired houses in proper order. There, again, that is a pure assumption, and anyone who knows the probabilities of the case will agree that it is a very improbable one. The difficulty now is that, having passed through extremely hard times, landlords have not been able to repair the houses at the moment when repairs would have been comparatively cheap and simple; they have got past that stage, and the houses are in such a condition that only a considerable amount of expenditure—more than can lie found by people of small means—will really do any good. Once you put them into proper order, the amount required to keep the houses in order is really quite small, and I think it will not be outside the resources of the people concerned to afford that amount. In any case, even if there should be some particular instances where, in spite of this assistance, the houses do gradually decay, surely, that is no reason why we should deny to thousands of agricultural labourers the opportunity offered by this Bill of at last coming into occupation of really decent
  1888
  and comfortable habitations. In regard to the question of a limit upon the amount of money which can be demanded from the Exchequer, there is really, for all practical purposes in the Bill now, such a limitation in the fact which I mentioned when I was introducing the Resolution, namely, that the operation of the Bill is limited to five years. In five years, and especially in country places where matters do not proceed with what may be called giddy rapidity, one may be quite certain that the expenditure that may be asked from the Exchequer will not be excessive. But what one can say is that, whatever the expenditure is, the houses that will be repaired and reconditioned and made suitable for habitation by agricultural labourers under this Bill will cost infinitely less than new houses provided by the assistance of the Exchequer.
  Mr. FENBY: I can understand anyone not being particularly enthusiastic about the Resolution, but I am at a loss to understand anyone being violently opposed to its object. I am all in favour of economy, but I am not in favour of cutting down expenditure on housing. In my opinion, money expended on improving the housing of the working classes is money very well spent indeed. As far as the Amendment is concerned, in my opinion, there is not the slightest need to put in any limit to the amount that should be spent. I have had considerable experience of local authorities at the present time, and there is no authority suffering more from "hard-uppishness" than the rural local authorities, and when these authorities have to provide an amount equal to that provided by the Exchequer they will not be lavish in their expenditure. This is described as a "landlords' relief Bill." The landlord is sometimes like a red rag to a good many people, but I am not concerned about that; I am concerned about the agricultural labourer, and I cannot understand anyone who knows anything about the conditions of rural housing being violently opposed to the proposals in this Bill. It may be that it is too limited and, in my opinion, its operation will be very slow. But anything that will improve the housing accommodation of the agricultural labourers will have my enthusiastic and full support.

  1889
  There is a proposal in regard to other buildings, and I do not know if I am in order in discussing it.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid not.
  Mr. FENBY: What I want to say, in conclusion, is that the difficulty in rural areas to-day has arisen because there was a lack of building of rural cottages prior to the War. When we are confronted, as members of local authorities are, with very serious financial proposals with regard to education and health and so many other things, I am certain that the local authorities themselves will be afraid of the operation of this Bill. What I would have liked would have been, instead of a limitation on the amount that is to be spent, to have seen the contribution of the local authority made a little less and the contribution of the State a little more. If that had been done the operation would have been much more speedy. So far as the principle of the Bill and of the financial Resolution is concerned, I am certainly against limiting the operation of it, and I hope that the local authorities will work it enthusiastically so far as their financial resources will allow.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: On the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed my view that it would bring more happiness and comfort to our rural areas than any proposals which have been made for some yearn I am not going to repeat that, but I am very glad the Minister has refused to accept any limitation of the money that is to be spent under this Bill. I am very anxious to see the homes of the agricultural workers improved and brought up-to-date. I am so anxious that the money shall not be curtailed and that the good that may be done by this Bill shall not be limited, that I would like to see the limitation of £400 on the value of the house after improvements are made, enlarged to £500. Therefore, I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, as a point of Order, whether the wording of the Financial Resolution is such as to prevent me raising this question on the Committee stage with a view to enlarging the £400 to £500.
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. No private Member can in any circumstances propose the increase of an Exchequer grant beyond the amount authorised.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was rather afraid that would be your view, but I was not sure whether I could not propose on this Financial Resolution an Amendment which would have laid the foundations for my being able to increase this figure.
  The CHAIRMAN: No. All that a private Member can do is to speak on the Resolution at large, but he can urge the Government to bring in another one.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to repeat what I said when possibly he was not in the House, when I was proposing the Resolution. I then explained that I have deliberately left out of the Resolution the conditions which are to be found in the Bill limiting the value of the house to £400. I then said that I desired to leave a freer hand to the Committee, if possible, to discuss the matter.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must now qualify what I have said. I assumed from what the hon. Baronet said that there was this limitation in the Resolution, but as there is not, it is not for me to guide the Chairman of the Committee upstairs as to whether it will be right for him to accept such an Amendment or not.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I had some idea that this difficulty might occur when I raised the matter in the Committee upstairs, and I wished to consult you with a view to enlarging the Resolution so that there should be no doubt about the position in the Committee stage. I shall, however, be quite content if I can convince the Minister of Health of the advantage and necessity of increasing this limit of £400 and £500 so that he himself may be able to move the Amendment which I thought I might possibly have moved myself.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have no jurisdiction over the Committee upstairs to which this Bill will go, and, therefore, I cannot say what view the Chairman of the Committee may take. When I gave my former ruling, I had omitted to notice for the moment that this particular restriction was not contained in the Resolution, but anything that I say cannot prejudge what the Chairman of the Committee upstairs may say.
  Mr. HARNEY: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the figure £400 was not in the Resolution but in the Bill, and I desire to ask whether that £400 is merely there as a definition and has nothing to do with the amount of money that may or may not be granted?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again asking me to rule something which must be decided by the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. We are not in Committee on the Bill, but on the Resolution, and no ruling of mine is binding on the Chairman of the Committee which will consider the Bill.
  Mr. HARNEY: I rather understood from the Minister that it was hoped to move in Committee an enlargement of the figure. The figure £400 is not in the Resolution, and I was merely pointing out that the £400 in the Bill is merely intended as a definition and has nothing to do with the amount of money that may or may not be granted.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter on which I can give a ruling.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I do not want to be too persistent but if the Bill goes to the Committee in its present form and I attempt to move an increase from £400 to £500, it seems that I shall be met by the Chairman with the view that I, as a private Member, cannot move that increase because I shall be putting a charge on the taxpayer. I could see no answer to that except this, that as the Financial Resolution is now before the Committee, it might be possible for me to move an Amendment that would put in express words limiting the amount to at least £500, and then it would bring my proposed Amendment within the purview of the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. That is what I really wanted to consult you upon.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move anything outside the King's recommendation. The King's recommendation limits the Resolution, and that limit cannot be extended.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I want, therefore, to urge on the Minister that he should Consider carefully before this Bill goes to the Committee whether he will not take steps to increase this limit to £500. I can assure him that in very many parts of the country, more particularly those
  1892
  parts which are not quite so rural as the purely agricultural districts, like parts of Lincolnshire and the Eastern Counties, the amount of £400 will limit this Bill to a very small number of houses. I hope he will consider this and if necessary either bring in a fresh Resolution or propose an Amendment to the present one.
  Mr. RILEY: I rise to support the Amendment to limit the Financial Resolution to £100,000, not because I am opposed to doing anything that can be done to improve rural housing or increase the supply of suitable housing, but because the method which is proposed in this Resolution is, in my view, entirely contrary to justifiable public policy. The Resolution, as it stands, in spite of what the Minister has said, gives a blank cheque to local authorities, subject to some control by the Exchequer, to draw indefinitely upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer for money to expend on private property; not to create any public property at all. Some hon. Members opposite have challenged the Opposition as to their sincerity in the matter of houses for the agricultural classes. If any test of that sincerity is required, it is found in the fact that the Opposition, when it was the Government, through its Minister of Health, brought forward a Bill, which became law, giving rural authorities £1 10s. per annum on each house, on the sound and justifiable principle of public policy, that these houses when built would be public and not private property. The justification for the Amendment is that the Resolution seeks to give power to levy a tax on the taxpayer and ratepayer in order to create property which, when created, will be private and not public property. On that ground it is very essential that the Committee should move warily, and if the move is made at all that the country should know the extent of its liability.
  What are the facts of the case as far as the Resolution is concerned? They are these. The Minister of Health has said that as far as the Resolution is concerned, and also the Bill when it is passed, it will provide that the three partners to the transaction will contribute a maximum of £50 each to any one single dwelling. The local authority may make a grant to a maximum of £100. To that amount the Exchequer will contribute half, and the owner must contribute not less than £50 on that basis.

  1893
  It sounds very nice to say that the three partners are all bearing their share. But what really occurs is this, that the private owner gets two shares from the public, £50 from the State and £50 from the local ratepayer, in order to build up is own private property. That is what is behind this Resolution. Let me call the attention of the Committee to what is really going to occur. You have a rural area occupied largely by the ordinary rural population, agricultural labourers and other workmen. They form 80 or 90 per cent. of the population, and they are people who own no property at all. They are simply tenants and labourers on farms. But they are also ratepayers. Then you have, say, 10 per cent. who are property owners. Some may be large landowners, some large farmers, and others people who are comparatively well-to-do who have retired o the village and reside there. They form a very small number of the population. But under this Bill and Resolution you are going to ask the 80 per cent. of the population who own no property it all to pay rates in order to find the money to create property for the 10 per cent. of the population. It is a perfectly unjustifiable proposal.
  Again, take the question of buildings which do not actually exist now as dwellings. There is no doubt whatever, he Minister has said so, that the Bill does enable buildings which are not louses now to be transformed into dwelling-houses and so obtain the benefits of bile provisions of this Resolution.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I think we can discusss that better on the next Amendment.
  Mr. RILEY: Yes, but I want to deal with the financial aspect. In many villages you have rents which vary from 1s. to 5s. and possibly 6s. per week. It is perfectly true that the Resolution provides that in the case of houses of that nature receiving the benefits of this grant the owner cannot put on more than a certain fixed amount to the rent. But you have also those buildings which are not used now as dwellings, and which are not worth Is. or Is. 6d. per week for the purpose for which they are used at present. Under this Bill they may be transformed into dwellings and may be
  1894
  let at rents of 4s., 5s. and 6s. per week. They will be made capable of earning that rent because of the subsidy given to them from the rates and taxes. Thus the owners of this kind of property will enjoy a 10 per cent. return on their money. That is perfectly obvious, and it is because of this danger that we want to tie the Resolution down to a maximum of £100,000.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: It will be interesting to study the speeches of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) and of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, as the first, in moving the Amendment, to limit the sum available, agreed with the scheme, while the second criticised the Tory party for economy (in not spending a sum greatly in excess on other schemes), but objected to the scheme. I trust that they will be, able to reconcile those conflicting views in the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston displayed an entire lack of technical knowledge, and at the same time he showed very small appreciation of the economic facts. Not to make use of a very large number of distinctly satisfactory buildings which exist, particularly in Scotland—of which he has some knowledge presumably—would be a crime, for, as the Minister has said, very rightly, this sort of work can be done very cheaply in such cases. As to the use of stables, I should have thought it would be desirable to use any structures which were satisfactory. As a technical man myself, formerly a military engineer, I might mention that I once converted cavalry barracks to infantry barracks, and then reconverted them to cavalry barracks. No one with technical knowledge or any idea of finance would suggest pulling such buildings down and building new ones. The Committee may recognise that the conversion of stables has been used by hon. Members opposite merely as a, term of reproach, without any regard for their value as structures.
  All will agree that this Bill is a great boon. I would ask that any member of a local authority should be immune if he receives the subsidy; he should not have to surrender his seat on the county council as a result of a desire to improve his workers' conditions. It is not quite

