Sitting of 7 December 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till Friday.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (by Order).
  Order for Consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, to leave out the words "now Considered," and to add instead thereof the words "be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  It is necessary to take this course in order to give effect to the Resolution passed by the House waiving a certain charge of Stamp Duty. I hope the House will pass this Motion now, and I will then take the Committee stage with other items of Private Business to-morrow night.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

  HERIOT-WATT COLLEGE AND GEORGE HERIOT'S TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION [STAMP DUTIES].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will To-morrow resolve itself into Committee to consider of authorising the imposition of a certain Stamp Duty in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or instruments which, in case the Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order had not been confirmed, would have been required to pass to and vest in the George Heriot Governors and the Heriot-Watt Governors certain pro-
  1352
  perty (King's "Recommendation signified).—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I will explain this matter to-morrow. It is similar to the Perth Case.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA (TREATY REVISION).
  Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any special treaties governing international relations are now being negotiated between the Chinese Government and any foreign Powers; and whether the British Government is aware of the nature of the proposals under consideration, in view of the fact that these may be regarded as setting a precedent when our own treaties with China come to be remodelled?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): The Peking authorities have raised the question of treaty revision with the Belgian, French, Japanese, and Spanish Governments, but, while negotiations have in some cases been initiated, I have no reason to believe that any substantial progress has yet been made. His Majesty's Government have general knowledge of the lines the negotiations are following, and the consideration adduced in the second part of my hon. Friend's question is receiving careful attention.
  Mr. MITCHELL: Is the Washington Pact still in force and are the signatories thereto strictly observing the conditions?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I know that is the case.

  ARBITRATION TREATIES.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what countries Great Britain has up to date negotiated arbitration treaties?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Arbitration treaties exist with the following countries:

  Brazil.

  Denmark and Iceland.

  France.

  Italy.

  Netherlands.

  Norway.

  Portugal.

  Siam.

  Spain.

  Sweden.

  United States of America.

  Uruguay.

  Mr. ALBERY: Are any further similar treaties being negotiated at present?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know that any definite treaties are at present being negotiated, but we are always prepared to extend the principle of arbitration as far as possible.
  Mr. PONSONBYCan the hon. Gentleman tell us when the treaty with the United States comes up for revision?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not without notice.
  Mr. HARRIS: Are there any countries with whom we have actually refused to sign arbitration treaties?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not that I am aware of.

  PASSPORTS (VISAS).
  Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the foreign countries for which visas are not required for British subjects; and whether any negotiations are in being, or contemplated, with other countries with a view to this reciprocal arrangement being extended?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: British subjects are not required to obtain visas for entry into the following countries: Austria, Belgium, China (if entry is made by a treaty port), Colombia (a separate document is however required for which a charge is made), Cuba, Danzig (if entry is made by sea), Denmark, France, Hayti, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Morocco (French zone and Tangier), the Netherlands, the Netherlands West Indies, Surinam and Curaçao, Norway, Portugal (including the Azores and
  1354
  Madeira), Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. An agreement has been concluded with Germany for the reciprocal abolition of visas as from 1st January next, and negotiations are in progress with Czechoslovakia.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does that include all the members of the League of Nations? Will the hon. 0Gentleman not take steps to abolish visas between the members of the League of Nations?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are doing our best, as far as practicable, to conclude such an arrangement as the hon. and gallant Member indicates.

  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in course of conversation with leading officials of the United States, prior to and during the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva, any statements were made by any British official representative which were calculated to convey the assurance as to no difficulty being raised by Great Britain over the naval disarmament negotiations?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not aware of any conversations having taken place between British and American official representatives prior to the Conference on the actual merits of the questions at issue. As to those which took place during the Conference, they were obviously of an informal and private character, and there is equally no record of them.
  Viscount SANDONHas the hon. Gentleman not seen the allegations which have been made, and will he not take steps to see that these denials are represented in the same quarters as the allegations appeared?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I did see a notice in the Press, but I really do not think it is necessary always to deny these inaccurate statements.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any scheme for the reduction of naval armaments, prepared by the Board, will be put forward at Geneva at the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament; and when it is proposed to publish the Admiralty's scheme for naval disarmament

  1355
  by agreement through the League of Nations?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government will lose no opportunity of furthering progress in the limitation of naval armaments. The British representative on the Preparatory Commission has discretion to bring forward our proposals whenever he thinks the occasion propitious.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put this question to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can inform me whether there is any scheme in existence ready to be put forward on the appropriate occasion?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the next meeting is going to take place early in February, and that will be the time for our representative to bring forward the British proposals.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do understand that the strongest Navy in the world will or will not bring forward definite roposals in February?
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Have not we reduced our Navy more than any other country, and in view of increased armaments elsewhere will the hon. Gentleman see that the Navy is not further reduced?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That really is not a question for me to answer.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (ACCIDENT).
    Colonel DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the injuries suffered by the naval ratings or civilian workers caused by a gangway collapsing between the jetty and the cruiser "Suffolk," at Portsmouth dockyard, have resulted fatally; and whether an inquiry has been held into the cause of the accident?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I regret that one naval rating has died as the result of the accident. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this accident was caused through the gangway not being made fast?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: At the inquest attention was called to the way in which the gangway was attached. I have just received a report of the inquiry, but I have not had time to examine it sufficiently to say exactly what was the cause of the accident.
    Colonel DAY: Will instructions be given that men are not to be allowed to go up a gangway like that again?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Certainly, instructions will be given to take more care, and, if any definite point is raised, that, of course, will be given special attention.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the man in question was married, and, if so, what compensation will be paid?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.

    CAPITAL SHIPS (CARE AND MAINTENANCE COST).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the annual cost for the care and maintenance of all the capital ships allowed under the Washington agreement when in full commission, reduced commission, and in dockyard hands for large repairs?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The annual cost of maintaining typical Capital Ships in full commission, in reduced commission and in Dockyard Control for large repairs is shown below. These figures have been prepared for private ships, i.e., other than flagships:

    £

    Full commission:

    "Nelson" Class

    360,000

    "Queen Elizabeth" Class

    305,000

    "Royal Sovereign" Class

    301,000

    "Repulse" Class (Battle Cruiser)

    330,000

    "Iron Duke" Class (in reduced commission as Boys' Training Ship)

    229,000

    Battleship in Dockyard Control for large repairs

    6,500

    The figures for an "Iron Duke" Class battleship in reduced commission do not include the cost of the Boys 1st Class borne for training, amounting to £27,500; those for a battleship in dockyard hands do not include the cost of large repairs but only that of the naval personnel maintained on board. In connection with this last figure, I should explain that the cost of care and maintenance of a Capital Ship in Dockyard hands for large repairs may vary considerably according to the extent to which officers and men of the crew are retained for refitting purposes.

    EX-DOCKYARD WORKERS, ROSYTH.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there are still a number of transferred ex-dockyard workers living in Rosyth; that some of these men and their families were transferred North as far back as 1916; that they have been unemployed since the closing of the dockyard and are in a distressed condition; and whether he intends to do anything to re-transfer them and their families to their home districts.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): A comparatively small number of men who were transferred from southern dockyards to Rosyth, and were not placed on the Established List either because their services were not entirely satisfactory or for other reasons within their own control, have been discharged at Rosyth in connection with the reduction of that dockyard I cannot agree that these men are entitled to be removed with their homes and families from the neighbourhood of Rosyth at the public expense, but I shall be pleased to consider, on its merits, any special case which the hon. Member would like to bring to my notice. I would, however, remind him that re-transfer to the south would not enable these men to find employment in southern dockyards.

    HONG KONG NAVAL YARD.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total cost of His Majesty's naval yard at Hong Kong for the last financial year, and the estimated cost of the work carried out there during the same period?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The total establishment and upkeep expenses at Hong Kong naval yard in 1926–27 were £215,930. This covers general yard maintenance services, including storekeeping, repairs to machinery, etc., yard salaries; pensions; police; buildings; depreciation of machinery and plant; gas and electric current, etc. The cost of the work done on His Majesty's Ships and Naval Services was £107,741 for direct charges for labour and £161,328 for direct charges for materials. The value (net) of sea stores issued to ships and naval services was £114,785. Work and supplies on repayment cost £43,056.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether the work which is being done in this naval yard could not be equally well carried out in the private establishments at Hong Kong, so that the total expense of this naval yard could be saved to the British taxpayer?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That seems to me to be largely a matter of opinion; we must not give an opinion on it too quickly.

    CHINESE WATERS (PIRACY).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will cause a ship to be stationed at Bias Bay to check the frequent cases of piracy occurring on the China coast?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANThe question of stationing a British ship at Bias Bay to check piracy has been considered, and this action has been taken on occasion, whenever thought desirable. The establishment of a permanent British patrol in Bias Bay is not thought to be a feasible solution of this problem.
    Mr. LOOKER: Does the First Lord of the Admiralty propose to take any naval steps or make any naval dispositions to check the increase of piracy among pirates who have their bases in the immediate neighbourhood?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to interfere with private enterprise?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware that piracy is included in the term "private enterprise," but, if so, I cannot undertake not to interfere with it. With regard to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the whole matter has been

    1359
    carefully considered by the Commander-in-Chief on the spot, and he is adopting what he thinks is the best method of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new gunboats constructed for use on the China station are in service in Chinese waters; and whether, in view of the increasing piracy taking place, he will provide additional gunboats for the China station in the next Naval Estimates?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: One of the new gunboats is already in commission. Another will be commissioned during the present month. The remaining two are expected to be put into service early in the new year. These vessels are designed solely for service on the great rivers of China, and cannot be employed on the high seas where the recent increase in piracy has occurred.
    Mr. LOOKER: Are these new vessels additional or are they replacements? If they are replacements, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of continuing in service the vessels due to be replaced in view of the prevalence of piracy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Some of the vessels which are due to be replaced are being kept as long as we can keep them. Other vessels are taking the place of those that are absolutely unable to go on any longer, and the question of their replacement is one which the Admiralty is always considering.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL (CANADA PENSIONS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the terms governing the grant of a Greenwich Hospital Canada Pension; what is the amount of the pension weekly; and what is the number of naval pensioners who have been granted a Greenwich Hospital Canada Pension?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Greenwich Hospital Canada Pensions may be awarded to seamen and Royal Marines of good character who are in receipt of naval pensions for life and who are 55 years of age or over. The money available for the purpose is sufficient to keep in force 64 pensions. The pensions are at the rate of £7 12s. a year payable
    1360
    quarterly (2s. 11d. per week). Since their inception in 1917, Greenwich Hospital Canada Pensions have been awarded in 102 cases.

    BOOT AND SHOE LACES.
    Mr. BETHELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the boot and shoe laces supplied to the Navy are mainly of foreign manufacture, the polished cotton yarn being imported into this country in lace lengths and the tags also being or foreign manufacture, the only British process being the affixing of the tags to the yarn; and whether he will in future contracts stipulate that all laces and other material containing polished yarn shall be of British manufacture throughout?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Boot and shoe laces for the Navy are bought from manufacturers who undertake that the braid used is woven in this country. I have no definite information as to the source of supply of the polished cotton yarns but this question has already been brought to the notice of the Admiralty and an inquiry will be made on the next occasion that tenders are invited, with a view to ensuring that British-spun yarns are given the usual preference.
    Mr. BETHEL: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation on this subject?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think that there is any necessity for us to receive a deputation. The matter is receiving consideration.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the country of origin is branded on both the tags and the yarn, and will he also bring the tags under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. RILEY: Has the Admiralty any information as to whether there is a supply of these tags of British manufacture available at reasonable prices?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I must have notice of that question.

    FLOATING DOCK, ROSYTH.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to overhaul the floating dock at Rosyth Dockyard; whether it is proposed to do this work by dockyard labour or by outside contract; and whether, in

    1361
    view of the unemployment due to the closing of the dockyard, he will have the work done by local labour?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The floating dock at Rosyth is to be refitted at an early date by outside local contract and local labour will consequently be employed.

    PENSIONERS (EMERGENCY SERVICE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the terms of service for naval and marine pensioners who, in the event of national emergency, are re-employed as temporary officers under the Admiralty or the War Office; and if such pensioner officers would be entitled to retired pay?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This question is now under consideration, and I regret that I am unable at present to make any statement in the matter.

    DOCKYARDS (CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that under the proposal that has been put forward by the Admiralty, that the Royal dockyards should be closed from Friday evening 23rd December to Wednesday morning 28th December, dockyard workers would lose pay for a day and a-half, he will consider the possibility of paying the workers for time lost or, alter natively, that the yards should be closed on 26th and 27th December only, which would entail loss of only one day's pay?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has been decided to close the yards on 26th and 27th December only.

    WAR FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    Colonel DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are any further contracts or arrangements in existence whereby the use of ships and materials are granted to film-producing companies by the Government; what benefit the Admiralty will receive for their use; whether the officers or naval ratings will receive any benefit from these contracts; and how many films have been made by the assistance of the Admiralty?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Twelve films have been made with the assist-
    1362
    ance of the Admiralty and two more are in course of preparation. The Admiralty will receive a proportion of the profits realised on the exhibition of each film, part of which will be credited to the Naval Sports Fund for the benefit of the officers and men of the Fleet.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion the Admiralty will receive?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Fifty per cent, goes to this fund and 50 per cent, goes as an Appropriation-in-aid of Naval Estimates.
    Colonel DAY: The 50 per cent, the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions is 50 per cent, of the profits which the Admiralty receive. Will he state what percentage of the profits of the film the Admiralty receive?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I must ask for further notice of that question. I cannot say for certain.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this question has appeared on several occasions, and each time I have been told that further notice must be given of it? The Prime Minister said yesterday that if a question were addressed to the Admiralty an answer could be given, and this is the question.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend recognise that it is most desirable that the public, who dearly love to see the Navy at work, should be able to see the British Navy on the screen rather than the foreign navies which are at present showing in London?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the royal naval personnel engaged in acting for the purpose of making cinematograph films for commercial purposes are volunteers for the duty; whether they receive extra pay or allowances for the duty; and, if so, on what scale, and who finds this money?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The details of facilities granted to the firms are arranged between the commanding officers and representatives of the firms. It is possible that volunteers have been invited for particular incidents, but

    1363
    generally the work is part of the ordinary routine of the ship. No extra pay is given from Government funds.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not in a position to give me a better answer than? Surely the Admiralty know whether these men are asked to volunteer or not, and he knows whether any of the men object to acting in a film or not?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman the best answer that I can. As to what he states about the men's feelings on the subject, I have no such information.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of one notorious case in which ship after ship got out of this duty on one pretext or another and the junior ship of the squadron had to do it and could not get out of it.
    Colonel DAY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the battle scenes and other scenes that are taken are part of the activities of the Navy?
    Mr. HARDIE: If anyone in the Navy objects to this duty, what is the procedure to be adopted by those who protest and desire to get their freedom?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the circumstances in which one of His Majesty's Australian submarines was damaged in the English Channel while engaged in enacting certain scenes for the purpose of making a cinematograph film; what will be the cost of the repairs; and by whom will this cost be borne?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Neither of the two Australian submarines which are now in this country has been engaged in any work in connection with cinematograph films. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXTENDED BENEFIT, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour how many
    1364
    applications for extended benefit have been made at the Middlesbrough Employment Exxchange during the last 12 months; the number of such claims that have been refused; and the number that have been granted?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): During the 12 months ended 14th November, 1927, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local committee for the Middlesbrough area was 43,697, of which 37,595 were recommended for allowance and 6,102 for disallowance.

    INSURANCE.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if he can furnish an estimate of the additional number of males and females, respectively, if unemployment insurance applied, without restriction of age or occupation, to all employed persons engaged in manual labour and to those with less than £250 a year engaged in non-manual labour?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Precise figures are not available with regard to the total number of employed persons in Great Britain engaged in manual labour or in non-manual labour at a rate of remuneration not exceeding £250 a year; but on such information as is available it may be estimated that the number referred to in the question would be approximately 5 millions; including about 3 million males and 2 million females. The figures include employed persons of both sexes over the age of 65 years who, as from 2nd January next, will cease to be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and those under the age of 16.

    ENGINEERING WORKS, SCOTLAND (ADVERTISED VACANCIES).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the growing practice by which engineering firms in Scotland insert Press advertisements for draughtsman posts to which applicants have to reply to a box number, and that many applicants, unaware of the identity of the advertiser, apply to their own employers, who thereupon dispense with their services; and whether in such cases insurance benefit is paid?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that this is a growing practice. The statutory authorities, with whom the decision as to allowance of benefit would rest, have not hitherto had a case of this kind, and I cannot therefore quote an actual decision; but I see no reason to suppose that benefit would be disallowed if the termination of employment was due solely to the ground suggested in the question.

    GRIMSBY.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number registered as unemployed at the Grimsby Employment Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 28th November, 1927, there were 3,852 persons on the register of the Grimsby Employment Exchange, as compared with 5,003 on 29th November, 1926. Of the total of 3,852, 3,372 were men, 248 women and 232 juveniles.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed on works approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee in the area of the Grimsby Employment Exchange; and if any further schemes for providing work have been approved for this winter for the same area?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to returns received, 23 men were employed on the 26th November, 1927, on schemes for the relief of unemployment, approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee, in the Grimsby County Borough area. I am advised that no further relief schemes in this area have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Are the Unemployment Grants Committee prepared to receive any schemes and consider them effectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When they were asked, their answer, I believe, was that the unemployment in the area was not exceptional.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it a fact that the Unemployment Grants Committee have intimated that they are not prepared to receive schemes?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That was the effect of their answer.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by the hon. Member last evening, and of the fact that it was totally different from the statement he now makes?

    BENEFIT STATISTICS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who received unemployment benefit and the amount disbursed in benefit in each of the months of August, September, and October; and, if this information is not available, will he furnish particulars for the last three convenient months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics of the number of persons who receive unemployment benefit in a particular month are not available. The amount expended in unemployment benefit was approximately as follows:

    1927.

    £

    August (four pay-days)

    2,567,000

    September (five pay-days)

    3,207,000

    October (four pay-days)

    2,681,000

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether any instructions have been issued to the managers of Employment Exchanges that a man in receipt of a disability pension with allowances for wife and children shall not receive standard benefit in respect of his wife and children; and, if not, will he make inquiries as to the reason that the manager of the St. Austell Employment Exchange refused to pay benefit to a man in receipt of a pension for a disability assessed at 40 per cent, in respect of wife and three children, for whom he was receiving an allowance of 11s. 10d. from the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The instructions are that the receipt by a claimant of a pension from public funds shall not affect a claim to dependants' benefit. I am unable to trace the case referred to in the second part of the question, but I shall be glad to make further inquiries if the hon. Member will let me have more particulars.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week I received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary stating that the instructions given to committees to disallow benefit

    1367
    where an applicant is in receipt of a disability pension only applied to extended benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir; I think there must be some misunderstanding but I will look into that and see if it be correct.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the answer given to me last week, and try to square it with the answer which he has just given?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me the reference, I will certainly do so.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Arthur J. Sessions, on making application for benefit at the Wood Green Employment Exchange on 14th November, was informed that his application was refused, that he had already received extended benefit to the amount of 242 stamps, and that his future stamps would go to cover the extended benefit he had received, which would take nearly five years' continuous work; and whether, apart from any alteration in the law provided by the Unemployment Insurance Bill, he will have inquiries made into the accuracy of this statement and into this application for benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that H. Richards, J. Waylett, M. Pickering, and H. B. Richards, piece-rate workers, employed at the Ferrymore Colliery, owned by the Brierley Colliery Company, near Barnsley, attended work on 12th September last, were instructed officially that working places were in order; that the men walked some two miles to find their places fallen in, returned to the pit bottom after walking out 30 minutes again; that the pit paid two additional days that week, and the men in accordance with the Insurance Act claimed insurance benefit, which was turned down by the Exchange; that an appeal was lodged and the umpire refused payment, dated 20th August, 1927, upon the grounds that while they were walking underground they were acting in the course of their
    1368
    employment; that the men earned nothing, and had they refused compliance with colliery official instructions to go to their work prosecution proceedings could have been take out and damages could have been claimed by the company under the Coal Mines Regulation Act; and whether he will have inquiry made into this case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The decision in this case follows rulings given by the umpire in many similar cases. It is a matter for the independent statutory authorities, and I cannot intervene.
    Mr. POTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman have some inquiry made into the decision of the umpire, having regard to the importance of this question; and may I ask whether, supposing this case had arisen with men working on the surface, the umpire could have given any such decision?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not say what the umpire would do in a hypothetical case, but, if the hon. Member will communicate with me afterwards, I will see whether any new facts can be put before the umpire. That is the utmost that I can do. I have no power to interfere with the umpire's decision, but, on the other hand, if there are new facts which can be laid before him, he can take them into consideration. If the hon. Member will put himself in communication with me as to whether there are such facts, I shall be glad to talk the matter over with him.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether or not the persons referred to would have been liable to prosecution had they not carried out the colliery officials' orders, although, for having carried out those orders, they are apparently being deprived of unemployment pay; and will the Minister investigate this matter thoroughly, so that no similar case may happen again?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not at all sure that that comes within my powers, but, if it does, I should require notice of & question of that kind.
    Mr. POTTS: May I point out that there is a misprint in my question as it appears on the Order Paper? The word "paid" in the sixth line should be "played." I will accept the Minister's statement, and we will go further into the matter.

    DOG-RACING TRACK, WEST HAM (LETTER).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the issue of notices from the East India Dock Road, E.14, Employment Exchange offering employment in connection with the erection of the proposed greyhound-racing track in the borough of West Ham; whether he is aware that such invitations have been sent to men who are already in regular employment and therefore are not on the live unemployment register; that such notices contain a request that the person should bring documents connected with his garden allotment situate on the site of the proposed work; and whether he will take steps to see that the Employment Exchange is not used in this way to persuade men to give up their regular work and accept situations of such a temporary character?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have had inquiries made, and find that, by arrangement with the promoters of the scheme, who wished to give preference in employment to men over whose allotments part of the racing track was to be constructed, a. letter was sent by the Canning Town Employment Exchange to a number of such men, inquiring whether they wished to be considered for work on the scheme, and, if so, whether they could furnish proof that they were allotment holders. A number responded and were engaged. Only one of the applicants was in regular work, and he withdrew his application on its being pointed out to him by the Exchange that the work was temporary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the problem of agriculture?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that greyhound racing is more important to the nation than the cultivation of allotments?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise now.
    Mr. COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any action with regard to the officials of the Employment Exchange inviting men to bring their allotment-holding agreements in order to offer them this kind of temporary employment, and does he think it right that the Exchanges should be used for that purpose?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the action of the Exchange was perfectly right and proper. What happened was that the racing track was to be made on ground which included some of these allotments, and the allotment holders were going to be given the first chance of employment on it. It seems to me that to facilitate their having the first chance of this employment was a proper thing to do, but there was no obligation on them to take it.
    Mr. COMPTON: No, but they had to give up their allotments; otherwise, they could not take employment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, the hon. Member is mistaken. The allotment holders would be given the first chance, but they had to show that they were allotment holders.
    Colonel DAY: Would they receive any compensation for the work that they had already done on the allotments?
    Mr. GROVES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how his Department became possessed of the names of the men, seeing that they had never applied for unemployment benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will find out and let the hon. Member have the information if he wishes it.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what business it was of the local Employment Exchange to offer jobs to men who were not out of work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A number of them were out of work, and some were engaged. One of them, as I have said, was in regular work, and he withdrew his application when he was told that it was a temporary job.

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has come to a decision regarding the provision of improved local office facilities for applicants for unemployment benefit in the Clee Hill district?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Local discussions are still proceeding regarding the question of local office facilities in the Clee Hill district. I hope to come

    1371
    to a decision at an early date, and will then communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the nearest Employment Exchanges to the districts of Dagenham, Beacontree and Chadwell Heath are at Barking and Ilford, with the result that men in these districts have to tramp a considerable distance if they cannot afford the tramcar fare; and whether, in view of the rapid growth of the population in those districts, he will consider the propriety of having an Employment Exchange established there?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have the matter under consideration, and hope to reach a decision at an early date.

    LIVERPOOL DOCKS CLEARING-HOUSE SCHEME.
    Mr. GIBBINSasked the Minister of Labour how many men registered under the Liverpool docks clearing-house scheme are drawing extended unemployment benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. GIBBINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of every man appearing before the committee that evidence is before the committee?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: So far as I am aware from the office records, we could not get this information without a considerable amount of tabulation and inquiries in the locality.
    Mr. GIBBINS: Surely the committee could give the answer?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member wishes me to inquire of the committee as to whether they have it, I will gladly do so.

    MINERS (EMPLOYMENT, CANADA).
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the numbers of miners unemployed in this country and the increasing opportunities for the employment of miners in Canada, he will confer with the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the trade union
    1372
    leaders with the object of helping unemployed miners to obtain good employment in Canada?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of finding further openings in Canada for unemployed miners from this country is receiving consideration and will, no doubt, be discussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion affairs on his forthcoming visit to Canada. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the matter can only proceed in agreement with His Majesty's Government in Canada.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a recent statement by a member of the Federal Parliament of Canada, now in this country, to the effect that there is employment in Canada for every unemployed miner in this country, and does he not think it worth while to explore the possibilities implied in that statement?
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that a delegate from Canada to the Trade Union Congress at Edinburgh advised us not to send any people from this country because they had a big unemployment problem themselves.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should be glad to receive a copy of both statements, neither of which have I yet seen.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British mine workers would prefer to produce coal from British mines rather than from any other part of the world, and will he provide opportunities for them at home?

    BENEFIT RIGHTS (AGRICULTURAL WORK).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Labour if he will issue to post offices and places where it will be readily available a pamphlet showing the benefit rights to men and women in trades insured under the Insurance Acts who take up agriculture for a temporary period; if he will show cases in which the waiting period is not required; and if he will have it written in language that can be easily understood?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it will be possible to have a leaflet of the kind suggested and I will consider how it can best be brought to the notice of those concerned.

    TRAINING (RURAL INDUSTRIES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Labour if in the enlarged scheme of training steps will be taken to provide for the teaching of thatching, hurdle making, and other crafts of the countryside so that the trainees may be available for employment on the land here?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: From inquiries which have been made, I am advised that the prospects of absorption of men from the towns in this class of employment are not such as to justify training arrangements.
    Mr. HURD: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to find out the facts of the matter as regards rural areas?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There have been two inquiries of the kind, and the results have been to show that the amount that could be earned by pursuing this course were not such that those who have been previously in the towns would be willing to migrate to rural districts to take them up.
    Mr. HURD: Would it not also find employment for boys now in the rural areas who would othesrwise drift to the towns?

    TRADE BOARDS ACT (TAILORS, ABERGAVENNY).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour if he has received any communication from Abergavenny, through the Cardiff branch, that a certain firm of tailors are not paying the recognised rate prescribed by the trade board; and, if so, whether he has taken any action in the matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received a communication of the kind described, and an investigation is being made.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has been going on for a large number of years, and that it has given these tailors an advantage in competition with other tailors in the district?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will look into it.

    MILK TRADE (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
    Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish a statement giving the statutory requirements, including those relating to unemployment insurance, so far as they are administered by his Department, governing the manufacture of milk in this country in parallel columns with the corresponding statutory obligations existing in all countries from which condensed skimmed milk is imported into Great Britain, showing in each case the measures taken to enforce such statutory requirements?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The only statutory provisions in this connection with which the Ministry of Labour is concerned are those relating to unemployment insurance. The information available in this connection is being collated, and I will supply it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (DAYS LOST).
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost through industrial disputes during the present year, and in 1924, 1925, and 1926, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of working days lost through industrial disputes was nearly 8£ million in 1924, nearly 8 million in 1925, about 162 million in 1926, and rather more than 1 million during January to October, 1927.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the Department take some steps more accurately to describe the cause of these stoppages, by classifying strikes as "strikes" and lockouts as "lock-outs"?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot undertake to do anything of the kind, because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, accurate classification is almost impossible in a case of this kind; it very largely depends on the point of view. There are cases as to which there is a difference of opinion, and which it would be very difficult indeed to put into the one category or the other.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the major portion of the days lost in 1926 was due to the coalminers' lock-out?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am advised that, in the opinion of others, including, apparently, some on that side, it was due to the miners' strike.
    Mr. CLYNES: Are we to take the right hon. Gentleman's answer as meaning that in the Labour Ministry there is no definition of a strike and no definition of a lock-out?
    Several HON. MEMBERS—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I really think that it "is a storm in a teacup.
    Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. On the assumption that this is an inspired question, is it not fair that we should have the contrary point of view?
    Mr. CLYNES: May I submit to you, Sir, that the implication in the right hon. Gentleman's first answer is to the effect that working men by their action are the cause of these prolonged stop pages, and that, therefore, we are entitled to classification in order to show whether the greater part of the blame for the stoppages should rest with the employers who took the initiative in seeking—
    Several HON. MEMBERS—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to argue the matter. I called him twice for Supplementaries, seeing that there was a fair point to raise in the answer, and he asked two supplementaries on the question. Perhaps he will ask his question, but it must be a question.
    Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) has risen three times.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for me.
    Mr. CLYNES: My question to the right hon. Gentleman is whether in his Department there is any recognised definition of a strike and any recognised definition of a lock-out?
    Mr. RADFORD: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies on this question whether the coal dispute was a lock-out
    1376
    or a strike, may I ask him if it is not a fact that in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, and Cannock Chase, the owners posted no notices whatever?
    Mr. SPEAKERThat is argumentative.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will make inquiries as the right hon. Gentleman asks. I would only add that I carefully used an answer which did not prejudice or bias the result either way, and I think it is unfortunate to try to raise the issue between them.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the general secretary of every trade union, when he makes the annual return which he has to send to the Registrar prior to May, has to insert the number of people locked out and the number of people on strike?

    MATERNITY CONVENTION.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether, now that the Government of the German Reich has ratified the International Labour Office Convention on Maternity Protection, he will expedite its ratification by His Majesty's Government?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe general reason which led His Majesty's Government delegates at Washington in 1919 to abstain from voting for the adoption of the Maternity Convention, and which led successive Governments to refuse to ratify, are that, in the British view, the benefits provided under the health insurance scheme and other social services already in operation in this country are in accordance with the policy of the Convention and are, indeed, in some respects in advance of those embodied in the Convention.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that maternity mortality has not decreased in this country during the past 15 years, and is not that a reason for ratification of the Convention?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will communicate the first part of the question to the Ministry of Health. As regards ratification of the Convention, this country has already in force a policy aiming at the same results, and it was considered that the adoption of the specific proposals

    1377
    made in the Convention would lead to serious administrative difficulties and that the benefits which might be so conferred additionally would be restricted to a more limited class.

  AIRSHIPS.

    R100 (PHOTOGRAPHS).
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air what action, if any, he proposes to take with the Airship Guarantee Company for publishing photographs revealing the technical structural details of the Airship R100 without his authority?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As I informed the hon. Member on 30th November, the published photographs which I have seen appear to be unobjectionable, and I do not consider that any action is necessary.
    Mr. ROSE: In view of the publication of these technical details, is the hon. Gentleman now prepared to allow me to proceed to Cardington with my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) without any obligation of secrecy?
    Sir P. SASSOONI should be very sorry for anyone who tried to construct an air ship on the lines of R100 from the photo graphs which have been published. If the hon. Member will promise not to take a camera to Cardington, perhaps he will put forward his request again—
    Mr. ROSE: Are we to understand then that in the disclosure of official secrets a newspaper photographer takes precedence over a Member of this honourable House?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think these photographs disclosed any secrets. A Member of the House might.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the hon. Baronet by his last answer imply that no Member of this House can be trusted with national affairs?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Not at all, but the hon. Member said, when he asked to go to Cardington, that he would not give any undertaking not to disclose secrets.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is not the oath taken in this House sufficient to govern that as well as other secrets?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask the hon. Baronet if his judgment of Members, of this House is drawn from his own experience on the Staff in the War?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Baronet in a position to give an assurance that no unofficial persons of any kind have visited this area?
    Sir P. SASSOON: All those who have visited the station have undertaken not to disclose any technical secrets they may have seen there.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the hon. Baronet explain his previous answer when he talked about disclosing secrets?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Baronet to mean that hon. Members were more clever photographers than the Press, but, if the hon. and gallant Member would like a further explanation, I have no doubt the hon. Baronet could give it.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am very sorry if my answer was in any way misunderstood. It certainly was meant entirely as you, Mr. Speaker, put it.
    Mr. HARDIE: I was one of a deputation that went to the Farnworth air place, and I think the remarks that have been made reflect very badly indeed on hon. Members. We were not asked anything, but were taken round on our honour, and our honour is as good as that of any man on the Front Bench opposite.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no reflection at all on anybody's honour.

    CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the fact of the comparatively advanced stage of the airship R.100 to that of the airship R.101; and if he can explain the disparity?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The designs and methods of construction of R.100 and R.101 are essentially different, and the advanced stage of the erection of the framework of R.100 as compared with that of R.101 does not involve so great

    1379
    a disparity as might at first sight appear. I may add that a large amount of research and other work (including experimental flying with the R.33) has been carried out at Cardington simultaneously with the designing of the R. 101.
    Mr. SKELTON: Is it the view of the Air Ministry that either R100 or R101 is of military value, or are they a useful way of squandering national finance?

    LAUNCHING (HANDLING PARTY).
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air if his Department has made any calculation as to the number of men that will be required to make up the hauling-out gang for the airships R100 and R100 when, and if, they are launched?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is estimated that a handling party of about 400 men will be required at the first launching of these two ships. I may add that when their trials are completed, they will ordinarily operate from mooring masts.
    Mr. ROSE: May we assume that the lifting power is only 25 tons, although we have been told that it would be 60? Does not that give the whole game away?

    COST.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total amount spent up to date in building the airship R101 at Cardington; what is estimated will be the total cost to complete it; and what is the total estimated cost for the completion of the airship R100?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately £235,000; to the second, a further £165,000, approximately; to the last, that the contract price of £350,000 remains unaltered, though I understand that the Airship Guarantee Company anticipate that their actual expenditure on the R100 will materially exceed this figure.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (MR. R. J. C. HAMILTON).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Robert J. C. Hamilton, who served in the Royal Engineers from 9th September, 1914, to 23rd April, 1918, and
    1380
    was awarded a disability pension of 100 per cent, for wounds received in action, and who has for the past six years been employed in the aeronautical inspection directorate of the Air Ministry, has now received notice to terminate his appointment, owing to reduction of establishment, although the services of non-service men of similar grading are being retained; and will he inquire into this case?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My right hon. Friend has already made personal inquiry into Mr. Hamilton's case and had come to the conclusion, much to his regret, that there is no alternative to dispensing with his services on reduction of establishment.

    LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
    Captain A. EVANSasked the Secretary of State for Air the percentage of fees charged for civilian flying instruction by officially recognised aeroplane classes which are set aside for insurance purposes; and if, in view of the small number of accidents, he will make representations to the insurance companies concerned to reduce their premiums in order that the cost of flying instruction may be lessened?
    Sir P. SASSOON: So far as I am aware, there is no uniform percentage of fees set aside for the purpose referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but the question of insurance is a matter entirely for the light aeroplane clubs themselves and one in. which I should hesitate to interfere. I have no grounds at present for taking action in the direction suggested in the last part of the question.
    Captain EVANS: If a large percentage of the fees charged would not go to cover insurance, will the hon. Baronet tell the House why the fees charged for this class of instruction are so very high?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is not a matter for the Air Ministry.
    Captain EVANS: But, in view of the fact that the Air Ministry supplies a subsidy to clubs of this kind, does that not make it a matter for his Department to have control over the fees charged?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We cannot control the insurance companies.
    Captain EVANSasked the Secretary of State for Air the amount of subsidy paid in 1926 and up to the latest available date in 1927 to the London Aeroplane Club; the number of machines available for pupils for instructional and solo flying purposes; the number of instructors and how many pupils are on the waiting list of flying members of the club, and the average length of time they are kept on the waiting list; and if he will make representations to the club authorities with a view to the general conditions and amenities being improved on the lines of the Hampshire Aeroplane Club?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is £1,472 10s. for 1926 and £994 15s. for 1927, up to 30th November. As regards the second part, three machines are at present available and another will be available by the end of this week. As regards the third part, there are two paid instructors, but I have no information regarding the number of pupils on the waiting list or the period they are kept on that list. As regards the last part, the question of improving the general conditions and amenities is entirely one for the club management. I must add, in fairness, that the results achieved by this club since its inception do not support, the assumption that it compares unfavourably with any other light aeroplane club.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Member say whether his right hon. Friend is entirely satisfied with the work of these clubs and the effect of the subsidies paid by the Government?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (IRON AND STEEL TRADE).
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that safeguarding is the only solution for the iron and steel trade; and, in view of the importance of this matter, will he consider giving a day for the discussion of the same?
    (2) whether he is aware that the position of the iron and steel trade grows more precarious daily, and that the trade is now unanimously in favour of safeguarding; and, in view of the necessity of this industry to the country and its importance to a revival in the home coal
    1382
    trade, he will suggest a reconsideration of the safeguarding of this industry by the Cabinet Committee?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Before Question 45 is answered, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to its wording and ask whether a question which states something as a fact which is, to say the least, highly dubious, is allowed to be put on the Order Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Many hon. Members put statements in questions on their own authority which I should think were rather doubtful, but in all cases they take the responsibility themselves.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not a fact that an hon. Member must make himself responsible for the accuracy of statements which are put forward as facts? Should I be allowed, for instance, to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that his policy is wholly futile?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with the hon. and gallant Member's question when I see it.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in this House on 10th November in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Goodman Roberts).
    Mr. DIXEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the promise given by the Government as regard safeguarding, and does he not consider that equally important?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 4,000,000 tons of foreign steel were imported into this country during the last year, while there are some 100,000 steel workers out of employment here, and does he not think that that new fact requires the urgent and immediate attention of the Government?
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Whether or not safeguarding is a solution for the difficulties in the steel trade, would it certainly not be the cause of the dissolution of the Conservative Government?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must find some other time for a fiscal debate.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).
    Mr. AMNIONasked the Prime Minister whether, in considering representations made to him in favour of greater latitude being shown to certain officers and ratings of the Royal Navy in respect of political activity, he will take into consideration the claims of civil servants for greater freedom in the exercise of legitimate civil rights; and whether he will grant an inquiry into the whole position of Crown employés as affected by this issue?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government accept the general principle, which was endorsed by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that civil servants should take no overt part in public political affairs; and the Order-in-Council of 25th July last laid down uniform rules concerning the Parliamentary candidature of members of the Civil Service and the three Fighting Services. I cannot agree that further consideration of these rules as applicable to officers on half-pay either necessitates or justifies further inquiry on the lines suggested in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. AMMON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) the other day, state that, in view of the fresh circumstances, he would inquire into the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should have to refer to that; I cannot carry it in my head.
    Mr. THOMAS: If in this particular case the right hon. Gentleman relies upon a previous decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), will he not in all matters, in the interests of the country generally, follow the same example?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather follow him than a great many.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the great indignation expressed in naval ports at the recent changes which have been made, and is he going to revise the decision in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I amgenerally made acquainted with indignation wherever it arises.

    IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an Irish landowner, whose property was burnt out during the revolution, started to rebuild his home in Ireland on the strength of an interim grant. of £1,000 made to him about May last and an intimation from the Irish Grants Committee that at a later date it might be possible to recommend a further advance of £1,500, on account of the total amount recommended; that such further advance has now had to be refused by the Committee as the Government will not agree to its payment; that the result is that this sufferer is now left with his house unfinished and with a substantial liability to the contractors, who are pressing for immediate payment and whose claim he is unable to meet; will he state why this person is not now informed of the total amount recommended by the Grants Committee in his favour more than six months ago; and why the amount due to him has not been paid?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have been asked to take this question. The question whether some immediate indication can be given to all claimants, whose cases have been heard, regarding the amounts which they may expect to receive as a result of the recommendations made by the Irish Grants Committee, is now being carefully examined. In the meantime, I fear that I cannot undertake to answer detailed questions in relation to individual cases.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Grants Committee promised this man a further £1,500, that on the strength of that he started building, that now the bankers have stopped his credit, and that he is threatened by the builders and faced with ruin? Cannot the Government do something?
    Mr. SAMUELI understand that that was in the original question, to which I have given my answer.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite some conclusion of this matter, having regard to the terrible hardships which are suffered by these people, for whom the British Government are primarily responsible?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (AGRICULTURE).
Mr. DEANasked the Prime Minister if he will grant a day for the discussion of the Motion on Agriculture standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have already been asked by the Liberal party through the usual channels for a day for a discussion on agriculture, and I hope that it will be possible to find time for such a discussion, although I cannot yet fix a definite date. This would afford an opportunity for my hon. Friend, and those associated with him in the Motion to which he refers, to place their views before the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords,]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sutton Coldfield Extension) Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Mental and Nervous Disorders." [Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Mental and Nervous Disorders Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Grampian Electricity Supply." [Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

ROYAL EDINBURGH HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL AND NERVOUS DISORDERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), to be considered To-morrow.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), to be considered To-morrow.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER TRUST FUNDS (VALIDATION) BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT AND COAL INDUSTRY.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move,
  "That this House registers its protest that, on the Motion by the Leader of the Opposition on the 16th November on the serious situation in the Coal Industry, which involved a vote of censure on the Government, the Prime Minister should have deliberately evaded giving any defence or explanation of the inaction of the Government for which, as Prime Minister, he has a personal responsibility; and this House declares that the crisis in the industry, transcending all possibilities of mere departmental action, is such as to demand an authoritative statement by the Prime Minister of the intentions of the Government as a whole."
  The first attempt that we made to have a discussion on the coal question was thwarted by the Prime Minister—[Interruption]—who deliberately overlooked the fact that the silence which was so convenient to him might be interpreted as an insult by the Opposition. To-day, we observe on the Order Paper a most extraordinary series of Amendments. I have never known a party in the House of Commons to be so ready to take the part of Satan rebuking sin as the Tory party in these Amendments. I have sat in this House, with a short break, for 21 years now and for the scenes that I have witnessed, the interruptions of business, the suspensions of sittings that have partaken mostly of an unjustifiable hooligan character, the party opposite has been responsible. What, therefore, they are going to do to-day is this: At eleven o'clock we are going to see the party opposite trooping into the Lobby in favour of one of these Amendments, and in doing so they are going to censure themselves. They are exactly in the position of a party against whom an accusation has been brought and, rather than face the music, they have made up their minds to commit suicide. The Tory party in this House solemnly putting down a Motion of Censure upon some party which has held up the business of the House to such an extent that you, Mr. Speaker, or your predecessors in office have been compelled to suspend the sitting, is one of the most
  1402
  huge jokes that I have seen or witnessed or taken part in in the whole of my life.
  When this Debate was started a few weeks ago, I saw in the newspapers, very much to my amazement, that the Prime Minister proposed to take no part in the Debate. After the incidents, which were copied, perhaps unfortunately, from the Tory party, had taken place, I saw that a statement had been made—I am not going to say it was official, but it had all the appearance of an official statement—that the Prime Minister, as a matter of fact, had an open mind and that, if circumstances arose, well, who can say, he might take part in the Debate. When I saw the first statement, it caused me so much surprise that I made it my business to find out whether the Prime Minister was to take part in the Debate, and it was only when I had twice received an assurance that he was not that I started my speech in the way that I did, so as to give him an hour's consideration as to what might happen. The Prime Minister had no intention whatever of taking part in the Debate.
  I understand that a great search has been made along the highways and byways of the OFFICIAL REPORT to find precedents. Has a Prime Minister ever been known not to follow upon the Motion of a Vote of Censure? Does the OFFICIAL REPORT contain a record of a case where ordinary decency would have compelled the Prime Minister to speak, and he has not spoken? I do not know what the results of these explorations have been, and I am bound to say I do not care very much. But there is one thing I hope the Prime Minister's secretary has come across, and that is the Lyttelton case. I hope they have treasured that, and I hope he will explain it. There is one precedent, however, that I am not sure they have supplied him with, because it is not recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is the only precedent for his case of a few weeks ago. It occurred a long time ago. It was on an occasion when Sir Robert Peel was changing his opinions and found it very inconvenient to sit upon the fence. He was being attacked, he sat in the place represented by the Prime Minister's seat, and as the Debate went on, we are told that Sir Robert got more and more uncomfortable, more and more unhappy, more and more nonplussed, until at last, crunching up his notes in his hand, he turned to his Presi-

  1403
  dent of the Board of Trade and said, "You had better reply because I am not able to do it myself."
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not see it.
  Mr. MacDONALD: What was the position on the last occasion? We challenged the Government's position; there was no doubt about that. We reminded the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the Government, that the Government took sides in the dispute. We reminded him that the Government passed legislation, and that that legislation was passed for a specific purpose. We reminded him that the purpose of that legislation had not been fulfilled, and we reminded him that he handed himself and his Government over absolutely to the hands of the mineowners, and that they cheated him. The only parallel is to be found in our old friend the "Vicar of Wakefield." [HON. MEMBERS: "The Vicar of Bray!"] No, on this occasion it is the "Vicar of Wakefield," where Moses, going with a good horse to market, sells the horse and brings back in exchange a dozen or two spectacles. [HON. MEMBERS: "A gross or two!"] Gross, then—I am perfectly willing to give the Prime Minister the benefit of my mistake. A gross or two—and I emphasise the gross. [HON. MEMBEES: "Green spectacles!"] I did not like to be offensive, by reminding hon. Members that they were green—a gross or two of green spectacles with copper frames washed in silver. But whereas Moses was prepared to reply for his sins, the Prime Minister claimed the right in this House to hold his tongue whilst we were exposing the way in which he had betrayed the trust placed in him.
  Moreover, the indictment being an indictment of the Government, the only man who could reply was the Prime Minister. That was not all. The indictment was personal to the Prime Minister himself. The points that were raised were exactly those points which would have been raised if we had been able to call for the Prime Minister's salary on Supply. If instead of having to move a Vote of Censure, which we all know is a most inconvenient thing to do, the business of the House had allowed us to put the Prime Minister's salary down on a Thursday afternoon, would the Prime Minister then have thought that it was in
  1404
  accordance with his responsibility to this House to ask another Minister to reply for him? Of course, he would have done nothing of the kind. The charge against the Prime Minister was this, that during the negotiations he was active enough individually. He did not then sit back in his seat and decline to speak and take part. He himself conducted the negotiations. When, in his absence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very nearly came to an agreement, he returned hotfoot, and personally terminated the negotiations. When it was over, or about to be over, he pledged himself to the miners to see fair play being done. Later on, when the Government produced and passed legislation, it was he who justified that legislation by making certain prophecies as to its beneficent results in connection with the coal trade. During these times, during the negotiations, during the legislation that followed, he was not backward, he was not silent, and I am perfectly certain that there is no man in the House who understands better than the Prime Minister the sort of feelings we had when we found that he chose to remain silent.
  4.0 p.m.
  I think perhaps he was wise, worldly wise in a sense, in putting somebody up who knew nothing about the subject at all, one who, whatever the reason may have been, never appeared in a single negotiation of last year, one who never took sides in these negotiations, and one who we know, as a matter of fact, offered to resign on account of his position in this matter. I say all honour to him, but, in the circumstances, again, who could understand better than the right hon. Gentleman Parliamentary etiquette and Parliamentary decency? No one understands better than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that however justified that attitude of his was last year, and however much we congratulate him upon taking it, under the conditions of the Debate which was started a week or two ago, he was not the man to respond to the challenge thrown out to the Prime Minister. Not only was it a Government challenge; not only was it a personal challenge, but it was a challenge that covered various Departments, while you, Mr. Speaker, quite truly said, in your most laudable attempts to get things smoothed down on that day, that whatever Minister spoke for the

  1405
  Cabinet, the Cabinet was a united one, and one voice was sufficient. That is a good, sound doctrine, but that was not the case in point. The case in point was that at least four Departments were indicted, and it is not the custom of this House that one Minister should speak for three of his colleagues. The only man to do that is the Prime Minister. Over and over again in this House, when such things arise as, for instance, the President of the Board of Trade having a supplementary question thrown at him across the Floor affecting not his Department, but, say, the Ministry of Labour, he would be the very first man to find refuge in Parliamentary rectitude, and say, "That question must be addressed to my right hon. Friend."
  That was the situation. The indictment was an indictment against the Government as a whole, against the Prime Minister and specifically against four" or five Departments. Now to decline to stand up against it may have been a demonstration of the instinctive disregard for the Parliamentary decencies when they have to be shown to Labour by a Tory class, but it was an act which we were fully justified in resenting. We have made our position clear, and the condemnation with which the Prime Minister's action that day was generally received by the Press of the country fully justified the action which we took. The questions that were then put are still unanswered. The Prime Minister, I am told, or I see by the papers to-day—I have made no inquiries whatever to-day—is just going to say a few words, and hand it over. There will be no misunderstanding in the minds of the people who read about it, that instead of taking up the challenge which is thrown down in the Vote of Censure, he simply asks somebody else to make an explanation. Instead of leading his men into a fight, he is merely, at eleven o'clock, going to lead them into the Division Lobby.
  The case was this, and it remains. We brought case after case, and established a general condition of distress and unemployment. We asked the Government what they were going to do. We pointed out the conditions in distressed areas. We asked the Government how they were going to handle them. The President of the Board of Trade cannot answer those questions. We pointed out that the
  1406
  legislation passed by the Government, which resulted in the increase of hours of labour and in the lowering of wages, produced effects absolutely contrary to those which the Government pledged themselves they were going to produce last year. We asked what they were doing with their Mining Industry Act, which took up so much of our time last Session, and that is still unanswered. We pointed out that combines were being organised to meet the present evil conditions. We asked the Government whether they were indifferent to the question of economical working. We asked about research. We asked about any new use that is being made of coal and, finally, we brought before the Government the fact that hundreds of men in the coalfields to-day are being boycotted, not because they are bad workmen, and not because they are bad citizens, but because they happen not to belong to the Conservative party or to the Liberal party. We reminded him that during the greater part of this year the Government were responsible for bringing legislation before this House which assumed that in a very peculiar way, in a kind of way that my colleagues and myself really cannot share at all, that where an Englishman is boycotted, then the power of the Government comes to his aid, that is, if boycotted by his fellows, not boycotted by his employers. Apparently, the employers have got a pass. Having seen these things with our own eyes, and knowing the men who are victimised, knowing them personally and valuing their personal friendship, we came and asked the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, to give us a reply to those things, to tell us what the Government proposed to do.
  We made that request in the way that Parliamentary requests are always made, and we expected a reply in the way that Parliamentary replies are dealt with. We put the Government in the dock on a bill of indictment. The Prime Minister's attitude was this: "It may be true, this bill of indictment you have drafted against me about my past. I am not going to answer that. I have got a certificate about my future, and, instead of answering for what I have done, for the mistakes I have made, the muddle I have made of the whole coal industry, I am going to ask a colleague of mine to tell you what I am going to do in days to come." It is really

  1407
  not good enough, and I must say that if ever I had painful moments in this House and I have had some—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—Certainly, what is the use of jeering or trying to be rude on those occasions? I do care for this House, whatever hon. Members may say or jeer, and if ever I had unhappy, painful moments, it was when I felt most sincerely, as I did, that the Prime Minister was not observing that relationship which, by its observance, has enabled this House, with all its party fights and all its deep, and, very often, hot divisions of opinion, to maintain itself as a governing unity at the centre of the public life of this country.
  I hope to-day we are going to be able to turn over a new leaf. But in the turning over of that new leaf, if hon. Members imagine that the only person who is not to do it is the Prime Minister, then they and I part company. As I said in the very first sentence I have spoken, I repeat that the Debate was interrupted a few weeks ago by the failure of the Prime Minister to do his duty to this House. We put questions to him then. We displayed a condition of things in the coal trade for which the Government are very largely responsible. We asked them to tell us what they were going to do with regard to it. We asked them to explain their position. They declined to do it, and I move this Resolution to-day in the hope that the error they made last time will not be repeated to-day.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In the indictment which has been laid against me, I have been accused of an instinctive disregard for the decencies of Parliamentary life, and that is, of course, a very serious charge to lay against the Leader of the House of Commons. I wish to make some observations about the duties of Leader of this House as I see them, some observations about Votes of Censure and some particular remarks having regard to the circumstances that led to this particular Vote. The work of a Leader of this House, to whatever party he may belong, is no sinecure, and the more closely the Prime Minister attends to the business of this House, the heavier the burden, because he is often taken away from work that he ought to be doing, and this makes more difficult the per-
  1408
  formance of his daily duties. There is no one who has occupied this position who will not agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was unable to take that duty upon himself when he held double office. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party, during all the time that he was Prime Minister, I believe, delegated the Leadership of the House to Mr. Bonar Law. I think he was wise to do it. I do not think it would have been possible for him to do the work; he could not have led the House himself. Circumstances then, of course, were infinitely harder than they had been before the War, and the problems in which he was involved were more continuous and greater than even the problems of to-day, though the problems to-day are infinitely greater than they were before the War and the strain is consequently much more.
  I say that at the beginning because I think it quite possible that the day may come, owing to the increase of Parliamentary work—it is increasing year by year—when it may be impossible for the Prime Minister to lead the House of Commons and the actual Leadership will have to be performed by a Minister delegated for that purpose. But then the question arises, in what Debates ought the Leader of the House to participate it—I do not think anyone would expect him to speak—and when a Leader of the House speaks what he says has to be very carefully considered, because a great deal depends on it—I do not think it can be held that every time, a Vote of Censure is put down—and it is a very common method nowadays of asking for time—he should be expected to speak. If he is expected to speak it makes his task almost impossible, and indeed no one would contend for a moment that that expectation has been held always or that the demand that he should speak has always been made.
  It will be well within the recollection of the House that on various subjects which have been treated as Votes of Censure—subjects connected with the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Russia, subjects connected with a famous Circular issued by the Board of Education, subjects connected with what, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are equivalent to Votes of Censure, subjects dealt with in the King's Speech—on those

  1409
  occasions many times other Ministers than the Prime Minister have spoken and no objection has been raised. [Interruption.] You come to many discussions, especially those in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour have been interested, on wide financial questions or unemployment, which cover a great many Departments; but I will leave that for the moment and proceed with what I was saying.
  Take the Debate that occurred the other day. That in itself, in its inception, was not a Vote of Censure. It became one, I admit. It was not asked for as a Vote of Censure. Time was asked to discuss the question of coal, and, although we had very little time, we readily acceded to the request, and we have as a matter of fact, or had at the beginning of the Session, before the business became so tied up, allotted a very liberal supply of days for the use of the Opposition. It was when the Motion was put down that we saw that it was drawn up in the form with which we have become familiar now, the form that could be interpreted and was interpreted as a Vote of Censure.
  Mr. SUTTON: Could it have been discussed in any other way?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I want at this point to pause for a moment to consider the effect of such events as those which took place on that day. The Opposition thought fit to express their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Leader of the House by preventing any other speaker being heard. There is no novelty in that; it has been done before. I have once taken part in such a demonstration, and, frankly, I was very ashamed of it the next day. I make another observation on that point. When I was a young Member of Parliament I learned that such demonstrations, instead of being, as I expected, regarded as something rather heroic in the country, did nothing to add to our popularity and tended to lose us a great many votes. I might put forward a suggestion here. I think it was the realisation of that fact that led the Leaders of the Opposition to put down this Motion in the hope that it would pull their party together—
  Mr. W. THORNE: We are always together.
  The PRIME MINISTER:—and would make the country forget that demonstration of bad manners which they copied from other parties in their less wise moments. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in the middle of all that trouble called out in a voice which I was happily able to interpret, "We are proceeding Parliamentary," and he was quite right up to a point. There was precedent for everything that happened on that occasion. The only novelty adopted by the other side was that as I left the House there was from some quarter the sound of hissing, which has been heard in this House but once before, and which in this country has always been peculiar to a bird that walks over the village green; and all I would say to hon. Members who have used that precedent is this, that I hope they will have a much happier Christmas than those birds will have.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: We did not throw books.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That was a precedent which was never followed. I hope that what I have just alluded to will never be followed. The other thing in which hon. Members opposite have departed from precedent is by putting down a Vote of Censure the next day, as I say, in the hope that their conduct would be forgotten in the House and in the country. Let me say this apropos of disorder in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has sat, as I have sat, in this House for many years. He has seen many disturbances. He was good enough to say that we had been responsible for most of them. If that be so, the reason is that we have been in Opposition more than other people. But such disorder never achieved its end. There is not a single man in any of the three parties who would yield for one instant to clamour. Therefore, not only is it a waste of time, but you are—the side that does it—ihiperilling to a certain extent the prospect of success at the next General Election. Lord Balfour, when he was leading this House at the time when the first demonstration of this nature occurred over 20 years ago, used these words:
  "Never in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience have I known the House refuse to listen to a member of the Government dealing with a subject which concerns the Head of the Government, nor have I

  1411
  ever known an Opposition who thought it their function to suggest the order in which the Front Bench opposite to them ought to deliver their speeches. I am bound to say that the precedent to-night, if followed, will absolutely ruin the House of Commons."
  That precedent most regrettably has been followed more than once at rare intervals. But, as I said before, never, never in this House or in any House of our people can it achieve what those who create these disturbances hope to achieve by their action.
  Let me take the House into my confidence and tell them how I dealt with the order of this Debate before it took place. It was very important in my view, a day or two before the Debate took place, that whatever Ministers spoke should be in a position to deal, so far as they could, with every question that might be raised. The problem was bound to raise a great many questions on a great many points. I thought that when the Leader of the Opposition sat down the first speech, the general speech, should be made by the President of the Board of Trade. In my view no more competent Minister could make that speech. I do not propose to discuss his merits in this House with any Member.
  At this point it was suggested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, during the Debate which ended so briefly and unhappily, that it was an insult to him that he was not followed by me. But mark this: He is not the only Leader of the Opposition in the House. It is true he is the Leader of the Official Opposition. But we were expecting a speech from the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party, as this was a matter to which he has given a great deal of consideration, and if I had not insulted the right hon. Gentleman opposite by following him, then I should have insulted the right hon. Member who leads the Liberal party. Hon. Members may think that that was a small point, but surely in the Labour party, as in Napoleon's army, every Member carries a Field Marshal's baton in his knapsack. Any one of you may be standing at this Box, and then, maybe, you will realise the difficulty of making arrangements for debate that will be as fair as possible to all parties. Then, further, I had charged the Minister of Labour to be ready in case points were
  1412
  raised about unemployment insurance or points dealing specifically with unemployment in certain districts. I had charged him to be ready to speak if necessary.
  Then I come to this last point. I had decided, first of all, that I would wind up the Debate. But then I thought this: I do not suppose this will appeal to hon. Members, but I am telling them exactly the process of my own mind. I thought, "There is my friend the Secretary for Mines, a man who for three years has carried one of the most difficult and most troublesome tasks in the Government. He is giving up that post and he has undertaken another most difficult and probably thankless task, which will take him to India." I felt it only fair that he should have one last opportunity of speaking from this Front Bench as Secretary for Mines. It was for that reason, and for that reason alone, that some time before this Debate took place I decided that he should speak instead of myself. I have told the House exactly how the Debate came to be arranged. That did not find favour in the eyes of the Opposition. For that I have been accused of an instinctive disregard of the decencies of Parliament, and for that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to ask this House to censure me. I shall await the result of their verdict with confidence and, more than that, if this were an issue before the country, my confidence would be no less great in the country than in the House.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I should not attempt to say anything of a personal nature were it not for the re marks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but, if I may say so, I appreciate very much both the form in which he made those remarks and what he said. I think, in view of his having said that, on account of my past connection with the cool trade, I was an unsuitable Minister to respond to this Debate, it is only fair that I should say in the House—
  Mr. MacDONALD: Whatever the heat may be, let us be accurate. I did not say it was on account of the right hon. Gentleman's past connection; I said it was on account of his silence during the negotiations.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not in the least complaining of the tone or nature of anything which the right hon.

  1413
  Gentleman said. I say at once that I appreciate what he said about myself, but he said the mere fact that I had remained in complete silence during a previous coal crisis, after having offered to resign before the crisis made it inappropriate that I should be responding for the Government in this Debate. That having been said, I think it only fair to state—what I thought the right hon. Gentleman knew—namely, the nature of the connection which I thought disabled me from dealing with coal matters or being the Minister concerned with the dispute. I would like to read to the House a letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister a considerable time ago, before I resumed control of the mining situation. I had been (asked by the Prime Minister that, whenever circumstances changed, I should resume the normal duties of the President of the Board of Trade, who has a general control of the Department of Mines, for which the Secretary for Mines is responsible to the President as Cabinet Minister. On 31st January this year, I wrote this letter to the Prime Minister:
  "My dear Prime Minister,
  You directed me to let you know when my intimate connection with the coal industry had been terminated in order that I might resume general control of the Mines Department. I think this time has now arrived. I had felt bound to ask you to relieve me of the direction of the Department in a time of acute difficulty in the industry because my wife's trustees "—
  As a matter of fact, they were executors under a will—
  —"were the proprietors of, and entirely responsible for the Ackton Hall Colliery Company. This company has now been sold to the South Kirkby Company. The purchase has been completed, and the South Kirkby Company have taken over the whole of the property. Part of the purchase price was paid in debentures which my wife's trustees hold. They have the right to nominate one director on the board so long as they hold a majority of the debentures. But, apart from this power, they are in no way responsible for the conduct of the company. Neither they, nor my wife, nor I hold any shares in the company. In these circumstances I understand that you regard my connection with the coal industry as sufficiently indirect to dispense me from any difficulty in resuming control of the Department.
  You will remember that you explained to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George the circumstances in which I felt compelled to ask you to relieve me of the conduct of the Mines Department. I assume, therefore, that you will inform them
  1414
  of the change in the circumstances, and of the fact that you have asked me to resume control."
  I only read that letter to the House because, had circumstances been the same as they were when I tendered my resignation, I should not have accepted the Prime Minister's request to resume control of this Department, and had I felt that there was anything which impeded me in any way, I think the House knows from my past actions in this matter that I should be the last person to thrust myself forward. I am sorry to delay the Debate to make this personal statement, and I do not think hon. Members will say that at any time I have exceeded my proper quota of the time of the House.
  What we had assembled to discuss last time, according to the terms of the Motion, was the question of the present position, the prospects and the present policy in relation to the coal industry to-day—whether that position arises in consequence of or in connection with the past or not. In order to form an accurate appreciation of that issue it is surely important that we should get, as far as we can, agreement upon the facts. The right hon. Gentleman last time painted a picture which was gloomy, and I think unnecessarily so. No one in his senses would dream of suggesting that all is well with the industry, but while it is utterly wrong to minimise the difficulties that exist, no useful purpose is served by aggravating those difficulties or making them out to be greater than they are.
  I want at the outset to give the House a few facts as to the present position. I take first output. In the first 10 months of 1925, which is the last normal year, we produced 201,000,000 tons. In the corresponding period this year we had produced 210,000,000 tons. You have therefore an increase in output. You have also an increase in exports [Interruption]—not at all at a satisfactory price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the figures! "] I do not intend to shirk anything. This matter is far too important for scoring small points. I propose to give what I hope will be a businesslike review, not ignoring a single difficulty or a single fact in the position. We exported in those months of 1925, 41.8. million tons, and in the first 10 months of this year 43.1 million tons. Employ-

  1415
  ment is bad, but employment is not as bad as it was in October, 1925. At that time, 247,000 men were out of work in the coal trade. In October of this year, 223,000 is the number unemployed. That was a reduction from the July peak figure of 258,000. That includes people who are wholly unemployed as well as those who are on short time. Both the figures I have given include the wholly unemployed and those partially employed according to the Ministry of Labour return.
  Let me say one word about the prospects. The prospects, of course, must depend upon trade generally, whether it be world trade or trade at home. In the export trade we are faced with the keenest possible competition. I think there has been a remarkable recovery in view of the fact that during the long stoppage—I am not seeking to attach any blame here—we lost an enormous number of contracts in nearly every market all over the world. Contracts which we could have had if the men had been at work, have been taken up by others and now we have to cut into all these foreign markets. If you have to cut into a market where you have lost your goodwill, it inevitably happens that you have to quote lower prices than you would quote if you had merely a continuation of your contracts. I am not saying for a moment that we are always getting the best prices possible. I think combined selling arrangements will do a great deal to help that, but we must remember that in Germany, which is so often quoted, while the cartel controls the selling price in the home market, it leaves the German coal-owners absolutely free to sell in competition with one another in the foreign and export markets and, indeed, in that part of the home market where international competition is met. I would remark that in criticising prices we should remember that it was, on the whole, good policy to cut in and recover the markets even at a dreadful cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the miners!"] To everybody. It meant more work to the miners. Supposing we had refused to take export contracts unless at a certain profit. That surely would have been worse for the miners. It would have meant refusing contracts and refusing to get and to sell coal which is being sold at the present moment, although at a loss, and undoubtedly that
  1416
  would have meant that fewer men would have been employed because less coal would have been produced. So much for the export side.
  In the home trade which, after all, must absorb the bulk of the coal produced I think the prospects, which depend upon British industry generally, are better. The right hon. Gentleman, last time, said it was getting worse. I do not think it is. I think certainly in home industry the prospects are better. Cheap coal has played its part, and I think undoubtedly trade prospects are better. They are actually better on the figures we have. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that when he is quoting figures he must not quote the sterling figures of a few years ago and compare them with the sterling figures of to-day. It is easy to say that our export trade is down. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the price figures, the sterling figures of, say, two years ago and compared them with the sterling figures of to-day. He has forgotten that in that time prices have fallen by 14 per cent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not complaining of the fact that the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was not fully reported, but if he looks at a full report he will find that I did call attention to that point. I said, first, that if you took a comparison of prices they had fallen by so much, but then I took up the question of quantities—the very point which is now made by the right hon. Gentleman. Then, I said that in two or three vital industries there was a reduction even in the actual quantity.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will give him the correct figure in the aggregate, for it is the aggregate that really matters. The correct figure shows-that in January to October of this year, as compared with January to October, 1925, which is our last normal year, the total exports of British goods and manufactures have not fallen but have increased by i4 per cent. If you take your figures in money to-day and re-write them into the value of 1925, you will find an export this year of £661.000,000 against £580,000,000 in 195JD. [Interruption.] I dare say we have imported, but according to the theories of the hon. and

  1417
  gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that means that we should be exporting a great deal more. Therefore, that is an additional argument in support of what I am saying. In addition, we are, undoubtedly, doing more business in the home market. We are always expected, and I think it is a mistake, to deal with the industrial position entirely on figures of unemployment. If we take the figures of employment instead of the figures of unemployment a very different picture is presented.[Interruption.] Undoubtedly, it is true—I have had my figures worked out by the Ministry of Labour—that year by year a very much larger number of people, both men and women, come into industry than go out of it. People live longer at one end and more come in at the other. If you take the net increase of the people employed in industry you will find that in the last three years, between July, 1924, and July, 1927, industry has absorbed 475,000 more people.[Interruption.] Do let me deal—
  Mr. BATEY: This is a mining Debate.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But really, if you are to test whether there is a market for coal you must see whether the prospects of industry generally are going forward or are going backward, because the hon. Gentleman and I know that you sell coal to these industries and that if the industries of the country are employing nearly half a million more people it means more business is being done and that the prospects of selling more coal are better.
  Mr. BATEY: It is not true.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am giving chapter and verse for every figure Slat I am quoting. In addition to that, it is my business to see, month by month, representatives—employers and employed—of all the great industries of the country, and whereas a few months ago progress was seemingly not being made, I am glad to say that in the general opinion of nearly all of them there is, not a boom, but a steady improvement month after month actually in the orders placed and the prospects before them. I say, therefore, that the general prospect for industry, and, consequently, for coal, which depends upon industry in this country, to a large ex-
  1418
  tent, for what it sells, is not worse but is distinctly better than it was.
  Mr. BATEY: It is immensely worse.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I come to the charge which is made both in this and in the previous Motion—the charge of inaction. The Government are charged with having failed to take the necessary steps. I say at once that in this House we have an acute difference between us as to what is the relation of the State to industry. On this side of the House, we do not think all action is necessarily wise. The Leader of the Opposition said at the opening of his speech last time that it is impossible at this time of the day to divorce industry and politics. If I believed that that were true, I should be compelled to say: "God help industry!" That is the fundamental difference between us. He believes that the more you interfere with industry until such time as you can completely control it, the more is it a sound policy. We do not. We believe that the less you interfere with industry the better.[Interruption.] Do let me make my speech. I have a great deal of ground to cover, and I do not want to take up more time than is necessary. If I do not cover all the points, hon. Gentlemen opposite will be the first to say so. We say that all action is not necessarily wise. I do not like to go back on the past—it is rather an idle occupation—but I would remind the House of this, that when the Samuel Commission reported the Government, although they did not, by any means, agree with all the recommendations, were willing to accept every single recommendation made if the other parties would do the same. Whether these proposals were right or wrong, it is not our fault that the whole of them were not put into force at once. In the circumstances, we were free to judge the proposals on their merits, and we were free to judge what we should do and leave undone.
  There are two distinct problems, and I think everybody would agree with this. It is important to keep them distinct. There is, first of all, the problem of what is the best policy to adopt in the coal industry as an industry in order to make it efficient and set it on its feet. There is a. separate problem, which is not a coal problem, and that is, what steps can you take to help men in that industry who, whatever happens,

  1419
  are going to be thrown out of work, to find employment in other industries? Undoubtedly, it is true that, if you pursue a wrong policy in relation to the coal industry as an industry you will increase the magnitude of your second problem, the number of people with whom you have to deal.
  We have been challenged. We were challenged last time, and we have been challenged again to-day on the ground that by the Eight Hours Act we have made the position of the coal industry more difficult and increased the number of unemployed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] That, it seems, is a charge that I have to meet. It is quite untrue to say—and I say this as an observer, and I am sure anyone who had anything to do with the negotiations, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else, will bear me out that never was it said on the part of the Government or by anyone on this side of the House—that we guaranteed prosperity. We were not fools enough to do anything like that. What we did say was, that on the whole this was likely to give the industry a better chance.
  What has happened? That Act has reduced working costs. There is no doubt that it has reduced them by amounts varying from 10d. to 3s. 8d., and the average for the whole of the coalfields of this country is a reduction of 2s. 8d. a ton. I am comparing the September quarter of 1927 with the September quarter of 1925, and it must be observed that that reduction of 2s. 8d. a ton is not made principally at the expense of wages. The reduction in wages per shift is from 10s. 5d. in 1925 to 9s. 10d. per shift in 1927, a reduction of 7d., but the total reduction in the cost per ton is 2s. 8d. A great many of the collieries I know are carrying on at a loss to-day, but can anyone tell me, that after you have reduced the cost by 2s. 8d. a ton, you are not able to sell more coal in the competing markets of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you done so?"] We have, undoubtedly. [An HON. MEMBER: "To what extent?"] I will tell the hon. Gentleman, as I told the House at the beginning of my speech. We sold 10,000,000 tons more this year.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the ex-
  1420
  ports for 1925 and 1927 for 10 months of each year, were 41,820,000 tons and 43,200,000 tons, will he tell the House that the receipts were some £3,220,000 less in 1927 than in 1925?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Exactly. That is my point. I am not assuming that the coal-owners are making money. I know that they are not. What I am assuming is, that, although they are losing money to-day, they are selling more coal to-day in spite of the fact that they are losing money, and if you had added 2s. 8d. to their costs, they would have sold less coal, and there must have been fewer men employed. Unless, of course, you do the thing which some hon. Members still hanker after, and which is really impossible unless you have a subsidy, there is no other way out. Therefore, I meet the charge which is brought against me that we have reduced employment by the Eight Hours Act by saying that, on the contrary, we have reduced costs by 2s. 8d. per ton, and are selling more coal to-day, and more men are at work by reason of that Act than would otherwise have been employed.
  I want to come back to the question of the organisation of the industry, but I come now to the steps towards dealing with the second problem, helping those who are permanently or temporarily out of work, and helping the children to get work who cannot be absorbed into the industry. Here, I admit, we are faced with a problem which is particularly difficult. It is not as if you had an industry situated where there are other industries around which can absorb them as they come out. It so happens, unfortunately, that you are dealing with unemployment in districts where there are no other industries to absorb them, or where the industries which do exist, such as iron and shipbuilding, are hard hit. That makes the problem insuperably more difficult. It makes it all the more necessary to try to solve it, but it does make it a very difficult problem. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day as though we have taken no action in this matter. He is quite wrong. The first thing that we have done has been to reserve the mining industry for the miner, and it has made a very substantial difference and has put the industry in a unique position. We have in force, by agreement, an arrangement under which

  1421
  vacancies are not to be filled except by miners if miners can be found to fill them, and it is working.
  Let us consider the figures. This is what has happened in three months. I am dealing with facts, not with theories. It has been at work since the beginning of August, and in the first three months since that date 53,534 miners have been placed into vacancies in that industry and only 133 men have been brought in from outside. That is a very substantial contribution. It is not fair to say that we are doing nothing when as vacancies arise from one pit to another only 133 from outside the industry have come in and 53,000 have been absorbed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Since when? "] In the three months. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was vitally important, and I agree with him, to see that the young lads who come on should be absorbed into industry, or into the coal industry. I agree. Does he assume that we are doing nothing? Why does he not inquire as to the facts? We have established, and are estahblishing, throughout the whole of South Wales, Northumberland and Durham, which are the acute spots, Juvenile Unemployment Centres in a number of towns, and they are so spread out that when the system is complete, and by using omnibus and tram services to bring these boys in from outside districts, there will not be a single boy, so the Minister of Labour has told me, who is out of work and cannot get work in the coal mines in Durham, Northumberland and South Wales who will not be able to go to a Juvenile Unemployment Centre if he wishes to do so and obtain instruction. The instruction that is being given there is practical instruction. It includes metal and wood work and elementary mechanical engineering. The whole of the machinery of the Employment Exchanges is there to place these boys as they emerge from their training. This problem is, I think, a manageable problem; and it will become easier because the low birth rate of War years will mean that there will be more vacancies in industry generally for young men and boys in the years to come.
  5.0 p.m.
  Then a great effort is being made by the Ministry of Labour to transfer un-
  1422
  employed miners to other industries.
  In the 12 months up to July, 1927, 30,000 of these men have been placed, and we propose to try all we can to facilitate that, and to speed it up.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: What industries?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All sorts of industries—the gramophone industry for one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) laughs. Is it a bad thing to take a miner who is out of work and put him in a factory?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The point of my remark was in what industries are you putting men? Where are there jobs vacant, and jobs clamouring to be done? Are there these jobs to be found?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have said that 30,000 men have been placed; if this was so simple we should not be debating it.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: But others are out of work.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, others are not put out of work. We are not turning people out of work to find jobs for miners. What we are trying to do is to use the whole machinery of the State in order to place these men into work wherever we can find jobs for them. Training centres have been established at Birmingham and Wallsend, and a third is being established. There are training centres for emigration at Clay-don and Brandon, and the Overseas Settlement Committee is doing what it can. These, surely, are the right lines on which to work. It is the only way we can hope to grapple with this problem, not by perpetual doles, although a great deal of help has been given in that way, but by constructive work; wherever a job is available, to try to get one of these men into it. We have been considering for a long time—the question is always under review, not by one Department only, but by all of us in consultation—as we work out this problem of training centres, juvenile unemployment centres, and placing, whether we can accelerate this absorption, not only by using our existing facilities, and increasing them where practicable, but by in-

  1423
  troducing a new element into the organisation; and we think that as an experiment we probably can do something further to help.
  We propose to set up a small Commission, Committee or Board, of not more than three men, whole sole object will be to stimulate and assist the transfer of workers from distressed areas to openings in other areas and other industries, both at home and overseas. We have got a parallel in Lord St. Davids Committee. That is a very valuable Committee; it did not supersede any Department, but worked outside and with them in order that, in the most efficient way, relief grants to local areas should be given. Here we have got a somewhat analogous problem. We have got a problem, not of giving relief to distressed areas, but of trying to find more jobs for the men outside the distressed areas. We propose that the Minister of Labour should define these black spot areas, they are not confined to mining, though it does happen that the worst of them are in Durham, Northumberland, the North-East Coast, and South Wales. There you have the black spot areas not only in coal but in the iron and steel and the heavy industries. If these areas are scheduled, this Commission, working through and with the machinery of the Ministry of Labour, will devote its attention entirely to seeing what can be done to find jobs, either here or overseas, for men from them. This will be worked largely through the organisation of the Ministry of Labour, and any expenditure—although this is primarily not a matter of new expenditure, but rather of driving force—that is necessary will appear on the Vote of the Ministry of Labour in the ordinary way.
  It is important that the activities and the recommendations of this body should not be confined to the Ministry of Labour. It ought to work closely with any other Department it can help, either the Overseas Settlement Committee, or the Ministry of Health where housing schemes need acceleration, or with the Board of Education where education can be brought in to help, or the Board of Trade on the general commercial side. Their problem is to see where they can find jobs for men who are out of work in distressed areas. We have got to be very careful in this scheme that we do not spend money with-
  1424
  out a plain necessity for it; but where you find, and we are finding it to-day in the ordinary work of the Ministry of Labour, that there is a vacancy, but that it is really impossible to transfer a man to that vacancy without some assistance, then it pays, if you work prudently and carefully, to give a little help to transfer that man into a vacancy rather than to keep him permanently on the dole. That is the line we are working on now, that is, assisting men, where it is really necessary, with railway fares, and assisting them perhaps to move their homes. You want discussion with the Overseas Settlement Committee. I think it is very likely that we shall find in future that, where you get a Dominion like Canada, with a great advancing prosperity, the Committee have a very good chance of getting what may be seasonal, or, it may be, permanent employment, for men in Canada. Such men may get a certainty of six months' work, but they might be a little anxious, and would not want to go out there unless they are sure they are going to remain in their jobs. It is worth while considering in cases like that whether they cannot have an assurance that when the seasonal employment comes to an end they will be helped with a return passage.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an effort of that kind, which was inaugurated and intended to be carried through, failed this summer?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I know it did, because I believe there is no power under the Overseas Settlement Act to give that kind of assurance; and I believe that with a very small expenditure of money, you might be able to give it. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman says that that was in view this summer, and did not materialise, is all the more reason why we should make sure of it in the coming year. Here, of course, as in the case of Lord St. Davids Committee, there would be no question of setting up a new Department. We think it will be a stimulating force, and I think a few men of the kind we propose will have a chance of making an appeal and an approach to employers which the Employment Exchange manager and even a Cabinet Minister, with all his other duties and responsibilities, could not make. Let me take an illustration from business. If you want to concen-