  1895
  clear whether a district council—if it is the housing authority—or only the county council can raise funds for the purpose, which is important in this connection.
  The CHAIRMAN: References to county councils and district councils are not in order on this Amendment, which deals only with the question of contributions from the Exchequer.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I am sorry if I have gone beyond the bounds of order. I trust that the Government may be encouraged to produce other Resolutions, and, if the amount is to be limited, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, I trust that the Government will produce a Resolution to grant funds for improving water supply and drainage in rural districts. These things cannot be carried out in all cases under this scheme, particularly if all the money has been entirely expended on improving the accommodation. This applies particularly to new houses, on which so much stress has been laid by the right hon. Member for Shettleston and other hon. Members opposite. New houses may have been erected in country districts, but there are no funds available for providing proper water supply and drainage unless the rating is increased so that, if it be a question of limiting expenditure, I trust that the Minister will see his way to allot funds for those purposes. Incidentally, a great deal of stress has been laid by hon. Members opposite on the subject of increasing the rates. I trust that this expenditure will not have the effect of increasing the rating on those buildings to which it has been applied.
  Mr. HARNEY: This is a Resolution to enable the Exchequer to make certain grants for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill is that the local authority shall be empowered, first by means of grants, and, secondly, by means of loans, to help the rehabilitation of the structure of a certain class of house. I am entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill and against the Amendment. It seems to me that it is purely a wrecking Amendment. At the same time, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a couple of defects in the Bill to which this money
  1896
  Resolution relates. As regards the grant that the local authorities can make, it is provided that—
  The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on this particular Amendment. The only question is whether the Exchequer contribution shall or shall not be limited to £100,000.
  Mr. HARNEY: In whatever else I have to say I hope that I shall keep within the rules of order. I think there should be no limitation placed upon the grant, and for this reason: The Bill provides that a certain kind of house is to fall within its operation, and it is quite obvious that in the limited period of five years the amount cannot be very great. I think no limitation should be placed upon it. Since the power given to local authorities is to make not only grants but loans, it is desirable that the grant should be, if anything, made greater than that which the Bill provides. As to the assistance given by way of loans, there will be a difficulty. If a local authority is empowered to make a loan on the terms of the Bill by way of mortgage, to be repaid by instalments, the person who obtains a loan is under a personal liability, and I am certain that, under those circumstances, with the possibility of a house deteriorating in value at the time the loan may be called in until it is infinitely less than the amount of the loan, the loan will prove a dead letter. The loan provisions will be unworkable if they are to be by way of mortgage. But the grant provisions will be workable, and there is no reason why the whole thing should not be done by way of grant. If the tenant does not comply with the conditions prescribed the money ran he called in, even though it is a grant.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: It appears to me that there has been a want of sincerity on the other side in discussing this question. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has said that stables might be converted into dwelling-houses, and he stressed that point materially.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order on this Amendment. The only question here is whether the expenditure by the Exchequer should or should not be limited to £100,000.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: In asking that the amount should be limited to £100,000, I think even the Mover of the Amendment must agree that that sum would get us nowhere at all. Either the money is worth spending as proposed in the Bill, or the Government had better drop the proposal. The great difficulty is to get houses in the agricultural districts. One right hon. Gentleman said that the money will go to the landlords. Another hon. Gentleman opposite said we are giving a blank check to local authorities. I have never heard such suspicion of local authorities expressed before in this House. I have always understood that if we gave local authorities the power to do anything, we could trust them with the work. There is no local authority which would attempt to pass dwellings such as we have had sketched this afternoon. If it is intended that local authorities should either buy or make new structures, there may be something in the argument. Whatever the Opposition may say, this is the one want that has not been met up to the present. Other Bills with money have been passed, making grants for alterations for existing houses. I take it that this Bill simply means to say that. May I ask hon. Members opposite for once to drop this criticism and let us get back to the real want. This Bill is the only one, so far, that will meet the agricultural labourers' needs. The question as to whether the money will be well spent I think is well answered by the protection provided on page 5 of the Bill, where it says that no more than 3 per cent. can be asked for the money and that the normal rent of an agricultural dwelling is the standard rent under the Bill. Therefore, there can be no robbery by the private owner.
  Mr. VIANT: Statements have been made by hon. Members opposite as to want of sincerity on the part of those who have spoken from this side in support of the Amendment. I support the Amendment, and I want it to be understood that I am quite sincere about it. The Committee is entitled to know from the Minister what the financial commitments are likely to be. The Minister is asking for a blank cheque. Personally, I have never interpreted the desire of the electorate to send me here to be such that they would be prepared for me to vote for a blank cheque for any Department.
  Sir K. WOOD: There was an exactly similar Resolution in the 1924 Bill.
  Mr. VIANT: We had then some idea as to the number of houses that were needed by the community. We have an idea of the need of the community now. When we were voting on that occasion we were voting, not to hand money over to private persons, but in favour of the creation of assets for the community. I support the Amendment because I am firmly convinced that we ought to know exactly to what we are being committed. We are asked to hand over a blank cheque, not only to the Departments, but to those who are interested in putting their property into repair in the agricultural areas. What have we in return? [HON. MEMBERS: "A good house."] We have not a good house. We have no guarantee even that the agricultural labourer is to have a good house. It has been said that we doubt the local authorities. We have reason to doubt many of the bounty authorities which will administer this Act. We know the composition of the county authorities. Labour representation is exceedingly scarce there. Many of those who have this dilapidated property will be members of the county authority. They will be handing money over to themselves, and the ratepayers and the national Exchequer are to foot the bill. That is grossly unfair. We are asking for nothing unfair in demanding that the Department shall give us at least some idea as to the liability of the local ratepayers and the Exchequer in this matter. I am opposed to spending money in this way. If we are to put this property into repair, we should he entitled to draw the rent of this property until we have reimbursed our expenditure. That is a fair proposition. We on this side cannot be accused of want of consideration for the interests of the agricultural labourer. The Minister of Health this afternoon said that this Bill, in all probability, would mean an expenditure of £600,000. Our commitments in respect of rural housing, under the 1924 Act, would, he said, amount to £2,500,000.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: A year.
  Mr. VIANT: We have at least something to show for that expenditure, even if it is £2,500,000. We have an economic asset for the community. We have no economic asset for the community as a

  1899
  result of this expenditure. I am opposed to handing over public funds to private persons. The agricultural labourer could have been housed under the 1924 Act far better than he is going to be housed under the provisions of this Measure. In all probability, the property on which this money is going to be expended is property which will not be worth the expenditure. On those grounds I think we are entitled to ask for more information than has yet been given by the Department concerned.
  Major GLYN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the Committee was entitled to have some idea as to what are the limits of public expenditure for this particular type of housing and he also referred to the benefits that would result by spending £2,500,000 a year for 42 years, as was proposed by the Government when his own party was in power. I think he forgets that the difficulty lies not only in the matter of £ s. d. but in the matter of getting the houses built. If we could have the houses put up more quickly in the rural areas it would be a good deal easier to deal with this matter, but owing to the difficulties of communication building cannot be carried on as quickly in the rural as in urban areas. The Amendment before the Committee asks that the expenditure should be limited to £100,000. The White Paper estimates that £60,000 a year for 20 years will be expended on this scheme.
  Mr. RILEY: May I suggest that the White Paper distinctly conveys the impression that the figure mentioned is
  only an example of how the scheme will work on both sides. It does not meat that this sum is to be the total commitment.
  Major GLYN: I quite agree that the statement is an indication, and I think the Committee ought to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is quite satisfied that the system on which this public expenditure is going to be made, is satisfactory as regards the way in which the property is balanced. Everything turns on the way the property is balanced. In this Financial Resolution the matter is left very wide and, as you, Sir, have said, it cannot be discussed at this juncture. What is not left very wide is the defining of the method of valuation. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether with regard to Clause 2 (a)—although it is not referred to directly in the Financial Resolution—he will not consider suggesting that the valuation should be made by district valuers and not left as it is under the present wording.
  The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise on this particular Amendment.
  Major GLYN: I think that would be one way of limiting the expenditure. Nothing would be more fatal than to limit the expenditure to £100,000. On the other hand, if you have a proper uniform system of valuation you will be sure that the public money is being spent in a proper and uniform manner.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 256.

  Division No. 461.]

  AYES.

  [5.52 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Duncan, C.

  Lunn, William

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gardner, J. P.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Montague, Frederick

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Groves, T.

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

  Palin, John Henry

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Paling, W.

  Bromfield, William

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Bromley, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Potts, John S.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Richardson, K. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Riley, Ben

  Close, W. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ritson, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Scurr, John

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Sexton, James

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lee, F.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Dennison, R.

  Lowth, T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Townend, A. E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Viant, S. P.

  Windsor, Walter

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Whiteley, W.

  Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-colonel

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

  Albery, Irving James

  Ellis, R. G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Elveden, Viscount

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Atholl, Duchess of

  England, Colonel A.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McLean, Major A.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

  Finburgh, S.

  Malone, Major P. B.

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Bennett, A. J.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Bethel, A.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Meyer, Sir Frank.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Gates, Percy

  Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Brass, Captain W.

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Neville, R. J.

  Briggs. J. Harold

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Grace, John

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Owen, Major G.

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'tb'l'd., Hexham)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Peto, G. (Somerset. Frame)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Harney, E. A.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Harris, Percy A.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Preston, William

  Campbell, E. T.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Radford, E. A.

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

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

  Raine, W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Christie, J. A.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Remnant, Sir James

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Sandon, Lord

  Cope, Major William

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Savery, S. S.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Drewe, C.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Duckworth. John

  Lord. Walter Greases

  Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lougher, L.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  1902

  1903

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Withers, John James

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro, W.)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Waddington, R.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

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

  Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel George

  Bowyer.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to move, in line 10, after the word "dwellings," to insert the words
  "which have been or are normally used for human habitation."
  We have never yet heard from the Minister any statement in precise terms as to exactly what the Government have in mind when they propose to take powers to use the funds to be provided by this Resolution for the conversion of buildings other than houses, and, therefore, I think we are entitled to, have from them a definite statement as to whether or not it will be possible, for instance, to convert buildings which are in use, say, as barns at the present time, and whether it will be possible to use money under the terms of this Resolution for housing agricultural workers and others of similar economic condition in converted barns. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us precisely what is intended, because the object of the Amendment is to prevent the use of public money on buildings which have not been used as dwelling houses, but which are now possibly to be converted into dwelling houses under the terms of this Resolution. This Bill may be truly described as a Bill to provide doles for distressed dukes and impecunious squires, and to perpetuate in the villages the shockingly low standards of housing under which agricultural workers now live. Whatever justification there may be for reconditioning some of the property in our villages which has fallen into a state of disrepair, it seems to me that there can be no possible reason for adding on to the burdens already imposed burdens for the purpose of enabling farmers or landowners to convert buildings which have not formerly been used as dwelling houses.
  I would like to know, from the Parliamentary Secretary, for instance, whether or not it is intended to enable people to convert buildings into dwelling-houses and then to insist, after they have
  1904
  received public funds, that the tenancies shall be subject to the same kind of limitations that exist with regard to tied cottages generally. The hon. Member will be well aware of the petty tyrannies that are still practised in our villages, and I should be very sorry indeed to give any vote or assent to any principle which would perpetuate a system which interferes with a man's personal liberty, and if it is proposed to allow more houses with those conditions of tenure to come into being on the countryside, I sincerely hope this Bill will not go through. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, when this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, referred to the use of the public money which the Bill proposed to provide for the purpose of preserving, reconditioning, and possibly altering some of the older and more picturesque buildings, which, he said, helped to preserve the genius of our villages. We want, to know exactly what is meant by the word "buildings" in connection with this Resolution. We are not prepared to agree to the use of public money for the conversion of buildings into dwelling-houses, because the spokesmen of the Government seem to have taken up an attitude, both on the occasion of the Second Reading and in this Debate, of deliberately refusing to define exactly what they mean by the term "other than dwelling-houses."
  Sir K. WOOD: Hon. Members opposite began by moving an Amendment with the object of limiting the operations of this Bill, and it is, of course, in line with the opposition to the Measure as a whole which has been put forward by the Labour party, so that I take it that it is in that spirit that we must view all the Amendments put forward from those benches. I must first explain, particularly as the late Minister of Health is present, exactly what we generally propose as far as reconditioning is concerned, and then deal more particularly with the