  1425
  trate on a new selling ground, and you have your existing organisation, you do not hesitate to put two or three special men on to the job to see if you can carry on there and stimulate it. That is exactly the kind of proposal which, after careful consideration, we think it is worth while making.
  I come to another charge which the right hon. Gentleman made. He said, "Why are you not doing something to stimulate the more efficient use of coal?" I disagree with him, in the first place, that here there is no room for private enterprise. That ignores the whole of the experience of Germany, and all that has been done in hydrogenation in Germany, which is the product of private enterprise, and not of government activity. But the Government are doing a great deal here. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What about electricity?" One of the most important things in coal is that you should have efficient electrical plant in this country, and efficient development. There I agree with him, but have we not done anything? We spent the greater part of last Session in passing the Electricity Act. That Act was based on the considered experience of the best business men and the best technical men we could get to advise us. The Central Board has been set up, and nobody can say that is not a sound and businesslike Board. No one can say that it has no knowledge upon it of coal. No one has a better knowledge of coal than my old friend Sir Andrew Duncan, who is Chairman of the Board and who was a wise and sympathetic Coal Controller. No one is going to say that Mr. Hodges has not a good knowledge of coal as coal. They are both on the Board.
  How insane we should be to sweep away that machinery, that considered scheme of organisation which we have recommended to Parliament, which Parliament has endorsed, and which is now in force in order to take on—well, I really do not know what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have done everything that is possible. We are on the right lines, and let us allow the Electricity Board to go on with its work. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "What are you doing about oil from coal?" He said that here again was a field for Government activity. We are doing a great deal. The Fuel Research
  1426
  Board has been working on that not only for months, but for years. The Government themselves made their own experiments in low temperature carbonisation, and they have done what is the practical thing to do; they have made business arrangements with the Gas Light and Coke Company for a plant on a commercial scale. Take the other alternative, the process of hydrogenation. The Government have stepped in, and we have experiments going on in the Bergius process in conjunction with the British Syndicate.
  Mr. HARDIE: Why did you not buy any British patents?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Because there were not any. I am always hearing a great deal about internationalism from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and when you get a great process in another country—which might turn out right or it might not, but which, at any rate, is a good gamble—it is vital that the Government should step in and see that experiments are made, for, it may be, without the aid of the Government it would not be worked in this country at all. When we, as a Government, step in and see that the experiments are made, surely, from an international point of view, no one is going to tell me that that is wrong.
  Mr. HARDIE: I am not talking about international grounds.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am putting it on business grounds.
  Mr. HARDIE: On business grounds why have the Government not given the same attention to British processes for extracting oil from coal that they have given to this one? These British processes had been in existence for ten or fifteen years before the Bergius process appeared.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should be sorry to say anything in this House which reflected upon this or that business, but it is well known that the Fuel Research Board have been in touch with every single system and with every single experiment. The only businesslike thing to do is to see where you have the best chances of success—and there we rely upon our experts—and then to concentrate on those. That is the only businesslike way. Then there is pulverised coal. I think a very considerable hope lies in

  1427
  that direction. I daresay that hon. Members have seen that five 10,000-ton steamers, turbine vessels, may be laid down which will use pulverised fuel. New machinery has been devised which is able to pulverise the fuel on the ship, in that way reducing the risk which arises from carrying a large store of pulverised coal, which is rather a dangerous fuel for a ship to store. I cite that in passing. I say, therefore, that in every direction in which developments in the use of coal on new lines have been regarded as possible we have not been behindhand in investigations. We are working with the National Fuel and Power Committee, we are working through the British Engineering Standards Association in sampling and analysis; and I could name other lines of action. If the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House this rather large catalogue of our activities, would he have raised cheers so freely from his own supporters by his statement that that Government had done nothing to encourage the coal industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the cheers from your side now?"] I am concerned to state the facts, which I think are agreeable to people genuinely interested in the industry, if they are not equally agreeable to those who wish to secure some Party advantages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whip up the cheers!"]
  I come now to the question of the organisation of the coal industry itself. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the duty of the Government to take immediate action to secure the efficient organisation of the industry in the sale and the use of its own products. I do not know which horse the Opposition are going to ride. I have been a consistent advocate, in theory and in practice, of amalgamations, and I have over and over again defended amalgamations against attacks from the other side. I believe that amalgamations—large combinations—are necessary for the development of industry. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot at Question Time, day after day, attack every amalgamation which is set on foot and then come and charge the Government with neglecting to see that amalgamations take place.
  Mr. WILFRID PALING: Attack them!
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no doubt of the value of amalgamation,
  1428
  though it is very important not to overrate it. It is impossible to generalise on the subject. Anybody who has brought, about an amalgamation, who has worked in a business, knows that you cannot generalise as to what will be the results-produced by this or that amalgamation, but I have no doubt that, broadly speaking, the value is considerable. By amalgamation you get a reduction in administration expenses, you improve your selling organisation, you are large enough, to enter the retail business yourself, if it is good business to do so, and you can ensure that the merchant sells the maximum and not the minimum of your products. You can more easily eliminate excessive competition, you are able to pool railway wagons and thus reduce, to some extent, transport charges, or, at any rate, increase your own transport facilities. You will be in a better position to make district' and national agreements. You will be in a position, also, to do something to improve the technical side of the industry, although I must say that I think the technical development of our mines here is extraordinarily good, as-Professor Moss has testified; but even so amalgamations would enable the best technical men to cover a wider field and you will undoubtedly be in a better position to raise more capital for improvements, for the development of subsidiary processes and for research.
  Those are views which I have over and over again expressed in this House, not only in connection with coal but in connection with industry generally. I would only add this, that I am pretty sure that the size of the ideal amalgamation can be proved only by experience. It may very well vary in different industries. I am sure it is wrong to assume that the largest possible amalgamation is necessarily the best. The American experience of trusts is extraordinarily interesting on this point. The original trend of trusts in America was for them to be as large as possible. Then came the Sherman Law. Some of the largest of the American trusts, when they were compelled to disintegrate, found that they increased their actual efficiency. They had originally formed units which were too large for the maximum of efficiency. They found that some of the energy which ought to have gone into efficiency of production and of sales was actually absorbed in the work of turning the machine itself.

  1429
  It is very important that we should not spread abroad the idea that the bigger the amalgamation is the more there is in it. The Samuel Commission contemplated a number of units, and I think there is no doubt that as amalgamations take place—as they are taking place now—if it be good business for them to become larger and to absorb each other we shall find that is what will come about; if, on the other hand, the limit of efficiency has been reached, they will not amalgamate further.
  Again, if you have a cartel, or territorial arrangement, and a number of disconnected units in it find that the relationship of interest between the different parts is not close enough for all to keep to the common policy, you will find that that in itself will lead to closer amalgamation. Having found the advantages of combining into a cartel they will not afterwards split apart; what they will do, in the natural process, is to come to a closer amalgamation in order that their interests may be more closely identified. The right hon. Gentleman talked as though nothing had been done. One has only to read the papers to see what has been done. A number of amalgamations have taken place, and selling syndicates have been formed. I only quote what is public property in the newspapers in saying that proposals are going on in South Wales for a selling combine, and that Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are discussing a cartel.
  Mr. PALING: With what object?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the object for which the right hon. Gentleman is pressing, the stabilising of prices.
  Mr. PALING: They do not say so.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course, it is so. Is it suggested that the object for which they are coming together is that they shall sell coal less successfully than they are doing at present?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Sell it at a higher price.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really the hon. Gentleman must be consistent, at any rate the course of one afternoon. He was criticising me half-an-hour ago because the price at which export coal sold was too low, now he is criticising
  1430
  those who want to stabilise prices. If he were thinking of the interests of the con sumer and saying, "I want to keep coal prices as low as possible, even below the economic level" I could understand him, but the whole charge in this Debate is that nothing is being done by the Government or the coal owners to get an economic price for the coal, and then when you get people together working out schemes—
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: To increase the price of coal.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: You had better see these schemes before you criticise them. All I am saying now is that you have been criticising coalowners-because they will not get together in order to try to form common selling syndicates to stabilise prices and to get a greater degree of efficiency in the industry, but when they do come together you at once begin to criticise them on that score. I think we had better wait and see the schemes. Apart from these schemes, I know myself, in confidence, of other negotiations which are going on, negotiations to amalgamate on a very large scale. The last thing in the world which would help those amalgamations would be the discussion of them in public. Anyone who has tried to amalgamate either conflicting branches of a trade union or a series of businesses knows that in delicate negotiations the last thing you want is to have a great light of publicity thrown upon them. If you have a union which is being rather obstructive to your proposal to bring it in, or if you have an owner or a company which is putting too high a price upon its assets, the last thing in the world that is wanted is a public discussion. Up goes the price at once. It may be, also, that one of the parties is showing himself obstinate on personal grounds, because both in businesses and in unions human faults show themselves, as well as human virtues. In any case, the difficulties which may arise are much better overcome with quiet, discreet negotiations, and those are going on.
  While all this is happening in the industry itself, how on earth can the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing is being done and that the Government ought to take action? What further action ought we to take? It appears that we ought to compel everybody to join in some

  1431
  amalgamation, though the right hon. Gentleman is very careful not to specify what amalgamation. What informed authority can he quote in support of his proposal? The Samuel Commission were dead against compulsory amalgamation against the will of a majority of the owners. I can quote their views if I am challenged.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What did the Samuel Commission say about the eight hours day in the mines?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let us discuss one thing at a time. If they were always right, and if you use them to condemn me because the Government passed the Eight Hours Act, then surely I am entitled to cite them with equal authority—
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do not have it both ways.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For this purpose I have it this way. Lord Beaver- brook, who has taken a great interest in this matter—
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: He is an expert!
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: —even he is dead against compulsory amalgamation, and says that amalgamation can only come if the parties are willing to get together. The Lewis Committee rejected compulsion in selling arrangements, except in the case of a recalcitrant minority, and even then were very doubtful as to whether it would prove successful. Above all, I would say this, do let us be careful that we do not embark on a policy which is going to force the efficient units in this industry to take in against their will all the most inefficient units. I know of no worse policy than to attempt to force efficient business men to take in inefficient businesses. If you have enforced compulsory amalgamation by which the owners have to take in every single old pit—the old pits which ought to have gone out long ago, which were only kept going by adventitious circumstances—the War, the Ruhr, the subsidy—pits which ought to have amortised their capital and gone out; if you are going to force the efficient pits to take over the inefficient pits, then you are not going to help the men, and you are only going to saddle the new and
  1432
  efficient combines with inefficient pits. We have followed the Samuel Report upon this question, and we have laid down that if any single unit or any two units consider that the amalgamation or absorption of two, three or four or more units would be good business, they can go to the Court, put forward their scheme, and get compulsory amalgamation or absorption on terms of issuing shares and not necessarily finding any more capital. That goes the whole length of the Samuel Report, in fact it goes rather beyond it.
  We have gone further. We have given the Court the right to order the transfer of areas from one company to another, and that is being done. If you are going to go further and give compulsory powers greater than that, you are going to assume the responsibility of forcing people into an accommodation into which none of the parties are willing to enter, which none of them think is good business, and which none of them would formulate upon their own initiative. Surely that is a very great responsibility for the Government to undertake. Would hon. Members put their own money into such an undertaking? Would hon. Members belonging to the Labour party put trade union money into such an undertaking? If you do, of course, you must assume financial responsibility, and you would be bound to underwrite the profits. Would we not then be bound to assume some responsibility for the direction of the industry and for its attitude towards other industries? Where does that lead you? It is nine-tenths of the way to nationalisation. We are giving every reasonable assistance to amalgamation wherever any responsible owner thinks it is good business. In these cases, let us give them all the help we can, but let us be very careful that we do not land ourselves into a policy of nationalisation.
  As a Government we are prepared to accept responsibility both for what we have done and for what we have left undone. I agree that the major responsibility rests with us so long as we are the Government, and we accept it. I think we can justify the whole of our policy. I would like to point out, however, that the responsibility for the present situation does not rest with us alone. I think we are entitled to ask the Opposition what has

  1433
  been their contribution to the solution of this problem. What is the policy of the Opposition for the future? When the Labour party had a short term of office they forced an agreement upon the coal industry which brought it to the verge of bankruptcy, and the present Government had to foot the bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] I am referring to the agreement made while the Labour party was in office in 1S24, by which you placed perfectly impossible wages on the industry with the result that you drove men out of work.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Was not the decision referred to by the right hon. Gentlemen the recommendation of a Government Commission?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not care whose recommendation it was, but I know that the party opposite forced it on an unwilling industry by the threat of legislation, and I defy hon. Members opposite to deny it. If that agreement had been in force to-day there would not have been 200,000 but 500,000 men out of work in the mining industry.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: What about the wages?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What is the good of wages on paper if you cannot take them home? When you were in opposition you engineered the general strike. You started the coal strike and you could not call it off when you wanted to; you lost every foreign market which we are recovering with such difficulty to-day and which you lost by your action.
  Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to ask if the President of the Board of Trade is in order when he says that "you" caused the general strike?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It is the rule that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair, but I have often heard the second person used in a rhetorical way to refer to the opposite party. I hope the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will inspire all his colleagues with a strict observance of that rule.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I intervened because I thought it was very unfair that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should have all this responsibility ascribed to you.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let there be no doubt as to where the responsibility lies. What contribution have hon. Members opposite and the right hon. Gentleman who leads them to make in the future towards a solution of this problem? They put forward simply the policy of nationalisation, which so far from rendering a single pit in any country more efficient, would permanently quarter them upon the taxes of this country. Between those two policies, between the practice of hon. Gentlemen in office or in opposition and our own, the Government are quite willing to take the verdict of the House today and the verdict of the country in due time.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I can promise that I shall not introduce any further heat into this discussion. We are discussing a matter of national importance, which ought to be examined by the House of Commons quite calmly, and I am not sure that we shall advance matters very much by recriminations. With very great reluctance I join in the personal controversy which has been raised in reference to the Prime Minister, although I wish it had been possible to discuss the mining situation without having to consider evidence of that kind; but, as the question has been raised, I feel bound, by my long experience in the House and in office, to express an opinion upon this question. This is not a Departmental question, and, in point of fact, there could be no better illustration of the necessity for having an authoritative pronouncement upon it than the speech to which we have just listened. There are not merely four Departments involved. I know the Leader of the Opposition said there were four involved, but there are very many more. The Departments involved include the Board of Trade, the Mines Department, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health.
  The Ministry of Health has had to face a very serious situation in some of the coalmining areas, where we are experiencing almost bankruptcy in regard to municipal government, and the Government in this connection will have to face a considerable liability. It is far beyond the resources of these mining areas to wipe off this indebtedness, and sooner or later the Minister of Health will have to come to the Government with definite

  1435
  proposals. At the present moment in those mining areas the authorities are unable to collect the rates. I have here a list of the arrears of rates in the South Wales areas, and those arrears run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. In those areas county government is failing and district government is failing; there is no one there to pay the rates, with the result that the rates are falling more and more heavily upon the good mines. The rateable value of those areas is decreasing year by year in consequence, and this is a question with which the Minister of Health will have to deal before very long. Another question with which the Government will have to deal is the surplus population and the training of the young, and here the Minister of Education is concerned. There is also the question of agriculture, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is involved in this. As a matter of fact, there are seven or eight Ministries directly involved in the solution of this problem, and, consequently, it is a question upon which no one can speak with authority except the head of the Government
  The Prime Minister referred to my experience during the three years of the War. It is perfectly true that Mr. Bonar Law and I came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible, in the state of Europe at that time and the condition of things in this country, for the Prime Minister to come down here and lead the House, and we concluded that it was a wise arrangement to hand over the Leadership of the House to Mr. Bonar Law, who spoke with exceptional authority, because he was the leader of the largest party in the House at the time, and he was a man of very great experience. I feel absolutely certain that if there had been at that time a discussion of this kind, Mr. Bonar Law would have said to me, "You must come down and deal with this question, because no one can speak with authority on a subject of this kind except the Prime Minister." I do not wish to imply anything offensive to the President of the Board of Trade, but he does not possess the power to deal with this problem effectively, because he is not the leader of a party. Mr. Bonar Law invariably said to me in regard to important question, "As Prime Minister you must come down and speak."
  Mr. GROTRIAN: Did he say "Speak first?"
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will come to that point in a minute, and I think it is a fair interruption. If the Prime Minister had said in the course of the discussion, "I do not propose to speak immediately, but I intend to intervene in the Debate," I should have said that it was a most unreasonable thing to protest against that course, because you must allow the Government to arrange its own order of speeches. On that occasion. I very nearly got up to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should give a promise to speak in the course of the Debate, and I regret now that I did not do so. I do think that it was quite inexcusable—and I am trying to say so without any personal offence—when we were going to discuss the condition of the second greatest industry in the country, which is in a very bad way, which, according even to the President of the Board of Trade, has over 20 per cent, of those engaged in it out of work, and that does not represent everything, which is in a worse plight in many ways than it has ever been in, in spite even of this Government—it was quite inexcusable that the Prime Minister, the head of the Government, should not intervene in the course of a Debate on a Vote of Censure in reference to that industry. I have said that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade was an illustration of that. He made a purely departmental speech. It was very interesting, and in so far as it stated the facts, I think it stated them quite fairly. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I certainly never criticised him last year because he was unable to take part in the discussions on this subject. On the contrary, I took some steps to indicate that, had he done so, I had every confidence that he would have behaved as an honourable man in those circumstances, and would not have allowed his interests to intervene. After all, however, he only deals with one Department, and he has given a purely departmental reply. I will show now what I mean.
  All that he said about what has been done with regard to research and otherwise was very interesting, but, when he came to the thing that mattered most of all, namely, amalgamation, the grouping of the industry in order to save expenses,

  1437
  and, what is still more important, the marketing arrangements, which are vital when you come to cutting down the costs and reducing the margin, what did he say? Did he give any indication, except a general one, that there were negotiations—what he was pleased to call quiet and discreet negotiations—going on? Everybody knows that the thing has not been grappled with at all by the industry; it is perfectly well known that it has not. There is a good deal of talk going on, but nothing really is being done in order effectively to group the industry to increase its efficiency. The Government gave the industry two years from the 4th August last year in which to set its house in order. That is under the Act of Parliament. A year and four months have elapsed; can the President of the Board of Trade really say that the industry has utilised those 16 months in order to puts its house in order? This House—not merely the Government, not merely the Samuel Commission, but the House of Commons—declared last year solemnly by an Act of Parliament that the industry had to be reorganised. Most of that Measure is taken up with the reorganisation of the industry. There are elaborate provisions for bringing court after court and Ministry after Ministry to compel them to do so if there are any recalcitrant mineowners; but practically nothing has been done. As far as marketing is concerned, there has been a good deal of talk, but, in so far as there has been discussion up to the present, it has been discussion with a view to raising prices and increasing profits, and not really with a view to reorganising the industry, in the sense in which the Germans are doing it, with a view to cutting down expenses and enabling us to face competition in the markets of the world.
  You cannot get away from the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with this industry. We have exceptional advantages in our coal measures as compared with any other country in Europe. In the first place, the quality of the coal is on the whole superior to that of any other country in Europe. Another great and decisive factor, as was pointed out in a very able article in the "Daily Telegraph" the other day, is that all our coal measures are within easy access of the sea. That is a vital factor, and it is more than can be said about Germany,
  1438
  it is more than can be said about France. The quality of the coal of Belgium puts it out of competition, and, therefore, it does not count seriously. We have exceptional advantages as far as our coal measures are concerned, but what are the facts? All the great producing countries in Europe, with two exceptions to which I am coming shortly, have increased their output since 1913; ours has gone down. As compared with 1913, our coal production—I am assuming that the output will continue at the same level during the month of December as it has during the last few weeks—will this year be down by 31,000,000 tons. That of Germany—I am taking now the post-war figures for comparison—will be up by 25,000,000 tons, and that of France will be up by 13,000,000 tons, while that of Belgium will be up by 4,200,000 tons. In the case of the United States the figures are still more remarkable. I will take the figures for last year, because there has been a great strike there this year, so that it is not fair to take this year's figures. In 1913 they raised 514,000,000 tons, and last year their output was 663,000,000 tons. [Interruption.] Even this year their output was 606,000,000 tons, in spite of the fact that they have had a strike, so that, even taking this figure, their output has gone up by something like 90,000,000 tons.
  It may be said that we are suffering from the fact that oil is being used in our ships, that there are coal-saving appliances of every kind, that the water supplies of Europe have been harnessed for the purpose of the production of power: but that is equally true of other countries. The three countries whose coal output has gone down are Poland, Russia and Britain, while the countries that have gone up in production are Germany, France, Belgium and the United States—the well-organised countries, while in the disorganised industries the output has gone down. That is a very significant fact, and it is in spite of all the natural advantages that we enjoy, and of the fact that our hours are longer at the present moment than in any coalfield in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the wages are better, but they are not better as compared with 1913, which is the real comparison. They were better then, but it will be found that the wages in Germany, France and Belgium are higher

  1439
  than they were in 1913, taking purchasing power into account. On the other hand, they are much lower here. In those countries conditions have been improved since 1913 in regard to hours and wages. As regards wages, our conditions' have degenerated, and the hours are worse than they were in 1919. The pits are working at a loss; our export trade is down in every market except two; the municipalities are bankrupt, and there is a great reduction in the output of coal.
  What is the use of optimistic statements by the President of the Board of Trade in the face of irrefutable facts of that kind? It does not help to solve the problem. The Board of Trade is going to be the Department which will decide what is to be done, because I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines is going to be abolished, and that the President of the Board of Trade is going to absorb him. The President of the Board of Trade will have the whole responsibility, and he, apparently, is going to proceed on the assumption that all is going well, that trade is improving, that the mine-owners are doing their best, and are having discreet negotiations which are going to fructify in good time, while in the meantime 227,000 miners have been hanging around for months, and some of them for years. Moreover, a very serious factor which has come to my notice is that there are young people there who have reached almost years of maturity without ever having had a job. Miners have been talking to me, and have been speaking with very great concern about their own children. They are good lads, but still they are very uneasy about the fact that they are idle, because there is- nothing for them to do. We are told that training centres are going to, arrive, but they are not there now; that is all that I know.
  I can see no sign of any organisation that will provide training for these thousands of young people who are out of work at the present moment. If there be any such organisation, it would be rather desirable to have more information about it than we have had in the course of the Debates on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. One miner told me that his boys had never had work: that there was no place where
  1440
  he could get work for them. He said that the condition of things in the coalfields is desperate. People are full of despair, they lack hope, they have been thrown upon the Poor Law with very inadequate allowances to maintain life in decency, or even to maintain it at all. I am not criticising the guardians or local authorities, because they are bankrupt. Merthyr Tydvil has a rate of 30 s. in the £, and there are a great many places where the rates are over 20 s. in the £. They cannot do any more, and there is a state of gloom and utter despair running throughout the coalfields in South Wales. I have that from men who tell it to me on their honour. It is no use giving this comfortable, cosy account as if things were going well.
  That is my criticism of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade as being a Departmental reply. We ought to have an answer from the man who is responsible, as head of the Government, to the House of Commons, to the country, and to these poor miners as well, as to what is going to be done. I am not blaming the President of the Board of Trade, because that is all that he could do. [Interruption.] I mean it. He could only give a Departmental reply. I know perfectly well, from long experience in government, that, when you come to a great question of policy, there is only one man who can really declare it, and that is the head of the Government. A man who is purely a head of a Department can answer for his Department, but, when you come to a question of broad policy, when you have to deal with an industry which is languishing, then the head of the Government alone can answer. What is the fact with regard to the mines? The fact of the matter is, that our natural advantages have been turned to our disadvantage. We had great natural advantages over all our competitors in Europe and in America. The American seams were richer and thicker and were worked by labour-saving appliances, but they were very far from the coast, and transport was prohibitive, and whether we went to South America or any other port, we should find our coal was beating them all round The same thing applied to the Germans. They were unable to compete with us.

  1441
  What did they do? In order to compete with us they resorted to every expedient to cut down the cost of production, adopted scientific devices and every kind of labour-saving appliance, made full use of by-products and waste, reduced over-bead charges, went in for much more efficient direction of their mines and amalgamation and, above all, better marketing arrangements so as to reduce the margin between the cost at the pithead and the cost to the consumer. The result was that they gained ground upon us, and not only that, but the profits they were making from the mines, instead of being always distributed to shareholders, were reserved for the purpose of development on a very much larger scale than we did. The surplus workers were provided for. I have no doubt there is a surplus there as the result of laboursaving appliances. It involved a reduction of the numbers.
  The Germans never made the mistake of allowing that surplus to hang about, for one very good reason. Ca'canny is a very important element in production, as everyone knows who has any knowledge of industry. What is the greatest element in that? The fear that if you finish your job, or increase your output, you either throw your comrade out of a job or you may be out of a job yourself, and the spectacle of 200,000 or 300,000 unemployed as the result of increased production is a detriment and a discouragement to production. The Germans never made that mistake; they took steps to absorb the surplus, and to find work for them. They made arrangements for pensions for those over 60—fairly adequate pensions. At the other end they made arrangements for training the young, raising the school age, and they also made arrangements for transferring those who were not absorbed by those processes on to other tasks, sometimes agricultural, sometimes industrial. You do not get the scenes and the spectacles that are so distressing to anyone who visits our mining villages in places like Durham and South Wales at present, thousands of vigorous men, many of them young, hanging about hopelessly, only asking for work and with not the slightest prospect of getting it. These mineowners with the aid of the Government in Germany have avoided that, and that is what I had hoped to hear from the President of the Board of Trade, not a sort
  1442
  of detailed little explanation of this and of that, but some sort of hope that the Government were visualising the problem as a whole, that they realised the depth of the distress there, that they had got it in hand and were really contemplating doing something. He gave us not the slightest glimmer of hope that they even realised what the problem was.
  We have undoubtedly presumed on our superiority, and slackness has entered into the whole of the industry, and it will take a long time to eliminate it. There was a time when we could say: "You must come to our shop." That is a bad kind of thing for any industry. We could say: "You cannot get the goods anywhere else, you cannot get the quality anywhere else, you cannot get it at the price anywhere else." As long as that lasts it leads to a certain slackness, and it has done it here. Those days have gone. They can get the goods in other shops, and, until the Government compel the industry to face its problems and to reorganise, you will never be able to recapture the markets that are lost and to establish new markets, but if you do, the natural superiority of the coal supplies in this country is so great that there is no country in Europe that can compete with us on equal terms in neutral markets. I very greatly regret that the Government have not indicated their intention of taking some steps. What are they doing about the surplus? Are they making any provision at all about pensions for the aged, or for others whom I should be very sorry to call aged, the training of the young, the transfer to other fields of those—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Putting a further burden on the industry.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think you ought to throw the burden upon the industry. I have always suggested, with the consent of the right hon. Gentlemen who are there, including the Prime Minister, in 1919, that the mining royalties should be purchased and that there should be a very substantial deduction from the purchase money for the purpose of establishing a fund for the well-being of the miners. The President of the Board of Trade said the Government were prepared to accept the whole of the Samuel Report. My recollection is that the first recommendation of the Samuel Report was the purchase of the coal

  1443
  measures. If that were done, you could establish a fund which would enable you to deal with those who are over 60 years of age with a very slight contribution from the industry itself.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The industry would still have to pay the royalties.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The industry pays the royalties, anyhow. I do not suggest that you should increase the royalties. What the hon. Member does not quite realise is that here you have those who are interested in mining, who have contributed nothing in the way of risk or capital. They do not even contribute to the rates. Take the whole of Wales and the whole of England. You have 30 s. in the £ at Merthyr Tydvil. The royalty owners will not have to pay a sixpence of it. When the industry was making money in 1923 and 1924 the royalty owners received so much. Now that it is making a loss, when the miners' wages are down, when the proprietors cannot make a profit and are scoring a loss, there is exactly the same amount of money paid to the royalty owners. As a matter of fact it is more, because you are raising more coal than you were in 1922 and 1923. We cannot leave it in this condition. It is all very well for the Board of Trade to say our business is not to interfere with industry. In the old days, when an industry fell on bad times, the policy of all parties was to say it must work itself through the bad period and find its own salvation. It was a very cruel policy. Ultimately, however, it succeeded, but at that time we had not the fierce competition that we have to-day. You could afford then to wait. You cannot wait today. There are others capturing our market. More than that, it was a very cruel and harsh policy. It involved a good deal of suffering for hundreds of thousands who were involved in the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Free Trade policy."] I do not care whether it is Free Trade or not, not the least bit in the world. I am dealing with the facts of the situation and I am prepared to face them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over here."] I have not yet seen that determination, that resolve to face realities that I should like to see to begin with.
  I should like to say one word of appeal to the House. I think the miners have
  1444
  a really special claim upon the House. As those who were engaged in the conduct of the War remember, they recruited better than any other class. They recruited so well that we had in 1915 to send a special Commission to France to get them back, and it was not so easy. They preferred to do their share of the fighting. I think when you get 227,000 out of work and in real despair they have a right to come to the House of Commons, they have a right to come to the Leader of the House of Commons and say, "Sea fair play. See us through our trouble."
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I hope I shall get the sympathy of the House if only for the reason that I am a member of the Miners' Federation, an organisation which, judging from remarks that are made occasionally on the other side of the House, seems to be one of those that have the same effect on hon. Members on the other side that a red rag has to a bull. Being only a miners' member, or rather a member of the Miners' Federation, I am not an expert. It is only experts who can talk learnedly upon this subject. I have heard quite a number of them during the last nine years. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to be very much intrigued by the failure of Britain to hold its own in foreign markets, but I suggest to him and to the party with which he is associated that they are pursuing a will-o-the-wisp if they imagine that foreign competition is in any real way responsible for the condition of the mining industry to-day. It goes very much deeper than that. I am one of those who believe that the difficulties with which we have been faced for a number of years might have been got over had there been any genuine desire on the part of Members of this House to find a remedy, but they have been more interested in listening to, and retailing to each other, the rival theories of the so-called experts, and I believe that our industry has suffered to a very considerable extent by reason of these experts and newspaper philosophers.
  I am not going to suggest to the House what the position of the mining industry will be 50 years hence or 10 years hence, I am not going to indulge in prophecy, but I will try to recall to the minds of Members what has happened in the industry during the last five or six years, or, rather, since the end of the War. I

  1445
  would like very well to go into the question of the share which the miners contributed to the winning of the War, but I have not the time. I am entitled to take up only a very short space of time, because a large number of Members want to take a share in the Debate. I do not wholly blame the Government. I am pleased, however, that the Prime Minister made the handsome apology that he did to-day. It was handsome, and he has done nothing else but apologise. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is not in his place to-day. He was one of the experts who rushed us into the struggle of 1921. He is an expert, not merely in coal, but in law, in iron, in steel, in banking and in globe-trotting, and that is the reason why he is not here to-day. Since then we have had some other experts. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who is also unfortunately absent, is an expert in agriculture, Free Trade, Protection, the chemical industry and coal, and he knows all about it; he is the man we have to call on now. Then we have the right hon. Gentleman, or, rather, the hon. Gentleman, as he is not right hon. yet, though he probably will be, the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), whom I am glad to see in the House. He was the go-between, on his own admission, between the employers and the Government last year. He is an expert in engineering, and he is, besides being an hon. Member of this House, a handsome Member of the House; he seems to believe in himself. Then we had a new expert about a couple of years or 18 months ago in Sir Herbert Samuel, the great white hope of the Liberal party. To use a Scotticism that may not be very well understood on the other side, these chaps have "too many tails to their dragon" to be able to find a solution of the difficulties with which we are faced.
  The one thing, apparently, that is agreed on all sides is that the mining industry is a basic industry. That being so, it would be fair to say that it is the mainstay and support of other industries essential to the country's good. Besides being a member of the Miners' Federation, I am also a native of this country, and it is the country in the world for which I have the greatest regard, and all belonging to it, or all on this side. I am an optimist in some respects. I am an optimist in so far that I believe
  1446
  that, if there were a genuine desire to promote the interests and the well-being of the country, a solution could be found; and, so far as this side of the House is concerned, I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman who leads our party, and who leads it as no other section of this House is led, would have the absolutely unstinted support, not only of Members of the Labour party, but of the people who sent them here, in helping in any way that would really bring back something of the prosperity that I am sure most hon. Members are anxious to see in this country. It is agreed that the mining industry is a basic industry, and it is also agreed that it is an industry which is depressed, and I would like to ask hon. Members fairly, considerately, and free from political prejudice, bias, or passion to ask themselves the reason why the industry is in this depressed condition.
  No matter what may be said from any side of the House, I think it is fair to say that the depressed state of the industry is not due to any fault on the part of the men engaged in the industry. It cannot be laid to the charge of last year's stoppage, because that stoppage was due to the same cause; neither is it due to lack of will on the part of the men engaged in the industry. They have done all that was asked of them. They have worked longer hours, they have increased output, and what has been their reward? Not what was promised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Tory Government. What has happened during the last 12 months is that a whole series of pits has been closed down, there has been an increase in unemployment, men engaged in the industry are up to their neck in debt, and a proportion of those who are idle and unable to find employment are running into arrears with their rent, and are threatened with eviction, while men who were responsible for taking only a minor part in the organisation of the men in the different localities have been victimised—"crucified" is a better word to use. You find to-day, in every one of the areas, the greatest poverty and misery; and the only action that the colliery owners have yet taken is to attempt to smash the organisation of the miners. In addition to all that, we have reduced wages.
  I want briefly to deal with the position of Scotland, and, by the way, I noticed

  1447
  that the President of the Board of Trade made no reference to Scotland. According to official figures, in 1924, when the Labour party was in office, there were 142,735 persons employed in the mining industry in Scotland. In September, 1927, that number was reduced to 104,529, a reduction of 38,206, or 26 per cent., just the proportion that Scotland as a whole sent to the War between August, 1914, and September, 1915, voluntarily. The output per shift worked in March, 1927, was 22.86 cwts. per person employed, and in September of this year it was 23.33 cwts., or an increase of almost half a cwt. per person employed, so that so far as the increase in output is concerned, the miners in Scotland have done what the Government asked them to do a year ago. The average wage per shift in March, 1927, was 10s. 3.21d., and in September, 1927, it was 9s. 3.70d., a reduction of practically one shilling per day. They increase output, they work longer hours, and the net result is a reduction in wages to the extent of about 1s. per day per person employed. The President of the Board of Trade took credit to himself or to the Government for the fact that there has been a reduction in the cost of production, but that is not true so far as Scotland is concerned. There is one shilling off the men's pay, but there is only, according to the official figures of the coalowners themselves, 2.41d. per ton reduction in the cost of production other than wages. I do not think that i3 very much to boast about, but that does not represent the whole of the evil position in which the Scottish miners are placed.
  There is a net deficiency in the last month of ascertainment of £1,720,453, and I want the Minister responsible for the Mines Department to tell me how many coalowners in Scotland or anywhere else have gone into the Bankruptcy Court. While he states that they know of some, he will not tell us who or where they are, and I venture to say that it would be difficult for him to find any of the coalowners who are depending on the same sort of supply as the vast majority of the miners are. The net result of the Government's action last year has been to land the mining industry in the position in which it now finds itself, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not be led away by the somewhat glorious colour that the right hon. Gentleman the Presi-
  1448
  dent of the Board of Trade tried to throw upon the situation as it is likely to develop.
  In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) one day this week, we were informed that there were 170 mines abandoned in Britain since and including 1924. The coal is not worked out. The Commission which sat to inquire into the duration of the coal fields told us that there are thousands of millions of tons of coal still capable of being produced in this country; but if this policy of the Government is to continue that coal will be lost. Curiously enough, I received an answer from the Secretary for Mines on the 10th November in which he told me that there were 145 mines in Scotland that had been abandoned during the same period. That leaves only 35 mines that have been abandoned for the rest of the country. I submit that those figures are not correct. In Lanarkshire alone, according to the answer which was given to me on the 10th November, 85 mines have been abandoned. So that, apparently, half the collieries that have been shut down in Britain during the last year have been shut down in the County of Lanark. I submit that those figures are inaccurate. I do not know whether they are given to us for political purposes or not, but certainly they have no other effect than that of humbugging the country generally.
  I wish to draw the attention of the Government and of the House to the fact that the Government appointed a Commission nearly two years ago to inquire into the condition of the coal industry, and they chose to exclude the only persons who were really acquainted with the mining organisations of the country—the owners and the miners. The owners submitted a case to the Commission, and the miners submitted a case, but the Commission chose neither. The Commission condemned the present system, and anyone who reads the Commission's Report must agree that all the evidence that was submitted warranted the decision arrived at, that under the present system it is altogether impossible to satisfy the needs of the miners generally. The same is true of the Sankey Commission, which was the greater Commission. That Commission chose neither the owners' case nor the miners' case, but the Government repudiated the find-