  1905
  specific points raised. The object of this particular Resolution and of the Bill is to make certain improvements and additions to dwellings up and down the country, which are capable, after completion, of becoming fit for habitation as dwellings by all sorts and conditions of people, and it is proposed, by the addition of an extra room, the raising of the roof, the enlargement of windows, the provision of a wash-house, the insertion of a damp course, or, which is perhaps more important still, the provision of an adequate water supply or sanitary convenience, to make what are now unsatisfactory dwellings into decent and proper habitations, particularly for the agricultural labourers of the country. That is the main intention of the Bill.
  It is also contemplated, though not by any means to such a large extent, that there may be other buildings up and down the country, which, after the completion of the works I have indicated, may become in all respects fit for habitation as dwellings for the agricultural labourers and others who may desire to inhabit them. It will be entirely for the local authority itself to determine. The procedure under this Measure will be that anyone who has any such proposal to put forward will submit their proposition, and no doubt their plans, to the local authority, and the authority will then decide whether or not it is a fit and proper case to go forward. In addition to that, and as an extra precaution, both on the financial side and on the other side of this matter, the local authority, before it can proceed by way of the procedure under grant, has to submit its proposals to the Ministry of Health. Therefore, so far as any doubt, if there be any genuine doubt, that any buildings will be adapted which are not fit for the purpose and will not become fit and habitable for the people who so badly need housing accommodation at the present time is concerned, my answer is that it will be for the local authority, in the first instance, to determine, and after the local authority have come to the conclusion that a satisfactory dwelling fit for proper habitation can so be made, there is the extra check of the Scheme being required to be submitted to the Ministry of Health. That is really the answer to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), who moved the Amendment.
  1906
  I may say, in conclusion, that I should have thought that anyone who had any regard to the conditions of the countryside in relation to housing at the present time would have welcomed a proposal by which any sort of building, so long as it was made fit for proper habitation, would be made available as under the proposals of this Bill, The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and, I think, another hon. Member opposite said we should rest on the 1924 Act. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself knows what the result of his Act has been, so far as agricultural parishes are concerned. He spoke this afternoon as an authority on what should be done for the working classes, but he had an opportunity in his 1924 Act, and I may tell him that at the present moment there are only erected, under the provisions of that Measure, which—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I must remind the hon. Member that he would not be in order on this occasion in making a Second Reading speech.
  Sir K. WOOD: I will content myself by saying that only 2,694 houses have been erected under that Act.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that that is the total number of houses erected under that Act, and will he tell us of any other Act that has provided anything like the same number of houses for agricultural workers?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes. The figure I gave is quite correct. Only 2,694 houses have been built under the 1924 Act in agricultural parishes, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put a question to me, I will let him know the exact figures so far as houses under any other Act are concerned. My point is that obviously, after a very fair trial of that Act and a very large expenditure of money, we should do nothing to curtail the operations of this Bill, which is now being sought to be done by the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. PALING: One would think from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that this was a Housing Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of how many people who are not in houses

  1907
  now are going to be put in houses as a result of the passing of this Financial Resolution? He knows himself that the major part of the money will be spent on houses that are already occupied and that the number of houses not occupied that will be put into repair and reconditioned will be very small indeed. I would like to know, because the hon. Member has not answered the question put to him.
  Sir K. WOOD: Why should we stop a single house being repaired?
  Mr. PALING: Why should you offer this as an alternative to the Housing Act, which was intended to build houses? That was the whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he has not answered the question that was asked him. Will he give us an estimate of how many houses they think can be built out of the stables, for instance, suggested by the late Minister of Health, a suggestion which the Tory party opposite seemed to resent? How many houses are going to be adapted from buildings of this description? One hon. Member opposite was very indignant at the suggestion that stables were going to be turned into houses, so evidently he did not agree with it, but another hon. Member below the Gangway said that the structures of a good many stables were good enough out of which to build houses. That is the intention of the Government that houses shall be built out of stables, and the stables of the dukes and the impecunious squires, which my hon. Friend talked about, are to be turned into houses for the working classes. With all the faults that have been suggested in regard to the Housing Act of 1924, it did make an attempt to build houses for the rural population, who had never been able to get houses of any description at all. The number of houses that will be reconditioned, or the number of people who will get houses as a result of this Bill is so small, that no questions from this side can drag an answer from the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the money is going into the pockets of people who already have houses, who have refused their obligation in the past to put them in proper repair, and because of that, a Tory Government is going to do it for them, and make a present of the
  1908
  money to them. I was rather interested to read the speech of the Minister of Health about this subject from the æsthetic point of view. He said:
  "There is another aspect of the case which I should not like to omit, although it is not perhaps quite of the some order of importance. Our country villages contain a great deal that is characteristic of old England in style and material and in the architecture of their cottages. To look at cottages, such as you may see in the Cotswold district in Gloucestershire, or in East Kent, where I was the other day, is a constant pleasure, not only to country dwellers, but to town dwellers, too, and I must say that it seems to me it would be something like an act of vandalism if we were to destroy these reminders of an older and more picturesque world in order to replace them with buildings which, though they may be sensible, are of a different style and cannot be said to harmonise with their surroundings. It is not only an æsthetic questions. I cannot help feeling that the existence of an environment of this kind must do a great deal to preserve what I may call the genius of the place in the minds of the inhabitants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2853, Vol. 198.]
  So that, presumably, in order to preserve the æsthetic value and the genius of the place in the minds of the inhabitants, old stables and barns which can be converted into houses, are going to be converted under this particular Resolution. I do not think much will be done in that direction from the point of view of this Resolution, and while the paragraph I have read speaks highly for the imagination of the Minister, I do not think it will work out well in practice. As a matter of fact, the money of this country would be better spent on new houses, while allowing some of these old houses to go out of repair and out of existence as soon as possible, rather than recondition them and repair some which are almost too bad for anything.
  To argue that this is an alternative to the Housing Act of my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health is sheer absurdity. What is going to be done by the people who are in control of these rural councils? An hon. Member on the Liberal Benches objected to an Amendment for the limitation of the money. He seemed to be of opinion that because of the natural conservatism and the undesirability of spending rates in any circumstances whatever, the rural council would put the limitation on it, and do nothing of the kind. And so, from all points of view, there does not

  1909
  seem that good can come out of the Bill. In so far as this money has to be spent—for I dare say the majority of the Government will carry this Resolution—it should be spent on houses already inhabited or to be inhabited, and not used for converting these old barns and stables into houses which are thought good enough for the agricultural population.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to agree to this Amendment, and for the reasons for which he expressed disapproval of it. He thinks —and I agree with him—that it means a restriction of the Bill, which, I think, is restricted enough already. I would like to see it carried further into other districts than, apparently, will be touched; but that is another matter into which I must not enter at this moment. I would like to say, however, that I am not quite sure, if hon. Members could see some of the things I have seen in my experience, whether they would not agree with me. If they at all agreed that it is desirable that the inhabitants of rural districts should have better housing facilities than they have at this moment, I think they would not support this Amendment. There has been a great deal of contempt this afternoon thrown upon the conversion of stables into houses. I am going actually to do what may be interpreted as the unpopular thing, and that is to suggest that there are plenty of places where, in the present condition of housing, stables can be properly, usefully and desirably turned into houses.
  Mr. PALING: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the cost of conversion?
  Sir P. PILDITCH: I can take the hon. Member to a road in which stables have gone through various metamorphoses. They were designed originally as stables with horses on the ground floor, and the people who looked after the horses on the upper floor. They remained in that use for ten years. Then they became garages, and now they have become workmen's dwellings, and not only workmen's dwellings, but dwellings of people who can afford to pay more than the average working man, although I quite agree that a working man is as entitled to everything in the shape of sanitary conditions as
  1910
  any other person. The passage of this Amendment would absolutely prevent a great many buildings of this kind being made into dwellings. The hon. Member asked me what the cost of transforming them would be. In these particular instances, the structure being quite sound, it did not cost a large proportion of the original cost of the buildings to transform them, but it cost a good deal, because the fittings used when the places were stables had to be taken out and replaced by fittings necessary to make them into proper houses. It was a sum, however, which I think would come well within what is prescribed in the Bill.
  The Mover of the Amendment proposes to insert the words "which have been or are normally used for human habitation." If he had gone as far as to say, "which are, or can be, made suitable for human habitation" as a matter of principle, I should agree with him. But that is already covered by the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Who can imagine, having regard to all the stages through which the consents will have to be obtained, that any undesirable building is likely to be made use of for human habitation? It has, first of all, to receive the sanction of the local authority, and then it has to come to the Ministry of Health. Really and truly, if my hon. Friends opposite, who profess to speak with a direct sense of responsibility for the working classes of this country, have no better suggestion to offer than one which would limit, to my knowledge in a great many cases, the provision of absolutely suitable dwellings for the working classes, then I think they must have mistaken their vocation in regard to this question. Rather than limit the operation of this Bill, I would wish it extended. At present it is limited to rural districts, I take it, and to the districts which are governed by county councils and county boroughs. I do not know how many county boroughs will benefit by the operation of the Bill; I should hope that some would, at any rate. As I say, I would like to see the operation of the Bill not limited, and, like all Amendments which seek to restrict the operations of the Bill, I oppose this one.
  Mr. MARCH: The hon. Member who has just sat down has dilated upon the alteration of stables into dwellings. I

  1911
  would like to ask him to point to a rural area where these lovely stables have been altered into dwellings. I rather think he is referring to urban areas when he talks about the alteration of stables. I happen to be one of the unfortunates born over a stable. I have been closely connected with stables ever since, and I have been trying to get as far away from them as I possibly can, and to encourage everyone else to get as far away as possible. I happen to know something about the rural areas of Essex. I was in Essex during the last holiday, looking round. I did not see very many stables which could be made into good human habitations. I have seen a number of old dilapidated houses, the owners of which are waiting for the Government to pass this Bill so that the houses may be put into habitable order. The people have left them, the windows are out and the houses are going to have roofs put on. Then it will not make them decent, because they are not in a decent quarter.
  What we want to do is to get on with the provision of decent houses for the people, and not try to improve some of the old buildings which have been referred to as picturesque. It is very picturesque to go down some of the swamps and holes where they put up
  houses for agricultural workers! Many of them have not got any sanitary accommodation, and it is necessary that they should have water laid on and drains put in. But they cannot get it done by the present landlords, unless they are backed by the Tory Government with a subsidy. I think such houses ought to be demolished entirely, and new houses built. If hon. Members opposite had any decent respect for agricultural labourers, as they profess, they would build houses for them, or get them built, and then they would be the property of the local authorities, instead of subsidising private enterprise, which has failed miserably.
  Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate as to how many houses will be converted as a result of this proposal?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any estimate of the expense of the conversion?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 250.

  Division No. 462.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Scurr, John

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sexton, James

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford, T. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Naylor T. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Albery, Irving James

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Pielou, D. P.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Grace, John

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Bennett, A. J.

  Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bethel, A.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Preston, William

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Radford, E. A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Raine, W.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Ramsden, E.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harney, E. A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harris, Percy A.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Ropner, Major L.

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Sandon, Lord

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Savery, S. S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Skeiton, A. N.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cope, Major William

  Jacob, A. E.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Waddington, R.

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

  Loder, J. de V.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Laugher, L.

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Dixey, A. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Drewe, C.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Duckworth, John

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

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macintyre, Ian

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McLean, Major A.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ellis, R. G.

  McNeal, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Elveden, Viscount

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  England, Colonel A.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central)

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Withers, John James

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fenby, T. D.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Finburgh, S.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T

  Neville, R. J.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Major Hennessy and Captain

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Owen, Major G.

  Lord Stanley.

  Gates, Percy

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-one", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to lay it down that applications for assistance must have been received by a local authority before the 1st October, 1927, instead of 1931 as provided by the Resolution. I move this Amendment for two reasons. The first is in order to bring these proposals into line with the Government's financial policy on housing under the Housing Acts. I understand that the Minister of Health has already let it be known that the present basis of assistance to local authorities in their housing schemes is to terminate by October of next year, when some revision will be made. At any rate, public authorities feel they cannot count on receiving assistance for new schemes which are not approved by October of next year, and I suggest that it would be useful and convenient that the same arrangements should be made under this Resolution. My second reason for moving this Amendment is that the policy under this Resolution is a new departure in housing methods. It is obviously in the nature of an experiment, and by October of next year we should be in a position to know how far these proposals are effective, and to what extent advantage has been taken of the assistance offered, and we should know, therefore, how far Parliament was committed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member has forgotten the conditions with regard to subsidies under existing Housing Acts which are to be reviewed as from the 1st October, 1927. That limitation applies to the completion of new houses by that date, and not to improvement schemes. It is a totally different thing from the proposal in this Bill, which is to limit the time within which applications for assistance can be made. The hon. Member would not achieve the purpose he has in view if his Amendment were carried, because we should not in the least know how far Parliament was committed. If we limit the time to the date he proposes, all that would then have happened would be that in order to make certain that no opportunity was missed, everybody would have sent in applications in respect of all their houses, without having had proper time to go into the cases and consider whether they did or did not need assistance. Local authorities would be swamped with applications for assistance, a large proportion of which would be found, on investigation at a later date, to be not worth proceeding with. From his own point of view it is better to allow a longer period in order that we may get only applications which are serious applications and have been submitted to proper investigation.
  Question put, "That the word 'thirty-one' stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Albery, Irving James

  Burman, J. B.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F W.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Dixey, A. C.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Drewe, C.

  Balniel, Lord

  Campbell, E. T.

  Duckworth, John

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Christie, J. A.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  England, Colonel A.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Bethel, A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Fenby, T. D.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cope, Major William

  Fielden, E. B.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Finburgh, S.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Gates, Percy

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Grace, John

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

  McLean Major A.

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Harney, E. A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Neville, R. J.

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

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

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Owen, Major G.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Perring, Sir William George

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Waddington, R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hudson, R.S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

  Preston, William

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Raine, W.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl'n)

  Ramsden, E.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Jacob, A. E.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Withers, John James

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Rye, F. G.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sandon, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Major Hennessy and Captain

  Lougher, L.

  Savery, S. S.

  Viscount Curzon.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvi1)

  Ritson, J.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Townend, A. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Naylor, T. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Hayes.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out the word "two-thirds," and to insert instead thereof the word "one-third."
  The principle of this Bill is thoroughly bad, and we on this side of the Committee do not believe in voting public money to private owners of houses. Consequently, we are trying to cut down the plundering contained in this Bill to the least possible amount. We want to prevent these people putting their hands in the public purse if we can. If we cannot do that, we want to reduce the amount that they are able to take from the public purse. It seems curious to me that, in order to get decent houses for the agricultural labourer, the State should have to resort to measures of this kind. There are ways and means under the present law by which owners can be made to keep their premises in a proper state of repair without resorting to proposals of this kind. Under these proposals there will be quite a number of private owners who will not let their premises to the people for whom the houses are intended, and who do not employ workmen at all.
  These people will let the houses in the ordinary course and get the best rent they can. That being so, and in view of the fact that we failed to get rid of the principle of this Bill, we are now trying to cut down the principle of the Measure as much as we can.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of this Amendment would be of a double nature. In the first place, it would make it incumbent upon the owner of the house to find two-thirds of the money instead of one-third; and, in the second place, it would enable the owner to get 3 per cent. on that, or twice as much as under the provisions of this Bill. Both of those are things that we on this side do not desire to encourage. The adoption of the Amendment would kill the operation of the Bill. That, I understand, is the object of the Amendment and therefore the Government are opposed to it.
  Question put, "That the word 'two-thirds' stand part of the Question.'
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 85.

  Division No. 464.]

  AYES.

  [6.57 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Gates, Percy

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon, George Abraham

  Balniel, Lord

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cope, Major William

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Grace, John

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

  Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Bennett, A. J.

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bethel, A.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Harney, E. A.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Drewe, C.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Duckworth, John

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Ellis, R G.

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

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

  Elveden, Viscount

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  England, Colonel A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Burman, J. B.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Christie, J. A.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Owen, Major G.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Jacob, A. E.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Preston, William

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Radford, E. A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Raine, W.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Waddington, R.

  Lougher, L.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

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

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

  Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Ropner, Major L.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Rye, F. G.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  McLean, Major A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Savery, S. S.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Withers, John James

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

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

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Neville, R. J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

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

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

  Thomson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

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

  Ritson, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scurr, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sexton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)

  Clowes, S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Palin, John Henry

  Windsor, Walter

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hayes.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 465.]

  AYES.

  [7.7 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Balniel, Lord

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Bethel, A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Perring, Sir William George

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Grace, John

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)

  Pielou D. P.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Preston, William

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Radford, E. A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Raine, W.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harney, E. A.

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Burman, J. B.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Rye, F. G.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Savery, S. S.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Skeiton, A. N.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Stanley, Hon, O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Stott, Lieut.-colonel W. H.

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

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Drewe, C.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Duckworth John

  Loner J. de V.

  Waddington, R.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lougher, L.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Ellis, R. G.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  England, Colonel A.

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

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McLean, Major A.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Finburgh, S.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R

  Withers, John James

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Gates, Percy

  Neville, R. J.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

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

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir Park

  Owen, Major G.

  Major Cope and Captain Lord

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stanley.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Baker, Walter

  Bromley, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Buchanan, G.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Bromfield, William

  Clowes, S.

  1924

  1925

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Scurr, John

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sexton, James

  Cove, W. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Dennison, R.

  Lee, F.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Duncan, C.

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dunnico, H.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gardner, J. P.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Townend, A. E.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gosling, Harry

  Maxton, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Groves, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Grundy, T. W

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, W.

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

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Hardie, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Hayes.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [16TH NOVEMBER].
  Resolution reported.

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

      UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,250,000, 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, 1927, for Relief arising out of Unemployment."
      Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Before we part from this Resolution, may I ask the Minister of Health if he will elucidate some remarks that he made at the end of his speech last evening with regard to the assistance given to necessitous areas? He said:
      "I believe that by the system of block grants—when it is possible to allocate those block grants on a fair and proper basis, taking account not merely of population but also of capacity to pay as measured by rateable value—it may be possible to get a scheme which will bring relief to these necessitous areas without effecting injustice on any other part of the country. That is the permanent policy to which I look for-
      1926
      ward as a solution of this problem." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1926; col. 1822, Vol. 199.]
      I should like to ask him how soon he can put that permanent policy into operation. This is a matter of very considerable urgency. The Minister himself, as he remarked last night, was one of a deputation to the Minister of Health in the Coalition Government urging that assistance should be given to necessitous areas. The urgency of the question is infinitely greater to-day. In my own district the Poor Rate, which was 1s. 2d. in the £ in 1913–14, is now 7s. in the £. These rates are crippling industry, and, unless something is done to relieve the situation, there will be no hope of industry being able to revive. I hope that the Minister can say something to-night which will bring some hope to these distressed areas, which have borne the heat and burden of the day for so long.

  WAYS AND MEANS [16TH NOVEMBER].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the sum of £3,545,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom,"
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Ronald McNeill.

  WAYS AND MEANS [16TH NOVEMBER].
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL,
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, and to appropriate the further supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes after Seven o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.
  HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  INSURANCE FINANCE.
  INSURANCE FINANCE.
  PARKHURST PRISON (ESCAPES).
  PARKHURST PRISON (ESCAPES).
  LONDON BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS AND OVERDRAFTS).
  LONDON BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS AND OVERDRAFTS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  BROADCASTING (CORNWALL).
  BROADCASTING (CORNWALL).
  BRITISH ARMY (M'GRIGOR BANK FAILURE).
  BRITISH ARMY (M'GRIGOR BANK FAILURE).
  COMPULSORY VOTING.
  COMPULSORY VOTING.
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
  CROWN CASES (COSTS).
  CROWN CASES (COSTS).
  COUNTY COURT OFFICES (CLERICAL STAFF).
  COUNTY COURT OFFICES (CLERICAL STAFF).
  EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS (REPORT).
  EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS (REPORT).
  ESTONIA (DEBTS TO GREAT BRITAIN).
  ESTONIA (DEBTS TO GREAT BRITAIN).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (TAXATION AND CONTROL).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (TAXATION AND CONTROL).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT TREDEGAR.
Courtenay Charles Evan, Baron Tredegar, C.B.E., V.D., having been created Viscount Tredegar of Tredegar, in the County of Monmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE.
The Right Hon. Sir Thomas Rolls Warrington, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been created Baron Warrington of Clyffe of Market Lavington, in the County of Wilts—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

POOR LAW BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the relief of the poor in England and Wales, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the late Council and Assembly at Geneva, and especially to the questions of Mandates and disarmament. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I may say at once that owing to the very wide range of matters which come before the Council at Geneva—these matters appear to be constantly extending as the influence of Geneva extends—I do not propose to go into any question other than the two which I have specifically mentioned of disarmament and Mandates. Had I intended to go beyond those two subjects I should have given

645
information to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who represents the Government. But there is one other matter which I must mention. Every person and Party in this country rejoices at the entry of Germany into the League of Nations at the last Assembly and rejoices not only because of the fact that as a matter of conciliation and friendship it showed a great advance in international opinion but also on the ground that to a very marked extent it adds stability, power, authority and influence to the League of Nations itself. There is no doubt whatever that for some time the absence of Germany had been felt, as a great loss and I believe all Parties and persons in this country heartily welcomed her entrance into the League.
The two subjects with which I have to deal are, I think, of great importance, particularly at the present time. It has been felt from the commencement of the work at Geneva that disarmament was an acid test of advance in the direction of real peace and reconciliation, but on this subject, raised I think seven years ago, no substantial advance has been made up to the present time. It is true that at this last Assembly—and I am glad that it is so—a step has been taken in a practical direction by suggesting or determining that before June of next year some declaration should be made by the Commission which has been appointed to deal with this matter, and, in addition, there has been a Preparatory Commission, of which the noble Viscount is a member, and one or more Sub-Committees to which special matters have been referred in order to be dealt with by experts. I only want to say this as regards these various Commissions, Committees and Sub-Committees. Whether they succeed or not I think is a matter which depends on the attitude of Great Britain and whether we are prepared to take so great a responsibility or not. As a matter of fact, the conditions are such at Geneva that on the attitude of Great Britain the success of these Committees and Commissions mainly depends.
There are two points that I should like to put particularly to the noble Viscount on this branch of my subject. The first is whether it will be possible, in his opinion, for this country to bring forward for consideration concrete proposals as affecting the armaments of this country?
646
Though it is difficult always to follow what goes on at Geneva, I understand that the opinion of M. Paul-Boncour is that positive proposals can be brought forward on behalf of the French people and the French Government. I think it is obvious that positive proposals would be of enormous advantage if any true and real progress is to be made. On the other matter I believe there is a difference of opinion, or there may be a difference of opinion, between the noble Viscount and M. Paul-Boncour. Would the noble Viscount tell us what is the attitude of this country as regards international control of armaments when reduced to the defensive level? That is a matter of very great importance in dealing with technical and practical subjects, and I ask the noble Viscount, if he can, to give information upon it.
The other matter to which I want to refer is, in my opinion, a more important one and one on which, I admit, I have greater anxiety: that is, the attitude of the present Government. It is not necessary to emphasise the danger of large competitive armaments in Europe. It is sufficient for me to say that I agree with what has been often stated by so great an authority as Viscount Grey of Fallodon—namely, that in his opinion these competitive armaments were one of the immediate or direct causes of the Great War which broke out in 1914, and that unless substantial reduction is made the same difficulties may recur and we max be thrown again into all the horrors and miseries of war. He has pointed out—I think quite truly—that there can be no question that these large competitive armaments did not produce a sense of security. On the contrary, they produced a sense of insecurity, and were in his opinion—and no opinion could be of greater value—one of the immediate causes of the outbreak in 1914.
I may add one word perhaps upon the history of this matter. These competitive armaments which led, as I believe, to the disaster of 1914, are of comparatively recent date. I think that the whole question of competitive armaments does not go back further than the year 1860 and, as a matter of fact, it is only in the ten years immediately before the outbreak in 1914 that these competitive armaments advanced with rapid strides and produced, by competitive expenditure

647
and provision, the insecurity to which Lord Grey has referred. There is another point upon which I desire to say only a word or two, because I need not emphasise it. It is not a question whether we in Great Britain ought or ought not to take part in the reduction of these armaments. We have come under a solemn obligation to do so and the question is not one of a choice of policy but of the fulfilment of a solemn and binding obligation.
I would like quite shortly to refer to the documents in which that obligation is to be found. There is what is known as the Fourth Point in President Wilson's Fourteen Points. There is the provision of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League. There are the provisions introduced into the Treaty of Versailles and into the other Treaties with the ex-enemy countries, and perhaps still more important—I shall have to refer later on to the special position of Germany—there is the answer given by the Allied and Associated Powers at Versailles to the German Delegation at the time when they were objecting to the reduction of armaments which was then being sought to be placed upon them. These are the words. They are the words of M. Clemenceau, I believe:
"They [the reductions] are also the first steps towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they [the Allied and Associated Powers] seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote."
Therefore, I think I am well justified in saying that we need not any longer discuss the question of policy, but how loyally we can best carry out the binding obligations which we have already undertaken.
The point upon which I wish to dwell now is this: whether we can successfully carry out those obligations ourselves and assist other countries in carrying out similar obligations which they have undertaken depend very much on the view taken either as to the limitation or the extension of the arbitration principle. The League of Nations is an international community the members of which, under the Charter of the Covenant, have entered into certain obligations and restraints towards one another in order to further the interests of peace and in
648
order that they may live together in peaceful intercourse. The machinery of the Covenant was borrowed from the experience of the machinery of justice which brought law and order amongst the citizens of any given organised country. Perhaps it is only a truism, but one must emphasise it, to say that the fundamental notion of justice, either between individuals or nations, implies some impartial authority or tribunal to which an appeal can be made when disputes and differences cannot be settled either by conference or conciliation.
The extent to which justice is brought as a harmonising agent of peace between nations depends on the extent to which agreement is carried for referring to an impartial third-party tribunal matters in dispute and disagreement. It is well known—I do not want to use phrases about it—that in 1924 the policy of what is called all-inclusive arbitration was carried furthest at Geneva. I am not prepared now to say whether the provisions under which it was carried were satisfactory or not. The important point is that unanimously in 1924 the Assembly expressed the view that it would be to the advantage of peace and reconciliation to have, if possible, an all-inclusive system so that all disputes of every kind might be referred for peaceful decision. I do not think the noble Viscount will differ from me when I say that in 1925 and 1926 there was no departure in the general view of the Assembly from the principle which was unanimously adopted in 1924. One illustration is sufficient for my purpose—Locarno. The whole basis of the Locarno Treaty is that it is in substance and in truth an all-inclusive Treaty as regards the reference of matters to arbitration or Court decision. Of course in that Treaty you have the distinction between arbitration and Court decision, but that does not matter. It provided that as between France and Germany—two of the most important countries who for centuries have had disputes and wars—the principle should be all-inclusive and that nothing should be left out but what could be settled by friendly means between the parties concerned.
We did not, I know, accede to the principle, but what I want to suggest is this: if a provision of that kind has found favour between the two countries