  1449
  ings of the Commission and chose the coalowners' case. I have shown as far as Scotland is concerned what the working out of the coalowners' case has meant. I do not think it is unfair for us on this side of the House to claim that the Government, having chosen the coalowners' side of the case a year ago, must hold themselves responsible and they are entitled to be held responsible for the evil condition in which the country finds itself as far as the mining industry is concerned.
  If the Government will not look upon us as pariahs in the industry, but as men who have some little knowledge regarding it; if there is any real desire to try to find a solution of the difficulty, whether by nationalisation or by unification or any other way, it is a mistake to imagine that we on this side have pinned our faith to nationalisation, and nothing else. We have time and time again said that if we had the power we would nationalise the mines. The present Government have the power, and they admit the need for something being done. They ask us to assist them, but when we offer assistance they repudiate us with the utmost appearance, at least, of contempt. A situation has arisen which makes it essential that not merely the mining industry but the industries dependent upon the mining industry require that political prejudice and political bias should be cast aside, and some attempt should be made to restore the coal industry to its former prosperous position, which would carry in its train a return to prosperous conditions in the country as a whole.
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken made remarks at the beginning of his speech which rather disarmed controversy, and I should like to return the very wholesome compliments that he paid to me. He made quite a moving peroration—I say this in all seriousness—but I doubt whether the end of his speech was quite fair to the Government. I do not think it is the case that the Government have turned down any useful suggestions from the Opposition or from The miners' unions with contempt, in any sense of that word. The difficulty which, I take it, the Government have had has been that no helpful suggestions have been put forward from the other side of the House. In the Debate on the Vote of Censure a
  1450
  short time ago, and so far in this Debate, we have had no sort of help from the other side as to what the Government are expected to do. It is unfair to accuse the Government—I hold no brief for the Government; I think in many respects they handled the situation extremely badly last year—and to say that they would not welcome any suggestion of any use at all put forward, no matter from what source it came. Experience must have shown the hon. Member himself that when suggestions have come from those who are intimately connected with the welfare of the miners, a peculiar degree of care and sympathy has been given to those suggestions by any Government which has been in power.
  There is one further point in the hon. Member's speech to which I should like to draw his attention. He said that in the case of Scotland the reduction in the wages costs per ton was the equivalent of Is. per man per day. I accept his figures, because my own recollection is about the same figure. He also pointed out the reduction in what he called other costs of production, which he said had only been a mere fragment of the other amount. There, again, I accept his figures, but I think the House ought to understand how those other costs of production are made up. They involve, in the main, items which are in no way under the control of the colliery management or of the owner of the colliery. They include rates and taxes, timber and other things which the colliery owners would like to reduce, but they are not susceptible to reduction by the colliery owners. It is only right that one should point out that fact.
  The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is a very disappointing debater in this House. On the last occasion when we had a coal Debate, he made some very remarkable statements, and I sent a special message to him saying that I was going to refute some of his statements and that he might like to listen to the discussion; but he did not turn up. Again, to-day, he has been definitely informed that I proposed to draw attention to some of the statements in his speech, but again we find him missing. It is with the greatest regret in these circumstances, that I have to break through a rule of this House and deal with the speech of the

  1451
  right hon. Gentleman in his unfortunate absence. He attempted to arouse a vast amount of emotion—convertible, I suppose, at par into votes on a subsequent occasion—about the unhappy condition of a vast number of men in the coal industry to-day. Every Member of this House knows that the condition of these men is terrible in the extreme, and the emotional picture which was painted by the right hon. Gentleman could be borne out by everyone who has had any intimate concern with the colliery districts.
  In Durham, in parts of Northumberland, and in a great part of South Wales the conditions which he described do undoubtedly prevail. There are tens of thousands of men who are to-day without hope, because they realise, as this House must realise, that never again will there be work for them in the coal pits of this country. But it does not become the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to take up their case and to arouse the emotion of the House about it, because if there is one man in the world who is responsible for the unhappy condition of the 200,000 or 250,000 miners to-day it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. Who are these men? They are the redundant men in the coal industry. Before the War we could turn out 270,000,000 tons of coal a year, and we could export from 70,000,000 to 90,000,000 tons, and we could do that with approximately 1,000,000 men. What was the condition under the right hon. Gentleman's regime under coal control. We had over 1,200,000 men producing less coal than 1,000,000 men produced before the War, although the appliances in the nits had been vastly improved in the interval. These unhappy 200,000 or 250,000 men, who have lost all hope, and have rightly lost all hope, in the coal industry, because never again will there be a job ready for them, are the redundant men who came into the industry owing to the ridiculous policy of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Take another point in his speech. He made a great deal of play about the immense efficiency of the German coalmining industry. I admit that during the last few years the German coalmining industry, from the technical point of view, has been improved out of all knowledge. Before the War, as far
  1452
  as the actual mining was concerned, apart from the surface plant, the German mines were years, generations behind the coal mines of this country. What has enabled them to improve their conditions so immensely underground from the technical point of view? The constant troubles in our own coal industry, and the constant occasions on which British competition in neutral markets has been taken off the shoulders of the Germans, has enabled them to make the profits which alone can provide the source of better technical conditions and better technical machinery in the pits of Germany.
  Mr. VARLEY: Nonsense!
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member says "Nonsense." I hope he will explain himself later. It is not nonsense to say that the only source from which the technical improvement of the German mines could be brought about is the profits which have been earned there.
  Mr. VARLEY: The inference is that the German coal industry has made more profits than the British coal industry in the last few years. To that I say Nonsense.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member must fight that out with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who pointed out that the German coal industry has had abounding and enormous prosperity owing to a certain policy which they have adopted. I am more inclined to agree with the hon. Member who has just interrupted me than with the right hon. Gentleman, because the present situation of the Westphalian Coal Syndicate is that they are crying out to high Heaven for someone to come and help them to deal with those dreadful English who are capturing their markets. They are absolutely yelling out at the present time against those English people who are recapturing the markets which they lost during the strike. The German coal mines have, however, been marvellously improved during the last two years as compared with before the War, and the improvement has only been possible because of the fact that profits have been made and that there has been something with which to pay for the extra machinery and the improved machinery, whereas in this

  1453
  country, due to a certain extent to the arrangements made in 1921 and subsequently the supply of fresh capital coming into the industry has been, undoubtedly, considerably reduced, and to that extent the possibilities of reconstruction in a technical sense have been reduced in the coal pits of this country.
  Another extraordinary mistake was made by the right hon. Gentleman. He was pointing out that some countries had increased their coal output and some countries had seriously diminished theirs—among the latter countries he put this degraded country of England—and, to my extreme amazement, he said that the output of coal in Poland, of all countries, had been reduced during the last few years The one key factor to the whole world's coal trade at the present time is the Polish Silesian coal, and nothing else. As far as our own industry is concerned, we could take on every other country in the world and beat them in neutral markets, and beat them in Germany, too; but the one bugbear to the whole coal trade of the world is the Polish Silesian coalfield. Here, again, whose fault is it that this has upset the coal trade of the world? Who was it, with that bright spirit, President Wilson, who rearranged the map of Europe which has produced this disaster? The situation of the Polish Silesian coalfield is this: Before the War—I know the coalfield well—it was being rapidly and well developed, largely by Germans, because a great part of the coalfield was in German territory, but even that part of the coalfield in Poland itself was being largely developed by Germans.
  When the resettlement of Europe took place, what happened was that the best part of the Upper Silesian coalfield was taken by force from Germany and given to Poland. The Germans promptly retaliated by closing their frontiers to Polish coal. The effect of that was that the Polish Silesian coal lost its natural market, which was Central Europe. Much of the coal is of good quality indeed; not equal to Welsh steam coal, but equal to other steam coal which we produce. It is quite a decent quality of coal, and it is easily mined. Here, again, I differ with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I do not know where he gets his facts, but he even suggested that this country had specially easy mining condi-
  1454
  tions. The conditions under which steam coal is raised in this country as compared with the conditions in the Polish Silesian coalfield are much in favour of the latter, and, when it comes to a discussion of wages, we have ascertained recently that the average wage per shift in Poland and Silesia for the men underground and on the surface is 3s. 5d. to 3s. 6d. a day, whereas the average wage in this country is at least 9s. per shift, and, possibly, a few pence more. But that is a digression.
  The fact remains that, owing to the settlement of Europe after the War, for which the right hon. Gentleman is again very largely responsible, owing to that ridiculous settlement of the Polish Silesian coalfield, the coal itself was cut off from its natural markets in Central Europe. They formed the Danzig Corridor as a new outlet to the sea, and now Polish coal is flowing into Scandinavian and Baltic markets, and even further afield, subsidised to the extent of 4s. 6d. per ton by the Polish Government through its railway rates. How the right hon. Gentleman with his record can get up and throw blame on any man in this country for contributing to the troubles of the industry is a thing that baffles me. It is an effrontery which is not equalled by any other hon. Member of this House, and I hope never will be.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. SPENCER: This problem presents itself from two points of view, one, the human aspect, and the other, the economic. As regards the human side of the question, I should like to say that I think it ought now to be treated as a special problem, and that the Government should render every assistance possible for the purpose of conveying men from one locality to another. I know perfectly well that this is not an easy matter. I, myself, have made an attempt to get men from the Durham coalfield into the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and one realises the difficulty the men have of adapting themselves to new conditions. The conditions are altogether different. Men who have been used to one coalfield might be expected to adapt themselves readily to another Coalfield, but where the conditions vary so greatly it is not so easy, and I am sorry to say that men who have come from the Durham coalfield have not in

  1455
  some instances, been able to equip themselves- as other men who are accustomed to the coalfield. Without speaking derogatorily of the Durham miner, this has left a very bad effect, and the Durham miner in the Nottinghamshire coalfield to-day has not got that name which, I think, he would have if he was dealing with his own conditions.
  This, undoubtedly, has militated against a rapid and substantial transfer of men from the Durham coalfield to the Nottinghamshire coalfield, which is opening up. I hope it will be overcome, and that the Government will render all the assistance they can to bring men from those localities where mines are closing to the districts where developments are going on. I admit that there is a very great deal of destitution and poverty in coal-mining areas. I have never known it worse since I was a boy. The conditions throughout the coalfields of Great Britain, from the point of view of destitution, poverty and anxiety, have not been exceeded for the last 40 or 45 years. I am not going to attempt to say where the blame lies; I content myself with saying that the Government should treat it as a special problem, give assistance where it is required and, instead of thrusting men on the rates, should make special provisions out of the national unemployment scheme for keeping these men until such time as they can get another job. Later on I will say where I think some of the money might come from for this purpose.
  Now let me deal with the economic side of the question. Let me take the causes of our present difficulties and then, as far as I am able, point out the way I think we should go in order to rehabilitate the industry. In the forefront of the troubles of to-day undoubtedly are the series of stoppages that have taken place in the coalfields. Without attempting to allocate the blame for them, we have to-day to review the effects of the stoppages which have taken place not merely during the last four or five years, but over a longer period than that. Every time there is a stoppage in this industry, it has encouraged our competitors to exert themselves to capture the markets which we hitherto held, and the most serious aspect of that question is not merely the mining aspect. If the effects
  1456
  were confined to the mining industry alone, if no other evil consequences occurred, we might easily have recovered, but everybody who understands the question at all knows that the series of stoppages has greatly affected other industries, who have found an equal difficulty in getting back to normal conditions after their industry has been. seriously crippled for want of the fuel they require. The cumulative effect of this series of stoppages is realised to-day in the awful and sorry plight in which the coal industry finds itself.
  The second cause is, undoubtedly, substitutes. In studying the question of substitutes, one has to ask to what extent is it possible now for coal to enter again into successful competition with these substitutes, which tend to oust it? Nothing could be more disastrous to the coal trade, more disastrous to men and masters and to the general public, than to get a kind of fatalistic idea that the coalmining industry is not capable of expansion. The coal industry is capable and susceptible of very great expansion, if we could get certain things. If we could get a guarantee of supplies, a stability of supplies and deal with competitive rates, which, I think, could be arranged, we can still bring back to the mining industry that standard of prosperity which we all hope to attain.
  The next cause is this—and I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not touched upon it, as it is one of the things he has been saying outside with which I agree—the currencies of Europe. I am not a financier, but I believe the greatest possible injury has been done to the export trade of this country by a policy of too rapid deflation. If we had done in 10 years what we have attempted to do in four, the export trade of this country would not have been hit so seriously. France and Belgium, who are serious competitors, have not stabilised their currency in harmony with the gold standard, but at a point which gives them every possible advantage in their export trade, whereas we have an advantage as far as imports are concerned, but not as far as our export trade is concerned. There is not the least doubt, as far as the coal trade is concerned,

  1457
  that going back to the gold standard has had a. serious and disastrous effect upon our trade.
  As to the question of competitive marketing, it is for us to try to understand the question, endeavour to seek some solution, and to use our minds to find a way of escape, and not to indulge in mere recrimination, which does us no good, serves no purpose and is of no value. What we want is not mere destructive criticism and recrimination, but the constructive mind and thought, endeavouring to find such a solution which will commend itself to all who are engaged in industry. But we cannot ignore the competitive rates and prices of those who are seriously ousting us in the European markets. I would like to reinforce what has already been said by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), because whatever we may think of him and his doctrines and views, there is this to be said for him, that he has mentioned certain facts regarding the export trade that not a single Member of the House "an refute, and, as far as he has given us facts, it behoves every man who wants to find a solution to give very careful attention to those facts.
  Let me come to the position of our serious competitors in the European markets. The hon. Member was not quite right when he said that the rate in Poland was about 3s. 5d. per day, but he was within a reasonable margin. The exact figures are that it costs 3s. 5d. per ton to get the coal, and the wage of the men is 3s. 9d. per shift—that is the average wage in Poland. The output in Poland per man is exceedingly high—25 cwts. In the Ruhr it is 22 cwts. per man, and in this country for the June quarter it was 20.5 cwts. They are bringing coal to the pithead at 6s. 6d. per ton and bringing it to the Danzig port for 3s. 4d. per ton, being subsidised by the Government, which has got some of its money from this country with which it subsidises the railways. Thus at the Danzig port it is 9s. 10 d. per ton. We have got to face that serious problem, and it is no use turning to each other and saying, "You are to blame." I do not care who was to blame in the past. We have got now to get together as men in the industry and see how far it is humanly possible to pull ourselves out of the difficulties
  1458
  which are surrounding us. It is not only with regard to Poland that I want to mention figures. I want to refer to the price paid for coal in other countries, some of which enter into serious competition with us, and others not so seriously. In the Rhur the wage is 8s. per day, in Belgium about 6s. 2d., and in France 5s. 2d. per day. I do not know what would happen to us in the European markets if the output per man in France equalled that of Poland. Certainly the whole of our trade would be gone, but, happily for us, both in Belgium and France the output per man does not attain more than about 14 cwts. to 15 cwts. per day. I believe in France it is 13 cwts., and in Belgium about 11. The cost per ton in France is 9s. 7d. per ton and the average wage of the men is 5s. 2d., while, taking our June quarter, the wage in Great Britain was 10s. 3d. per shift and the cost 10s. 10d. per ton.
  Those are facts which no one can dispute, and when we come really to look at the question of how it presents itself from the point of view of the consumption and sale in England, we are maintaining our markets here, but that is not enough. We have only got the 1913 standard market, due in some measure to the very fact that the heavy industries of this country are not burning the coal that they ought to be burning. The second factor is that domestic coal is not being sold in the quantities that we might have been selling it. There has been a substitute in gas. It may be said that if you have gas fires the consumption equals that of coal, but everybody who has anything to do with gas fires knows in certain circumstances that if you have, say, a doctor's surgery now he has the gas fire lighted just before he comes in and puts it out just before he goes out. That applies to many a dining-room to-day where they used to have fires burning the whole of the day. The consequences are that, instead of domestic fuel attaining the standard of the sales in 1913, there has been, comparing the number of houses then with the houses now, a very serious shrinkage in the consumption of coal per house. But bad as this is as far as domestic coal is concerned, domestic coal is the one bright spot in the whole trade. It is the only part of the trade that is paying to-day.
  Before I go on to deal with what I consider to be some of the possible ways

  1459
  of attaining the trade again, I would like to dispel any idea that for the moment there is room for a quarrel between ourselves and the master class. I would like to quote some figures circulated by Mr. Cook, so that it cannot be said that the figures I am using have been presented to me from someone else of a suspicious character or nature. The figures are those of the auditor of the whole of the district, and they are figures over the name of Mr. Cook. He has had to show—as he should show, for there is no disgrace to him in showing it, though it reveals the sorry plight of the industry—that in every district in Great Britain the owners are losing money. We may complain about the owners and say that their neglect of the mines has contributed to this unhappy state of affairs, and that they have not built up the reserves sufficient to find capital when it was required. You can have all that, but then we come back to face the realities of the question which are that they are losing money heavily everywhere. Nowhere is that brought out more effectively than in the comparison which I would like to give the House of the amount of money which is being paid in the industry and the amount we were paying some time ago.
  I will quote from a pamphlet which was written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) many years ago, when he wrote on the nationalisation of the mines. In that pamphlet there are some very interesting figures. I give them in no derogatory sense; but for one purpose only, and that is to show the great comparison between that time and now, and to show that at the present time the men in the pits are getting a far greater share of the money that is going in than they did at that particular period, if these figures are correct. He says that on 1st July, 1917, best Northumberland coal was selling at 14s. 9d., best Durham gas coal at 14s. 6d. and Rhondda No. 3 at from 19s. to 20s. per ton. Then he goes on to say that the cost of labour in bringing a ton of coal to the surface naturally varies very considerably between different districts. He says that the cost of labour at a Welsh steam colliery in raising about 19,000 tons a fortnight from one six feet six inches seam was put at 5s. 4d. per ton. In the County of Durham it was 3s. 3d. Then there is a figure from the
  1460
  colliery manager's pocket book showing that over 15 years the average was 4s. 7d. per ton. Suppose I take 4s. 6d. as the average for that particular moment. That has been the cost of labour per ton, and they got sales at 14s. 9d. per ton. Compare that with what we have at the present time. In Northumberland alone the pit-head labour costs in September were 7s. 8d. per ton, and the sales in Northumberland were 11s. 3d. per ton.
  That brings home to us more forcibly that anything else that if at this moment the situation in the industry is bad, as it is, we are at least getting what there is in the industry, and therefore, it serves no good purpose really to turn round and condemn the owners for the present state of affairs. Everybody will admit, and they know it perfectly well, that at the moment thousands of pounds are being taken out of pockets of the coalowners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I regret to hear that from the Member for one of the Durham Divisions who knows full well that the treasurer of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has admitted that the coal-owners of Durham are paying in the region of £184,000 a month in order to maintain the minimum wage. Why deny these facts?
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I have never attempted to deny the fact which my hon. Friend has stated, but he certainly forgets that the coalowners in Durham in the past had as much as 100 per cent. dividend. They cannot have it all ways. Everybody admits that the coal trade is a fluctuating quantity, and they ought to have prepared for it.
  Mr. SPENCER: I give the hon. Member a present of all that. Whatever the past has been, let us recognise what the fact is now. Everybody will recognise the fact, and whoever will come down to-the real truth has to admit that the losses are serious, taking them right throughout the coalfields. Are not these figures correct? They are not mine, but the figures of Mr. Cook, and were circulated by him. He says that for July the loss in Scotland was 1s. 9d. per ton, in Northumberland Is. 3d., in Durham 1s. 3d., in South Wales about 1s., and it has now risen to 1s. 3d.; in Yorkshire 5d., in Derbyshire 1s. 6d., South Derbyshire 1s., Leicestershire 1.95d., Warwickshire 1.53d., Lancashire and Cheshire

  1461
  1s. 4.88d., North Stafford Is. 8d., Cannock Chase 27d., and North Wales 5.67d. The figures are worse for the next month.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the costs other than wages, or is he only interested in that?
  Mr. SPENCER: I am interested in bringing back the industry to a standard of prosperity. Surely if we have got an agreement, apart from its local character, to the principles of which we have previously given willing consent how can we complain? Everybody knows that if there is higher prosperity and if the coalowners get a higher return on their investments that prosperity will be reflected in higher wages for the workers. [Interruption.] I have always had the courage to face facts. But that has nothing to do with the point I set out to make. Surely if any body of men ought to be able to get up and give the House the benefit of their experience and of constructive ideas which would lead to improvement, the men who are representing the miners in this House ought to be able to do it. I challenge them to do it in regard to some of the districts and some of the pits. We know perfectly well, when we come down to the truth, that very few of us are able to make suggestions regarding many pits, that is, suggestions which, if adopted, would effect a great improvement. We are baffled by the problem, and the sooner we admit it the better for us, because then we can turn our attention to finding ways and means of getting out of the difficulty.
  I hope to make one or two suggestions which will be of a constructive kind. In the forefront I put selling agencies. I am amazed to find that in some quarters amongst the miners' representatives there is an outcry against the adoption of selling agencies. That opposition passes my comprehension. The whole of the advantage—there has been an advantage—of the change of hours and the reduced cost of production has gone to the British consumer for lack of co-ordination and co-operation amongst those who have been selling the coal. If we want to derive, as we ought to derive, some real advantage from our own endeavour, we have to stop the foolish and suicidal competition which is going on in the
  1462
  selling of coal to-day. I make no apology to the British consumer or anyone else when I say that we have a right to demand for our coal a price which will give to the investments⁁[Interruption.] Am I to take it from that inter ruption that every other investment but ours is to have a return? Hon. Members had better wait until I complete my sentence and they will then be able to judge better. I make no apology for charging for coal a price which will give to investments the average of profits that others get, and give to the worker the average remuneration that other workers in other trades in Great Britain can get. If the owners form selling agencies with that object, to protect themselves against the suicidal competition which is leading to bankruptcy and the destruction of the trade, I, as one individual, will do my utmost to assist them in establishing such agencies, not to exploit and bleed the British public but to obtain a price for the commodity which is commensurate with the legitimate demands that are made upon the industry. To-day we are not getting that price. The Government have been condemned for not doing this thing and not doing the other thing. The Government can whitewash itself, but here on the fourth page of a Miners' Federation document are words which will ever condemn our side for not availing itself of the opportunities of the Samuel Commission Report.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: What do you mean by "our side"?
  Mr. SPENCER: I was at that time one of the miners, and I am to-day, and I have done just as much service to the miners as any man who tries to cry me down. These are the words in a report of a deputation of owners and miners to the Prime Minister, and they stand as an everlasting charge against our own incompetency and inability to seize a. golden opportunity that was presented to us. There attended the meeting to which I refer, the right hon. Stanley Baldwin, the right hon. Sir A. Steel-Maitland, Colonel Lane Fox, Mr. Evan Williams, Sir Adam Nimmo, Mr. Chawshaw, and Mr. Lee, Mr. Herbert Smith, Mr. Richards, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. A. J. Cook; and these are the words:
  "The Government have considered with great care the Report and the conclusions of the Royal Commission. The conclusions

  1463
  reached by the Commission do not in all respects accord with the views held by the Government, and some of the recommendations contain proposals to which, taken by themselves, the Government are known to be opposed. Nevertheless, in face of the unanimous Report of the Commission, and for the sake of an agreed settlement, the Government for their part will be prepared to undertake such measures as may be required of the State to give the recommendations effect, provided that those engaged in this industry, with whom the decision primarily rests, agree to accept the Report and to carry on the industry on the basis of those recommendations. It is our hope that in that event, by the co-operation of all parties, it may be possible to find in the Report a lasting solution of the problem."
  When we condemn the Government, we should at least remember those words. At the moment there was presented to us such an opportunity to put the industry upon a sound financial basis as will probably not come to us again for many a day. I pass on from selling agencies to the question of production. I said earlier that I believed much could be done in the direction of expanding the market. But that can be done only if we apply to the mining industry all the achievements of science and of mechanical skill that come our way. In my own county I am watching an experiment with a great deal of interest. For the first time there have been installed at a new pit what are known as electrical picks. I am given to understand by the colliery manager that the output per man at headings where it was very hard work indeed under ordinary circumstances, is at least 50 to 100 per cent, higher than at would have been with hand picks. I am not foolish enough to draw from that the inference that that system can be adopted under every condition, for I know it cannot.
  In the coal mining industry, for some inexplicable reason, either God or nature has from time to time played us tricks which are not comprehensible. I have read only this week about a pit the closing of which is threatened. One pit in the same seam and belonging to the same company has been closed. There are pit number 1 here, pit number 2 in the middle, and pit number 3 at the other end of the same seam. All the pits are contiguous; there is no break between them, unless it be of a geological character. The pit in the middle is
  1464
  making a handsome profit. The one that has had to be closed down was losing 7s. a ton, and the third is losing 2s. to 3s. a ton. Neither the manager nor anyone else can change conditions of that kind. It is not a question of mechanical appliances bringing about an improvement, because the pit in the middle, for some inexplicable reason, yields only 16 per cent, to 18 per cent, of slack, whilst the pit next door yields 35 per cent, of slack, and neither man nor master can reduce that percentage. The experience has had the ill effect of bringing down the average price from 13 s. and 14 s. to 9s. 8d. a ton. The man who has no knowledge of mining cannot understand conditions like those. It is only the man on the spot who is in a position to give an authoritative opinion as to what improvement, if any, can be made. Notwithstanding such cases as these I do believe, speaking generally, that by the application of such scientific and mechanical means as are available we can increase the output per man and in that way bring down the price. Then I think it would be possible to win back a very great deal of the bunker trade. Twenty-one million tons of coal were consumed for the bunker trade in 1913, and only 13,000,000 tons are required to-day. It is apparent, therefore, to everyone interested in the trade, that there is a possible market there still, if we can only supply the commodity at a reasonable rate to compete successfully with the foreigner.
  I wanted to deal with trustification, but I will leave that question and turn to another matter. I have been most reluctantly forced, in an attempt to understand the problem from this particular angle, to a conclusion out of harmony with my preconceived notions. Where are we hit? In the heavy trade, in the iron and steel trade. Iron is coming into this country in ever-increasing quantities. You cannot have iron and steel coming in unless indirectly there come into the country large quantities of coal. The Trade Unions Congress this year realised the gravity of the importation of commodities which did not admit of fair competition, and the Congress framed the following resolution:
  "This Congress recognising that the importation of commodities manufactured in other countries under conditions that are below those obtaining in this country, may

  1465
  have a detrimental effect upon the conditions established by trade unions at home …"
  The words "may have" were taken out, and the words "is having" were substituted. It will be seen that the Congress acknowledged the fact that there are importations of commodities which are seriously affecting the standard of living of workmen in this country. I wish to touch upon two or three industries which have a serious bearing upon the coal trade. I do not wish to elaborate the point, but I would like to say something about iron and steel and certain other articles. Let me take, first of all, the case of glass. At present 20 per cent, of the men in the glass trade are unemployed, and I am given to understand that every hundredweight of glass imported into this country represents two cwts. to two and a-half cwts. of coal which thus comes in indirectly. That is to say, it takes two tons to two and a-half tons of coal to manufacture one ton of glass. Yet we have all this unemployment in the glass trade at home.
  I would also call attention to the fact that there is a progressive increase in the quantities that are coming in, while, on the other hand, there is a decline in the quantities of our coal going to the country which is the most serious competitor we have in the case of iron and steel. In 1925, we find that 938,000 cwts. of plate and sheet glass came into this country. It went up in 1926 to 1,111,000 cwts., and in 1927 it had further increased to 1,240,000 cwts. In the case of glass jars and bottles, we find that, in 1925, 1,079,000 gross came into this country, while in 1926 that figure was increased to 1,219,000 gross, and in 1927 to 1,340,000 gross. In the case of paper I am given to understand that anywhere from four and a-half tons to five tons of coal are required in the manufacture of one ton of paper, according to its particular quality. In 1925, 11,900,000 cwts. of paper came into this country. In 1926, 13,000,000 cwts. were imported, and in 1927, 14,000,000 cwts.
  Mr. SEXTON: Do you want the Safeguarding of Industries there?
  Mr. SPENCER: I am going to deal with that point in a moment, and I am going to show that, from the trade union point of view, and from the very expres-
  1466
  sions of the Labour party itself, it is necessary that we ought to do something more than talk in the House of Commons if we are going to rehabilitate the trade of this country. Let me, however, go on to deal with the imports of iron and steel. The figures here are alarming, whatever anyone may say. In the first nine months of 1925, 2,041,000 tons of manufactured iron and steel came into this country. In 1926, that figure had increased to 2,400,000 tons, and in 1927 it went up to the alarming figure of 3,500,000 tons—an increase in the two years of 1,500,000 tons of iron and steel coming into this country. At the rate of four tons of coal to each ton, that represents an increase of 6,000,000 tons of coal indirectly coming into this country.
  An HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. They must see for themselves how it lengthens speeches to do so. I hope hon. Members will have some consideration for their colleagues who wish to take part in the Debate.
  Mr. SPENCER: It is disconcerting to have interruptions when one is dealing with figures in connection with a serious matter of this kind. I wish to ask those who have passed resolutions calling for a higher standard of living for the working people: Has it not been laid down by the Labour party and the trade union movement that if any other country is manufacturing goods under conditions which do not admit of fair competition, then there should be not merely safeguarding, but a prohibition of those goods coming into this country? But it is known perfectly well that you cannot prohibit goods in this way. If the Labour party were in power to-morrow, and if a case were established of goods coming into this country from Belgium or France, which had been manufactured under conditions not admitting of fair competition, hon. Members know perfectly well that they would not prohibit the entry of those good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would mean an end of friendly relations with the country whose goods were prohibited. Therefore we have to adopt some other means. Let us look at the wages of the men working in the blast furnaces. They are paid 38 pence per hour in the United States. In England, they are paid 15 pence per hour, in France

  1467
  7d. per hour, and in Belgium our most serious competitor, the wages are 6½d. per hour. [Interruption.] It does not matter what the cause may be. The fact remains that iron and steel are coming in from Belgium in ever increasing quantities, and the wages in Belgium are 6½d., as against 15d. in England.
  I put it to those who are standing for a higher standard of living for the British working man: How can the British working man be expected to compete under such a handicap? Give equality in efficiency of plant, and equality in management and then give the Belgian worker only half the wages of the British worker, and allow him to work longer hours, in degrading poverty. Can you expect the British working men to maintain a high standard if he has to run an unequal race of that character? I say here that in my opinion you will do more to assist the mining community by safeguarding iron and steel, and glass and these other commodities than by any mere dabbling with regard to the coal situation. The hon. Member for King's Norton Division (Mr. Dennison) has written a series of articles for the "Morning Post." Among other things he said that 100,000 of these men could be given employment if we could only capture the trade, but what is his final solution? He says he does not believe in tinkering with tariffs. He says the League of Nations ought to step in, and if they find goods being manufactured under conditions which do not permit of fair competition, they ought to prohibit those goods. Is not that a more ruthless form of Protection than a tariff? What I am advocating in regard to iron and steel and these other commodities is that they can well be protected, and that, if protected they will give untold employment to men in the glass and paper trades, the men in the furnaces, and the men in the coal pits. In that way, I contend a greater measure of prosperity will come about, and there will be less unemployment, less anxiety, less poverty, less distress, and more of that peace and happiness which we all want to bring to this country.
  Mr. VARLEY: I do not wish to say a word upon the Protectionist policy of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) although I do remember sitting at the
  1468
  feet of a Gamaliel who taught me that, so far as trade is concerned, your capacity to sell is at all times limited by the amount which you can buy. I do however wish to say a word or two about those other aspects of the subject with which he dealt, namely production and selling agencies. I was disappointed to hear from the President of the Board of Trade nothing more than a passing reference—benevolent as I judged it to be—to what he described as the attempt to set up a selling agency in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire. Like the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I make no apology for continuing my support of this principle. I believe firmly that we have' just as much right as any other industry in the country to take such steps as will ensure the same standard of living for our men as that enjoyed by other grades of industry. But I do not agree with the last speaker than certain steps are absolutely necessary in order to preserve the coal trade—at any rate, not in the part of the world from which we both come. I want to dispel the illusion, which perhaps the House has gathered, that the coal industry generally is in immediate danger of complete disintegration.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe quoted from a document of the Miners' Federation showing that in recent history every district of the country had been losing money. That is true. It is true even of the district from which we come. But he forgot to mention that with regard to pits where I believe he has recently been negotiating—pits Nos. 1, 2 and 3—that, there, in 1926–27, with six months' stoppage in the accounts, with six months of the working of his agreement, these people have actually made £96,000 profit more than they made in the previous year. This particular firm since 1918 has distributed in bonus shares £846,700—equal to 238 per cent, of their capital. In addition to these bonus shares, they have distributed £780,700 in dividends. No, the condition of the coal industry is not such that we have to approach it from the point of view that it is so desperate that we must do anything to save it. It is not quite as bad as that. If I am to be told that I am quoting an isolated instance, let me take another pit. I have just quoted New Hucknall, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe can check the figures if he likes. Take the

  1469
  case of Butterley. Since 1923, they have distributed £1,252,000 in bonus shares, and £600,000 during this year, in addition to 15 per cent, free of tax as dividends. Seven firms in our county, embracing more than half the total men employed there, have paid this year £847,000 more in dividends than the previous year.
  Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: What is the trouble then?
  Mr. VARLEY: My trouble is what it always has been in our part of the world. It is not that we cannot wrest enough from the consumer; it is that we have never had the proportion which ought to accrue to the men who work. If they are losing money, I would then say that the very lucrativeness and richness of our part of the world should not accrue to those people only, but should go to the men who are the real producers of the coal. I sincerely hope the Government will not be dismayed by the newspaper announcements that we are going to hold up the public to ransom. If we wanted to do so, we could find sufficient precedents and examples in several other phases of industry. We are not going to do that. It is not our intention. Our intention is, that we are going to have more money for the men. Turning to production—and I will not waste the time of the House for more than a few minutes—I am rather surprised that the hon. Member who preceded me did not call upon this Government as well as upon the Members on these benches to avoid recriminations, to avoid the apportionment of blame. It was very wise counsel, perhaps very useful, but the rest of his speech was an apportionment of blame. In my part of the world he said, "Why cannot we all get together and make our contribution?" The Members on these benches are well able to make a contribution. I am not allowed to do so. In my county there is not much unemployment at the moment. We have plenty of underemployment. The unemployment figure is 1.18, but we have 300 men unemployed, and they are victims.
  Mr. SPENCER: All through you. There is the man, and he knows it! He is the man!
  Mr. VARLEY: It is rather singular that the hon. Member should not find that out until this late hour, inasmuch as he has addressed himself to a charge that I
  1470
  ought to be on his platform, because our opinions were similar until, at all events, late August. He knows. He has explained to the House and to the world that Mr. Varlay was against the dispute. I went back and told him and those sitting with him that the only difference between him and me was that I chose to make my voice heard inside and he chose to go outside. In the month of November no two men were more clearly united than the hon. Member and myself. I frankly admit that. But he says that I am responsible for recrimination and victimisation.
  Mr. SPENCER: So you are!
  Mr. VARLEYThis letter, dated 2nd December, reached me this morning. It is addressed to a certain man at the Lowmain Pit:
  "We are informed that you presented yourself on Tuesday evening "—(a week last night)—" at a meeting of the New Hucknall workmen. Certain representatives of the Spencer Union who work in the Lowmain Pit were also invited to attend this meeting, but it was not intended for workmen from the Lowmain Seam. We are informed that you attempted to refute certain facts and figures presented before the meeting with the intention, no doubt, of disrupting the meeting. This is not sound policy, and you will be wise to change your attitude, or we shall have to consider the advisability of further employing you at these pits."
  I have 17 similar cases. [An HON. MEMBER: "From whom is it? "] It is from the New Hucknall Colliery Company, Nottinghamshire, and signed "H. B. Stevens." The only difference between this case and the others is, that in the others they are not so candid. Anyone who does not subscribe to the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Broxtowe has to submit to this. What is this man's crime as stated by the manager himself He attempted deliberately to refute certain facts and figures." That is all that he did. And this firm which has made a dividend and profit which I have instanced has already taken 6d. a ton out of one pit, and is now attempting to do this sort of thing with respect to another. These are the men who are asked not to indulge in recriminations, and this is how in Nottinghamshire we are going to solve our problem! I sincerely hope that the beautiful sentiments which animated the utterance of the hon. Member will cause him to put them into practice when he gets back

  1471
  to Nottinghamshire and then perhaps we may, in Nottinghamshire, be able to work out our own salvation.
  Captain FANSHAWE: I cannot enter into the differences of opinion of the hon. Member for Broxtowe Mr. Spencer) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley). They come from the same place; they know each other very well; they were working—as the hon. Member has told us—hand and glove, and I do not really know why they parted, and how they parted.
  Mr. VARLEY: I told you.
  Captain FANSHAWE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, I did not quite catch what he said.
  Mr. VARLEY: I think I have told you.
  8.0 p.m.
  Captain FANSHAWE: There was one thing which the hon. Member for Mansfield said which attracted my attention very much, and that was, that he seemed to complain about the great profits that were being made at two pits. I cannot, for myself, see how anybody engaged in the coal-mining industry can complain about the profits, because the position in the mining industry is so arranged that where big profits are made the men get larger pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We cannot get away from the fact. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that 85 per cent, of the profits go to the workers in the coal-mining industry. We have not got this state of affairs in any other industry as far as I know, at any rate, not by Statute. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman opposite always interjects the same kind of remarks which do not bear on the case at all, so, perhaps, for once in a way, he will have a. little less to say. I wish to enter upon this question from the human side, if I may. I wish to say, with very great respect, that sometimes when we are having these Debates in the House of Commons we talk so much about figures, and numbers and tons, and so on, that we really rather overlook the fact that at bedrock and at the bottom of the whole thing lies the prosperity of a very large number of our fellow-subjects in this country, their wives and their families.
  I myself believe—I may be challenged or laughed at by hon. Gentlemen op-
  1472
  posite; I do not care about that—that the Miners' Federation, having had a very great chance for many years past to look after the affairs of the miners of the country in a proper industrial way, have failed. I believe hon. Gentlemen opposite are very largely to blame in this matter. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have given splendid services in the old days as the leaders of the miners of this country, failed when they allowed the minority movement to capture the Miners' Federation of this country. They allowed it to happen. They would not stand to their guns, and now they are regretting it. I know that the best of them regret it. I know that all hon. Members opposite and the tried leaders of the Miners' Federation bitterly regret it. Every miner in the country bitterly regrets having been sold into the hands and power of Mr. A. J. Cook throughout 1925 and 1926. All the time that these men were being persecuted by this man Cook not a single hon. Gentleman opposite got up to say one word in defence of the men who elected him to his high position.
  What is the good now of hon. Gentlemen coming here and throwing Votes of Censure at the Government? They are throwing Votes of Censure which will rebound on themselves, and rebound on themselves in every mining village of the country. There is a great reaction going on among the miners, at any rate among the miners whom I have the honour to represent in this House. [Interruption.] These jeers and sneers of hon. Members cannot do any good. It is a serious point that I am presenting. The men that I represent, at any rate, are looking to some other form of union which will, in the first place, be non-political. [Interruption.] Again, we we have the jeers and sneers of hon. Members on the benches opposite. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will say, how can trade unions possibly be non-political? I go a long way with them in that. The Miners' Union, perhaps, cannot be non-political because the House of Commons for years past has interfered in the mining problems of the country and has placed on the Statute Book many laws governing the mining industry. There is not an hon. Member opposite who does not know better than I do that at every lodge meeting of the Miners' Federation-politics are spoken from beginning to

  1473
  end, and only politics. No industrial affairs are discussed, and, further than that, the middle-aged men and the older men do not go to these meetings.
  What I am striving for in my own constituency is the introduction of this industrial non-political union which will enable the men to go to their lodge meetings and, first and foremost, talk about industrial affairs and the great industry in which they work. After all, their prosperity depends entirely upon that industry. What is the good of throwing the whole of the industrial part to one side and talking politics—how to kick out the Baldwin Government or the nasty Tories, or something like that? It will not help the prosperity of these men and their wives and families by one jot or tittle. If under this new union, which is growing in strength and which will succeed, we have, first of all, these industrial questions discussed at lodge meetings, and then political questions as they come up against the industrial questions of the union—if these lodges and branches can afterwards meet the owners as experts in the industry, and they agree to call upon the Government to repeal the Eight Hours Act, if that is the wish of the industry and is going to be for the betterment of the industry, there is no reason why they should not be so. If the experts on both sides find that anything is going to be the best for the industry they should not stop at anything. Whatever happens, do not let us have any more slogans. Do not let us have nationalisation, passed by the Labour party in annual meeting at Blackpool. It is only a slogan. It has never yet succeeded anywhere in the world where it has been tried. In Bavaria, immediately after the War, a Socialist German Government took the pits away from nationalisation and turned them back again to private ownership. If the miners and the owners can come to the Government of the day agreed on a policy of what is necessary for the industry, what Government is going to say them nay, so long as it does not interfere with the great national questions of the country? There will be strength. There will be the proper sort of co-operation that we must have.
  We have a very great man, a very great and tried trade union leader at the head of this industrial, non-political miners'
  1474
  union. He is Mr. Havelock Wilson. He has far more power to stop the trade of this country than any other trade union leader has or probably will have, because he controls the shipping of the country. All the time hon. Gentlemen opposite were talking about a strike threat and the final realisation of the general strike, this leader, this patriotic man, stood out against them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have abused him. The Trade Union Congress tried to disaffiliate him and so on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Overloading ships!"] That is another question altogether. If I tried to speak upon the question of overloaded ships sailing from Cardiff to a foreign port I should be ruled out of Order. He knows quite well that this form of union is for the benefit of the workers in the country, as well as for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their record is bad. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite went to the Leeds Conference in 1917 to try to set up a Soviet in this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite started a small cloud in the sky no bigger than a man's hand—the threat of a general strike. They set up a Council of Action and tried to dictate to the Government. That is their record. This black cloud enlarged until it burst in 1926. They with their temerity would not rescue the miners and the country, but trusted to Mr. Cook; and the depression in the mining industry now is due to the action which the leaders took in 1926. It is no good blinking this fact, and it is no good talking about hours of work or anything else, because the fundamental reason of our trouble is the action that started with hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in the summer of 1926, namely, the general strike and the coal stoppage.
  8.0 p.m.
  There is only one other point which I wish to make That is the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Broxtowe with regard to the heavy trades of this country. In this respect I do, as a back bencher, appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole question of the safeguarding of the heavy industries. Do not let us, as a Government, with all our power, be dragged into slogans about Free Trade or anything else. We do not want slogans. Slogans are hateful and always will be. Do let us now, when we are in power, consider the trouble with regard to the coal mining industry.

  1475
  Let us look upon the whole thing from a new point of view, and let the Government receive the experts in the heavy industries and in any other industry where our men are being put out of employment because of the use of cheap labour and long hours by workmen abroad, particularly in Belgium. We want to keep up our standard both in pay and hours. Therefore, I do ask that the whole thing should receive further consideration. Let us sink all that prejudice about Protection and Free Trade. Let the Liberal party even review the whole question again, and do not let them tie themselves to a Free Trade policy. Let us get back to the human side, and let us consider this question, whether we are safeguarding our heavy industries or any other where there is unfair competition, from the point of view of the prosperity and the happiness of the workers.
  We heard from the President of the Board of Trade that many steps are going to be taken and are being taken to ease the load of the unemployed. I want to go further. I want to deal with the expansion of employment. I want to put men in employment; if we did that we should 'have far less talk about Unemployment Insurance Bills and juvenile centres and the rest of it, which really cannot do anything. I appeal earnestly to the Government to consider this question of safeguarding our heavy industries and any other that they know where safeguarding is most needed.
  Mr. JOHN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has delivered a very long diatribe on the leaders of the trade union movement and upon Members of this House, and in the same breath he asks if there is any cause to justify a Vote of Censure. I think the justification for the Vote is fairly seen in the deplorable conditions of the mining industry, for the existence of which, I think, the Government are largely, if not entirely, responsible. One of the functions of Government is to look after the interests of the community, but in this respect the Government have miserably failed. They have concerned themselves with legislating for the promotion of the welfare of a class only, rather than legislating for the promotion of the welfare of the whole community. Their slavish
  1476
  adherence to the mineowners, their contempt for the welfare of the miners, their disregard for the future of the mining industry has resulted not only in ruin and desolation to the homes of the miners, and devastation to the mining towns and villages, but in bringing one of the basic industries of the country almost to the verge of ruin. Yet, in order to get a discussion upon the mining problem, it was necessary to move a Vote of Censure upon the Government. The seriousness of the problem has arrested the attention of everyone who has any regard for this country, but, presumably, the seriousness of the problem has failed to arrest the attention of the Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister has shown that he is indifferent to the problem in a very ingenious way—not by justifying his action, but by refusing to face the consequences fully. He took refuge in silence. Evidently, he believes in the proverb that silence is golden on occasions.
  It is unfortunate that he did not show equal wisdom in 1926, when the coal-owners were waging an unequal war with the miners. He was very voluble then, and, as the result of the pressure of the coalowners, volume after volume of the OFFICIAL BEPORT was filled with his eloquence. The Prime Minister, when he does not seek refuge in silence, argues, as he has done this evening, that the industry should be left to work out its own salvation, that it should be left to the coalowners, a body which even the Government's Press admits is a body of ineptitudes They argue that this is not a political question, as if economic questions have no political implications. The situation of the mining industry, an industry that has played so important a part in the economic life of the country is unsafe and unsound; and to the extent that the mining industry is uneconomic, unsafe and unsound, as we have already heard in regard to the other heavy industries, the dependent industries are unsafe and. uneconomic too. The Prime Minister and the Government in placing party considerations and sectional advantages before the social and political life of the country are not only deserving of a Vote of Censure, but forfeit the esteem and regard of every honest and intelligent citizen. The Prime Minister asked the miners in 1926 to face realities. The Government and the coalowners have

  1477
  failed to realise that change in economic conditions brings with it new problems. They have gone on blindly and foolishly assuming that the problems of 20 years ago in the mining industry were the problems of to-day, and applying the old methods of solution, such as increased hours and reduced wages, that failed in the past.
  The President of the Board of Trade denies that they ever gave us any guarantee with regard to better conditions in the industry as a result of the Eight Hours Act. All he said was that he informed the House that it would be for the best. Take the unemployment question. Has the increased hours brought any relief at all in the mining industry? He justly argued that the unemployment problem is one that affects the whole of industry, and, when comparisons are made, it is found that unemployment is on a much higher percentage in the counties where mining is predominant than in the other counties. The percentage for Carnarvonshire, Glamorganshire, and Monmouthshire is 27 as against 10 per cent, for the rest of Wales. The unemployment problem in the mining industry is a very tragic one, because of the unique conditions under which the miners live. They are living in mining valleys segregated from all other industries. Mining is their sole means of livelihood, and there are no other avenues available. The result is that there is no opportunity at all for them to be provided with work.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has been describing the conditions of the local authorities in the mining areas. The average increase in rates of the local authorities in South "Wales is over 100 per cent., and they cannot provide anything for the unemployed man. He goes to the board of guardians, and, as a result of the retrogressive policy of this Government in introducing laws to depose guardians, there is restriction in the payment of parish relief, and no able-bodied workman is able to get relief at all. He can go to the Employment Exchange, but he gets no benefit there. The door is closed against him, because he has been too long unemployed. He cannot go to the shopkeeper, because half the shopkeepers are already in the throes of bankruptcy. Every door is
  1478
  closed against him. Under-employment is another serious factor, so far as the miner is concerned. The general tendency of industry is to get better. Employment is increasing, but so far as the mining industry is concerned, unemployment is rapidly increasing. It has increased from 16.8 per cent, in January to 19.6 per cent. in September. The President of the Board of Trade said that the number of unemployed had been reduced. At the present time, there are in the coalfields of this country 139,345 more miners unemployed than there were in 1926, the year when the Eight Hours Act was introduced. As a result of the Eight Hours Act, the increase in the number of unemployed miners is, in round figures, 130,000. What is to become of these men? Where are they going to get work?
  It has been argued that if we can lower the price of coal, possibly coal owners will be in a better position to compete in the markets of the world. As a result of reduced wages and increased hours, costs have come down materially. In addition to the increase in hours, the actual reduction in wages in South Wales has been 2s. 9d. per ton, with 1.17d. reduction in costs other than wages, but, owing to the dissipation of the results of these reductions, the coal owners of South Wales have lost, on an average, Is. per ton. If the reduction in wages had been used to the advantage of the industry, possibly the coal owners would have been able to justify their position, but the reduction in wages has been neutralised in order to sell coal as cheaply as possible to the foreigners, presumably with the object of regaining markets. Have the reduction of wages and the increase of hours increased our sales in foreign markets? They have not. How are we to recover our position so as to regain the export trade which we had in 1913? In that year, we exported 73,000,000 tons of coal, and it is estimated, on the figures at present available, that this year we shall export 52,000,000 tons. The export of bunker coal was 24,000,000 tons in 1913, and the estimated figure for this year is 18,000,000 tons. The home consumption was 194,000,000 tons in 1913, and possibly it will be 194,000,000 tons this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said the figures showed that we were 31,000,000 tons

  1479
  down. We shall be 27,000,000 tons down. Whichever is the figure, are either the Government or the coal owners so optimistic as to believe that we are going to get an increase in the export trade which will make up the leeway?
  Speaking at a conference on 23rd November, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said it was in possible for us to increase our export trade because the countries to whom we formerly sold coal are now in a position to do without much of it result of the extended use of oil and electricity. Even the coalowners of South Wales and the coalowners of Yorkshire and the Midland areas begin to realise that they are not able to increase their markets to an extent which will make up the difference between the exports of 1927 and the exports of 1913. They are forming committees in order to try to retain prices. The Yorkshire committee have gone much further than the committee in South Wales, although the effect in South Wales will be precisely the same. In Yorkshire they admit that one of their objects is the restriction of output.
  Mr. ELLIS: How do you know that?
  Mr. JOHN: Because it has already been reported. If the Miners' Federation passed a resolution to say that they were going to restrict output, there would be a hue and cry about ca canny from the coalowners and the Government. There is a difference between the scheme of South Wales and the scheme of Yorkshire. In South Wales the scheme is to subscribe 3d. a ton to a pool in order to assist collieries that would be idle and unable to sell coal because of the prices fixed. In Yorkshire they propose a levy in order to subsidise the export trade. What is being done is to change the competition from a competition between individual coalowners to competition between districts, and South Wales will be up against Yorkshire and the Midland areas in the struggle for foreign markets. On geographical and geological grounds, South Wales will be placed in a very unequal position in the competition, and the subsidy scheme put forward by the Yorkshire coalowners, in the hope of extending their foreign markets will create greater difficulty for South Wales.
  The problem of the mining industry is, in my view, a permanent one and
  1480
  not a temporary one, and the Government ought to turn their attention to finding a solution for these difficulties. With practically 250,000 persons unemployed in the mining industry, the first step the Government ought to take is to stabilise employment. Already they have adopted a scheme to check recruiting of fresh labour for the mines; but there is another scheme, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and that is the provision of pensions. There ought to be pensions for all those over 60 years of age. Elderly men and men who are crippled are still going to work, although there are young, strong, virile miners standing on the streets begging for an opportunity to earn their daily bread.
  Then there is the question of co-operation among selling agencies in place of the unrestricted competition of the present moment. Then the attention of the Government ought to be directed towards the general structure and foundations of the mining industry. Unless the difficulties of the mining industry are quickly and effectually removed, there is going to be social, political and economic chaos in this country. Another point is the scientific treatment of coal and the development of the by-products system. All these are questions to which the Government ought to turn their immediate attention. The fact that the Government in the past have refused to srive sufficient attention to this serious economic problem is sufficient justification for this Vote of Censure. I think the discussion this evening will act as a stimulus to the Government to realise the seriousness of the mining situation, and urge them on to do everything that they can to solve the problem as it exists to-day.
  Mr. ELLIS: I do not like to hear the word "incompetent" used so much in reference to the coalowners, because I am sure it does not help the discussion. As a Yorkshire coalowner myself to some extent, I was interested to hear from the hon. Member the full details of an agreement which I know has not yet been made. I hope to say a few words about the construction which has been put upon some action by the Yorkshire and other coalowners which has not yet been decided, and which I feel sure will not be decided in the direction which has been

  1481
  indicated. I think, when we are considering the question of the coal industry, in order to get a true perspective not only from the point of view of the coal industry itself but also of a great many other trades in this country, it is unfortunate that the coal industry has been used as a political football and has suffered very much in consequence.
  The coal industry is not the only one that has suffered from low prices in the last three or four years. If one looks down the list of industries, including coal, engineering and textiles, cotton, worsted and woollen, all tell exactly the same tale. When one considers the future of the coal industry, he must come to the conclusion that its prospects of recovery are very strongly bound up with that of other industries. It is only in that way that we can hope to get some return of prosperity for the coal industry. Certain suggestions have been made which would in practice limit the opportunity for the sale of coal. In our foreign markets we have already a limitation owing to foreign competition and the peculiar form of subsidy which is given in railway rates. At any rate our prosperity in the coal industry is so intimately bound up with the general trade of the country that we can only hope for an improvement when we experience some progress in the general trade recovery of the country. I think it has rightly been laid down tonight that the coal industry has certain rights in comparison with other industries. It is entitled to its proper share of interest on capital, and at least to as good conditions and wages for the men employed in the coal industry as those who are employed in other industries where the working is of a similar nature.
  In considering prices, I think we are entitled to base our hopes on some considerations of that kind. It has been said that any scheme for dealing with selling arrangements must necessarily be based upon an increase of price and that therefore it will be against the interests of the consumer. A great many hon. Members of this House are apt to forget that the coal industry, owing to new developments, has been undergoing for some time a steady advance in the direction of production which has got far beyond the normal increase in consumption either at home or abroad. What other trade of any kind is there which
  1482
  when it arrives at the stage that it has put so many goods on the market that more cannot be consumed does not at once realise the situation and limit its output in order to meet the real consumption that is required? The coal industry if it is to continue in existence has to take that course in the future.
  Whatever form of agreement is arrived at in a district is essentially a question for the districts themselves because the conditions of production, the markets for the sale of coal, and the general arrangements vary very much with the districts. Whatever arrangements may be made in the districts I hope arrangements will not be confined to South Wales, Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottingham. I hope that in view of the efforts which South Wales and other joint districts are making to-day similar feelings will develop in the other districts of the country. We want to get some sort of selling arrangement based on the district. Then you can possibly build on top some fuller arrangement between the districts themselves and agreements should be so arranged that they do not upset other areas. That is not what I should term a national arrangement because one has always to visualise that as coming from above to below. I believe that all the snags and difficulties one will meet can best be overcome as you build, from smaller things, and that would be much better than adopting a cut and dried scheme imposed from above.
  There are one or two other considerations in regard to export schemes. So far as the district in which I am interested goes—I am not speaking for the Mining Association or anybody else but I am speaking from my own knowledge—we have suffered very heavily in the last two years through being cut off in regard to our exports. In the case of the Humber Ports this is due to some extent to the competition from other districts but to a large extent owing to the difficulties caused by the increased cost of transport and foreign competition. Here I wish to deal with a point which has not been considered at all to-day. The railway companies working as they do almost as an economic unit are always preaching to coal producers that it is necessary for the railway companies to have as cheap coal as they can possibly

  1483
  get and on the top of that they say, "The position is such from our point of view that your cost of transport must now go up by 60 per cent." If that be the case, then we who are always accused of being incompetent and not conducting our affairs properly are entitled to say, "We want to know the basis on which you arrive at the figures which you say justify an increase in your railway rates and we are not content that there should exist sheltered industries whose wages are governed from their own point of view and that the coal industry should continue to produce cheap coal for the other people concerned." I want to say a few words about this question of incompetence. No body of men has been so strongly accused of incompetency as the coal-owners.
  Mr. LUNN: And they deserve it.
  Mr. ELLIS: Nor with less reason, but the future will show who is to blame. It is suggested in some loose sort of way that it is the duty of the Government to take over all research connected, not only with coal, but with oil and kindred materials, and to prosecute it for them selves. I wonder if hon. Members know how much very careful and close research has been going on in private laboratories for many years, and never more intensively than to-day. That research has been well within the knowledge of the Government, and has been closely helped by the Government. We were told in a speech the other day that, if we would only produce properly washed and screened coal, grade it properly, and sell according to calorific value, the change would lead to a very large export, and that we should be able to make much more money thereby. Everyone who knows anything about the industry knows that all these processes have been going on for some time, and that, if people require to know calorific values, or want coal of a particular kind, there are always collieries, at any rate in the West Riding and South Yorkshire, that can supply those particular needs.
  We were taken to task the other day by Mr. Frank Hodges for not marketing our coal properly on the Continent. So far as that goes, I can assure Mr. Hodges that the interests of the coalfields, as represented on the Continent of Europe, have some of the best selling agencies
  1484
  and some of the best travellers that any industry could possibly want. It is not that we have not people to sell our coal on the Continent; it is that we cannot get into the markets at the price at which coal is being produced in those countries. We are told, too, that we ought to do something about wagons and transport. I wonder how many people in this country know that over £10,000,000 of the capital involved in wagons to-day is produced by what are known as wagon finance companies, most of the money coming from quite small people, who in that way are enabled to invest, not only on the security of the part-paid shares of the shareholders of the companies, but also on the security of the wagons which are on hire-purchase throughout the coal industry. It is suggested that we should immediately convert all wagons into 20-ton wagons, and thereby carry much more coal and save a great deal in cost of transport. That is very easy where you have a railway system with facilities at the stations and terminals for dealing with 20-ton wagons, but have critics ever considered what would be the cost to the railway companies concerned of bringing the recommendation into general operation throughout the country?
  Then we are told that we ought to amalgamate. There have been a good many examples of amalgamations throughout the country during the past five or six years, and I would like to ask hon. Members who have followed amalgamations generally if they have noted the number which, if I may use a common term, have come unstuck during the last two or three years. That being the case, does it not take us to this really very simple principle, that there is a human limitation to management in every concern? You may get here two collieries, or here three, as in the case of the board with which I happen to have been connected for some time—I am only using it as an illustration. It might be suggested that we ought to amalgamate with one or two more concerns, but the point of view of every man who has been long in the industry, and has looked at it from every angle, is that the moment the general manager or the top technical man ceases to be able to deal personally with the problems at the pits, at that very moment he loses touch, and then inefficiency begins to creep in, because it is not possible for

  1485
  him fully to follow what is going on. Therefore, the real answer is that, although you may get some kind of loose connection or some federation between a number of pits, or some general arrangement for selling coal and, perhaps, some general arrangement for buying raw materials, such as pit-props and things of that kind, yet, if you are going to manage efficiently and properly, you must have your real business arrangements so made that your chief manager is able to keep in daily touch with what is going on.
  I would ask hon. Members who have been so glib in dealing with the agreement in Yorkshire to remember that as yet no agreement has been made. Discussions, certainly, are going on, and, when these discussions have come to a proper conclusion, the agreement, so far as it concerns the outside world, will be announced. I must say that I was considerably surprised to find that, before any details were known anywhere, at the mere hint of an agreement which we have been pressed by everyone all over the country to enter into, up gets Mr. Joseph Jones in Yorkshire, and points out how dangerous these agreements are. That was either done through ignorance, or to create some prejudice in the minds of the men that the employers were out to do something which was not to the benefit of the men or of the industry, and that, therefore, the action was purely and wholly a selfish one. That is not so at all. Those who are connected with the industry in that district have by experience come to certain conclusions, and conclusions are worth much more when they are come to by experience and people want to go in certain directions because they believe these to be right. What we hope will result from this agreement when it comes to be put into force—and we hope it will be put into force as speedily as possible—will be an improvement which will be to the benefit of both capital and labour in the industry. This we do know for certain, that, if at the very outset all our attempts are going to be cramped by prejudice which can in no sense be called economic, then God help the industry.
  Mr. PARKINSON: Although this Debate has taken rather an interesting direction, we are really getting away from the terms of the Motion before the
  1486
  House, and dealing more with the productive areas of European countries than with our own. I should like to bring the House back to the question of the position of the industry in this country as compared with what it was in 1925, taking into account the statements made by the Government during the dispute year of 1926. The Government during that year took a leading interest on behalf of the Coalowners' Association, and we were told times without number that, if they could only have an extension of hours, it would work wonders in the trade, that we should be able to raise much more coal, and, consequently, to recover our export trade. It was added that, if the miners would accept a reduction of wages, that would also put things right. After 12 months of that experiment we find that things are not right, that the Government are not doing anything whatever in the direction of trying to put into operation these schemes for reorganising the industry, and are not using any compelling force with the employers. I dare say they may feel themselves not quite strong enough to do that, but they did make certain promises and certain statements during the lock-out period of 1926, which led us to believe that at least they would not let the matter slide, but that they would see, so far as they could, that a thorough reorganisation too place.
  After a year we find that the Eight Hours Act has worked wonders in one direction, namely, in finding a larger number of unemployed miners than there ever were before. Not only has it done that, but it has brought production up to such an amount that it is quite easy to increase the output of 1925, while at the same time it has displaced a large number of workmen who are now unemployed. In June, 1927, we had 233,219 miners unemployed, and in October, 1927, there were 233,691. These figures are appalling, because they represent at least one in five of the men employed in the industry. The "Board of Trade Journal" of 18th August, 1927, said:
  "In the last week of April it is estimated that pits employing 41 per cent, of the total number of workpeople on colliery books were idle for want of trade during part of the week, and similarly 56 per cent, and 57 per cent., respectively, at the end of May and June. In the last week of June 35 per cent, of the total number affected were employed at pits which lost two days or more."

  1487
  In Lancashire, we have a large number of collieries working very short time. At present they are not averaging more than 3½ days a week. Consequently, we find that the Eight Hours Act, about which the Government made such fulsome statements and promises, is neither being put into operation nor is anything being done by the Government to compel that line of action to be taken. The figures I have read out refer only to mines actually working. They exclude all mines that are entirely stopped. A large number of mines in my county are stopped but a larger number of people are working short time—practically all are. That is having its direct effect upon the life of the county, and, of course, I can speak better for that county than for other parts of the country. The effect of the Eight Hours Act, owing to the short time that is being worked, has been that the output of coal has been little different in the early months of 1927 from what it was in the early months of 1926. The output has been balanced by the discharge of workmen and by working the collieries a fewer number of days in the week. The only difference between the two years was the longer working day, which proves that the eight hour day has increased the volume of unemployment.
  What else has the Eight Hours Act done? I have some figures in respect of Lancashire which cannot be refuted because they are authoritative. The Act has played havoc in the Lancashire area. In June, 1924, which may be taken as nearly a normal year, the unemployed miners in Lancashire and Cheshire were 5,280, and in June, 1927, they had risen to 25,263. At present they must be well in the neighbourhood of 35,000. Besides having this large number of people unemployed we have a large number of people working short time with very low wages. The live register in my area is growing week by week. On November 28th on the live register in the Wigan district there were no fewer than 10,137 people, against 8,473 on 31st October, or an increase of 1,664 persons in one month. That is an alarming increase. I think no one will say Wigan cannot be taken as a kind of coal mining centre. It has been the premier coal mining centre in Lancashire and Cheshire for all time. It may lose its position in the future, but at the moment it is the predominating industry
  1488
  which governs that part of our county. They are growing at that alarming rate. The rat© cannot keep going along. It must have a stem somewhere. Taking Lancashire and Cheshire as a whole, we had 240,326 people unemployed on 28th November, as against 223,020 on 31st October, or an increase in a month of 17,306, and in September this year there were 21,737 miners in receipt of benefit. These are the numbers on the live register. We do not know what are the numbers who have been taken off the live register, but the live register is the one that is accepted by the Government for statistical purposes and we must accept it. One might make bold to say, one-third of that number might be taken as something like an equivalent of the number of people who have been wiped off through unemployment or through extended benefits being ended.
  There are many other things one could go into. The great increase in the Poor Law payments will have to be dealt with in the near future. Our increase of unemployed cases during the last 24 months has been no less than 94 per cent, on the amount of money paid and we have had a great increase in the number of cases. There has been an increase of 1,809 cases from January, 1926, to October, 1927. While we have all these increases, which must have their pivotal source from unemployment in the mining industry, we can only look upon it with alarm. I have it on the authority of the Poor Law authorities that they are at present paying over £100 a week more than they had estimated for, and the amount of poor relief now is 6j times as much as it was in 1914. We have heard many things to-night about the export trade. I do not quite agree with the President of the Board of Trade. I think he was speaking of exports generally. I find that in the export of coal there has been very little difference made during the last year. I believe there was an increase of about 1,000,000 tons, which is only equivalent to about 2 per cent. While we have been speaking about producing and selling cheaper, we cannot get away from the fact that the prices that have been given for the export trade are such as to be alarming in themselves. One might take the Trade and Navigation Returns for January, 1927. The price was 21s. For September it was 16s. 11d., or a reduction of 4s. 1d. per ton. Take the

  1489
  "Iron and Steel Trades Journal." Their February price was 19s. 5.99d. and their August price was 16s. 11½d., a reduction of 2s. 6½d. So it is borne out that it is impossible to recover those markets, at whatever price you can put your coal on the market. The undercutting has been so severe that it is impossible to continue it without causing chaos and probably further trouble inside the mining industry. In fact, the "Board of Trade Journal" for 18th August, 1927, states:
  "Wages, therefore, in all export districts have had to be maintained at the respective minimum by means of deductions from the miners' agreed percentage share of net proceeds."
  It will be obvious that there can be neither any further reduction in wages of extension of hours. There is the other point of amalgamations of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with a certain timidity. He did not want much said about it in one sense. They were going on slowly, but still they were going on surely. Since the passage of the Mining Industry Act there have only been three amalgamations, and two-thirds of the two years have now already gone. The three amalgamations are the Yorkshire Amalgamated Collieries, the Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries, and the Sheffield Coal Company. The amalgamations since the time of the Samuel Report are a very negligible quantity. With regard to recruitment of labour, there is a large number of boys and youths going into the industry every year than there really ought to be. Another point that has been raised is that the aged miners ought to be pensioned with a suitable pension say at 60 years of age, I believe that ought to take place. If any man is entitled to superannuation at the expense of the State it is a man who has worked in the mines for 45 or 50 years, not only because of his service, but because of the hazardous nature of his work and because of the very great importance of the industry in which he has been engaged.
  In regard to the recruitment of labour, there are something like 25,000 people transferred annually from other industries, and about 20,000 boys and youths up to 16 years of age enter the industry every year from school. That is something like 4 per cent, of the people at present employed. I suggest that, in order to relieve the great number of people who may
  1490
  to-day be called surplus to the mining requirements, we ought to hold up the recruitment of young persons into the mines for some time, that these young people ought to be allowed to continue their studies, and that some kind of maintenance grant ought to be made to their parents. At the other end of the scale, I think men of 60 years of age ought to be superannuated with an amount sufficient to live upon. I" shall be told that that will be a further impost on the State, but I think the money could be raised in this way: it could be charged on the tonnage raised for one portion, another portion could be levied on mining royalties, and a third portion, if necessary, could come from the State. I am quite sure that would be one of the best things that could be done, because it would relieve our people, it would give them something on which they could live at 60 years of age, and as a consequence I believe the State, the coalowners, and the workmen would be considerably benefited.
  In regard to the closer co-ordination of industries, the Minister of Mines has made some very important declarations. On 27th March, 1925, he made an important declaration in this House, when he said:
  "I have authority to say that the Government intend to spare no money, no energy, and no effort to develop that process and make it a commercial-success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1925; col. 899 Vol. 182,]
  He was speaking of the low carbonisation process, but since that time we have had other processes, which, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, are being financed by the Government, and I would like to suggest that the Government really ought to develop this side of the industry. There ought to be a closer co-ordination of the mining industry from every point of view, and the Government ought to develop this side of the industry, not from the private enterprise point of view, but it ought to be financed, managed, and built up by the Government, after which I believe it would become a very valuable asset, and we should be able, not only to produce the oils we require, but also to find work for a large number of our people who are unemployed to-day.
  9.0 p.m.
  We have had many declarations from the Prime Minister that he is all for maintaining the standard of life,

  1491
  but to the mining community what has he done since 1926? What have the Government done in order to relieve these difficulties and to lift or maintain the standard of the mining community in that period? They have done nothing at all. What they have done cannot be seen. It may be seen from the Government point of view, but from the point of view of a miners' agent, living and working among the men, it cannot be seen. We have the Prime Minister making all these kinds of statements and, of course, with one or two prayers thrown in, but I believe the apathy and callous indifference of the Government in regard to the needs of the mining community call for this Vote of Censure. I do not believe they have risen to the occasion; I do not believe they have any desire to rise to the occasion; and even while they were conducting all the negotiations on behalf of the coalowners, I believe they never once intended to carry out what they were talking about. They acted for the coalowners and then left the coalowners in full possession. They have never brought any compelling force upon the coalowners in order to get a thorough reorganisation of the industry. There is no section of the community which has done more to build up the greatness of the nation, there is no more hazardous employment, and there is no braver set of men. What we can see taking place before our eyes is a human tragedy of very great magnitude, in which our people are literally starving in the midst of plenty; they are crying for work, and cannot get it; they are being cut off unemployment benefit; and, as a consequence, they are beginning to feel great dissatisfaction. We are noticing throughout the country that there is a rumble of discontent which will break forth sooner or later and for which the Government themselves will be responsible, because they have never tried by the methods which they had promised to bring about a better condition of affairs. As a matter of fact, my opinion is that the life of this Government has been characterised by a gradual but sure lowering of the conditions of life of the miners, and that they will pass away with a record of having left the mining industry in chaos, the nation in danger, and the people in poverty.
  Sir WALTER RAINE: Some months ago, when we had a similar Debate in this House to that which we are having to-day, I attempted to put before the House certain aspects of the export trade. It is not my intention to-night to repeat what I then said, but rather do I desire to give some fresh information, because, in a serious Debate such as this I think we ought to look at the picture from all points of view. It is not my intention to enter into the question of what wages are or ought to be, because that is outside my province, but I will say that, in common with all those who are engaged in the coal trade, I consider that the present wages are too low. In particular, I refer to probably 20 per cent, of these men who are on the minimum wage; and in Durham and Northumberland, in particular, that wage is far too low. Even if the men had a full week's work of five or five and a-half days, the wage would be too low, but, unfortunately, in Durham and Northumberland, until very recently, it has been the experience of many pits to work only three or, possibly, four days a week, so it is quite obvious that no man working on the minimum wage for three or four days a week has enough to support his family.
  During the recent vacation I paid a visit to the three Scandinavian countries in order to study this coal question for myself on the spot, and, unfortunately, everything I saw told a tale of woe so far as the British coal trade was concerned. I found that Poland was our chief competitor. The Polish Government are subsidising the trade for economic reasons, to which I do not need to refer here, except to observe that the competition of Poland has been caused largely through the economic war between Poland and Germany which broke out in 1925, and which still continues. But a far more serious point than that is the question of the nature of the Polish coal and its most excellent analysis. Unfortunately, I am bound to say that those coals, both for analysis and condition, when delivered at their destination in foreign countries, beat ours at the present time. I took the trouble on more than one occasion while I was there to inspect some of these Polish cargoes while they were actually being discharged. I also saw some of

  1493
  these cargoes, after they had been discharged, lying in heaps, and I observed, in examining those heaps, that the quantity of small in any of them did not exceed 7 to 10 per cent; in fact, I believe I should be nearer the truth if I said it did not exceed 5 per cent. Unfortunately, British coal, when it is discharged, owing to its particular nature, has a percentage of smalls equal to 20 per cent., and sometimes nearly 30 per cent.
  In this connection, in one of the coal yards which I visited there was a cargo of B.S.Y. Hards, that is, Best South Yorkshire Association hards, lying alongside one cargo which had been discharged and I am sorry to say that that British cargo did not do credit to the particular place whence it came. Alongside the cargo was also a cargo of Scotch screened coal which I examined very carefully, and although it contained a much larger quantity of smalls than did any of the Polish coal, I had to call the attention of the buyer to the fact that it was a most excellent sample of Scottish coal from that particular district, and he had to admit that such was the case. I will not develop that argument any further, but I will proceed to deal with the question of analysis, on which subject I shall only speak very briefly.
  Polish small coal, which are almost free from dust, yield most regularly about 7.200 calories, whereas the best smalls we have in Durham, Durham rough smalls, only yield 6.700 calories, and sometimes much less. There is a certain Baltic market, where I have a particular friend, and a few days ago I received a letter from him on the question of small coals. He said that Polish small coals are being delivered at that Baltic port at the present time at 15s., whereas Durham small coal, which is the nearest in comparison to this particular Polish small coal, cannot be delivered, taking the lowest colliery price and the lowest freight, at less than 16s. 6d. a ton. This Polish competition is a very serious matter. I do not want to decry British coal, but we have to face the facts, and if we do face the facts and alter some of our methods I believe we shall get our trade back, because I am convinced that, all things being equal, the foreigner prefers to deal with the Britisher.
  I have taken from the Polish books the latest figures as far as exports are con-
  1494
  cerned. The figures are for October. The total exports from Poland in October amounted to 1,076,000 tons, of which Sweden took 233,000 tons, Denmark 129,000 tons and Norway 20,000 tons. I will not give any further figures except one which relates to a country which used to be a very important consumer of British coal, particularly from Durham, Northumberland and Yorkshire. I refer to Latvia, which took 44,000 tons of these Polish coals. I noticed a very important fact when I was getting out these figures. It is well known to those in the coal trade that there has been trouble in the Polish coalfields on account of the low wages. Early in October an increase of 8 per cent, was given to the miners in Dobrowa and Krakov, but the Government immediately reduced the railway carriage by one-half zloty. The rate now is 7.70 zloty, which works out, according to Monday's exchange, at the rate of carriage for these coals, taken that great distance, to 3s. 7d. per ton.
  I have taken a little trouble to get very exact information and I received a few days ago a letter from an agent in Stockholm, a very important coal agent. Before reading one or two extracts from his letter I might say that these agents abroad, for the most part, prefer to deal in British rather than any other coal. The letter is dated the 25th November, so that the House will see it is fairly recent. It says:
  In regard to your request for information re Silesian and Polish coal, I must say that the position, compared with the trade from the British markets is, not to say the least of it, simply alarming and most serious if some remedy is not found soon to regain this trade."
  He mentions about a certain contract being given for Polish coal for the first time, and that the contract used to go to Yorkshire for associated B.S.Y. hards. He says:
  "When prices are three shillings to three and sixpence per ton different, consumers cannot go on paying it, especially as they have not corresponding advantage in quality."
  He then goes on to deal with Scottish steam coal, which is sharing a similar fate, and he proceeds:
  "From the above you will see, at any rate to some extent, how the Swedish markets are more and more being conquered by the Silesian and Polish concerns, and it is really high time everybody on your side

  1495
  realised seriously what is happening and that something must be done to bring prices and qualities on a more competable level."
  Another difficulty is confronting the British coal trade, and that is the pin pricks that we are receiving from various foreign countries. Thanks to the intervention of the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade a very serious matter in connection with the export of coal to Spain has been nipped in the bud; but the fact remains that a, Spanish licensing system has been introduced and you cannot ship a cargo of coal to Spain unless you have that licence. You can get the licence to import, but thanks to the action of the Spanish coalowners the Spanish Government have given notice of restrictions, and while some companies are not allowed to take any British coal at all and others, if they do take British coal, are only to take a very small proportion. If we are to continue receiving these pin-pricks which are going to interfere with our normal export trade in coal, it is about time that some retaliatory action was taken. I will not refer to what previous speakers have said about the safeguarding of industries, because enough has been said on that subject; but I do say this, that there would be a flutter in the Spanish dove cots if all British people would suddenly say, "We will not use Spanish oranges." We should soon get out of our difficulties as far as Spain is concerned if that were done.
  With respect to suggested remedies, there are several which I have had in mind for a long time, and they were impressed more upon my mind as a result of my recent visit to Scandinavia, not only from what I saw, but from what I was told by various importers. I have no hesitation in saying once more that, all things being equal, these various importers would prefer to take British coal. I have addressed by remarks not only privately but publicly to people in the coal trade, both miners and owners, and most of them entirely agree with my observation. We cannot turn our relatively soft coal into Polish hard coal, but there is a great deal that can be done in the preparation and shipment of coal in order to improve the quality and condition of coal so as to reduce the quantity of smalls when the coal is re-
  1496
  ceived abroad. First of all, there is the question of cleaning. I know that care is taken in this matter at the collieries as the coal passes over the belts, but even far greater care must be taken. With regard to the cargo of B.S.Y. Hards to which I have referred, and which I examined very carefully, I am sorry to say that it had been badly and carelessly cleaned and was not a credit to the Yorkshire coal which we are accustomed to see.
  We want more washing of the coal or dry cleaning so as to be able to reduce the percentage of ash. Some time ago a large colliery in the County of Durham had a great deal of smithy coal which produced 17 per cent, of ash, with the result that they could only get into inferior markets. They took in hand the question of washing and dry-cleaning the coal and they have considerably reduced the quantity of ash and the consequence is that that coal is now a most favoured coal on the foreign market. We want also to do something in connection with the grading of coal. I know that a tremendous lot is being done but more might be done because we can realise a higher price for the coal as nuts, peas and duff than for the same coals in their natural condition as rough smalls.
  Another question of importance in the shipment of coal, screened coal in particular, is that of anti-breakers. It is perfectly obvious, if you are shipping screened coal, that you will get a large quantity of small coal unless you use the coal breaker, which I believe will reduce the quantity of small coal. That in itself would mean more orders, because it is an economic fact that if you receive a cargo of screened coal with only 10 per cent. of small it is much better value to you as receiver than if you had 20 per cent. small, because in many of the trades where these coals are used you have to take the small out, and that means increasing the costs. The foreigner knows the exact value of these relative coals. I agree with a great deal that Mr. Frank Hodges said on Saturday night in an important speech at Newcastle-on-Tyne. I have always regarded Mr. Hodges as a serious person, and I have always treated him seriously. He asked: Why do not we sell according to calorific power? I think he must have been misinformed on that subject, because for many years certain