649
between whom disputes were most likely to be of an extreme character, surely it is a strong argument that in all other cases a similar proposal should be adopted. I say, quite frankly, that I believe that if the present Government, at Geneva or during these Preparatory Committees and Commissions, would say that they were content to adopt in their disputes the same principle which has been established in the Locarno Treaty between France and Germany, the difficulties against practical disarmament proposals would be displaced in a large measure. I noticed the other day that M. Paul-Boncour, the well known representative of France at Geneva, made this statement, and as coming from the leading French representative on this matter I think it is of much importance. This is what he said:—
"If Germany was to be really disarmed it was necessary that disarmament should be extended to other countries and that was why the entire world demanded the Geneva Protocol."
I should like the noble Viscount to tell us whether he thinks that Germany can be permanently disarmed without other countries being similarly disarmed, as implied by the words of M. Paul-Boncour. M. Paul-Boncour added that it could not be too often repeated that disarmament would be general or it would not exist at all.
I hope that there is some chance that on this great question relating to the future of peace and disarmament this country will not lag behind the general opinion of the world. There is no doubt that disarmament depends on a general will to peace; I have no doubt that a will to peace depends upon the extent to which justice is guaranteed in international affairs; and the extent to which justice is guaranteed is exactly coterminous with the extent to which the countries involved agree to refer all matters in dispute to an impartial tribunal instead of leaving them to the uncertain decision of violence and force. By the Assembly of 1925 a reference was made to the Secretariat asking for a Report on the number of registered Treaties dealing with arbitration. This Report was to be made to the Seventh Assembly. I will not trouble your Lordships with the terms of the Report, which would involve the discussion of a great mass of detail, but the Treaties aiming
650
at a specific settlement of international disputes—that was the description given—were returned at 73. Of these, five Treaties were what are called all-inclusive Arbitration Treaties—that is to say, there were five Treaties in which the countries concerned agreed to refer all matters in dispute to an impartial decision. There were 23 signatories to what is known as the optional clause of the International Court, bringing the countries signing—with reservations, if they like—under an obligation to bring certain juridical matters for the decision of the International Court. There were 17 Conciliation Treaties—that is, Treaties depending on conciliation.
What was the position that this country held? We had no all-inclusive Treaties at this epoch, though it is true that there was one with Uruguay many years ago. We refused to sign what is known as the optional clause, and we were not party to any Conciliation Treaties, although during this time both Switzerland and a Scandinavian country had approached us asking us to come to terms with them for the negotiation of an all-inclusive Treaty. I am now in a position to ask these questions of the noble Viscount. My first question—I think it is a repetition, but I ask it again at this point—is whether the Government propose to bring forward agreed proposals for disarmament, not only at the preliminary Committee but at the Disarmament Committee itself. My second question is whether there is any intention to change the attitude expressed at the March meeting of the Council in 1925 and to enlarge the area within which this country will agree to submit disputes of an international character for either conciliation or settlement.
I want to say a word or two regarding Germany. Germany stanch in a very special position, and the complaint that Germany makes—I wish that all corn-plaints could be removed in matters of this kind—regards, in the first place, the inequality of imposing disarmament upon her without at the same time carrying out the obligations to which I have referred. In the second place Germany raises the objection that the international control has fulfilled its purpose and that supervision—I take the word from the Covenant itself—should in the future be placed under the authority of

651
the League of Nations. When I was at Geneva in 1924 there had been referred to the experts, including, of course, the experts of this country, who gave great assistance, a question whether in the case of Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary the time had come when an arrangement should be made under which international control should be superseded by the supervision of the League of Nations itself; and the question arose while I was at Geneva whether at the same time an arrangement might be made for the supervision of disarmament in Germany, Germany passing from international control to the control of the League itself. I am glad to say that, after a good deal of discussion, a plan was prepared applicable to Germany. I ceased to be a member of the Council about that date and I do not know how much further the matter was carried, but the noble Viscount will be able to supply anything that happened after that time.
My urgent hope is that the time has come for getting rid of matters of friction which are certain to arise between France and Germany so long as international control is maintained, and that in its place may be substituted a neutral and impartial supervision under the authority of the League of Nations itself. Surely that is a matter of great and immediate importance. It is a matter which ought to be considered if what is called the spirit of Locarno is to be really carried out and if the result is to be a true reconciliation between France on the one side and Germany on the other.
Now I come to the question of Mandates, which I am glad to say is a shorter matter than the question of disarmament. It is known, of course, that under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League mandated territories are to be held by the Mandatory Powers as a sacred trust of civilisation, and it is important to see what the Covenant itself says upon this point. The Covenant has an integral condition which reads:—
"A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual Reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the Mandates."
A very important Permanent Commission has been constituted. It was appointed through the Council, of course, but it was intended to be the creature of
652
the Covenant itself, and in that sense independent of the Council. This year the Mandates Commission asked two questions. One was whether, in order to obtain the necessary information to carry out the duties thrown upon it, it would be right that it should hear the views of petitioners who desired to appear before it. The other was whether a questionnaire which they proposed was one which would commend itself as a proper means of obtaining information.
The obtaining of information of this character is a delicate matter, and the responsibility thrown upon the Permanent Mandates Commission is both a difficult and a delicate one; but when this question was raised before the Council, I do not know exactly how to express the attitude adopted by certain members of the Council and by the representative of this country. It certainly was not a courteous attitude, and in fact it is a suggestion, as far as I can follow it, that in some way the Mandates Commission was going outside its appropriate sphere and entering upon matters which more properly came within the authority of the Mandatories themselves. I think that was unfortunate, but I have no doubt myself that in spite of the comments made the Permanent Mandates Commission, constituted as it is, will carry out its duties in what it thinks an effective manner.
But my point is a different one, and seems to me to be of much importance. The Mandates Commission has to report to the Council in what is a semi-judicial attitude, and it is most important, if the principles of the Covenant really are to be carried out, that the Council should as far as possible act in a judicial spirit. Is that possible when the Council has amongst its members, and amongst its most influential members, I think I may say practically all the important mandatory countries. It is not for me to make a suggestion, and I do not know whether the noble Viscount will be able to make one, but surely it is inconsistent with the impartiality on which the principles of the Covenant are founded, that you should find, in substance, that the same parties are both parties to the dispute and also acting in a judicial spirit. Far the most important point of all, of course, is that the mandatory authorities should always have in view

653
the trust character of their authority. Lately there has been an examination at Geneva of the mandatory conditions in Iraq, Samoa, Togoland, and other places, I dare say, too. It appears, to me at least, that the accounts given of the work of Great Britain are most satisfactory to all who desire that the trustee character of the Mandatories should be kept to the front, and I will quote one illustration, because I think the language is so apt that it covers the whole matter.
Sir Charles Fergusson is now the Governor-General of New Zealand, and New Zealand is the Mandatory of Western Samoa. What he is reported to have said, and it is quoted by the Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission, is that the duty of New Zealand is to consider everything from a single point of view, that of the ultimate benefit of the Samoan people. This meant, he said, that where New Zealand nationals and native interests were in conflict, as was sometimes inevitable, the deciding factor must be consideration for the interests and good of the Samoans. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he considers that a true account of a Mandatory Power in relation to the mandated territories of which it is a trustee. I desire to add one word. I have always regarded the Mandates provision in the Covenant as of the utmost importance. It introduces novel conditions for the education of backward countries, and so long as they can be adminstered in the spirit and in accordance with the words used by Sir Charles Fergusson, then I should think that one of the most beneficent clauses of the Covenant of the League was that dealing with the Mandates question. I am bound to say that I have heard and read expressions not of the same satisfactory character, but I hope the noble Viscount will endorse with his authority the view that the true position is stated in the words I have quoted from Sir Charles Fergusson. Those are the two matters that I particularly wish to bring forward.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has covered a wide area of ground, over a large part of which I shall not attempt to follow him, and in the very few moments during which I propose to trespass upon your Lordships'
654
attention I shall confine myself to a single topic, mentioned by him and to some extent elaborated by him, which appears to me at this moment to overshadow and indeed to dominate the whole of the international field. I mean the topic of disarmament.
It is now, as we have been reminded during the last week, eight years since the Armistice which brought to an end the fighting on the Western Front, and it is seven years since the signature of the Treaty of Versailles. The Covenant of the League of Nations is upon the threshold, and indeed occupier the forefront of that Treaty. And Article 8 of the Covenant, to which my noble friend referred, provides, in language which ought to be familiar to everybody, that
"The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, and the enforcement by common action of international obligations."
Not content with the expression of a pious opinion, the Members proceeded to make this declaration, that—
"The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments."
Seven years have elapsed since that solemn obligation was undertaken, and I cannot help thinking that the Powers, both great and small, feel, or ought to feel, that they have not altogether an untroubled conscience in this matter.
The burden of armaments, grave and grievous as it was before the War, still presses with hardly diminished weight upon the peoples of the world, and, with all the efforts that have been made in every direction to alleviate those burdens, it still clogs the course of economic recovery and, in the judgment of all farsighted observers, it is still an over-clouding and menacing factor to the prospects of permanent peace. I am not sure that I rightly caught the words of my noble friend, but I do not agree with the view of those who hold that serious efforts have not been made.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: Well, I am very glad to hear that. The Washington Conference, to which he did not refer, and which was not convoked

655
by the League of Nations, but by the United States of America, then as now, unfortunately, not a Member of the League—the Washington Conference of 1921 took a most salutary step by arresting, and effectively arresting, the competition in capital ships. But, valuable as that contribution was to the establishment of a more pacific, or at any rate, less menacing, condition of affairs, the Washington Conference—I am not blaming it, it did its best—in regard to land forces, to aircraft, and even to submarines, was obliged to coma to the conclusion that, at that moment at any rate, and under the conditions which then prevailed, no agreement for the limitation of armaments was possible. The disarmament of Germany, carried on under the supervision of the League of Nations and under the provisions of the Treaty, is now, I hope we may say—perhaps my noble friend opposite (Lord Cecil of Chelwood) may give us some more definite information upon the exact stage which we have reached—is now, to all serious intents and purposes, a fait accompli. There are, we are told, outstanding paints, but, so far as an outsider can judge, they are not of very serious moment, and I hope the noble Viscount will give us the assurance that before long they will be cleaned entirely off the slate.
My noble friend who has just sat down has read a passage from a letter which was addressed by the Allied and Associated Powers during the Conference in Paris, I think in the name of M. Clemenceau, in which he expressed his view to the German Peace Delegation that the disarmament of Germany was intended to be only the first step in the larger process of general disarmament. And it is not immaterial to recall to your memories that the whole of that Part of the Treaty of Versailles which deals with the disarmament of Germany, containing, I think, some fifty very minute and detailed provisions, is prefaced and is governed by this Preamble:
"In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval, and air clauses which follow."
Therefore, the disarmament of Germany, in view of the signatories of the Treaty, was not to be treated merely as an act—and a very proper and necessary act—
656
to secure Europe against a repetition of what happened in 1914, but as the first step in a contemplated and considered policy of general disarmament.
Again, there was a very useful, though not perhaps very ambitious, Pact which was concluded between a number of the Powers in the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925, by which the signatories undertook that they would not permit the export of arms from their own territories, except to the accredited Government of the country to which they were to be sent. That was signed by all the great Powers, I think, including the United States of America; it was ratified by France; but so far as I know, it has not yet been ratified by this country, and I trust that my noble friend Lord Cecil will be able to say whether there is any prospect of its ratification here. I can conceive of no reason why we should not take the step which has been taken by France in that direction.
Then, finally, there is the Pact of Locarno itself. It is true, there again, that we are not dealing with the League of Nations. The Pact of Locarno was a Pact between specific Powers. It introduced into the League of Nations, it is true—or at least provided the means of introducing—Germany. But, by the Pact of Locarno it was provided, and most wisely provided, in its concluding paragraph, that the parties there concerned recognised the binding obligation of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League, and regarded what was then done as a step, and an important step, towards the final attainment of general disarmament.
It follows from that brief summary that it would not be fair to say that no advance has been made in the direction of disarmament; but it is a very small advance. The Washington Treaty, as I have said, deals only with a limited side of a comparatively limited area. It binds nobody but the parties who are immediately concerned. And the one really hopeful feature, as it seems to me, in the situation with which we are at this moment confronted is in the steps that are being taken by the League of Nations itself to convoke and to prepare the way for the activities of an International Conference. I am bringing no accusation of lethargy or indeed of lack of interest and sympathy on the part of the League. It has been beneficently and