  1497
  classes of coal have been sold according to calorific value. I do not wish to be misunderstood; but the relative calorific power of these various small coals is known to a nicety by the foreign consumer, as it is known in this country, and the foreign consumer is going to buy the particular coal which, having regard to calorific value, is the cheapest at the time of purchase. The relative difference in price between Northumberland small and Yorkshire washed smalls is about 2s. per ton.
  Mr. Hodges also asked why the coal-owners do not send young men abroad in order that they may study questions first hand, and in order to learn the language, and be able to be put down in some of the ports abroad. Some of the small ports in Denmark would not keep anybody there for a single week. All business in Denmark is done through Copenhagen, and as a matter of fact for many years past, but more so to-day, the coal exporters and colliery owners—I refer particularly to Durham and Northumberland—are sending not only their principals but their clerks and travellers abroad, and some of the larger firms have their travellers living abroad continuously. Not a week passes but what some exporter or his traveller, or a colliery owner himself, is not in one of the Scandinavian capitals, or one of the other capitals of Europe. Of course, we are always up against the question of the foreign language, and I am not going to say that more could not be done in that respect. I would point out that in all the Scandinavian countries the people speak good English, as good as we do here, and can express themselves just as well. I could go on, but I do not wish to take up any more time because I know other speakers are desirous of intervening in the Debate. Let me say this in conclusion that, bad as the conditions are to-day, I am still an optimist in regard to the coal trade. I believe if we adopt some of these methods we shall bring prosperity to the coal trade. Many of them are being actively done by various collieries, but what we want is to get a greater move on in order to get back our trade and prosperity the sooner.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: The discussion on this Vote of Censure gives us one more opportunity of focussing
  1498
  the attention of the House, the Government and the country on the tragic conditions existing in the mining industry. At the beginning of his speech the Prime Minister complained that this Debate on the coal trade had taken the form of a Vote of Censure, but let me remind him that it was the Government themselves who arranged that the Debate should take this form. The Opposition would have been quite pleased if the matter could have been discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, but the Government willed otherwise, and, therefore, they have nothing to complain of as to the form the discussion has taken. Not within the memory of the oldest person amongst us have we seen so much poverty and destitution in the mining population of the country as exists to-day, and what adds to the gravity and danger of the situation is that there is no immediate prospect of any improvement. The conditions existing to-day certainly call for the earnest consideration of every man, irrespective of party. No matter where hon. Members may sit, the condition is so desperate that we ought to discuss it in all its bearings without party feeling or party spirit being displayed to any extent at all.
  In the past our coal has been the mainspring of our industrial power, and notwithstanding its difficulties to-day, notwithstanding the fact that it is facing competitors undreamt of a few years ago in the form of oil and electricity and the greater development of coalfields in other parts of the world, our mines are still the greatest national asset we have. Our coal is potentially a greater source of national wealth than ever it has been in our industrial history, if we only take proper steps to utilise it to its full value. The rapidly changing conditions of the industry within the last few years should have warned us to put our house in order if we are to maintain our position in the coal markets of the world. Indeed, but for the display of partisanship on the part of more Governments than one, and the unbridled individualism of the mine-owners themselves, the application of the steps recommended by successive Royal Commissions would have gone a long way to prevent the industry falling into the desperate condition it occupies to-day. Here let me say something in reply to what the President of the Board of Trade

  1499
  said. He said that in 1926 the Government were prepared to accept the Report of the Samuel Commission. Let me remind him that they were prepared to accept that Report and put it into operation under certain reservations, one of those reservations being that the miners' representatives would consent to an immediate reduction in wages.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I said was that I thought there was agreement that we were prepared at that time to accept the whole of the Samuel Commission's Report, provided both miners and mineowners were prepared to do the same.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, but on conditions. One of the conditions laid down was that the miners should be prepared to accept a reduction of wages. The experience of the last six or seven years should surely convince the House and the Government of the absolute necessity of putting the industry in a position to meet modern conditions before even a greater disaster than has yet befallen us overtakes us. The experience of the last year alone should convince the Government and the House that the coalowners' sovereign remedy of increasing the hours and reducing the wages is no cure for the situation with which we find ourselves face to face. To follow such a course was bound inevitably to result in reducing the number of persons employed and in forcing our competitors to follow our bad example, thus embarking on a vicious circle, which has left us in a worse position than before we began. The idea so strongly held both by the Government and the coalowners during the struggle of last year that, if they could only get the hours of labour increased and the wages reduced, that would enable them to sell our coal cheap enough to recapture the export part of the coal trade, has been exploded by our experience in the Baltic during the last year. There, the Polish coalowners by the payment of still lower wages than we are receiving, and the subsidising of transport, have been able to retain a considerable proportion of the trade which was formerly ours, even after further cuts of wages and prices on our part are virtually impossible.
  Bad as the conditions of the coal trade are to-day, they will become worse in the near future unless the policy pursued
  1500
  up to the present be reversed. Bad as conditions are, however, it is not as yet too late to redeem the position if the problem be approached in the right spirit, and proper remedies be applied. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] Even if this be done, and the proper remedies be applied, the problem is still so vast and the disease so deep-seated, that it will take time and courage to face it before we are able to straighten out the tangle and undo the errors of the past. But I am convinced that, if the Government with the owners and the men are prepared whole-heartedly to undertake the task, it can be successfully accomplished. I was just asked what are the remedies. Before I begin to point out some of the remedies which suggest themselves to one who has spent a lifetime in the mining industry, and knows some of its difficulties, and has some idea of how to get out of them, may I say that we have never been given the opportunity of assisting so far as the finding of remedies are concerned. The answer of the coalowners and of the Government has been that they know better than we do what are the remedies to apply. We have been denied the opportunity of having any say in the running of the business. If in the future the owners are to give us some say in the running of the business—and it would be a very good thing if they did—it will be the first time in our experience that they have ever admitted that the men's side could make any suggestions for successfully running the business. Their answer in the past has been "It is your business to win the coal; it is ours to run the business."
  There are certain points which I would like to put forward for the consideration of the House and of the Government. The first of these considerations is that the Government themselves should immediately take the problem in hand and get into touch with both the owners and the men and endeavour to remove some of the difficulties that stand in the way of closer co-operation. In such a critical time as the industry is facing, it would be a very good thing if the two sides were drawn into as close co-operation as is possible. I know, in making that suggestion, that the President of the Board of Trade, and possibly the whole of his colleagues in the Government, are averse to the Government taking any definite hand in industry. I know that they take

  1501
  the position that that should he left to the two sides in the particular industry concerned. Unless steps are taken to put the industry on a safer and sounder footing than it occupies at present, however, the time will rapidly come when it will not matter which Government is in office, it will be compelled to get into touch with the problem and endeavour, in common with those in the industry, to overcome the difficulties.
  The second suggestion that I would make is that the unbridled individualism of the coalowners which has well-nigh ruined the industry—for there is no doubt as to the critical condition in which the industry finds itself to-day—should be stopped. Experience, particularly in the past two years, should have taught them the futility of that unbridled individualism and the consequences that are likely to follow if it be continued.
  The third suggestion I would make is that we should have unification of the industry in considerable areas at once. During the course of our discussion this afternoon, the question of unification has been suggested by several speakers, and there have been various ideas regarding it. The right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that he "had been an advocate of unification, and he thought that there were limits even to unification. Up till now, we have had very little unification in the industry. We have had a few notable examples. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is one of a few examples by whom unification has been applied to the industry within the past two years. If we had unification all over the coalfields, and the industry unified into suitable areas, areas which lie close to each other and are practically engaged in the same part of the coal trade, it would go a long way towards improving matters.
  The next suggestion I put forward is that the setting up of coal-selling agencies ought to be made compulsory. Some of those who have taken part in the Debate to-day seem to have the idea that we on the Labour Benches are not in favour of the proposal. There is not one of us who is not in favour of setting up agencies, not for the purpose of being able more effectively to fleece the public, as some have suggested that we wanted to do, but for the purpose of keeping the whole of the money earned in the
  1502
  industry in the fund from which both wages and profits are paid. There is no doubt that in the past far too large a share of the money made in the mining industry has gone into other pockets, into the pockets of the coal merchants and the coal exporters. That should end and the setting up of co-operative selling agencies should be made compulsory.
  The next suggestion I make is that the whole problem of mining royalties should be taken into consideration. These royalties place heavy burdens both on the areas that are being worked and on the areas that are being reserved for future working. I know that in making that suggestion I may be told that mining royalties are not such a heavy charge on the industry as we on these benches are in the habit of trying to make the public believe they are. But royalties mean at least an average of 6d. a ton on the coal that is being worked. They mean even more than that. They mean that in many areas that are not being worked but are reserved for work in the future, there is a standing fixed rent which has to be paid and which imposes a burden additional to the average of 6d. per ton on the coal that is being worked. At a time like this, when the industry is fighting for its very life, we cannot afford to pay even an extra 6d. per ton, and the question of mining royalties should be considered in the very near future.
  My next point for the consideration of the Government is the possibility of the better utilisation of our coal, whether it be by the pulverising of coal or the extraction of oil and other by-products That question should be dealt with speedily by the Government. I know that the President of the Board of Trade told us to-day that for some time the Government have been spending money on this work. So desperate is the condition of the industry that we cannot afford to go about the matter in so leisurely a way as the Government has been doing up to the present, and would suggest that the Government speed up the process as much as possible. Another suggestion is that the marketing of our coal, both at home and abroad, should be thoroughly overhauled and efficiently organised. Another point, on which there may be some disagreement, relates to the development of new areas.

  1503
  Within recent times some new areas have been developed, and I think developed before their time. These new areas are producing coal at a time when the older areas could produce all the coal that is needed to supply the demand.
  What we shall do, if we are not careful, will be to make derelict some of the mining villages where there is still a considerable amount of coal to be worked at a profit. In making such areas derelict we are wasting the wealth of the country, because if these areas are not worked out while the shafts are open there is a great danger that we shall never recover that part of our mineral wealth. The development of new areas is one of the things that ought to receive our careful attention. There are some mining men of eminence who are already beginning to talk about the tragedy of the development of some of these new areas, and they agree that the areas have been developed before their time if the interests of the country are to be looked after properly.
  The reorganisation of our methods of producing coal is another of the things that have been mentioned by more than one speaker, and I content myself with referring to it. I would suggest, in conclusion, that the Government should at once set up a Committee of mining men of experience for the purpose of examining the whole mining problem and its difficulties, with a view of making suggestions, for putting the industry on a proper footing. I have not in mind the appointment of another Royal Commission; I am speaking of a committee of men of experience in the mining industry, men who know the trade and its difficulties, and are therefore the better qualified to deal with it. A further suggestion is that the Government take immediate steps for dealing with the destitution in our mining areas, providing for the miners who have been thrown out of employment and for their dependants, either by the provision of employment or reasonable maintenance. To attempt to deal with this great problem, affecting 250,000 men who have been thrown out of work, on the basis of the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade, is simply to deal with it in a way that will touch only the fringe of the problem. I hope that the Government as a result of
  1504
  to-day's discussion will go into the whole of these matters at a very early date, and signify to the country and to those engaged in the industry that they intend to do more for setting the industry on a proper footing than they have done hitherto.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not intend at this late hour to attempt to cover the whole ground which has been covered already in the Debate, but I would like to go back to one or two basic facts. It always seems to me that in these unfortunate Debates on the coal industry we get lost in a wilderness of detail, of entirely contradictory policies and entirely contradictory ideas, instead of realising a few fundamental propositions. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the difficulty of the coal industry in this country is not a national but an international question. It is not Great Britain alone which has difficulties in its coal industry; the whole coal industry of Europe has very much the same difficulties as we have. When you come to analyse the position, the reason is fairly simple. It is that since the year 1913 the coal industry of Europe has remained practically stagnant. Consumption has remained almost where it was, and the production is continually going up. Although I do not wish to weary the House with many figures, I think the following are rather significant. In 1913, we produced 292,000,000 tons of coal; in 1900, 228,000,000; and in 1925, 248,000,000. Germany in 1913 produced 140,000,000 tons of coal, and in 1926 145,000,000 tons; France produced 44,000,000 tons in 1913 and 52,000,000 tons in 1926; Poland, of which we have heard so much, produced 41,000,000 tons in 1913 and only 35,000,000 tons in 1926, a diminution of 6,000,000 tons in a small output. Belgium, on the other hand, went from 22,000,000 tons to 25,000,000; and Holland, a country that nobody talks about, went from 2,000,000 tons in 1913 to 8,500,000 tons in 1926. The result is that while in 1913 Europe produced 542,000,000 tons, in 1926 it produced 515,000,000 tons.
  That is an extraordinary state of things, and it is that position to which we ought to address our minds. The fact is that substitutes for coal in the production of energy and power have taken the markets of the coal trade not

  1505
  of England alone but of Europe. Oil fuel for steamers and hydro-electricity have taken market after market to which we used to export coal. Anybody who did not stand blindly by, anybody who watched what was happening in the world could see the growing peril to the English export coal trade for years. If it be asked how did we meet that situation, I would say that we met it by continuous strikes and lock-outs and disputes in the industry, every one of which was robbing us of part of the export coal trade, which we will never get back. One of the chief difficulties encountered in selling Britsh coal abroad was that people would say: "We do not want your coal, because we cannot rely on delivery." I am not going back on the disputes. I am merely stating the facts. Unless we can get the assurance of some kind of peace in this industry for a number of years to enable our Continental customers once more to feel confident that they will be able to obtain our coal as they require it, we shall find it very difficult to get back even part of the export coal trade which we have lost.
  Hon. Members opposite have remarked, and I do not disagree with them, that the policy which was adopted last year of relaxing hours and lowering wages, has not achieved the results expected. I was one who did not expect that policy to achieve those results. I could not see how, when you had over-production, the relaxing of hours was going to help. The contention which was made to me very frequently was that a reduction in the price would help to regain markets as long as our competitors were not able to reduce prices also. I then said, and I think a number of those who were formerly opposed to me are now coming to my point of view, that if you could get a rationalisation of the British coal industry, if the British coal industry's selling policy were arranged in such a manner that you would be able to deal with the situation not merely nationally but internationally, instead of having a game of beggar-my-neighbour, and a continued depression of wages and conditions in the coal mines of the world and a continued attempt to extend hours, then you might arrive at some basic figure. But do not imagine that you would be able to achieve the same position in tonnage which was achieved in the past in the coal export trade.
  1506
  A great deal of controversy has taken place in the Debate to-day, and we have heard very interesting speeches, but it seemed to me that these speeches did not face up to one or two of the facts. How can you continue to employ the same number of people in an industry which is obviously diminishing and has a surplus of labour. The more you unify, the more you improve your output, the more you carry out improvements in the industry the more you tend to displace labour. Therefore, the problem is how to deal with this very difficult and important question of what I may call the surplus population in the mines. It is obviously bad policy to condemn large bodies of men in the mining industry to a state of semi-starvation for an indefinite period. I do not think it is doing a kindness to those engaged in the industry to employ them for such a email number of hours in the week that practically none of them can make a living wage.
  Several suggestions have been made. I myself am a partisan of one of them and that is the idea of advancing pensions. After all, we are agreed in this country, by common consent, that we will not allow people to die of starvation. We go a little further and endeavour to keep them in some form, I will not say of comfort, but of reasonable maintenance. Therefore, if you have a large number of people in this country unemployed, you are paying for them in one form or other, either by unemployment benefit or by the local rates. In one form or other, they are being supported, and it seems to me that, that idea being once admitted, the question of pensions becomes merely a question of readjustment of money which is already being spent. It is not a question of an additional impost, but a change in the nature of the impost from unemployment benefit to a pension fund. Some of the money which mineowners and workmen are paying towards unemployment benefit could be worked out and used for a contributory old age pension fund. It may be said that these are impossible ideas, but I think a little co-operation on the part of the different Departments of the Government and their advisers would very soon work out a scheme by which you could co-ordinate such a proposal with the old age pensions scheme, and supplement it to the point where you could

  1507
  reasonably demand that a man should leave his employment. You cannot ask a man who is making money in the colliery to go out of employment on a pension of 10s. a week. Then, I think, an hon. Member suggested that the mining royalty owners, who are, I am afraid, bady off enough as it is, ought to help in this crisis. They should also come into such a scheme. I think a scheme of that kind would do a great deal to ease the situation.
  No really serious effort has ever been made to deal on a "biggish" scale with the position of those who must, in time, if opportunity occurs, transfer to other industries. It cannot be said that this country is so devoid of capital or of ideas that a scheme could not be worked out whereby men in the worst districts could be put on to work of a useful character in order to keep them going. Some time ago in Germany they were faced with a similar position, but in Germany there was co-ordination between the mine-owners and the Government. Pits had to be shut down there, but schemes had been prepared beforehand to get the men to work again, and they were not put into the streets. That is also a. thing which should not be beyond the competence of the Government.
  We hear a great deal about amalgamation and unification. I am the responsible criminal for one of them. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the blessed word amalgamation is going to solve all our difficulties. Amalgamations will have certain financial advantages, but many of those advantages will take a very long time to work out, and in some cases two or three years. On the other hand, the industry to-day is in a position where its extreme difficulty is to find finance from any quarter whatsoever. Without finance you cannot make these improvements. You cannot find that capital expenditure by which alone you can reduce the cost of production.
  I want to make this suggestion to the Government. The coal industry to-day is notoriously in a bad way, and probably this Debate will make it appear only worse in the public eye than it actually is. At any rate, the average investor to-day is not very anxious to put money into collieries, and the banks to-day have quite as much in the collieries
  1508
  as they want to put there, if not more. Hon. Members come and say, "Let us unify into so many collieries, sink new shafts and put in new washing machines and other things to improve the industry." But from whence is the finance to come? One of the greatest mistakes recently has been the abolition of the Trade Facilities Act. I was the parent of it and was rather proud of it, and believed that it formed very good finance. Why should it not be re-instituted for the purpose of enabling those who wish for and are contemplating amalgamations and improvements of collieries under proper supervision to obtain the necessary credit to do so? Why should not the same be extended to the steel factories of this country? A very great deal has been said about the condition of the coal industry being acute and difficult, but the position of the iron and steel trade is very much the same. There you have an analogous position. People find it almost impossible to obtain, on reasonable terms, that finance which is the central foundation of the reorganisation of industry. In that direction also the Government can really render a service which would cost them nothing. It would cost the nation nothing if you could give a chance to the industry of having once more, at any rate, an advance.
  I have heard a great deal to-day about research in coal. This is a subject in which I have a certain amount of interest. Hon. Members opposite seem to imagine that Governments can demand research like they can demand a ton of coal or a ton of pig iron, but after a long experience I can say that I consider researchers are difficult people to find. You may pay people a great deal for research, but you cannot always pay them to get results. It is a very striking fact that the biggest progress that has been made with regard to the production of oil from coal has not been made by any Government researcher or even by any researcher of any great company but by a Professor of a University, Professor Bergius, who was not employed by any party at all. He happened to be a genius working on a substance quite different and he finally evolved a process to a certain point at which he could produce, at a certain cost, oil from coal. Do not let everybody run away with the idea that this marks the beginning of the end of our troubles. It does not. No doubt all these processes

  1509
  in time will become useful. If they can be brought, not to-day, to a state of economic production, there is very good reason for stating that they will absorb a certain quantity of coal. But they will not deal with our coal question.
  10.0 p.m.
  The question of the development of pulverised coal would be of much more interest; even now, pulverised coal has taken the place of oil in the boilers of some steamships. When I was in Germany recently matters had progressed so far that they were beginning to replace oil by the explosive elements from powdered coal. Instead of converting coal into oil and using it, let us try to use coal direct. This is one of the best ways to use coal. There are many things in this country which are all hopeful for the future. As a matter of fact, the whole coal industry may change in its aspect. I think that probably one of our difficulties to-day is that it has already changed so much. We all know that in the past we depended very much upon selling large coal to our customers, and we had to get rid of the small coal as best we could. At the present time, the use of gas fires, electric fires, and central heating has done away with an enormous amount of the demand for household coal. It has changed the whole economic system of collieries who may give up the idea of producing large coal and introduce a new technique into the mines to bring up coal of a smaller size and in that way to produce cheaper.
  There are all kinds of new questions arising. I can visualize the pulverisation of coal and the distribution of power by means of pipe lines. That is a vision of the future, but not an impossible one. All these things are not going to affect the coal industry in the next few years. You have to deal with 250,000 unemployed who ask for something more than future progress. Therefore, it seems to me that what the coal industry has to do is to get itself on to a sound financial and economic basis. There is no reason why the basic industries of this country should not operate to the last. I heard hon. Members opposite say: "We do not wish to be greedy and to fleece the public." Have the public any right to sweat the coal industry or the miners? Neither can it be claimed in the country that the big industries should be carried on at a loss and give neither a return on capital nor
  1510
  a decent wage to those engaged in it. That is due after all, if you look at the figures, to over-production and insensate competition, the desire of everybody to work, at the maximum, as far as he can, and to what I call a kind of brutal surgery of olden times. In the old days you performed surgical operations without anæsthetics. That is what is happening in the coal industry to-day. The weaker and smaller and less efficient pits are being killed by operations of a brutal character. We have passed from that surgery and are now operating with anæsthetics—methods of amalgamation, methods of sale cartels to produce the same result, the elimination of the weaker pit without the same kind of brutal suffering for all concerned.
  I would like to make one observation on that because the point ought to be emphasised. It seems to me that there are two schools of thought which fit more closely than they imagine. One school shouts for amalgamation, and many to whom that is anathema press for co-operation. There are others to whom amalgamation is anathema, and the only thing they want is a selling organisation. As a matter of fact, you want both. The German experience of 30 years is this. They started with selling organisations. It is well known that the result was that the more efficient pits by degrees absorbed the energies of the less efficient pits, and the less efficient pits ceased to work gradually, so that in a comparatively short time they achieved unification. That same process can very well take place here. An hon. Member rightly remarked that there is a limit to which industrial unification can usefully be brought. Some people advocate trustification of all the collieries. Personally, I think such an idea is impracticable. I think you would arrive at a position in which there would be stagnation, bureaucracy, want of initiative, and a point where the machine would begin to work so slowly and badly that the whole country would object to it continuing to exist. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said some very wise words on this subject, and I agree with him. I do think that the movement is in the right direction.
  I do not wish to say anything controversial, but I do think that the conservatism in the Miners' Federation ought not to prevent improvement in methods. It would be a good thing if

  1511
  they could have a discussion, and if all their old rules and all their cherished traditions could be changed to meet the conditions of modern industry. I think they have something to look into there, just as we have something to look into. I believe that a discussion of these problems might lead to good results. The right hon. Gentleman is still a great believer in the Government intervening. I am not quite so sure. At any rate, these discussions ought to take place. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, that the coal industry should not be a political plaything or a political war cry of any party. Its prosperity is vital to the future industry of this country. It employs a million hard-working men under difficult conditions, and, whatever we may think of their failings—and it is human to have failings—they are on the whole as hardworking and as honourable as any other set of men in the country, but they do desire their fellow-citizens to recognise more the conditions and difficulties under which they work. I think the Government has a role to play in the larger problems of finance, co-ordination, dealing with the surplus population, and in assisting those who want to have an organised industry either by putting into force the powers they have and the Acts that have been passed, or by declaring their willingness to make it possible that, if 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the owners want to form a reasonable arrangement, a small minority shall not be able to stand in the way—a recommendation that was made by the Samuel Commission and by the Committee of which Sir Frederick Lewis was Chairman. If they are prepared to move in these directions, there will be some prospect of prosperity being restored to the industry.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: The President of the Board of Trade to-day said that the Government were prepared to leave the policy of the Government in relation to the coal question to a decision of the House to-night, and to a decision of the country when the matter is submitted to it. I have not the slightest doubt that they are safe in leaving the decision to the House to-night, but I doubt whether it is very much use challenging them to submit it to the decision of the country. As far as we are concerned, we are quite
  1512
  prepared to accept the decision of the country on the policy pursued by the Government during the last two years. It is very important that we should come at once to an understanding of the points raised by the President of the Board of Trade in his opening remarks. He said that the real problem is two-fold in character. First of all, he said we have to face an unemployed army which can never again be absorbed in the mining industry; and, secondly, we have to deal with the question of the reorganisation and the reconstruction of the mining industry. In relation to the problem as they have pursued it up to now, he said that events have justified the Government in the action they have taken. I want to submit that the whole basis upon which the President of the Board of Trade founded his case, and the basis upon which the whole policy of the Government, and, for that matter, of the coal owners, has proceeded, is a policy that has to be destroyed unless we are going to have absolute ruin in the industry.
  What is the basis upon which we have been proceeding. The Government and the coalowners have been proceeding on the same assumption that, if we can only reduce prices, if we can only get down to lower competitive prices, we can once again dispose of an output of the mines equal to that of 1913, and in deciding the policy of the Government on that basis, the President of the Board of Trade said: "Let us see what has happened." He said that in the 10 months of this year we have had 210,000,000 tons output as compared with 201,000,000 tons in the corresponding 10 months of 1925. Therefore, he said, that fact in itself proved that the eight hours' day, having reduced cost, has enabled us to sell at a lower price, and that has enabled us to get back markets we should not otherwise have had; and in doing that, we have found employment for more men. I think that is fairly stating the position submitted by the President of the Board of Trade.
  The first thing I want to say is that this 9,000,000 tons increase this year followed on the top of the struggle last year in which 140,000,000 tons of output was lost to this country, and when you put up against that all coal that came into-this country from outside, and the coal produced with what we call "black-leg" labour during the miners' strike, there

  1513
  could not have been less than 50,000,000 tons stocked in this country which had to be replaced. If after the seven months' exhaustion of all the stocks in this country we had not had an increased output and an increased market this year, as compared with 1925, then we really should have been in a pretty bad state. I have here the Board of Trade Journal. It is to be found in the Library, and any hon. Members can inspect it. Let them follow the weekly returns showing the output from the mines of Great Britain, and they will see that in the first half of the year we had outputs of 5,000,000 tons, 5,100,000 tons, 5,200,000 tons, 5,300,000 tons and 5,500,000 tons a week. That rate went on consistently week after week until stocks had been replenished, but for the last 20 weeks we have not had more than one week in which there has been 5,000,000 tons. We have got back to the 1925 output, and all the increase in consumption we have had this year is due not to an extension of markets for British coal but merely to the replenishment of the stocks which were exhausted during that great struggle.
  It is of vital importance if we are to have anything like a decent coal policy that we shall get down to this cardinal fact. I know I shall be called a defeatist, or, as I think it was expressed to-day, a fatalist, because I do not believe in an expansion of the British coal trade. I say we have to accept this cardinal fact, that markets for British coal are contracting, they will continue to contract, and never again in the history of this country shall we have markets for our British coal equal to those we had in 1913. That is the first fact we have to keep in mind.
  Hon. Members may say, "What is the evidence for it?" We are told there is as much coal consumed in the world to-day as before the War. That is true, but that does not at all conflict with the statement I have made that we shall not again see markets for our coal as large as the markets in 1913. It is true that the world is consuming as much coal, but not our world, not the world in which we operate. Take the markets for British coal either before the War or since. Even to-day our markets are confined within certain areas in this world. We have Europe and the Mediterranean Ports on the African coast; we had little business outside there even in pre-war days, with
  1514
  the exception of the South American market. It is true that since then we have made a bit of a market in Canada, but outside Europe and the Mediterranean we have got only one per cent, of our business, excepting, again, South America. In Asia, Africa, America, and Australia, the world in which we do not operate, and in which we never have operated, there has been an increase in consumption and in production amounting to 50,000,000 tons a year or more, but in Europe and in the countries in which we do operate—in our world—there has been a reduction in consumption of, roughly, 50,000,000 tons. Our market has contracted.
  Let us see the reason why. In South America, where there are countries which are non-producing, some of our trade has gone. To-day, they are consuming 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 a year less than in pre-war days. It is not that the United States of America, or Germany, or Poland have taken the market, but that the market has dried up to the extent of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 tons a year. Russia has gone out of the market to the extent of 6,000,000 tons. As a result of the conversion to oil of 8,000,000 tons of shipping—the conversion of the great liners to oil burning, and a similar conversion of ships among the navies of the world—we have lost nearly 5,000,000 tons of trade in bunker coals. If you go to France, you will find there the biggest market that we have ever had and the biggest that we have to-day. They are consuming 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons more than under pre-war conditions, and they are producing 12,000,000 tons more. Whereas in pre-war days they had to go outside their own country for 17,000,000 or 18,000,000 tons of coal, now they only go outside their own country for about 11,000,000. Therefore, the French market has dried up to the tune of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 tons. When you go to the Netherlands, you find exactly the same tale. Consumption there has increased by about 2,000,000 tons, but production has gone up by 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 tons. Consequently, that market has dried up to the tune of 4,000,000 tons.
  When you get to Germany you have another proposition, because there they have increased their output of lignite by 54,000,000 tons a year, and that is equal to about 12,000,000 tons of black

  1515
  coal. In Germany, that has released coal for competition in the markets of Europe. You have to take these facts into account, and couple with them the fact that eight countries have already utilised their water power reserves. They are to-day producing by water power electrical energy which in the past would have required the consumption of 28,000,000 tons of coal per annum. We have been told that those eight countries have other electrical schemes in contemplation which will do the work of 190,000,000 tons of coal when they are completed. Those are the facts which lead me to the conclusion that our market is contracting, and they are facts every one of which are contained in the Memorandum supplied to the International Economic Conference which was held at Geneva in May, 1927. Consequently, we have lost 23,000,000 tons of exports.
  Are we going to get them back? Where are they to come from? Our market has dried up, and we have lost nearly 5,000,000 tons of bunkers, and nobody expects to get them back again. Our home consumption between 1913 and 1925 went down by 17,000,000 tons, and we are not consuming or producing more coal than we were in 1925 when we were replenishing our exhausted stocks. We have been told that our exports have increased by 1,300,000 tons. If you look at our exports and take them month by month you will find that in 1925—we got the subsidy in August—a tussle began between the coal owners and the foreigners as to who should have the benefit of that subsidy. During those two months, we had the lowest exports that we have had for many years. Take the year 1927, and take every month with the exception of August and September, and you will find that we have not exported a ton more of coal out of this country in the other eight months; we have simply got 1,300,000 tons over the 10 months, and that is about the amount that we lost in August and September, 1925, because of the struggle that took place after the introduction of the subsidy.
  If what I am saying is correct, that there is this contraction of our markets, could a more senseless, a more imbecile policy be pursued by a Government than to put another 20 per cent. of output on to the market by increasing the working day under conditions such as that? The
  1516
  right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that he did not agree with that policy, and he said so at the time—he denounced it at the time. But his Government put it into operation, and I shall not be a bit surprised if he goes into the Lobby and supports the Government in what they have done. I hope, however, having regard to the views he has expressed here to-night, that he will make a point of coming into the Division Lobby with us, and showing that, at any rate, he is prepared to back by his vote the convictions which he has expressed. We were told, at the time when we were getting a longer working day and lower wages, that we must have district agreements. Well, we have had it all, and what is the position? We have got, for the June quarter, the results of every district. In Scotland, they lost £498,000; in Northumberland, £176,000; in Durham, £291,000; in South Wales, £573,000; in Yorkshire, £161,000; in Notts and Derbyshire, £495,000; in Lancashire and North Staffordshire, £346,000; and, in a group of small collieries, £118,000. We have, therefore, a loss during those three months of £2,800,000, or at the rate of over £11,000,000 a year.
  That is a worse position than we had in the corresponding quarter of 1925, out of which the great crisis of that year arose. At that time, it was said that we must put £25,000,000 of public money into the industry in order to save it, but the position is worse at the corresponding quarter to-day than it was then. In 1925, during that quarter, we lost £2,400,000, and in the same quarter of this year we have lost £2,800,000. When we get the results for the September quarter—I cannot understand why the Mines Department have not published that document, because I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade quoted figures relating to the September quarter—when those figures are published, I venture the prediction that they will show a further increase in the losses of another £400,000, and that we shall find that the losses in this industry are now at the rate of about £12,000,000 a year.
  What did we point out during the Debates last year? We pointed out that this was exactly what would happen. We said that, if we were given a bigger output and the results of a longer work-

  1517
  ing day, it would intensify competition, and prices would be reduced. It was true, we said, that there would be a reduction in costs, but the intensified competition resulting from the increased output would more than counteract all the benefit that would accrue from the longer working day. The President of the Board of Trade said to-day that costs had been reduced in the September quarter of this year, as compared with the September quarter of 1925, by about 2s. 8d. a ton. I cannot compare that figure, but I have compared the figure for the June quarter, and that shows that the costs are down 2s. 4d. per ton, and prices are down 2s. 4¾d. per ton. Everything the miners have given by way of- greater exertion, greater effort, bigger output, reduced wages, a degradation of their standard of existence such as they have not tolerated for the last 50 years, has all been thrown away by the cut-throat competition which has been the inevitable result of the policy pursued by the Government. We said then as we have said to-day, take notice of the industry and face the facts. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last does not believe in 100 per cent, trustification. He does not believe in nationalisation and he does not believe in trustification. He believes in rationalisation and a gradual, steady process of bringing the industry under the principles of unification. I do not care how the thing is done. You can nationalise it or rationalise it, or do what you like. The one thing we have to face is the incontrovertible fact that old-time individualism in the mining industry has collapsed. It is a system that is smashed beyond repair.
  I have never supported the Samuel Report. I was the one man in the country who broke through all the undertakings that had been given by the Labour party politically and industrially that nothing was to be said about it until there had been conferences between the Government and the coalowners and the miners. I had been laid up and did not know anything about these things. I did not know about the undertakings that had been given, but I expressed my view of that Report after giving five hours' study to it, and I said, "There is no settlement in this Report," and there never has been a settlement. I have
  1518
  never said a word in favour of it, and I am not blaming the Government or the coalowners or anyone for not putting it into operation. What I have said is that we have, not in the Report but in the minutes of evidence, all the statistics contained in those volumes, every fact and figure that was put before the Commission, and we can now study it for ourselves. We can form our own conclusions. We were able to prove last year that if this industry had been unified in 1925 all that was necessary to make a successful industry of it was to get it all under one common control, one common ownership, and unify it, and if that had been done in 1925, according to the accountants appointed by the Samuel Commission, all that would have been necessary would have been for that one undertaking, whether the State or a private trust, to say, "We shall not reduce coal below what it has been on an average during the last six months, and the men shall have a reduction of 10 per cent."
  Had that been done we should have been placed in this position. The accountants made out their estimate by taking all collieries into account, those making profits and those making losses, old and new collieries, collieries producing for the home market and for export, collieries all working on the basis of the seven hours day and keeping all the men in employment, and they said, "If you only give a 10 per cent. reduction in wages and unify the industry there will be £12,000,000 a year profit on it, the average annual profit for 10 years before the War." There never has been any answer to that case yet. There is no answer possible to it, and there will be no solution of the coal problem until we apply that principle of unification and control of selling prices in the mining industry. Had this industry been under common ownership, and had we applied the principles to which I have referred, the industry would immediately have been a prosperous undertaking, and the whole of the collieries would have been kept in profitable production, all the miners would have been retained in employment, the seven hours day would have been kept, every shareholder would have been paid dividends, there would have been no need for a subsidy, the seven months' stoppage would have been avoided, and the eight hours day would have been

  1519
  unnecessary, and 100,000 men who have been turned out of the industry would still have been kept in it and in employment.
  We have suffered all this just for the want of applying this principle of unification to the industry and accepting the chartered accountants' figures as submitted to that Commission. Those figures are there and available for anybody, and I have no hesitation at all in saying that, bad as the industry is to-day, it will go from bad to worse. For largo numbers of miners to be out of work means something more than does unemployment in lots of other industries, because in the mining villages the whole organisation of the churches, of the social institutions, of the hospitals, of local government—everything—depends upon continuity of employment in the mines. We are getting valley after valley, district after district, rendered derelict. Our people are getting despondent. You only want to see the faces of the coal-owners to know that gloom is spreading over the whole of them, and more than half the coalowners in this country would revel in the prospect of something of the kind which we propose being done, but nothing is being done. The policy of the coalowners last year, adopted by the Government, has been tried, and it has made the position worse.
  I would like to know whether the time has not yet arrived when the Government will make up their mind to depart from their old Conservatism and to see whether or not they can go all the way, whether or not they can accept nationalisation, if it is not possible for them at least to come to the conclusion, which is as inevitable as the grave later on, that individual, private enterprise has failed and must be replaced and supplanted by some other system. If that is done, I see no reason at all why we should not have a very prosperous, profitable industry in this country, within limits. I do not think we are ever going to have as big an industry as formerly, but in the absence of the application of those principles to which I have referred, as far as I see nothing that the Government have to offer or have suggested to-day will even tend in the direction of solving the problem, while I am perfectly satisfied that the policy that has been pursued hitherto has not only not helped to solve the
  1520
  problem but has added enormously to the difficulties in the industry and has made the position very much worse. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister that, if they are prepared to submit this case to the conviction and the decision of the British electorate, at any rate as far as those communities which are dependent more or less directly upon the mining industry are concerned, there are no two opinions as to the result. Once the opportunity is afforded the electors, I can assure the Government that their expression of opinion will be very emphatic and that it will be in unmistakeable condemnation of the policy that has been pursued.
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The House was reminded at an earlier stage by the Prime Minister that this is probably the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity of delivering a speech on the rather threadbare subject of coal. We have had an interesting discussion, and, whatever further there may be to say, I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised in the Debate. The right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) always makes a most interesting speech. He has taken a very gloomy view of the future; but I venture to think that this is not the time when we can very safely prophesy what the future is going to be. In this country we have only recently come out of a disastrous stoppage, and we have only recently, at great sacrifice, recaptured a considerable portion of our world markets.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that had there been a scheme of unification in operation, under some process that he had not time to explain, and under some process which would require a good deal of explanation, everything would have gone right. We should have sold so many million more tons of coal, and we should have made £12,000,000 profit. I would ask him whether the position is not somewhat improved by the fact that under what has been done, the cost of production has gone down by 2s. 8d. a ton. We have thereby been able to regain a certain proportion of our world markets. Does he really say that we should have been certain to regain that portion of our world markets had the price been 2s. 8d.