657
usefully occupied in preventing, on more than one occasion by accommodation, by persuasion and by bringing the parties together, disputes which in old days might certainly have threatened if they did not actually lead to war. But my anxiety, and I suppose the anxiety of everybody who regard this as a vital question, far the most, urgent of any in the whole sphere of international relationships, is to obtain an assurance, if we can, and I hope my noble friend, than whom nobody has done more to promote the usefulness and the beneficent work of the League of Nations, will be able to give us some such assurance, first, that this Conference, within at any rate a measurable distance of time, is likely to set to work, and next, that the preparatory work which is being done by the preliminary Commission of the League of Nations itself, aided by its expert Committees, is at any rate within hope of being finally completed.
This is a much more complicated and difficult matter than people sometimes realise. Disarmament is a general, indeed one might almost say an abstract term, and as such it makes a very good—I will not say battle-cry but watchword to describe the ideal at which we are all aiming. But never let us forget that it must mean, as it does mean, very different things to countries so varied in their geographical and their economic conditions as are the component States of the civilised world. The Commission has appointed Sub-Committees of technical experts dealing with the military side and with the economic side of disarmament. I do not wish in any way to underrate the importance or to disparage the work of those bodies. But this in the long run is not a matter for experts. Their function is to provide information and—I do not limit it entirely to that—to convey such suggestions as fall within their province.
But it is very important, particularly for those who look upon disarmament as vital to the future of the world, to realise the kind of problems and difficulties with which they are confronted. There are some instruments of warfare which in my judgment, and I suppose in the judgment of everybody in this country, ought not to be merely limited in quantity but absolutely ruled out altogether as wholly inadmissible. There is not complete agreement about them.
658
Let me give two illustrations. The first, as to which I am glad to believe there is coming to be, in principle at any rate, a complete unity of opinion, is as to the use in warfare of chemical and bacteriological agencies of destruction. I imagine—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that you will get a unanimous judgment in that sense from the Commission at Geneva. Another, and I take this because it stands in a somewhat different category, not, as I think, in point either of morality or of expediency, because diverse views are honestly entertained by States which are anxious for disarmament, is the question of the submarine. I should hope, and I believe, opinion in this country is almost unanimous in this sense, that the submarine as an instrument of warfare will be, as it ought to be in any effective system of disarmament, completely abolished. Those are things which ought to be put on one side as being outside the category of apparatus, of warfare which it is legitimate to employ.
When, however, you come to the narrower aspect of the matter, to armaments which, if war is needed and if war must exist, are conceded to be part of its necessary equipment whether by sea or by land or in the air, your first object it seems to me (I do not know how far this accords with the views, so far as they have yet been formed, of the Commission at Geneva) is to limit peace-time armaments. You must begin there. It is a question not of principle but of practicability, and in some of its aspects it undoubtedly presents great difficulties. For instance, to give two or three illustrations, such difficulties as the relative vulnerability of different territories, as to the possibility of what are now called regional arrangements, and, most important of all, as to the devising of effective machinery for inspection, for supervision, for control and for sanction. As I said a moment ago, these are matters which cannot be decided by experts. It is not possible to apply a common mechanical measure to the defensive armaments of land and of sea Powers. They involve political and economic considerations which for their adjustment require a high order of statesmanship.
I am glad to find that the Seventh Assembly of the League, whose sessions

659
recently concluded, while expressing satisfaction at the progress which has been made in the preparatory work of the Commission, was sanguine that that progress of exploration and consideration might be completed early in the next year. I think we should all be gratified if my noble friend could hold out a real prospect that the International Conference might assemble and get to work before the next year is over. As I have said, the problems which will present themselves to the Conference must of necessity be of an intricate and complicated kind and not such as admit of rapid, still less of hurried, solution; but the world is waiting—and waiting impatiently, not with illegitimate impatience and not with unwarranted curiosity—the world is waiting now, after the seven years that have elapsed since peace was concluded, for some serious, comprehensive, definite and generally agreed solution of this problem, with which the whole of its future is bound up.
I will only say, without endeavouring in any way to anticipate what those conclusions may be—I am now reiterating an opinion which I have expressed more than once not only here but in another place—that there is one thing that can be done, can be done at once, can be done without waiting for the presentation, for the consideration and it may be for the modification of such conclusions as the Conference may arrive at—there is one thing which can be done, and which ought to be done without delay, and done effectively and drastically, and that is a reduction—upon which this country, I hope, may still set an example—a reduction upon a large and effective scale of our annual expenditure upon military and naval purposes.
I am not very sanguine, after the experience of the last three or four years, as to the prospect there. Recent events, the destructive domestic intestine warfare in which, to the discredit of our common sense as a nation, we have been engaged during the last six months, which has wasted invaluable resources, which has retarded the economic recovery of the country, which has set back the promise, the hopeful promise, of a revival in productive industry, of course makes it very difficult for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the best will in the world, I will not say to reduce taxation—that, of course, is
660
out of the question; he may, indeed, be compelled to increase taxation—to cope with the task of his Budget. One of the best hopes for a real equilibrium of the Budget is not in increasing the Revenue side of the account but in reducing the Expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great opportunity open. Confronted and embarrassed as he must be by these unforeseen and deplorable additions to his difficulties, if he comes down to the House of Commons next Session with, not a spasmodic improvisation, but a real well-thought-out programme for the reduction of unproductive expenditure, he will confer a benefit not only upon this nation but on the great cause of disarmament throughout the civilised world.
To go back for one moment to the functions of the League of Nations in this matter, the sooner the Conference assembles and takes up the task which the League will entrust to it, with the advantage of all this preliminary exploration in hand, the better it will be not only for the honour of the signatories of the Versailles Treaty, not only for the credit of the League of Nations itself as a permanent instrument of peace, but for meeting the most urgent of all international necessities—the provision in time to come, whatever may be the fluctuations of trade, whatever may be the rises in temperature of disputes which from time to time present themselves between the nations, of an effective and a permanent safeguard for universal peace. I earnestly hope—I know the will is present, and present nowhere more than in my noble friend opposite—I earnestly trust he may be able to-day to give us at any rate some substantial encouragement that the hope, so long deferred, so urgently in need of realisation, that there will be some compensation for the losses of the War and of the years that followed the War, is not a chimera but will soon become an actual realised fact.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I have nothing but thanks to offer to my two noble friends for the tone and the substance of their speeches. Indeed, so far as the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down is concerned, I really have very little to say, except that I profoundly agree with

661
almost every word that he uttered. Before I come to the question of disarmament I would like to say a few words about the question of Mandates which the noble Lord opposite raised. He asked me whether I accepted the dictum of Sir Charles Fergusson as to the general purpose of Mandates and the general duty of Mandatories in discharging their functions. Of course I accept that most fully. Indeed, it does not appear to me to be much more than a commentary on the words of the Covenant which says that the wellbeing and development of such peoples is to be the chief function which is to be discharged by the mandatory system. Any one who has accepted a Mandate under those terms necessarily accepts also the obligation imposed by them.
The noble Lord suggested that something had occurred at the last Assembly on which he suggested that representatives of the Great Powers, including my right hon. friend Sir Austen Chamberlain, had been guilty of discourtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission. I was not present at the debate in the Council but I have read the report of it more than once and I am utterly at a loss to understand on what words he founds any suggestion of discourtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission. I am quite certain that nothing was further from the mind not only of my right hon. friend but of other members of the Council than to be guilty of any discourtesy to that body. I should like to say in the strongest possible way that the British Government have no desire in the world to hamper, or interfere with, or do other than support to the utmost of their power, the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission.
I may perhaps be permitted to remind your Lordships of the principles on which the League entered upon the function of supervising those Mandates. As long ago as August, 1920, M. Hymans, acting as rapporteur for the Council, stated that the annual report should certainly include a statement as to the whole moral and material situation of the peoples under the Mandate and with that object the Council should examine the question of the whole administration. That is a principle which His Majesty's Government accept as fully as anybody else and
662
they have never suggested, remotely or in any way at all, that they differ from that general principle on which the Permanent Mandates Commission has carried out its duties.
The discussion at the last Assembly arose, as the noble Lord very truly said, over two points. It arose over what was called the questionnaire in the first place. That was, it must be admitted, a very long list of questions circulated by the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Mandatories. I am not going to criticise the substance of that questionnaire, but I am bound to admit that the impression on my mind when I first saw it was that, to use a colloquialism, it was "pretty stiff." It was very long and very elaborate and it did not seem at first sight necessary to put it in that form, however desirable the obtaining of the information might have been.
The other point was as to the right of audience and on that there was no suggestion made by the Permanent Mandates Commission: there was merely a question put by them. They asked whether in certain cases they ought, or ought not, to hear petitioners against a Mandate. That was a question which I dare say it was very necessary to raise, but I think all your Lordships will be of opinion that for the Permanent Mandates Commission to hear petitioners against a Mandatory would be, as a general practice, a very dangerous one, and I do not think any member of the Permanent Mandates Commission seriously differs from that point of view. His Majesty's Government's attitude in the matter is undoubtedly that if a petition is presented it is right to send the petition to the Mandatory. The Permanent Mandates Commission should obtain all information from the Mandatory that it can obtain by means of questions and correspondence. That is the ordinary practice and no question arises regarding it. I believe that in every case that will be found sufficient.
The Permanent Mandates Commission will be able to deal with the petition in that way, but if an extreme case arose and there was some difficulty in obtaining the necessary information, then it seems to me and to the Government that the right course would be for the Commission to refer the matter to the Council and