  1521
  or 3s. per ton higher? It is perfectly obvious that that difference must be taken into account.
  The whole argument has been put very well by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) in a very interesting speech. What did his argument amount to? It amounted to this, that as a result of what the Government have done, we are now in the present unfortunate position. He complained that at this moment more coal was being produced by fewer men at less cost. Surely in any other industry that would be held to be a very great test of increased efficiency, but as in this industry there is a great amount of unemployment, it is not held to be a test of efficiency. We are faced with the question of organising, improving, and reducing the cost of production in those pits which can pay and those pits that can be worked, and also of providing for the surplus labour which the industry can no longer carry. These are objects which the Government are preparing to do their best to meet.
  First of all, let me deal with the question of organisation. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not in his place. He has an engagement and cannot be here. I remember the right hon. Gentleman very well when I was a humble and perhaps uneasy follower of his. One interesting thing during the War period was that the right hon. Gentleman was a profound optimist. When everybody was down in the dumps, he was- always on the bright side; he always had courage. So long as he was in office he maintained that position, but ever since the right hon. Gentleman has left office, this old country has gone steadily to the dogs. The right hon. Gentleman took a most gloomy view of the future, as indeed he always does, whether it be on occasions of a semi-private character, or whether it be in articles to the Hearst Press, which certainly do not tend to increase the confidence of our foreign clients in us. They do not add to their confidence that any orders given to this country will be fulfilled. In these various articles the right hon. Gentleman always took a gloomy view of the future of this country.
  He has no right to say that nothing is being done in the way of amalgamations in this country, that nothing is being
  1522
  done to organise the coal industry, or that these amalgamations were not being seriously pressed. A great deal is being done, and a certain number of amalgamations have already gone through. I agree nothing like the number that I hope will shortly go through. It has been well said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the one thing which would stop what hon. Members opposite really desire is a premature interference by the Government and premature publicity, before these amalgamations have gone through. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that court after court and Ministry after Ministry had been set up under the Mining Industry Act, and that the Government had taken no advantage of them. That is a picturesque exaggeration, as the Mines Department, if it thinks there is a prima facie case for amalgamation, can bring the proposal into Court, and if the Court so decides amalgamation takes place. The process is an extremely simple one, and it is the contribution which the Government made to the problem. Surely if a proposition is not sufficiently good for any single individual to think it worth while to take it up then it is rather a risky thing for the State itself to take it up. However, it is a splendid opportunity and I think advantage will be taken of it.
  Every day in every coalfield proposed amalgamations and combinations are being discussed. When the Act was being discussed an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member for one of the Liverpool Divisions giving power to the Mines Department to initiate schemes and bring them before the court itself without any individual or firm taking action. The suggestion was that this power behind the scenes would form a kind of pressure which would induce schemes for amalgamation to be brought forward. The Government did not agree to the suggestion, as they thought it was far better that amalgamations, if they were to be successful, should be the result of the initiative of the individuals who saw a real advantage in the proposal. That is a process which can be brought into effect afterwards, if the schemes materialise. I believe there are a large number of people in this country who are really working hard to try to effect a better organisation of the industry; who realise the value of

  1523
  big undertakings, and realise that the small old fashioned ideas can no longer stand under present conditions. But time is going on, and next summer the report which was ordered under the Act will have to be made. The House will remember that the Samuel Report suggested that, as a form of pressure, there should be a report made every three years. We reduced it to two; we went further than the Commission. The Commission very strongly reported against any kind of direct compulsion. I do not think I need quote the passages. I expect that hon. Members know the quotations sufficiently well by now and, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, there is not much to be gained by bandying passages from the Report of the Commission.
  There is absolutely nothing that can be thrown against the Government in the matter of neglecting to take their opportunities to the full. The policy in the Report of the Commission has been carried out by us even further than the Commission suggested. As regards the matter of dealing with surplus labour, it is perfectly obvious that any better scheme of organisation or amalgamation of this kind that will bring the more profitable pits together must leave the less profitable pits outside. That would cause a decrease of employment. It is clear that we are faced with a considerable amount of unemployment which is likely to be permanent. Therefore, provision must be made to deal with that. The House has been told by my right hon. Friend of the various measures which the Government are taking to deal with that problem. It is a very grave and a very serious matter and a very difficult one. The House must not forget the various things which were announced by the Government.
  There are one or two points which have been raised in the Debate and with which I would like to deal. Pensions for old miners have been suggested as one remedy There is no doubt that, if we could have a scheme sufficiently attractive and with sufficient money in it to take the older men, men of 60 and over, out of the industry, it would relieve the situation. It is well, however, that the House should know the figures. The subject has often been talked about very loosely without people realising what the figures involved are. It is obvious that such a proposal
  1524
  as this must have been gone into by the Government, and therefore the figures have been worked out by our Actuary. A pension of only 10s. a week—and no one would suggest that that would be enough as an inducement to many men of that age to leave their employment—in this industry in the following 15 years would mean an average of £3,000,000 a year. No one would suggest that 10s. a week is enough, and, if you make it much larger, the figure would be very considerable indeed. There must obviously be a very great difficulty in any large sum of that kind being provided by the State for any one industry, however peculiar the circumstances. Hon. Members talk loosely about unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit is paid out of an insurance scheme; contributions are paid for unemployment benefit. Are you going to increase those contributions? Obviously, these things have not really been seriously considered.
  At the present moment a scheme is being considered in connection with the Miners' Welfare Fund. All I can say about that is that the undertaking has already been given—and I am prepared to repeat it—that, should any form of pension scheme be found possible, within the Welfare Fund, any difficulties arising out of the wording of the Act will be removed so as to include in the objects available for the Miners' Welfare Fund some scheme of that kind. At the present moment we are debarred by the words of the Statute.
  One or two other points have been raised in the Debate. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) spoke of victimisation at the collieries, and suggested that at some of the pits owners were refusing to employ men unless they joined a certain union. It is, a new thing to hear that complaint coming from that quarter. I would like to know how many eloquent speeches hon. Members opposite have made in telling men that they ought never to work alongside those who are not prepared to belong to their union. While I do not defend the practice, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is from them that the lesson has been learned. Something has been said about the possibility of helping the mining industry by improving the position of the heavy trades, particularly the iron and steel trade. There is no

  1525
  doubt that, if the importation of foreign steel were checked, and if there were a greater activity in the steel trade of this country, it would make an enormous difference. Questions on that subject have been asked many times in the House. The Government are debarred from taking action by the pledge given at the last General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is our view. I am sure hon. Gentlemen will realise that the view of the party to which I belong, and I am certain the view of all parties, is that a pledge definitely given at an election is a pledge which must be kept absolutely.
  There are many other points with which I have not time to deal. This is a Vote of Censure. It is an attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to remove from themselves blame which they fully earned—to remove blame which was due to the fact that they encouraged and prolonged the coal stoppage—[Interruption]—and wrongly advised the men, with the result that the whole of British production was
  stopped for seven months. I say, and say with confidence, that the blame for what has occurred since rests far more on them than on the Government. They have moved a Vote of Censure on the Prime Minister, whom we all respect. [Interruption.] I call upon the House to give to the Prime Minister a vote of confidence.
  Question put,
  "That this House registers its protest that, on the Motion by the Leader of the Opposition on the 16th November on the serious situation in the Coal Industry, which involved a vote of censure on the Government, the Prime Minister should have deliberately evaded giving any defence or explanation of the inaction of the Government, for which, as Prime Minister, he has a personal responsibility; and this House declares that the crisis in the industry, transcending all possibilities of mere departmental action, is such as to demand an authoritative statement by the Prime Minister of the intentions of the Government as a whole."
  The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 347.

  Division No. 451.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

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

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

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

  Riley, Ben

  Amnion, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Barnes, A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barr, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Bromfield, William

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Sexton, James

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cape, Thomas

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

  Snell, Harry

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Connolly, M.

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.I

  Dennison, R.

  Mackinder, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Duncan, C.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Edge, Sir William

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  March, S.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Morris. R. H.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gibbins, Joseph

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Glliett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

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

  Gosling, Harry

  Naylor, T. E.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Greenall, T.

  Palin, John Henry

  Welsh, J. C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Westwood, J.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Whiteley, W.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Windsor, Walter

  Edwards

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wright, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Cope, Major William

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Astor, Viscountess

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Herlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Bennett, A. J.

  Duckworth, John

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Berry, Sir George

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Bethel, A.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Ellis R. G.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  England, Colonel A.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Blundell, F. N.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Finburgh, S.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Ford, sir P. J.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Forrest, W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lamb, J. Q

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Frece, sir Walter de

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Buchan, John

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gates, Percy

  Loder, J. de V.

  Burman, J. B.

  Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Long, Major Eric

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman>

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Grace, John

  Lumley, L. R.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Cassels, J. D.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w. E)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Macintyre, Ian

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  McLean, Major A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Christle, J. A.

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

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Clayton, G. C.

  Harland, A.

  Margesson, Caption D.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Meller, R. J.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  1528

  1529

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Templeton, W. P.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Waddington, R.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Oakley, T.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wells, S. R.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

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

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Withers, John James

  Pilcher, G.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Womersley, W. J

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Preston, William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Radford, E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Ramsden, E.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Sugden. Sir Wilfrid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Colonel Gibbs.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House, of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn.

POOR LAW RELIEF (MANCHESTER).
Mr. COMPTON: I desire to draw attention to a question, of which I gave notice on Thursday last week, relative to two questions addressed to the Minister of Health in connection with (1)the reduced scale of relief imposed by the Manchester Board of Guardians, and (2)the attitude of certain guardians towards these reduced scales. The reply of the Minister stated that, so far as he was concerned, he had no knowledge that any report had been made to him with regard to either, of the two questions. This matter was inaugurated some months ago at the instance of two inspectors from the Ministry, Mr. Maslin and Mr. Grant. These inspectors went
1530
from the Liverpool office, and their method of operation was to take their seats in the Relief Committee beside members, and endeavour to instruct the guardians to pay less than the scale of relief previously paid by the guardians. As the result of the report submitted—of which, I again mention, the Minister denies all knowledge—by these two inspectors, a sub-committee was appointed by the board of guardians to go into the whole question. The reference to the committee was

"1. That they consider and report on the various matters referred to in a letter received from Mr. Maslin, Minister of Health Inspector, regarding the administration of outdoor relief in the union;

(2)the whole question of the administration of outdoor relief."

It is very interesting to have the comments of this Sub-committee, which was composed of members of the political party opposite, the members of my own party having refused to take any part in the Sub-committee work owing to the fact that the reduction of the scale was under consideration. This Sub-committee in introducing their report said:
"The letter above referred to"—

1531
that is the letter from the inspector—
"having been submitted and read, it was decided that as Mr. Maslin had not furnished the guardians with specific instances of cases in which relief was being granted irregularly and/or contrary to the guardians' regulations, no action be taken regarding the points mentioned in his letter."
I wish particularly to emphasise that no irregularities were mentioned by the inspector. He simply gave cases where the relief given was reckoned by the inspector to be more than the wages being paid in some of the works. The position in regard to these unfortunate people is this. The scales of relief have been reduced to a maximum of 28s. a week for a man, a wife, and eight children, and the inspector alleges that, because relief was given which was slightly higher than the wages paid to a labourer in an engineering works in the district, this was an encouragement to these people to remain on relief for ever. I respectfully submit that the Minister of Health or those associated with his Department, instead of claiming a maximum of 28s. for the keep of 10 people for a week, would be very much better employed in looking after the health of the people by raising the wages of the labourer who was supposed to maintain a similar family on that, or, perhaps, a lesser amount. The points I wish to put to the Under-Secretary are these: Is it possible for these inspectors to make a report inviting the guardians to reduce their scales of relief without the knowledge of the Minister or without first submitting it to his Department?
Secondly, I want to know, is it possible that when men 60 years of age, who are too old to be employed in any industry, go to the guardians and receive 14s. a week, they are forced to do a full week's work for that 14s., and after receiving it for a period of six months get an order to go into the workhouse, where the cost of their keep is estimated at 31s. 10d. a week? Is that economy on the part of the Minister and those associated with him? Then the new scale lays it down that any single man or widower receiving 1s. 6d. to 5s. a week relief must work a full week's test before receiving it. The point has often been made in the House during the last week or so that it is impossible for a
1532
man kept fully employed by the guardians to obtain employment in any industry because of his inability to go to the works' gates to get it. As regards the action of the guardians in giving these old men an institutional order, I would ask any Member of any party in the House whether it is humane that old men who have spent the better part of their lives in industry should be sent to the workhouse? To put it another way, is there a man or woman in the House who would care to act as a guardian and send his or her father to the institution if he had done his duty to the community and to the industry, but had become too old to find employment?
My next point is that certain members of the guardians refused to administer these new scales of relief. It is well-known that in the administration of a service of this kind, there are certain guardians who are very regular attendants at the finance committee meetings and the general meetings of the board, but who are so ashamed of their conduct in reducing the relief scales, that they do not take their full share in administering those new scales. The result is that those who have been active in administrative work are now "on strike" and refuse to administer the new scales. Considerable confusion existed last week in the administration of this relief. I want to know if the Minister of Health is satisfied that relief in these cases is now being properly administered? Is he satisfied that the authorities have carried it out in a satisfactory manner during the last two weeks? I wish to have an answer on those points, and we shall then be in a position to judge as to the attitude of the authorities.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I can quite understand that the hon. Member who has brought forward this matter has not had a full opportunity of putting his case in the short time at his disposal. I think, however, that there must be some misconception as to the position of the Minister of Hearth in this matter. This is not a case where the Minister has laid down new conditions. It is a case of guardians who have recently come to the conclusion that the scale of relief must be reduced. I have looked at the

1533
figures so far as Manchester is concerned and I am not surprised that they have come to that Conclusion.
Mr. SUTTON: Have they come to the conclusion at the request of your inspectors?
Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception as to what is the duty of the general inspectors of the Ministry of Health. It was only the day before yesterday that I answered a question setting out a general instruction to the inspectors of the Ministry of Health in cases of this kind, which was as follows:
"General instructions have been given that there should be a special inquiry into the administration of boards of guardians, and that it should be made wherever it appears on a prima facie view that there is substantial room for improvement in the administration of the particular board."
I notice that the hon. Member to whom I have referred in his question raised the point of the attendance of general inspectors. It should also be known that it is the duty of the general inspectors to attend meetings of every board of guardians in the district. They have the statutory right to attend every board meeting and every parochial meeting and to take part in the proceedings, but not to vote. For some time the inspectors have been satisfied that there is considerable need for improvements, and arrangements are made by the general inspector there to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Manchester Board of Guardians. The general inspector has sent a communication to that particular board of guardians which certainly indicates a very great need for a revision of their administration in many directions.
The average number of persons per 10,000 of the population in receipt of Poor Law relief of any kind in England and Wales was 296—that was last year, the figures for which are the last available—in Manchester, where there are certainly not the difficulty and distress that there are in some other parts of the country, the corresponding figure is 478; and, while the average number of unemployed persons and their dependants, to every 10,000 of the population, in receipt of outdoor relief was 119 throughout the country, in Manchester it is 262. I think that a case of that kind certainly
1534
calls for inquiry, and I hope that in due course this report of the general inspector, whom I know personally, and for whose independence I can vouch, will be made public, and that the board of guardians will be able to give some adequate reply to it.
As to the so-called strike of a certain number of these guardians, my Department has received no communication from them. I believe that at some time a certain amount of inconvenience was caused by the failure of these gentlemen to carry out their duties, without giving any reasonable notice to anyone; but I am now told that proper arrangements have been made and that there is no reason to think that the duties of giving relief in this union area will not be properly and adequately carried out.
Mr. COMPTON: If the Minister has had no report, how does he know that everything is satisfactory?
Sir K. WOOD: Because I have made inquiries myself. Naturally, when the hon. Member gave me notice of the questions that were going to be raised, I made inquiries as to what exactly the position was. I want the House to understand that these particular gentlemen⁁
Mr. SUTTON: And ladies.
Sir K. WOOD: —made no complaint to my Department, and I have ascertained since, in order to satisfy the hon. Member, that proper arrangements have been made whereby, I suppose, other people will carry out their work and administer the duties that have to be performed.
Mr. LANSBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the scale?
Sir K. WOOD: No, I have not got it. It is a scale they have arived at themselves without any reference to the Minister of Health.
Mr. LANSBURY: I meant the previous one.
Sir K. WOOD: No. I have not got it. They come to their own conclusion about it, and it is a matter for them. Certainly, the general inspectors of my Department in this area have carried out their duties perfectly fairly and honestly, and there is certainly a good case for

1535
making a thorough inquiry into the affairs of this union, and we shall await with interest the reply that may be made by the guardians. I can assure the hon. Member that so far as the administration of that board and these guardians justifies them- going on strike, I do not
1536
think there need be any apprehension that the duties of the guardians in that area will not be adequately and properly carried out.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  EAST AFRICA (RAILWAYS).
  EAST AFRICA (RAILWAYS).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF, TAVISTOCK.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF, TAVISTOCK.
  AGRICULTURE.
  AGRICULTURE.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES (BARLEY).
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES (BARLEY).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION, BEDWELLTY.
  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION, BEDWELLTY.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK.
  BLAST FURNACES.
  BLAST FURNACES.
  PETROLEUM (LEGISLATION, FRANCE).
  PETROLEUM (LEGISLATION, FRANCE).
  EDINBURGH-GLASGOW NEW ROAD (LAND ASSESSMENT).
  EDINBURGH-GLASGOW NEW ROAD (LAND ASSESSMENT).
  SCHNEIDER CUP (SEAPLANE EXHIBITION).
  SCHNEIDER CUP (SEAPLANE EXHIBITION).
  BASLE MISSION COMPANY, INDIA.
  BASLE MISSION COMPANY, INDIA.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED, DUNDEE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED, DUNDEE).
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  FOREIGN CIDER (TAXATION).
  FOREIGN CIDER (TAXATION).
  RAILWAYS (SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION).
  RAILWAYS (SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION).
  CHINA (SITUATION).
  CHINA (SITUATION).
  AFGHANISTAN AND PERSIA (TREATY).
  AFGHANISTAN AND PERSIA (TREATY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

EAST AFRICAN POLICY.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER rose to call attention to the tenour of the White Paper (Cmd. 2904) on "Future policy in regard to Eastern Africa," to invite from His Majesty's Government a statement of the principles according to which they interpret the admitted duty of trusteeship for native Africans, with especial reference to some recent examples of policy; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last February my noble friend Lord Arnold called attention to a demand which was being made in the Colony of Kenya for an elected European majority over all Parties in the Legislature and also to a Bill for conscription, for a white so-called defence force. He asked His Majesty's Government whether they could give any information as to whether any new departure in policy was contemplated in East Africa. The Earl of Clarendon at that time replied:—
"… the only statement which I can make at this moment on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that they adhere to the principles as laid down in the White Paper, to which the noble Lord has referred and which is known as the Kenya White Paper of 1923."
The most rev. Primate spoke on the Motion, rather indicating that he trusted no departure would be made from established arrangements without very serious consideration.
Since then, at the end of July, another White Paper has been issued by His Majesty's Government, entitled "Future Policy in regard to Eastern Africa." That Paper definitely indicates a departure from the policy which was laid down in the Duke of Devonshire's White
552
Paper of 1923. If there had been opportunity before your Lordships adjourned last summer I feel sure it would have been useful for your Lordships to have discussed the matter at that time. I have taken the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before your Lordships' House, in the hope of eliciting helpful expressions of opinion on the subject. This White Paper really broaches two subjects. It first of all broaches the question of constituting a Federal Government, or some other form of closer union for Eastern African territories north of the Zambesi. The second question raised is the modification of the declared policy of the British Government in regard to the exercise of trusteeship over native Africans in those territories.
With regard to the expediency of making arrangements whereby "more effective co-operation" may be secured—I am quoting from the White Paper—"between the different Governments in Central and Eastern Africa, more particularly in regard to the development of transport and communications, Customs tariffs and Customs administration, scientific research and defence," I have no objections to offer. But it is obviously not in the least degree necessary for these purposes to establish a Federal Government, any more than it is necessary for such purposes as those of the Postal Union to federate the various States of the world that engage in it and arrange an agreed tariff of postage and distribute the proceeds of that tariff according to fixed arrangements. Moreover, so far as Customs are concerned, I observe that Sir Edward Grigg, speaking at the opening of the Legislative Council, said:
"I am very glad the system of tariff regulations between Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika is now in operation. I am sure it will prove valuable to all three territories."
I cannot conceive, therefore, that there is very much else to be discussed as regards Customs and tariff regulations by the Commission which is to be appointed. I do not know whether Tanganyika Territory can be made subject to Imperial Preference—that is an interesting point—but apart from that it seems to me that the question of tariffs and Customs is already sufficiently settled.
But in addition to these topics, which I should not regard as controversial, there is inserted in the proposed refer-

553
ence to the Commission the question also of defence, with regard to which I shall have something to say. In regard to the uncontroversial topics, however, I wish to point out that Mr. Thomas, when Secretary of State for the Colonies, appointed two Committees, one under the presidency of my noble friend Lord South-borough, who I am sorry is not here to-day—I had a note from him saying he had hoped to attend but is unwell—and the other under the presidency of Lord Islington. The reference to these two Committees entirely covered, so far as I can judge, the ground which is now deputed to this new Commission to consider. I wish to point out that these Committees were appointed by Mr. Thomas with the full public support of Mr. Amery. When my noble friend Earl Buxton introduced a deputation to Mr. Thomas asking for the appointment of such Committees, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the present Under-Secretary of State, was present and it was definitely emphasised to Mr. Thomas that the deputation had the support of Mr. Amery who could not be present.
Without any derogation to the gentlemen who constitute the Commission now proposed I must say that, these two Committees constituted a much stronger body for dealing with the question which this Commission has to consider, and I think that had those Committees been allowed to proceed with their work there would have been no need now for this Commission. I should like to be informed for what reason these Committees were disbanded by Mr. Amery when he succeeded Mr. Thomas, to whose action in appointing them he had agreed. The present Commission includes two members who are extremely well qualified to deal with the particular financial questions referred to them. One of these members was placed on the Commission to watch over the interests of Indians, which are very gravely affected, and that is a very proper precaution. I am confident that the interest of Indians will be efficiently attended to, and the Indian Government have already taken active steps to have the interests of Indians properly represented. I have no doubt whatever that the interests of Indians will be thoroughly inquired into and done justice to. The fourth member of the Commission is a gentleman who is well equipped to deal with the question of native trusteeship
554
and native interests, but he has not administrative experience, and, without any disrespect to the Chairman of the Commission or to Sir George Schuster, both extremely able men in finance, I think they would themselves admit that they come without any previous qualifications for investigating some of the questions which are referred to this Commission.
With regard to the question of constituting a Federal Government, the White Paper, if read without knowledge of the facts, appears to be misleading in the suggestion which it makes in paragraph 4 that there is some general movement on the part of European settlers throughout the territories in favour of closer contact. The White Paper says:—
"The announcement of the holding of the Governors' Conference started a new movement on the part of the European settlers towards closer contact, and two unofficial conferences have been held within the last two years, at Tukuyu in Tanganyika and Livingstone in Northern Rhodesia respectively, which were attended by leading settlers from the various Dependencies. The desirability of federation also figured in the programme of nearly all the candidates at the recent election for the Legislative Council in Kenya. The business communities in this country who are concerned in East Africa have also, through the Joint East African Board and otherwise, indicated their interest in closer union."
I must say I think that that description of the causes which led to the appointment of this Commission reminds me rather unfortunately of Mark Twain's description of the Pennsylvania apple barrel in which there were a great many layers of shavings under a very few layers of sass.
I want really to go to the bones of this matter and bring the purpose of this Commission down to the ground. The so-called conference of settlers which was held at Tukuyu was a picnic party organised by Lord Delamere and paid for by him. He is very active and very much interested in this question of East African federation. It consisted of thirteen members, but there was no representative from Uganda. There were three representatives from Kenya, Lord Delamere, Lord Francis Scott and Major H. F. Ward, a land and estate agent; there were three representatives from Northern Rhodesia, Mr. F. J. Clarke, Mr. T. N. Meiklen and Mr. L. F. Moore, the owner

555
of the Livingstone Mail; two from Nyasaland, Mr. Sandres, a settler, and Mr. M. T. Seale, tobacco planter; and five from Tanganyika. A special correspondent of the East African Standard, referring to the meeting, wired as follows:—
"Lord Delamere has made wonderful arrangements for the comfort of the delegates, many of whom are accompanied by their wives."
That is how large representative conferences on this subject are managed. It is only right to remember that Lord Delamere, who is most interested in Imperial questions, is entitled to try to impress public opinion, but there is no sign of any general movement in East Africa in favour of federation.
The question of federation, in fact, is a forced card. Two influences have conspired to force it, and I do not see why His Majesty's Government should not state frankly the reasons that have conspired to force it. The first reason is the desire, very fascinating to the minds of many people, to establish a great continuous British Dominion from Zanzibar to the Soudan, and as part of that scheme to include the mandated territory of Tanganyika indistinguishably in the British Empire. You constantly see that ambition expressed in letters to The Times and in the East African Press, though, so far as I can judge, it is contrary to the intention of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which has already been somewhat strained by the British Government having procured the insertion in the Tanganyika Mandate of a provision that it might be constituted into "such a Federation" as it is now proposed to approach, whatever that may mean. The second cause is the idea of the very enterprising and spirited leader of the Settlers' Party in Kenya that by establishing a Federal Government with a seat at Nairobi, and with the delegates of that Party in a Federal Legislature on the basis of a proportional representation of Europeans, such as it is claimed there should be, he would put the European landowners of Kenya in a position to dictate internal policy, including native policy, throughout East Africa, as they have largely been able to do hitherto in Kenya, but not elsewhere.
This programme is quite frankly put forward, and the character of its purpose
556
is so definitely conceived that it has been publicly stated that, unless the Kenya contingent is promised an effective vote in the Federal Council and unless as a preliminary the European community in Kenya is given the mastery of public affairs, they will have nothing to do with the Federation. As it is already well known, without any inquiry by a Commission, that under those conditions of the supremacy of Kenya, the representatives of Uganda and Tanganyika, in so far as they have any voice of their own, to say nothing of Zanzibar, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, will for their part equally have nothing to do with a Federation, it is difficult to see, though not, perhaps, difficult to conjecture, why His Majesty's Government have considered it useful to take up this project. The White Paper does not indicate any adequate explanation.
As regards the other question referred to the Commission — namely, how Europeans may be associated more directly with the Imperial Government in responsibility and trusteeship for African natives, the premises are fairly propounded in the White Paper. One thing, however, is not quite clearly stated. I desire to ask whether His Majesty's Government, whilst modifying their view that trusteeship for Africans must be administered by themselves and their agents alone, still adhere to the considered opinion, expressed in the Kenya White Paper of 1923, that in the purposes of that trust the interests of African natives must be paramount and, if and when those interests and the interests of immigrant races conflict, that the former should prevail and not merely be safeguarded. I ask the Government that question. It may well seem reasonable that it should be left to the Commission to interpret what is to be understood by giving Europeans closer association in the responsibility and trusteeship of Government. Indeed, I should have supposed that this was just what the Commission was to consider, were it not for the fact that the Governor of Kenya has already, in addressing the Kenya Council in August last, announced how he interprets it. The immigrants are already associated with the Government by their representation on the Legislative Council, but they have not obtained control. The most obvious interpre-

557
tation of the mode in which association in responsibility is to be exercised is that they are to be given the controlling majority with European predominance which Lord Delamere and his associates have consistently claimed.
Sir Edward Grigg, in his speech, made it clear that he understands that this is the accepted intention. He said:—
"I come to deal with the plans of constitutional development in Kenya. It is recognised in England that the time has come to take into partnership the colonists who have made this country their home."
I think it is a very large statement to say that this is recognised in England. I doubt very much whether it is recognised by my noble friends who represent the Liberal Party, and it is certainly not recognised by the Party with which I am associated. I think that if you went to the ordinary man who thinks about Colonial affairs you would find that it is not by any means recognised by the people of England that the time has come to give the Kenya settlers the power to control the affairs of Kenya. He then goes on to say:—
"If the Commission is to recommend the important constitutional transition from an official to an unofficial majority certain other changes in the Legislature are essential. It must be remembered that with the reduction of the strength of the Government, effective power will pass to the representative as compared with the official members of the Council."
I want to know whether the Governor made that announcement on the instructions and with the authority of the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State already decided that issue which, on being challenged by my noble friend Lord Arnold in February, he said he was far from having decided, and has he instructed the Commission accordingly? If so, is the task of the Commission merely to settle questions of detail for the other trustees? As regards Kenya, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, the British Government is, of course, at liberty to interpret its self-assigned duties of trusteeship as Parliament may allow, but the position in Uganda and Zanzibar is very different, while as regards Tanganyika, the British Government is under its Mandate the sole trustee. I desire to know if it is considered that a trustee of a mandated territory can share the responsibility of its trust with immigrant settlers and, if
558
so, whether discrimination can be made between settlers of different origin.
But before this question of sharing trusteeship is handled, I would desire some light as to the way in which His Majesty's Government consider that their degree of trusteeship may be properly exercised in regard to native affairs. In Southern Rhodesia certain powers of veto on Colonial legislation affecting natives were retained under the new Constitution. I am not going into details of Rhodesian affairs, but I cannot help observing that the Rhodesian Government have taken a certain decision on the Report of the Land Commission, with which I dealt fully in your Lordships' House some time ago, which is manifestly favourable to the interests of Europeans at the expense of those of natives. The Secretary of State has declined to overrule this decision on the ground, as I understand, that he considers that Europeans in Southern Rhodesia must learn to deal equitably with the natives by exercising their own responsibility. We have seen the Constitution of the Cape and of South Africa, and the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, and on each occasion we said that we would retain the protection of natives in our own hands, and on each occasion, after a short time, we say that we cannot interfere with the discretion of these people to whom we have given responsible government, and we abandon any kind of interference or protest on behalf of the natives.
That has gone on step by step and I want to see it stopped in this part of Africa because it is destroying the confidence of African natives in the British Government. I am reminded by this of nothing so much as keeping a happy family of animals and allowing the dog to eat the guinea pig's porridge and the cat to eat the mouse, on the ground that they must learn on their own responsibility to live as a well-ordered family. The rights of the natives are allowed to go by default. The Secretary of State recently sanctioned the principle of child apprenticeship for four years to farmer employers, and the limited application of this to unruly children has been followed by a demand on the part of the farmers, in which the Colonial Secretary of Southern Rhodesia has expressed his sympathy, that a general system of child apprenticeship beginning on tobacco

559
estates, should be legalised. This bears on Kenya. Do His Majesty's Government approve the principle of the apprenticeship of native children to European farmers? The system has been found disastrous and eliminated everywhere else in this country and throughout the British Empire. It was eliminated in Cape Colony years ago. If they do not, does the Secretary of State intend that when Europeans are associated with the Government in their trust, and they advocate, as they are already advocating in Kenya, on the strength of the recent Rhodesian Ordinance, the increased employment of children on coffee and sisal estates, this shall be permitted in order that they may learn, by experience, the proper way of exercising their responsibility?
All that has been learned before in our dealing with native populations, and it need not be allowed now to be re-discovered at the expense of the natives, either of Kenya or Southern Rhodesia. It is to be expected that the Mandates Commission would make short work of such a proposal in regard to Tanganyika.
Before any Commission can soundly advise whether immigrants should be associated with the British Government in executing their trusteeship for natives, the preliminary question arises: Has that trusteeship been, even under present conditions, sincerely exercised, and is it being so exercised? The Duke of Devonshire's declaration that the interests of the natives must be paramount is openly derided in Kenya, not only as unsound in principle, but as a profession which no one has ever taken seriously or attempted to put into practice. I will read your Lordships an extract from a letter of a very prominent settler:—
"The White Paper raises a new bogey. This now shadowy menace (for it has no substance when proved) is the trusteeship idea, implying that all the Imperial Government has done, and all that European settlement is doing, is primarily on behalf of the native. Of course, candidly speaking there is not an atom of fact in their postulate. Why keep to the pretence?"
A fortnight later another correspondent said:—
"Its argument seems to be based on the false premise that trusteeship compels the trustee to throw all his own property into the trust. In actual fact so far as land is
560
concerned, there is no excuse for saying that trusteeship extends beyond the boundaries of the native reserves."
Another correspondent says that "the squatters should be forbidden to keep cattle." He admits that coffee planters are against this proposal, and adds:—
"They reckon that their labour supply would receive such a check as it would never recover again. I do not agree. Economic pressure would force Nandi and Lumbwa out of the reserves, just as it does Kavi-rondo."
Kenya has not been settled upon the principle of trusteeship, and its public policy really never has been and is not that native interests should be paramount. The spirit of the intention expressed in the Kenya White Paper of 1923 appeared to me admirable and I welcomed it. I never questioned its good faith but I doubted, and I doubt, whether what its language appeared to imply could really be alleged to be in fact pursued as a policy, or, if intended, could be maintained in practice. For example, it could not really be accurately said that Kenya had been colonised under the impulse to act in trusteeship, or that the policy of the Colonial Government as in practice administered, at any rate up to 1923, had been dominated by the influence of that motive. Up to that date the interests of the natives had not in fact been treated as paramount, and when other interests and the interests of natives conflicted the latter and not the former had repeatedly been allowed to prevail. I am not saying this as an instance of turpitude on the part of any one, but I am saying it as an historical fact, for it is an historical fact.
In so far therefore as the White Paper of 1923 was a declaration of policy, it was, in asserting the paramount claim of native interests to priority, a new departure of policy. I felt doubt at the time whether it was going to be found a genuine and feasible policy, and whether, in the circumstances, it was a policy which, if acted upon, would be quite fair to all European settlers. No such question has arisen in practice because up to the present time that principle has not been given effect to in the policy of the Government of Kenya. It was, I apprehend, the desire, and may still be taken to be the intention, of the Government that it should be given effect to, but the fact is not made clear in the White

561
Paper, and I ask whether it is the case or not that the native interest is to be paramount. That such a principle should be given prominence in the White Paper and ignored in practice must be disastrous for our reputation as a nation and for our influence among the African peoples. Has the policy been changed, or is it to be changed, under cover of this new White Paper?
The Government of Kenya, since the White Paper, have been, and are still being, pressed to push the natives about, contrary to their interest and desires, but in the interest of the European settlers. In the past the Kikuyu, the Giriama, the Masai, the Nandi, the Wakamba and the Tharaka have all suffered in this way. The Masai, who have been the favourite subjects of these attentions, are now again threatened with the alienation of lands along the railway on which their cattle now graze, which can hardly fail to cause trouble. The Commission, of which Mr. Justice Feetham was recently Chairman, has recommended the inclusion of part of the Samburn reserve in a district for white settlers, and there has been very strong agitation on the part of representatives of the white community that this reserve should be opened to white settlers. It happened only yesterday that I heard that the project of evicting the Samburn tribes had been dropped, and I hope that there will be no question of further molesting or troubling them. If so, I hope that an assurance will be given to that effect. If the principle of native interests being paramount really were established, such a policy could not even be mooted.
The two cardinal institutions of Kenya economic policy are the native hut and poll tax and the finger print law for the registration of natives. The intention of these institutions was in their development, and continues to be in their operation, to force natives into a state of employment and to fix them in that position. A much more active policy for that purpose was formerly attempted by the Colonial Government, but had to be repressed. We had a debate in this House in which the late Lord Emmott took a prominent part. Mr. Churchill and the Duke of Devonshire sternly set their face against the attempt to force labourers into employment. We had
562
reason to hope that that attempt had been effectually repressed. In speaking at the dinner of the African Society on March 13, Sir Edward Grigg said there is no indirect compulsion upon the African to work for the European unless he wishes to do so. He added:—
"There is no indirect compulsion by tax in Kenya. Every native can earn his tax quite easily in his own reserve. If he goes outside to earn his tax it is because he can do so more easily, because he likes the adventure and the new life … The idea that labour is driven out of the reserves by taxation is a gross misrepresentation. The most heavily taxed tribe are the Masai, who pay £1. They send out practically no labour at all."
For reasons which I shall presently give I find those statements entirely unconvincing.
They are in direct conflict with the considered judgment of the East African Commission, consisting of Mr. OrmsbyGore, Major Chinch, and Mr. Linfield, who said:—
"The motives winch impel the African natives to leave their settlements may be said to be, firstly, the necessity of obtaining money with which to pay their taxes"—
which Sir Edward Grigg said they did not need to do—
"secondly, the desire for money with which to purchase clothes and other articles of import; thirdly, the desire for money with which to buy cattle or wives; and, fourthly, the desire to see the world"—
which Sir Edward Grigg said is their principal motive. I leave those two statements in direct confrontation the one with the other, merely saying that all I can learn from time to time with regard to Kenya entirely supports Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Major Church, and Mr. Linfield. I note that in the same speech Sir Edward Grigg admitted that when he went out to Kenya for the first time about eighteen months ago he was new to African problems. I fear that he has not yet completely mastered them. I am in hopes that this Commission may do something to assist him to do so. The reference to the Masai appears to me to be an entire fallacy. The Masai are a special case. They are the wealthiest tribe. They can easily pay their tax of £1, so the tax does exercise no compulsion on the Masai to go out of their reserve to labour, which they would despise doing. The statement I have quoted with regard to the actual operative effect of the tax on the agricultural interests in