663
ask for their directions in the matter. That seems to be the proper course in such a case and the one which I trust may be pursued. I have quoted M. Hymans' report, and it is perhaps right to refer to one other sentence in which he emphasised that it was very important that nothing should be done to increase the difficulties of the task undertaken by the Mandatory Power. That is a point of view which the Permanent Mandates Commission have constantly emphasised. They have constantly pointed out that it is of the utmost importance that they should work in full collaboration and friendship with the Mandatories. I believe myself their work has been quite admirable. I do not think there is any doubt about it. It has been devoted and self-sacrificing, and extremely skilful, and I have not the slightest doubt that the British Government desire to the utmost to collaborate with the Commission in their beneficent work and in carrying out this very novel and difficult experiment which has been set on foot as part of the international reforms connected with the League. That is all I need say on that subject. I do not think any specific question was put to me by the noble Lord.
I pass to the question of disarmament, and I am not going to weary your Lordships by dealing with the general case for disarmament. I think it is overwhelming. The noble Lord referred to the great danger of competition in armaments and he quoted Lord Grey's great authority on that point. I entirely agree, of course. He quoted arguments from the Treaties and I think my noble friend the Earl of Oxford also referred to the Locarno Treaty. There is no doubt that the international obligation to reduce armaments is clear and definite. There cannot be the least doubt about it. My noble friend the Earl of Oxford made a very telling and vigorous point in saying that if you desire to have economy then you have got to reduce armaments, and I think he might have added that there is no prospect of doing that with safety to this country except by some general international scheme. There are many other arguments that might be adduced in favour of the general case, but I do not think it is necessary to elaborate it to your Lordships.
664
Both the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, suggested that not very much had been done during the last seven years. The Earl of Oxford pointed out that some things, such as the Treaty of Washington, the Traffic in Arms Convention and some other things, have been done, but he said, and said quite truly, that the central difficulty of the disarmament problem had not been attacked. That is true, but your Lordships must not forget that international conditions have not been, up till now, very favourable for an attempt to proceed with international disarmament. The War necessarily left a great condition of unrest in Europe, and while that condition persisted and until some measure of security had been restored it was difficult to get Continental statesmen and Continental people to approach the question of disarmament as a practical proposition. A great deal has been done to improve that state of things, particularly, of course, by the Locarno Agreements, and it is not too much to say that the recent practical steps which have been taken towards disarmament would not have been possible but for the Locarno Agreements and the great improvement in the international atmosphere which has resulted from them. My noble friend Lord Parmoor seemed to think that nothing very much could be done in the direction of disarmament unless we carried out a system of international arbitration.
LORD PARMOOR: As in the case of Locarno.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that I agree with him but, whether I am right or wrong, the Question that I was asked on the Paper was, in effect: What is going to be done about disarmament? I do not think that your Lordships would desire me to enter into an elaborate disquisition or discussion of what is really a separate question altogether—namely, the question of arbitration. I desire as much as does the noble Lord to see arbitration established in international affairs.
LORD PARMOOR: But does the noble Viscount say that the establishment of arbitration has nothing to do with the question of disarmament?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I certainly should not say anything of the kind. Anything that affects the relations of the countries, anything that improves security, anything that turns the attention of countries from war to other methods of settling disputes will help to make disarmament possible. But the actual proposals with regard to disarmament are quite separate from the actual proposals with regard to arbitration, and I am certainly not of opinion that at this minute the difficulties—and of course there are great difficulties—in the way of disarmament depend upon the fact that no system of arbitration has been definitely established. I do not think that this is actually the fact, and I do not think it is likely to be true a priori. The difficulties in the way of arbitration are very considerable, but they are not really difficulties of principle. Everyone is really agreed on principle, but the difficulties always come—probably the noble Lord knows this, and it is certainly the fact—over the detailed application of principles. In any case I certainly trust that the advocates of disarmament in this country will not give any currency to the view that nothing can be done until we have a system of arbitration. That is only to add to our difficulties instead of making them less.
Before I come to the question of what Is actually being done, I should like to touch upon a point that was referred to by both noble Lords—namely, the position regarding disarmament in Germany and the fulfilment of our Treaty obligation to substitute the control of the League for the special control set up by the Treaty of Versailles. Again I do not think that this affects very closely the general question of disarmament, and all that I can say in answer to my noble friend Lord Oxford and Asquith is that the Government are most anxious to dispose of this question of the disarmament of Germany and they do agree that substantially—though this is always a dangerous word—Germany has carried out at any rate far the greater part of her obligations under the Treaties regarding disarmament. I think there are only some three or four questions of any importance which still have to be disposed of, and the Government strongly hope that they may be disposed of without any undue lapse of time, though that is a matter which
666
necessarily does not depend entirely upon them or, in fact, mainly upon them, but must depend upon the action of Germany.
Now I come to the main question of what has actually been done regarding disarmament. I agree with that which has been said as to the delay that has taken place to the extent that. I agree that it has been unfortunate, though I think it has been inevitable; but I think we should be quite wrong if we did not recognise that very great progress in this question has been made during the last year. I think one might say with some truth that until a year ago, though there had been a great deal of talk about disarmament and though we had discussed it and its preliminaries in various forms, yet, even under the Protocol at Geneva, practically nothing had been said about disarmament except that the Protocol should not come into force until disarmament had been carried out.
LORD PARMOOR: It provided for a world conference on disarmament.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No it did not, with great respect. It provided that a conference should be held, but it did not provide anything else—any preliminaries for the examination of the question.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to make this quite clear, because it is a point that M. Briand emphasised so strongly when he said that in his view, as a preliminary to a world conference, the provisions of the Protocol were essentially necessary. Of course, when the Protocol itself was overthrown, the proposal for a world conference on disarmament came to an end.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am not attempting to make any attack upon the noble Lord or his beloved Protocol. That was not the purpose of my remarks. My purpose was simply to say that in point of fact no direct practical steps had been taken towards disarmament, either under the Treaty of Mutual Assistance or under the Protocol. It was, no doubt, contemplated that there should be disarmament and it was, no doubt, provided that they should not come into force until that disarmament had taken place; but no direct practical steps had been taken with a view to preparing

667
an actual scheme for the reduction and limitation of armaments. That situation has quite changed. If I may be allowed to use an Americanism, disarmament is now "on the map" in a way that it had never been until within the last few months. It is a practical, actual, live question which is being discussed and considered, not as to whether it can be done, but as to how it can be done—a very great distinction. I date that change from the acceptance by the Sixth Assembly of the French proposition for the appointment of the Preparatory Commission and the programme which was assigned to it. The moment that this was done it became necessary for all the experts all over Europe to begin to consider what practical steps they would take supposing disarmament became a fact and what attitude they were going to adopt at the Preparatory Commission.
I think that the Preparatory Commission has proceeded in a thoroughly businesslike way from the moment of its appointment. It appointed the two Commissions to which the noble Earl referred: Commission A, which consists of some forty or fifty military, naval and aerial experts; and Commission B, which consists of economic and financial experts. It is, to my mind, really very encouraging that these Commissions have proceeded on a basis of considering how to carry out disarmament. The discussions have been extremely laborious. Commission A has been sitting continuously for six months and the work of its members at the task assigned to them has really been beyond praise. It was, I think, on the 5th or 6th of this month that they agreed on their Report. It is a very long Report—I am told that it occupies about four hundred typewritten pages—it sets out answers to all the technical questions that have been put to the Commission and where there has been a difference of opinion—as, of course, in a body of experts there is bound to be—it sets out the alternatives. I believe that it has replied to every question. It will take some time to print that Report and circulate it, but this is now being done by the authorities of the League.
With regard to the Economic Commission, its members have not quite finished their work. It has not been nearly so laborious, but it is more difficult to get
668
these financial experts to sit continuously than in the case of the military experts, who are Government officials and can therefore give their time to any public purpose to which they are assigned. They have had several meetings, however, and I understand that they expect their duties will be finished in one or two more meetings. I have not seen their Report so closely as I have followed the other, but I understand that it will be unanimous, at any rate so far as they have gone, and that the important questions that have been put to them will have the great advantage of absolutely unanimous replies.
The noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, made what he put forward as practical and immediate suggestions. He said that chemical warfare and submarines ought to be abolished altogether. I need not say that I entirely agree with him, but I am sure that he will recognise that, although opinion upon chemical warfare reached unanimity, unfortunately these chemicals are so easily made and distributed that, whatever some people may think, there is doubt as to whether regulations, however admirable, will in fact be carried out if war takes place. With regard to submarines, at present there is no such unanimity, I am sorry to say, and although I should be very glad to see them abolished I am afraid it is not very likely that at this stage you will get complete agreement upon that point.
With regard to other points, I agree that the things we can deal with at the outset are peace-time armaments, because you want to prevent sudden attacks—you want to deal at the outset with armaments that are ready and can be got ready in each country. What can be brought together afterwards is not capable of being limited with the same case or effectiveness; nor is it so important, because what you want to avoid is sudden aggression. With regard to other matters both noble Lords suggested that some decision as to control would be essential—that is, having fixed the ratios of armaments, their numbers and their nature, it would be necessary to establish some kind of international control, in order to see that the limits were not passed by the countries concerned. As to that, there is no doubt considerable difficulty and difference of opinion. Some

669
countries attach much more importance to it than others. I myself take a view which is not perhaps very common, but which I believe to be sound. My view is that it is not a matter about which we ought to bother too much at this moment. Once you have got your system established, and the limits fixed for armaments, should you get a serious charge that one of the parties to the Treaty has broken the Treaty and is engaged in overpassing the limits by which he has been bound, I have not the slightest doubt that some form of control or examination would be proposed, and could scarcely be rejected.
That being so I do not attach the same importance to a provision beforehand as to what exactly ought to be done, and it must be said that those who are doubtful about the wisdom of establishing it immediately have this to say for themselves, that the whole experiment, if it is to succeed, must succeed on the basis of good faith. It is of no use saying on the one hand: "I trust you to reduce your armaments," and on the other to say: "I am going to have a policeman to see that you do it." That is a consideration which I know is felt very deeply by my American colleagues and also by the advisers of the British Government, and therefore I should myself hope that we may avoid anything like acrimonious discussions on that question, because I believe it is one on which agreement would be difficult, and which in practice will not turn out to be of anything like the same importance.
I should like to say two or three words upon what seemed to me to be the broad results achieved by the discussions that have taken place in the Sub-Committees. The first result of enormous importance is the absolute good will shown by everyone who has attended the Committees. There has been not the slightest attempt to obstruct or destroy by indirect means the work in which they have been engaged. On the contrary everyone, although the discussions have been long and the differences of opinion have been frequent, has worked with a view of finding a solution of the difficulties that have been put before the Committees. That to my mind is very encouraging, and I should like to say, without I hope impertinence, that I think we owe in this respect a deep debt of gratitude to the
670
American Delegates. They have been most helpful and have done everything they can to bring the discussions to a successful conclusion. The second great result is that the discussions have shown quite clearly that disarmament is a practical thing, that the idea that it cannot be done and is impracticable, and that the difficulties are so great that they can never be overcome—
LORD PARMOOR: It was done in the case of Germany.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that Germany is a very useful example to put forward, because the conditions imposed upon Germany are not conditions which would be easily accepted by other nations, nor would it be very practicable to impose such conditions generally. But that is not the point. The point is that all the experts, meeting together, have never contested the practicability of disarmament. They have always said it can be done in this way, or that it can be done better in that way. Nobody has said it cannot be done at all. That is a result of great importance to have achieved in the discussions which have taken place. I am perhaps by temperament sanguine, but I have very little doubt that this thing can be done, and success achieved, on three conditions.
In the first place the peoples and the Governments must be in earnest in the matter. You will I not get disarmament, or anything else, unless the people really mean to see the thing through. So far as this country is concerned I have no doubt at all. I have had some opportunity of making myself acquainted with popular feeling in this matter, and I should say there is an overwhelming majority in favour of a reduction and limitation of armaments by international agreement, and I have no doubt that being, as I believe it unquestionably is, popular opinion on the matter, whatever Government may happen to be in power will necessarily carry out the wishes of the democracy they represent. The second condition that I should venture to make is that we must not be in too great a hurry. There must be no hustling. My noble friend Lord Oxford and Asquith said quite truly that the difficulties of disarmament were very considerable. Everyone who really tries.

671
to give his mind to the vexed questions that have to be solved—political, technical and economic—will agree that it is a difficult proposition. I believe that it can be solved if sufficient preparation is made before the Conference actually takes place.
I do not know whether my noble friend will agree with me, but my very strong impression is this. International conferences succeed in direct proportion to the amount of preparation for their meeting that has previously taken place. If you rush into a conference without any previous preparation, unless the matter is comparatively simple, you will find great difficulty in succeeding; but if you have prepared the ground properly, if the basis of the discussion is well established, and the arguments for and against particular solutions are known, then you have every hope and every ground for believing that the discussion round a conference table will result in agreement.
With regard to the third condition that I venture to lay down, I find myself in close agreement with Lord Parmoor. I agree with him that in this matter the responsibility of this country is very great. This is a matter in which we shall have, I will not say to give the lead, but to take a very large and important part. That is recognised at Geneva, recognised everywhere. I believe the people of this country are more than ready for it. My noble friend asked me whether we were prepared to make concrete proposals. It is too early yet for me to say in what form the basis of the discussion at the Conference will actually be formulated. But I understand everyone whom I have met at Geneva to conceive that in the first place each country will have to say what it wants, and that then it will be for the Preparatory Commission in the first place, and for the Conference in the second, to formulate a definite scheme, basing themselves primarily on the demands, so to put it, of the various countries. In that case it is evident that this country, in common with every other country, will have to make definite and concrete proposals as to the armaments that it regards as essential within the meaning of Article 8 of the Covenant.
Those are the observations which I venture to make to your Lordships. I do take a sanguine view as to the prospects
672
of success, and I am profoundly in agreement with what has been said by both noble Lords that this is the really great question which is before the League of Nations at the present time. It is actually the question which has been put before them, it is an essential duty of theirs under the Covenant; and their success or failure in solving this great question means not only the success or failure of the League itself, but, I firmly believe, the endurance or the disappearance of civilisation as we now know it.
There was one other question which my noble friend Lord Oxford put to me about the Arms Traffic Convention, which I had forgotten. So far as that is concerned I understand that what has happened is this. The French Government have not actually ratified. They have obtained Parliamentary powers to ratify, but they have not deposited their ratification at Geneva. Some little time ago we sent a circular to the principal producing Powers, suggesting that we should agree upon a definite day for joint ratification. It is evident that there are difficulties about one producing Power ratifying before another producing Power—difficulties which my noble friend will easily understand; and, therefore, that was the suggestion made. I am sorry to say that so far the response has not been very encouraging, but we have not abandoned hope that something of that kind may be done.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed as a matter of courtesy to express my feeling of gratification at the answer which the noble Viscount has given to my questions.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government to state what advantages have been derived by the public from the passing of the Act of 1921 for the regulation of railways.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Act of 1921 was generally aimed at securing four important objects. The first was the amalgamation or absorption of the large number of independent railway companies into four large groups, a process which was completed in 1923.

673
The second was the settlement of the claims of the railway companies against the Government arising out of the possession by the Crown of their undertakings during the War. The third was the reorganisation of the charging powers of the companies, and the provision of new machinery for the adjustment of such charges and of differences arising in regard thereto between the companies and the traders and travelling public. The fourth was the provision of machinery for the adjustment by agreement between the companies and their employees of rates of wages and the conditions of employment.
I do not complain that the noble Lord gave me rather short notice of his Question, but I have no doubt that he will not expect me to go in full detail into the whole range of subjects which are included under it. Perhaps I may be allowed, however, to deal rather briefly with three or four of the main points. First, of all, as he will no doubt bear in mind, there were 121 companies, which were amalgamated into four companies. Some of those companies were in a very strong financial position, and some in rather a weak one, and the result has been extremely fortunate, because the stronger have helped the weaker, and without this amalgamation some of those weaker companies would, no doubt, owing to changes brought about by the War, have been in a difficult financial position.
I should like to quote the opinion of Sir Felix Pole, the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, who, referring to the serious financial predicament of the railways at the time, wrote:—
"Amalgamation was the only solution. It saved the railways."
And this amalgamation did not only mean that; the strong railways financially helped the weak. It also meant that economies, which would have been impossible without such amalgamation, became possible. I should like to read what he says on this point:—
"I can say positively that the grouping has produced added economies and efficiency, and has been of direct benefit to the trader and to the shareholders. By providing greater security of tenure and increased prospects of advancement, it has been directly to the advantage of the employees. The economies effected have been of a substantial character."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Was this the Great Western Railway?
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a quotation from his article.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Great Western Railway did not amalgamate.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is an article on the whole question, it is not confined to the Great Western Railway. Again, in delivering judgment in 1925 upon the allowances to be made under Section 58 of the Railways Act, the Railway Rates Tribunal stated:—
"We have satisfied ourselves by the examination of witnesses on behalf of the traders and the railway companies that economies of approximately £1,200,000 have already been effected by the railway companies, and we see no reason to doubt the evidence of the witnesses called by the railway companies that further economies of a like amount might be expected to be effected …"
under certain circumstances which I need not go into. The noble Lord behind me (Viscount Younger of Leckie) shakes his head, but I am only reading from the statement of the Chairman of that Tribunal.
Certain suggestions were made as to the economies that might be effected by the amalgamation of the railways, but your Lordships will bear in mind that economies of this kind cannot bear fruit very rapidly; they must have time to fructify, and for the first few years at any rate they are largely set off by compensation to employees, displaced officials, and other persons. But the amalgamation of these companies into four large companies has enabled substantial economies to be secured in overhead charges. In railway operation also they have been secured mainly by the co-ordination of competing services, the use of alternative routes, the centralisation of control and management, the concentration of repair and renewal workships, and the standardisation of rolling stock, plant and equipment. At the same time the public have benefited directly through the provision of improved rolling stock and the higher standard of maintenance provided by the groups as compared with that afforded by smaller and less prosperous companies before amalgamation. The financial

675
position of the groups has enabled them in some cases to embark upon extensive improvements; for instance, the electrification of the suburban system of the Southern Railway, the development of the areas served by certain companies, and the provision of modern and more economical facilities at the South Wales ports.
Another direction in which the public has benefited is in the re-introduction of cheap passenger train facilities and the reduction of goods rates; and economies from amalgamation have contributed towards making these possible. Sir Felix Pole—if I may quote him again—says that he has
"no hesitation at all in saying that but for the economies made possible by the amalgamation we should not have been in a position to make the large reductions in rates and charges that have been since introduced."
In reference to that part of the Act which deals with the charging powers of the railway companies, a judicial body, the Railway Rates Tribunal, has been established to deal with those difficulties. The Tribunal is also a court to which traders can take their grievances. Under the Railways Act, the railway companies are entitled, until the new scales are introduced on the "appointed day" to be fixed by the Tribunal, to make such charges as were in force in respect to their railways on August 15, 1921. If no such charges were in force on that date the Tribunal, in case of difference, may determine them. At the same time it exercises jurisdiction over the charges in force and in this capacity has heard and dealt with a number of applications by traders for reductions therein.
Of the relations between the companies and their employees it may fairly be claimed that the machinery set up by the Act has minimised friction and has been beneficial to all parties, including the public. Many difficulties have been settled by the Central and National Wages Boards which might otherwise have occasioned serious trouble.
As regards the general relationship between the railways and the public under the new conditions, time of course has to be allowed for overcoming the difficulties of transition and enabling the benefits of the changes to be realised. If I may quote another railway authority,
676
Sir Ralph Wedgwood, General Manager of the London and North Eastern Railway, wrote in 1922:—
"The grouping system will for many years be on its trial, and it may be expected that the new companies will be correspondingly, sensitive to public opinion. Many areas will still enjoy the doubtful advantage of competition in its old form, and all will benefit from that healthier form of competition which will be the natural outcome of the new territorial organisation of the railways—the competition in facilities and efficiency between one railway and another, each using every effort to develop the revenue-earning capacity of the geographical area which it serves."
Of the relations between the public and the railways under the Act, Sir Ralph Wedgwood also wrote that
"one may conclude, therefore, that the relations of the railways to the trading and travelling public have been placed on a footing more hopeful than has been known before. A principle has been laid down which does substantial justice to both sides, and a tribunal has been established to which both sides may look for a broad and equitable hearing,"
and he went on to express the view that the proposals as to grouping
"will ensure that the fullest advantage is ultimately taken of the changed outlook, both for the benefit of the railways and of the public."
I hope that my noble friend will be content with that very brief answer on a very large subject, bearing in mind the fact that I received notice of it only yesterday.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope that neither the noble Lord who asked the Question nor the noble Viscount who has just sat down will misunderstand me when I say how much I regret that this discussion is inadequate to the importance of the topic: indeed, I think I might say that I have the support of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. Those of us who attend regularly in this House will remember that we had a very important, and interesting discussion about twelve months ago upon this very subject—the general conduct of the railways—and that the question as to whether the amalgamation had been useful or not was raised and discussed. I had hoped that either during the present sittings or, and still better, during the early part of next year when this House is not so busy we might have another discussion.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Was not that entirely about the speed of trains and not about this question?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The other subject came up. As I say, I hoped that we might have another discussion bearing upon this larger question and that we should have been able to find out what was the opinion, from the point of view of His Majesty's Government, from the point of view of the railways and from the point of view of the public, as to the general results of amalgamation. I must confess that I feel somewhat sceptical as to the advantages to the public from the amalgamation. But hardly like to go into this question without notice, and it may be better to postpone the matter to a day when we may have an opportunity of going into it with some fullness. In the meantime, although we let the matter go without saying anything further upon it, I hope the noble Viscount will not think that our silence involves any agreement with the idea that the amalgamation has been of real advantage to the general interests concerned.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have been travelling about a good deal lately and have been trying to find out what advantages have accrued to the public from this amalgamation of the railways. No doubt other people have also been trying to find that out. The general idea seems to be that it has been very disastrous to the finest system of railways in the world. The present time, of course, when the railways are suffering from the effects of the coal strike and so on, is not a fair basis of comparison, but I understand that the amalgamation has reduced the benefits the public previously had.
I agree as to the shortness of the notice given, but I think that the answer of the noble Viscount to my Question will serve as a basis for future discussion. When he enumerated the advantages which have accrued in some cases to the railway servants from the amalgamation by the setting up of certain boards to adjudicate on wages questions, I was reminded of a statement made the other day by Mr. J. H. Thomas that since the General Strike there were 45,000 railwaymen unemployed and 200,000 railwaymen working but three days a week. That, of course, was owing very largely to the
678
General Strike, but I imagine that the amalgamation of the railways has done a great deal to produce unemployment and that the interference of the Government by means of Acts of Parliament dealing with hours and labour and rates of wages has also had some effect.
In regard to what was said by the noble Viscount on the advantages of centralisation, I was told the other day by a friend about the delay in the appointment of a stationmaster to a roadside station in Scotland. A recommendation was made a month ago that a particular man should be appointed but the recommendation went to Derby and was there still. That was one result of centralisation. I cannot believe that such an overwhelming concern as the group consisting of the London and North Western Railway and other railways serving Scotland tended either to the efficiency of the railway itself or to the general convenience of the public. It is perfectly impossible that a body of men in Derby can really take proper cognisance of what is required in the several localities served by that railway system.
I will not say more at the moment than that to my mind the amalgamation of the railway companies has deleteriously affected the working of our railway system, and I hope that when the Electricity (Supply) Bill comes up for discussion your Lordships who are present will bear in mind that Government interference and Government control always more or less spell disaster. I may say that the process of amalgamation was begun long before these Acts were passed in cases where it was realised that no injury would be done to railway management and where it was seen that some advantage was to be derived in the way of settling vexed questions arising out of competition. I am not a railway director—I wish I were—but I understood that the companies' representatives did come together to discuss matters advantageous to the working of the railways and, indirectly, to the benefit of the public.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, I wish to say only a word about this matter. I think the noble Viscount has made the best possible case in answering this Question. There is no doubt whatever that there have been considerable

679
advantages, certainly in the group with which I am acquainted, because of the grouping of the four railway systems which it includes. In many respects there have been advantages in the grouping of railway systems. But what I wanted to hear was where the economies had arisen. The extravagant promises of economies that were made when the Railways Bill was brought in have not only not been fulfilled but they never can be fulfilled. It is ridiculous to suppose that the millions of pounds which it was promised would be Saved by the amalgamations will ever mature. They never can. It is obvious why that is so. So far as I can see, all you escape from are the salaries of a few of the higher officials whose duties were, of course, co-ordinated, and instead of having four general managers you have, in the case of my group, only one But you had to compensate very heavily those who were dispossessed and so far as the saving of their salaries is concerned it does not amount to anything like the compensation which has been paid to them. Unquestionably, in the longitudinal system of grouping which was referred to by my noble friend, there must be much greater difficulties than in the case of the Southern Railway where the grouping is natural and effective and embraces all the Continental traffic. But the economies are very wide of the mark which was suggested. I am afraid you will never see the economies that were promised, or anything like them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peel has, with his usual ability, made an extraordinarily able answer to an extremely difficult Question. He has taken the Great Western Railway as one of the instances which shows that amalgamation has succeeded. But the Great Western Railway never amalgamated; it is the one railway that was not amalgamated. What the Great Western Railway really did was to get a few small branch lines (which it had been trying
680
to get for a number of years) on very favourable terms. It has done very well because it has not amalgamated and, therefore, the argument of my noble friend, to those who have some knowledge of the facts, is not a very convincing one. My noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie says that the economies have not been realised. I remember in another place Sir Eric Geddes, on the Second Reading of the Bill, saying that good authorities put the economies which would result at something like £40,000,000 a year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: £20,000,000.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: He said good authorities put it at£40,000,000 and then said that he thought the economies would be between £20,000,000 and £40,000,000. He put them at £20,000,000 at the lowest, and did not quite agree with other people who said they would be £40,000,000. He thought that at any rate they would fall between those two sums. I was then a member of the House of Commons and I ventured to say there would be no economies of any sort or kind, and I still, with all due deference to what my noble friend says, say there have been no economies. My noble friend mentioned an instance of a million and a quarter having been saved, but he did not say whether it was a million and a quarter saved in one year or in the whole of the seven years. My noble friend as a railway director thoroughly understands the financial operations of the companies and all he has to do is to look at the reports of the various railway companies and see how much they have taken from their reserves to pay dividends. He will see at once that amalgamation, at any rate from the point of view of the shareholders, has not been a success. I am sure my noble friend will agree that you cannot go on paying dividends from your reserves for more than a certain time.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

MERSTHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Orders Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday, November 25.
PARTON AND URMSTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
SALFORD GAS ORDER, 1926.
BRECON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
AVON VALLEY ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
RYBURN VALLEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
SALCOMBE AND KINGSBRIDGE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
UPHILL ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WHITCHURCH, ELLESMERE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
HERNE BAY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
NANTWICH ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
DINGWALL AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
MAIDSTONE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
FARNHAM GAS ORDER, 1926.
GODALMING GAS ORDER, 1926.
HAMPTON COURT GAS ORDER, 1926.
HERNE BAY GAS ORDER, 1926.
WIDNES GAS ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

UNITED DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a Report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.