563
driving natives out of the reserves I believe to be incontrovertible. I hope to have further opinions formed on it when Sir Hilton Young's Commission goes into the question of how we are exercising our trusteeship.
It is necessary to insist on the fact that the policy of compelling natives to work is advocated by many people on the strength of the doctrine that this is the best way in which the policy of trusteeship can be exercised. I very strongly dissent from that doctrine, but I cannot here fully develop my grounds for dissent, and I cannot expect my own view to be universally accepted. I merely note that the policy of exercising increasing pressure on natives remains continuously active. The latest proposed turn of the screw is the recommendation of the Labour Commission which sat this spring, that the working month in all labour contracts should be increased from a term of one calendar month to a term of thirty working days. The increased employment of children is also urged, and it is recommended that the school holidays should be fixed in the harvest season so that the children may help the planters in their harvest. Why they should not help their parents in the harvest I cannot imagine. Further, I want to point out that a new law is being framed for submission to the Secretary of State, under which not only male employees, but female and other domestic servants, are all to be registered under the Finger Print Ordinance and have their finger prints taken.
I submit that before any judgment is approached as to whether, or in what manner, the employing class of the Colony shall be more fully associated in trusteeship for the natives we ought to be satisfied on two points. The first point is: What is the sense in which the idea of trusteeship is now interpreted? Is it to be exercised directly through a general social policy, or indirectly in the promotion of employment on white estates? The second point is: With what fidelity has this trust in either sense been hitherto discharged by the Colonial Government in the spirit of regarding the interest of the natives as paramount, or even as having an equal claim with those of Europeans? Assuming for a moment that the policy of trusteeship may be exercised through the indirect
564
pressure to work on white estates, which is still in actual practice the dominant policy, any Commission which is to report on future provision for trusteeship ought to begin by examining what reaction the present policy is actually having on native agriculture, on social conditions, and native feeling.
We have conditionally been promised research into social problems of this kind. In two previous debates the noble Earl, Lord Balfour—who I am sorry to learn cannot be here this evening—promised us research on this question. We have heard a great deal of purely scientific research into the general problems of health and disease—which I admit are important. I suggest that in this connection those concerned should follow the dictum that "The proper study of mankind is man." I am bound to say that Sir Edward Grigg shows a really pathetic belief in the value of research, as is shown in the following passage of his speech to the African Society:—
"We must establish some new moral basis for the old tribal customs we destroyed. We must concentrate the very best organised scientific research we can upon that problem."
I wish there were at this moment some Bishops in this House who could tell me in the course of the debate whether they regard it as necessary in this country to set up some new Committee of scientific research in order to find a new moral basis to substitute for the waning influence of the Church upon morals. I myself think that the counsel and advice of that very able and wise man, the late Bishop of Zanzibar, is much more to the point—namely, that you should not undermine the natives' old tribal sanctions until you have a new religion to give them, and that you should endeavour to substitute for their old moral sanctions those which were substituted, by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages for the old moral sanctions of our barbarian ancestors. That is the kind of scientific research which is the sane way of dealing with this question: do not break up their tribal superstitions until you are sure that you have something to substitute for them.
Theoretically the action of His Majesty's Government, in consonance with their White Paper, has recently been that there should be no compulsion on labour, that the Government should pursue a dual

565
policy of encouraging both European and native agriculture. I concur in this policy. I think that the Government should and must discharge its duties to Europeans. But I am afraid that if they do so they will not be able in every case to regard native interests as paramount. That is one reason why I think that word is a little unfortunate if not misleading. Bui I would like to have an impartial, judicially-minded inquiry to report as to whether there is or is not actual pressure, through the hut and poll tax and otherwise, upon natives in Kenya to work on estates. I invite His Majesty's Government honestly to face that question. I find it impossible myself to accept Sir Edward Grigg's complacent dismissal of it.
With respect to the other part of the dual policy, which is of course of importance in all these East African territories, it seems to me that as a preliminary the Commission ought to take note of the statement made in the White Paper of 1923 that at present special consideration is being given to economic development in the native reserves, and that within the limits imposed by the finance of the Colony, all that is possible for the advancement and development of the Africans, both inside and outside of the native reserves, will be done. That statement was made, of course, in good faith, but it cannot be said to have materialised. In the speech to which I have referred Sir Edward Grigg appears to have desired to indicate what had been done. According to his own statement it amounts to hardly anything beyond a pious aspiration for research. I see no sign of things being done which I believe, from my connection with mixed communities both in West Africa and in the West Indies in which an African agriculture had to be developed, could be done and could already have been done. I should like to know from His Majesty's Government, or that the Commission will critically examine, what really has been done, and is being done, and how far the assurance given in the White Paper is being fulfilled.
Two facts impress me in this connection. The first is that the recent Labour Commission which reported on the Colony, of which the Chairman was a public official, report that they calculate that on an average a native family cultivating its holding in the reserves, of 1½ to
566
2¼ acres, produces crops for home consumption which would amount in value to no more than between 55 s. and 75 s. per annum, and saleable produce, live stock and other things, to an average value of 15 s. They argue from this that it must be much better for the natives to work on estates where, if they work the whole year, they can earn 135 s.; that is to say, they think it is better to have half-a-crown a week and a dollar over. The inference that it is better for the natives so to work is highly disputable. But I pass that by. More cash can no doubt be earned. The same Commission estimated the total number of able-bodied men available for labour on estates, if all the natives were taken out of the reserves, at 400,000. The Native Affairs Department recently estimated the number at considerably less than that—356,000. The total amount of the native hut and poll tax last year was nearly £523,000. Every able-bodied man has to help to pay the hut tax of those who are not able-bodied, from which it results that on the Native Affairs Department's figures, the average tax per able-bodied labourer is 29 s. 5d. or, taking the Labour Commission's higher estimate of able-bodied men, between 26 s. and 27 s.
Now the same Labour Commission tells us that the native in the reserve only produces between 70 s. and 90 s. worth of produce a year; so that the tax he has to pay is, at the lowest, about one-third of his total income. Besides this he has to do twenty-four days forced labour, unpaid, on public works in the reserve, which occupies another full month of his time. The public exaction on him, therefore, is five-twelfths of his total family income and the money tax amounts to nearly the whole of the sum which the Commission estimated to be the saleable value of the crops he can raise. Yet Sir Edward Grigg said that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the land and hut tax put any indirect pressure on the native to come out of the reserves to work on the estates. The Labour Commission, writing in an atmosphere in which everybody knows perfectly well the contrary to be the case and has no reason to pretend otherwise, do not dissemble the facts, which prove that the taxation must act as an inducement if not as a compulsion. On their estimate of 135 s. as earned income in the year the hut and

567
poll tax is one-fifth of that income, if they go away from home and work. Alongside of these facts, of which every native is perfectly aware, educated natives observe the spectacle of the white community, when the Colonial Office had instructed the Governor to introduce an Income Tax, refusing to pay it, and chasing the Income Tax Law off the Statute Book. At the same time, the amount of taxation levied from the natives is not only enormously high in comparison with their means, but is actually largely used to pay for public services which are maintained, not for their benefit but for that of Europeans.
I remember that when we had to recast the whole system of peasant taxation in Jamaica it was said again and again in regard to various cases: "Oh, the tax is high, but he, can easily pay it." How can you say, in regard to a very poor man whose total income is valued at from 70 s. to 90 s. a year, that it is other than unjustifiable to impose upon him a tax of one-third, one-fourth or one-fifth of the value of his total income? Until one has been in contact with these people as I have, and has gone right down into the question, one does not know how they feel their taxation. It is only then that you really begin to understand the matter. I am quite sure that Sir Edward Grigg has not had time to do that. Jamaica is a large community of estates and of peasant proprietors where the Kenya idea prevailed that you must force the negro to work on the estates otherwise he will never learn to work, and I took the matter up and recast the whole system of property taxation and placed it on the only reasonable and just basis in such a country—the valuation of all holdings—and the land was properly taxed upon the valuation basis. That reduced the average of the peasant's house tax from about, 13 s. to about 4s. and distributed the balance properly on the white landowners. The white landowners, very differently from the Kenya white landowners, accepted my policy because they recognised that the thing had to be done. They had to admit that it was a hardship on the peasant to have to pay such unjust and inequitable taxes and that it was ridiculous to say that he could easily pay them. I speak on this subject with some warmth because I speak with very considerable knowledge.
But if it is the fact that native cultivation can only produce about 80 s. worth in the year, after more than twenty years of European Government and after what we were told was the active policy four years ago to help them to produce more, then that proves to me that their interests have been grossly neglected. On peasant holdings of the same size in Jamaica, a negro peasant, family, by negro methods of cultivation—improved very greatly by the activities of the local agricultural societies but not essentially different—easily raises produce worth £40 a year and in thousands of cases more. The figure I give was ascertained before the War; but I have no doubt that the productivity is greater now. The Report of the Labour Commission, if reliable, surely proves that the Government have not done all or nearly all that was possible to do for the development of the native interests.
The first two necessities for such development are roads and markets. In a recent debate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, asked what was the use of having roads without railways. I wish I could have left him to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who would have agreed that the public roads were really of great use long years before railways were invented. The first need of peasant proprietors may be said to be roads and roads and roads, and then they get markets. As soon as you get roads you get markets. "Three women make a market." As soon as you get roads and markets you find a very great amount of prosperity springing up simply as a result of trade between different parts of the Colony. A great deal of the prosperity of Jamaica is due to trading between different parts of the same island which produce different things. Very much more so is that the case when they grow staples for export as they do in Jamaica. But the first thing you have to do is to make roads and to allow markets to spring up.
The Colonial Government in Kenya have not made roads; they have made, and are making, railways to enable syndicates to unload the land of which they have obtained possession. The latest example is the railway from Gilgil to Thomson's Falls on which £235,000 is to be spent so as to develop the lands of the East African Land Development

569
Syndicate. I am not going to abuse the South African Land Development Syndicate. It is an excellently managed company, the Chairman of which is the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh. I am not saying a word against its finance or its management. It is a good company from a City point of view, but not from the point of view that I am considering. I desire to point out that this syndicate, at the invitation of the Foreign Office, was granted 500 square miles of land in Kenya on condition that it did certain works of development. It has done certain works of development and is now in possession of a considerable amount, of land. It has got rid of some of its land and it is gradually getting rid of the land still in its possession, having fulfilled its contract to improve the land. I have the report of the syndicate, which says:—
"Taking our expenditure up-to-date upon the development of our land we charge on our land account at the rate of 7s. 10 d. per acre. We are now selling land at the rate of £2 7s. 10 d. per acre."
That is to say they are already making a profit of £2 an acre on every acre they sell.
The report goes on:—
"We have been promised a railway from Gilgil to Thomson's Falls which we estimate will put up the value of our lands near the stations to £7 10 s. an acre, will put up other not quite such good land to £4 per acre and land suitable for cattle and dairying to £2 an acre, and we may reliably calculate that the balance of the land remaining in our possession now is worth £400,000."
The subscribed share capital of the com-pay is £111,000 and that value is to be put up by building a railway which is to cost £235,000 and which the chief engineer of the railway says will at the beginning mean an annual loss of £35,000. I have his report in which he says:—
"We never can expect to come out at a less loss than £10,000 a year."
It is perfectly clear that after the railway is made that £235,000 worth of the £400,000 value to which I have referred is a free gift from the Government of Kenya and it is a free gift at the expense of the people who pay the taxes. The East African Commission says that three quarters of native taxes go for the benefit of white settlers and only a quarter for the benefit of the natives. Of course the syndicate sell their lands
570
to settlers at whatever they can get the settlers to pay, and the settlers are left to fight out the difficulties in regard to labour. Pressure has to be put on the natives finally.
If the white community or the Imperial Government want to develop an East African estate and say it is worth our while to give all this money away to shareholders of the East African Syndicate, well and good. I am not complaining of it. You say that is acting as trustee for the natives and that you are developing East Africa in the interests of the natives although you are not paying your way. That may be good policy from the point of view of commercial Imperialism and may be good business from the point of view of the City and as regards the fulfilment of the company's contract. I am sure they fulfil their contract in a most admirable and public-spirited manner, but regarded as public finance it seems to me crazy and imbecile. I am sure the members of the Liberal Party will agree with me, as the whole of my Party does, that it is imbecile finance to give away a vast amount of new country and then to make a railway which is never to pay its way and make a present to the company of the whole of the value of that railway. I repeat, that is crazy and imbecile finance. If it were not for the extraordinary views the Foreign Office had twenty-five years ago for the development of East Africa in that manner, the Colony would never have been settled by that method of development, but would have had a more sane and sensible method of development applied to it.
I would like to quote again from Mr. Ormsby-Gore's Report on West Africa. In this Report he says:—
"The foundation of a sound agricultural policy must necessarily begin with the production of the food of the people. Food comes first and economic crops for export should come second."
I entirely agree with that. Then he says:—
"I wish to emphasise this as a general principle. The development of economic crops at the expense of production of food for local consumption is most undesirable,"—
that is what is going on in Kenya today—
"and a plentiful supply of cheap food for the native and non-native inhabitant of

571
the countries is the first essential. The study and development of native food supplies, both animal and vegetable, should be one of the first duties of Government, and there is no reason why West Africa should have to rely on imported supplies."
Does the Secretary of State consider these observations inapplicable to Kenya and East Africa? Some years ago the Nandi tribe were encouraged to grow wheat in their reserve. They did so with great success and produced an exceedingly satisfactory yield. As this mode of production threatened to compete with European white wheat growers local milling concerns refused to grind the wheat into flour, with the result that this promising experiment was nipped in the bud and has now ceased.
I will give one more quotation from the East African Commission's Report of which I have already spoken:—
"The chief Native Commissioner of Kenya, in a Paper submitted to us, estimated that in 1923 the maximum amount that could be considered to have been spent on services provided exclusively for the benefit of the native population was slightly over one-quarter of the taxes paid by them.
They pay about £800,000 to £900,000 a year in taxation. The report goes on:—
"As a concrete example, we were informed that in the last ten years the Kitui Akamba have paid £207,749 in direct taxes alone, and that you may travel through the length and breadth of Kitui reserve and you will fail to find in it any enterprise, building, or structure of any sort which the Government has provided at the cost of more than a few sovereigns for the direct benefit of the natives. The place was little better than a wilderness when I first knew it twenty-five years ago, and it remains a wilderness to-day as far as our efforts are concerned. If we left that district to-morrow the only permanent evidence of our occupation would be the buildings we have erected for the use of our tax-collecting staff."
In connection with this question of taking into association with us representatives of the immigrant community as joint trustees I want to ask: In what spirit is that trust likely to be interpreted? I have said nothing I hope in derogation of the settlers this afternoon. In our last debate the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made an urgent appeal that we should give the settlers a rest. Well, I have given the settlers a rest this afternoon, but I really cannot help quoting political statements that are made by representatives of the settlers.
I will read to your Lordships an extract from a speech made by the Hon. Captain Coney, a member of the Legislative Council, on February 16, 1926. He is reported as follows:—
"The position of the labour market was really serious. 'You will never solve the problem until you have control of the country—when you have that you will immediately solve the problem'—
that is the labour problem—
"The policy of the Government should be that every male native of the country must work. Could the meeting define to him how that policy could be enforced? Did the meeting suggest for a moment that Government could force labour? He thought that all the Government could say was this: 'You must work—either in the reserves or on the farms, but work you must.' If that policy were to be applied they would have the politicians at home determined to 'do us in.'"
I hope, my Lords, that they would.
"There was no solution except to get control of the country in our own hands."
That is the programme—"to get control of the country in our own hands"—and the purpose is to force labour on the natives. I have another statement, made by Major Grogan, to whom Lord Emmott referred on a former occasion as having treated Sir Edward Northey to "a violent and insolent tirade." Major Grogan says:—
"A good sound system of compulsory labour would do more to raise the nigger in five years than all the millions that have been sunk in missionary efforts for the last fifty. … Then let the native be compelled to work so many months in the year and call it compulsory education, as we call our weekly bonnet parades church. Under such a title, surely the most delicate British conscience may be at rest."
Further, I wish to know why they have authorised the scheme of a white burgher force in Kenya, with conscription for white men. To defend whom against whom? Everyone knows perfectly well that the force is conceived on Afrikander lines to hold down the natives: the natives know that better than anyone else. If you want a force for the maintenance of internal order, you must associate in it the people among whom order is to be kept. All that is required is a force of African rankers under white officers. I want to warn the Government against acceptance of the suggestion of the Commission under Mr. Justice Feetham, that white landowners should be given judicial functions as lay magistrates

573
to try cases under the masters and servants law. I have no objection to giving justices of the peace at petty sessions power to deal with ordinary police cases, to issue process and to discharge other necessary functions of justices of the peace, but the thing which caused the Jamaica Rebellion, to which the most Rev. Primate referred on a previous occasion, was, first, that the black man could not get land and, secondly, that master and servant cases were tried by lay magistrates representing the employing classes. Even if you are confident that you can get independent, disinterested men to try cases under the masters and servants law it is not safe from the point of view of feeling among the natives that you should do so. You must give the natives confidence that in cases which concern questions of labour or wages they will be judged by disinterested persons, and that means by stipendiary magistrates or district commissioners.
If and when the Commission has examined the present interpretation of trusteeship on the lines I have suggested, and if in reply to my question the Government will indicate what is their present interpretation of that duty, they will then be in a better position to examine the problem of wider association. And in that connection I suggest that it will be necessary for them to examine and faithfully to report what has been and is the attitude of the leaders of settlers' opinion towards the advertised policy of the direct promotion of native economic interests. I do not like this talk about trusteeship. I was brought up in the Colonial Office when they did not profess to exercise trusteeship, but to maintain the principles of freedom and absolute justice in dealing with native races. In the West Indies, in West Africa and elsewhere we did not say we were trustees. We said: "We are Englishmen and we are not going to have any one class, because it is an employing class, given power to oppress a class which depends on it for employment." We took away the power of interested judgment and we appointed stipendiary magistrates. Until we can realise in these Colonies what Mr. Churchill said was our aim and object for these territories, until we can give equal political rights to men of equal civilisation, it is not safe to place the control and administration of these mixed
574
races in the hands of a few men who, high minded as they may be, have definite personal interests to serve.
You must not think those eighteen Jamaicans upon whom the negroes of Morant Bay fell in 1865 were sinners above all other planters. I have known many of the old type of West Indian planter. They have been my greatest friends and they have been the most honourable men in the world, but they could not reasonably have been trusted with the continuance of supreme control over the whole industrial and judicial affairs of the country. I do think it would be much more wholesome if, instead of making idealistic professions that the interest of the natives are paramount, we were to stick to the old British principle that, we will not give interested men power over men who have to work for them and say that we will see that absolute equality before the law in social and political matters, is maintained. Those are the principles which have built among African peoples confidence in British administration and it is departure from those principles in South Africa that has caused the menace of suspicion and hatred amongst Africans against the white men. I want to see the boundary drawn at the Zambesi, and I also want to see the old principles of British justice maintained without any "soft sawder" about trusteeship. Until we can maintain equality and give equal political rights we must not give any class a privileged position. I beg to move.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I feel considerable diffidence in addressing your Lordships' House, but I think I have one advantage over the noble Lord who initiated this debate and that is that I spent several years (and they were happy years) of my life in East Africa. Indeed, I think I may claim to be one of those his Lordship referred to a week or two ago as the filibustering clique of land-grabbers. I did not grab very much land, but I hope that will not prevent me being a filibuster because from my youth up I have envied that term, although I do not even now know exactly what it means. I understand that the object of this debate is to deal with the dual policy in East Africa, and by the dual policy I have always understood

575
that what is meant is that while we recognise to the full our responsibilities to the natives of the country we are also determined to further by every means in our power the development of the country, first, by indigenous natives and also by immigrants, whether they be white or black. That policy was first put into writing, I understand, in 1921, in the Command Paper, I think, 1922 and was affirmed this year and slightly amplified in Command Paper No. 2904.
The putting into writing of that policy created, I think, some little stir over here, but remarkably little in the Colony itself. I think the reason for that was that the policy there affirmed is, in fact, the exact policy that His Majesty's Government have been endeavouring to carry out ever since, through their Colonial Office, they first took over the administration of those lands. I freely admit that there have been mistakes in the carrying out of their policy. Such mistakes were quite inevitable. There have been handles given to those people whose joy it is to think that their fellow countrymen in foreign parts can do no right. But as a whole I think that His Majesty's Government have, both in the spirit and in the letter, endeavoured since we went there to carry out that policy. I understand that it is suggested that the present Government out there is failing to carry out that policy in one or more respects. I do not think that the noble Lord who will speak for the Government will find any great difficulty in answering the charges that have been made. My reason for that opinion is that the Government out there is, to all intents and purposes, the Governor, and the Governor at the present moment is, as we have heard, Sir Edward Grigg, a man distinguished in many spheres of life—as a writer, as a soldier and not least as a legislator in another place, where he represented the Party of the majority of noble Lords who sit opposite.
I think that the really debatable point in regard to this last White Paper lies in the question of the status that the white population over there are to have. I think it is clearly expressed in the last White Paper that the Government recognise that those settlers, like settlers elsewhere, are to have their right share in the government of the country. Yet there are those who think that they should have
576
no share, or as little share as possible, in developing the country and helping the natives. They would shut them up within community walls, treating them as if they were a leprous community. Who are these much-criticised white settlers? Of another criticised individual, the British soldier, Mr. Rudyard Kipling once said:
"He ain't no thin red hero
Nor he ain't no blackguard too,"
and I think the same words might be applied to this individual. After all, who are these settlers? I venture to say that they are merely a representative section of the white races of the Empire and, with all due respect to the noble Lord, I hold that no mean compliment. Your Lordships will remember that the population which counts out there is not those few rich people who go out for a few months and then come back, mainly for the edification of the weekly pictorials, but those people who live and have their being out there.
A large proportion of them are Cape Dutch—the Boers whose wrongs some noble Lords opposite have doubtless in the past championed, but whose great qualities I am sure there is no one in the House to-day who does not recognise. Another considerable portion consists of Scotsmen—a very considerable proportion—and surely constant repetition has convinced your Lordships that no ill thing comes out of Scotland. There are also Irishmen, both loyalists and Sinn Feiners, and there are Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. If the majority of them may yet be—I do not know that they are—Englishmen, need we apologise for that? I do not think so. They have one crime and one outstanding offence, and that is that their elected and avowed leader is a member of your Lordships' House. Lord Delamere has won that position, unique among the colonials and unique among the native population, through pressure of sincerity, through pressure of great ability, but mainly—I do not suppose the noble Lord is likely to believe this—by the fact of his unselfish and ungrudging devotion to the development of that country and to the interests of all sections of it.
LORD OLIVIER: Might I ask why the noble Lord surmises that I shall not believe that?
LORD CRANWORTH: I judge you, my Lord, from your writings.
LORD OLIVIER: I have said nothing about Lord Delamere except quotations from his own writings and statements.
LORD CRANWORTH: I do not refer to your statements here, but to your writings in other quarters, where I have followed them with great interest. After all, this is not the first time that the noble Lord has harped upon this theme. Your Lordships have heard him here before, and those of us who have followed his writings with interest will have observed his letters, his articles, his replies and his reviews in papers and magazines throughout the length and breadth of the land.
LORD OLIVIER: I do not see—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD CRANWORTH: Early last August a lady, a Mrs. Mordaunt, wrote a letter to The Times. She wrote from a small plantation in Kenya a long and interesting letter. The main motive of it was, I understand, to suggest that the attacks on our fellow-countrymen in Kenya by various people might cease. This brought the noble Lord into the lists. He wrote a lengthy and dignified reply which contained much erudite, though to me surprising, information, such as that the ration of a native working for an Englishman there was half a pound of corn meal with an occasional snack of meat.
LORD OLIVIER: The noble Lord will not find—
LORD CRANWORTH: I have the letter in my pocket.
LORD OLIVIER: The noble Lord will not find that in his pocket.
LORD CRANWORTH: Tie main effect of the letter was that this lady should not have written without long and careful study of the subject. I am quite certain that this was not the intention of the noble Lord, but ninety-nine out of a hundred people who read that letter would have gained the impression that the noble Lord had obtained his knowledge from long, careful and exhaustive study of the question on the spot. I may be wrong—the noble Lord will correct me if I am—tout I understand that he has never served there either as
578
an official or as a soldier, and that he has never lived there as a settler, planter or trader. I do not even know that he has set foot there as a globe-trotter. I am not one of those who think that a fair and just opinion cannot be formed by any one who has not studied a question locally and gained local knowledge. On the contrary, I think that very often a fairer, clearer and juster judgment can be made when it is unclouded by local influence and local politics. But I think that this postulates one thing: an impartial mind. It postulates a mind free from bias and preconceived ideas.
If you have preconceived ideas you can take what evidence you like and you can disregard the evidence on the other side. If you think these settlers are all high-souled altruistic patriots you can search the local Press and find evidence to convince you that you are right, but if, on the other hand, you believe them to be a greedy, sordid crew of slave-drivers then, again, you can look at the speeches and writings of disgruntled officials and others and come to the conclusion that you are correct. I cannot but think that it would be for the good of all concerned if the noble Lord could find time to leave us for two or three or four years in order to study the question on the spot. If he did so it, would involve that amount of time perhaps, because it would necessitate the learning of one if not more of the native languages without which you cannot get at the mind of the native, since what you get out of his mouth will probably be what you wish. If, however, the noble Lord could spend that amount of time out there, I venture to think that he would come back with an appreciation of the difficulties "which face our colonists and officials in their task out there and also with an appreciation of the way in which they have faced their task and of the great progress they have made. I make that appeal to the noble Lord. He demands earnestly and frequently, though I think quite unnecessarily, fair play for the natives. I ask him on his part to give some measure of fair play to his fellow countrymen in the same place.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I understand that it would be convenient to the noble Lord who will reply for the Government that I should raise the specific question which I wish to raise before he

579
answers Lord Olivier. I think, however, that I must take some exception to the speech to which we have just listened. I do not profess to have read all Lord Olivier's pamphlets and papers, but I have read a good many of them and I certainly do not carry away the impression which the noble Lord opposite seems to have carried away. With regard to what happened to-day surely he has entirely misinterpreted what Lord Olivier said. I heard him myself say that it wag not his object to criticise the residential white population in Kenya and, so far from criticising them, he developed his view, in which I entirely concur, of what he thinks is the best form of administration founded on his great experience in matters of this kind. It was this: Make quite certain that every man, white or black, has equality of justice. Do not put the black man under his employer, but as far as possible have an independent stipendiary, and in every case let every black man feel that his interests and rights, whatever they may be, are to be as fully and justly considered as those of any white man.
I should have thought that we all desired that. I expect that is what the noble Lord desires. He may think that there is some better way of arriving at it. That, however, I do not want to discuss this afternoon, nor have I the local knowledge which he has and which Lord Olivier has. I think, however, the noble Lord has mistaken the whole purport of my noble friend's speech and I certainly hope that when he looks over those documents again he will find that he has made this mistake. At any rate, I think he will admit that so far as this afternoon's discussion is concerned, Lord Olivier has not embarked upon those questions with which he was apparently prepared to deal, but has merely stated an impression, with which I understand the noble Lord opposite agrees—his desire and his views, speaking from a Liberal standpoint, always having been, and now being, to ensure that equality of justice is provided as between black man and white man. It was on that foundation that the black man in Africa has for so long been contented with his treatment by the white races. I should have thought that that was the teaching of history; it was at any rate what my noble friend impressed upon your Lordships this afternoon.
580
All this is, however, a digression. The particular point which I wish to ask the noble Lord is as to the possibility of including in a federal body, such as is proposed here, I understand, a mandated State. There was a convention of the organisations in this district which I understand passed a resolution which appears to me to be of a straightforward character. They said that they felt there could not be this federal system as between a mandated State and other States, and that in their view the first real step was to get rid of the Mandate. Of course, that is an impossible suggestion. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord will not say that this Government, or any other Government of this country, was seeking to get rid of the special obligations placed upon a Mandatory under the Covenants of the League.
Let me remind your Lordships what these obligations are. First of all, we are not in the position of voluntary trustees, in the sense of accepting some policy which we think may be favourable to the mandated people, but we are under the obligation to treat them as trustees, which is a very different proposition altogether. More than that, we are not sovereigns of the mandated territory. We only have such powers as have been conferred upon the Mandatory through the agency of the League of Nations. We have not the power of land ownership and land distribution, which sovereignty has been held to confer upon a sovereign people for the time being. It is perfectly clear that all that has been done as regards these mandated territories is that there has merely been a surrender of sovereignty. There has been no transfer of sovereignty of any kind, and whatever rights we have to administer they are not sovereign rights or the rights of owners of Dominions, but merely as trustees of the native under the jurisdiction of the Council of the League which acts through the advice of the Mandatory Commission.
It is a little more than that, because the definition is very precise in Article 22. It is that the
"well-being and development of such peoples forms a sacred trust of civilisation."
It goes on to say this:—
"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage

581
of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations"
most capable of carrying on such administration. In fact, we are not dealing with Dominions, we are dealing with peoples whom we have undertaken to educate in order that as soon as possible they may be able to stand on their own rights and be masters in their own country. Of course, in our own territories we may set up various forms of government and devolve various powers upon them. But where we are trustees we cannot do that. This country has no right to divest itself of the responsibility we have undertaken, and which we have to exercise directly for the benefit of the natives in the particular districts. Is that really possible under a federal system? I know what is stated as regards Article 10 of the Tanganyika Mandate. That states that so long as mandatory responsibilities are not interfered with you may have federation with a district of which we have the entire responsibility. I do not myself very well see how that is to be carried out, because where in one district we should have a free hand in the other district we should be the Mandatory only. But that is all that Article 10 says; it does not go beyond that. It does not give any powers which would interfere in any way with the responsibilities of the Mandatory, as created by the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Let me give one illustration. Take Southern Rhodesia. Take the legislation which has already been sanctioned about the indenturing of young children; or take the legislation, which has not been sanctioned but which has been referred back, about the control of natives. That would not be applicable to a mandated territory. On many occasions statements have been made as though Tanganyika stood in the same position as our Dominions which are part of the Empire. The two are essentially distinct. It was upon that point I wanted to lay emphasis. I thought it would be better to do so before the noble Lord rose to reply.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, we have all listened with interest to the exhaustive statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. He has covered so much ground
582
that I am sure I shall be excused if I do not follow him into every ramification of his argument. He was kind enough to give us notice of certain questions that he wished to ask, and I shall certainly answer all I can, although a certain list of supplementary questions came in only this morning, some of them of so detailed an order that it is quite impossible to give more than a general answer to one or two of them.
I may say straight away that I am at once debarred from entering into a very considerable section of the matters that he has raised. The noble Lord, as a private individual, at the present time has every right—indeed it is most opportune that he should do so—to raise the questions which are now about to be considered by the Commission which has recently been appointed. But very obviously he cannot expect a member of His Majesty's Government to offer an opinion on the four principal subjects which have been handed over in the reference. The question of federation or closer union is one the area of territories is another, and there is the question of the composition of the Legislative Council and the duties that will be allocated to them, and various matters affecting dual policy development. The noble Lord would remind me at once, in the first debate after that Commission had reported, if I in any way indicated the lines on which this Committee should proceed. Fortunately those gentlemen have the opportunity—and we will see that they have it, even those who have already left the country—of reading the noble Lord's speech, and it is most desirable that his point of view should be presented and considered by them at the same time as they consider the views of those who do not hold exactly similar ideas.
But even if I leave out those questions which are definitely referred to this Commission I shall have ample matter to deal with in referring to the questions which he has raised. May I take these questions in order? In the first place, the noble Lord raises the point as to the composition of the Committee, and the reason why Lord Southborough's Committee was not asked to continue its remit. May I point out to the noble Lord that these two Commissions appointed by Mr. Thomas, most eminent in their way, were set up in 1924 and that one of the Commissions, that under Mr.

583
Ormsby-Gore, visited the Colony, and, having such opportunities of going over the ground, and also having that great advantage which all of us know who have ever been on a Commission, of being able to write their Report very quickly, when, with the whole time at their disposal, they are tied up together on the boat, were able to produce their Report by the end of 1924, or certainly early in 1925. It was in your Lordships' hands in the month of April, 1925. Mr. Amery's decision, after having got that Report, made by men on the spot, was a wise one in bringing that body's work to a conclusion. It did valuable work, the record of which is at the present moment in the archives of the Colonial Office, and already certain portions of that work have been taken over by the Committee of Civil Research, as Lord Southborough was informed at the time.
This new Commission, which I am afraid that the noble Lord in his remarks rather disparaged, is one of very strong personnel. I do not think I need say anything about the Chairman, who has shown his ability in very wide financial fields, but I should like to say something about the second gentleman referred to, Sir George Schuster. That gentleman has lately administered probably the biggest experiment in co-operation, finance and government of natives ever conducted within the Empire. It may be news to the noble Lord that under their work, which is being done in the Soudan at the present time, roughly £1,500,000 were distributed among 10,000 tenants working there this year, that the amount will be larger next year, and, should further water be supplied from those lakes about which we have already had discussions in this House, the sum which may be divided among the population of roughly a quarter of a million might be very considerably greater than it is at the present time.
I would like to join my noble friend who sits behind me in what he said about the disparagement which the noble Lord has made of the efforts of the British race all through this great country. I myself visited this area 26 or 27 years ago. At that time the population did not even know the value of money. It was impossible to buy even a sheep except by means of barter.
584
There were no irrigation works; the people were dependent entirely on rain for cultivation; they had no money and they were in a state of starvation about once in every five years. Those people to-day will have, as I say, £1,500,000 distributed amongst them. Surely a gentleman who has had that experience of native work, with the very closest care of the interests of the natives throughout, is a worthy individual to take part in such a Commission as this.
Still on the question of the personnel of the Commission, the noble Lord says that Indian interests should be represented. The gentleman who is appointed is not appointed in connection with Indian interests, but because he has first-rate experience of dual government. The noble Lord referred, I thought, a little disparagingly to the gentleman who had experience of native education. May I remind the noble Lord that this gentleman has been for a considerable time on the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Native Education, has considerable executive knowledge and is a man whose opinions are generally considered, I think, as of the very highest importance on the question of the moral and intellectual advancement of the natives on the best lines? For these reasons I at once say what I can in contradiction of the opinions expressed by the noble Lord, that this is not a qualified and adequate Commission to carry on this work.
Turning now to the questions which are outside of this reference and which I have the liberty to discuss with the noble Lord, there is first the question of what may be called the paramount position or the trusteeship. The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has mentioned, I might almost say with alternate blessing and condemnation, the White Paper of 1923. He read a certain excerpt from it in which it is said that
"the interests of the African natives must be paramount and that if and when those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict the former should prevail."
He did not go on to read the following sentence, which is important—that
"obviously the interests of the other communities, European, Indian or Arab must severally be safeguarded."
On the big, broad principles which the noble Lord has raised in this debate, I

585
do not think there is very much between him and His Majesty's Government. Speaking for myself, I should say most certainly that I share the noble Lord's doubt of the value of catchwords such as paramountcy and trusteeship, and I do so all the more if the word "paramountcy," which can be translated in a great many different ways, is not accurately applied in all of them. In dealing with native races it is infinitely better to use terms that you can certainly give effect to than to pretend to do more and not be able to do it.
I would submit that there is not the least change in the policy which His Majesty's Government has now, or had in 1923, or that I submit it had during the time the noble Lord's friends were in power. I do not intend to attempt to define "paramountcy," but I would say that it would be satisfactory if it was viewed from the Colonial Office end and that no action should be taken without the fullest consideration, in the first place, of the native interests. Further, that at the administrative end no action should be taken without considering not only the immediate but the future effect on the natives in the districts affected. I would certainly bless the noble Lord's remark that equal-handed justice is the first objective, with equal opportunities for both sides, and I would submit that the dual policy which is now being considered is the one which is most likely to work to that end.
On the subject of trusteeship, the noble Lord made a great many criticisms, but they were all directed to one line. I do not think that a single word he uttered in his speech—and I followed it very closely—gave credit for any work that had been done or attempted. I would submit that not only in Kenya but all through the whole of those great African Colonies most important advances are being made at the present time, and that the native is not left out but is gaining more than anyone there. The noble Lord shakes his head. I know those countries. I have spent many years in them and I know something about them, as does the noble Lord who sits behind me. Let me give your Lordships some examples of what has been done. In Kenya there is the recent gazetting of the whole of the boundaries of the
586
native reserves. It is true, and I will come to it later when I deal with the particular tribes, that some of these boundaries are not even yet quite decided. Lines have been pointed out by different owners and it is not like dividing up the fields in England. Unless you know these great countries and the wildernesses there, where at one time there may be a drought in one area and good grassland in another, it is difficult to realise the difficulties. At times people think that they ought to have the right to graze in their areas and at times the custom lapses. I would appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, who knows something about grazing rights even in our little island, how difficult they are to define. How much more difficult, then, is it to arrive at these rights and to define them in a great country in which our own little island would be as a mere dot on the surface of a sea?
Talking only of recent events in regard to the trusteeship, there has been the amendment of the Crown Lands Ordinance to prevent the permanent alienation of land. Then there is the proposed Native Land Trust Board, which, when constituted, will no doubt be able to do excellent work. There are other lines of development also. In the last few years no less than fifty-five medical officers have been working practically entirely on native work. There is a great increase in necessary native hospitals—a work only just begun. The expenditure on medical services was £118,000 only three years ago and next year it will be over £204,000. It has practically doubled in a few years. Then civil research, which I mentioned before, has concentrated on certain very important lines, such as dietetics. The whole of that question, which is an economic as well as a health question, is an example of the work that is being done here as well as over there. Then there are special inquiries into tuberculosis and leprosy, two matters which are of the greatest importance to the natives.
A big advance has also been made on the educational side. That work has now been divided into work which is done in the villages in the improvement of village life; that is, the native life in their own reserved areas. There are schools for the artisan and the craftsmen and schools also for the better educated classes. Kikuyu and Kabete are places which are well known not only in Kenya

587
but outside it. The whole question of veterinary and agricultural research is being reconsidered. I have had the misfortune to sit on two Committees for nearly two years, and I can assure your Lordships that the very greatest interest is being taken not only in this country but by the officials of all our Colonies on the question of the advance of veterinary and agricultural research.
The noble Lord referred to the question of agriculture. I should like to assure him that the policy laid down by Mr. Ormsby-Gore of the importance of food for the local population before considering the question of export, is still the policy of His Majesty's Government. The exports of native produce in 1922 were of the value of £176,000 and this had grown to £564,000 in 1925. The amount sank in 1926 to £470,000 but that was, to a large extent, due to the fact which the noble Lord brought out, that they are concentrating upon the production of hides and maize for local consumption. When they have completed that policy no doubt they will, in a very short time, raise the exports with the same rapidity as formerly. I think what I have said to your Lordships indicates a very great increase of knowledge and prosperity and shows that His Majesty's Government here and the Government overseas are very much concerned in the progress of these Colonies. I might go on to show your Lordships the work which is being done in regard to demonstration plots in the reserved areas.
LORD OLIVIER: Can the noble Lord say how many of those plots there are?
LORD LOVAT: I cannot say offhand. The question of maize seed distribution and the question of vaccine are amongst the most important aspects of the work done. These efforts will lead to a much greater prosperity locally and to much greater production. Another point is the question raised by the noble Lord in his attack upon Lord Denbigh, whom he has apparently frightened out of the House.
LORD OLIVIER: I made no attack whatever.
LORD LOVAT: The attack was perhaps on the Government for having allowed certain things to occur. The noble Lord suggested that land was given for nothing and that great gain to the company
588
was certain to accrue. May I remind the House of two things? When I read the prospectus of a land company I view it with the greatest suspicion. Of Lord Denbigh's company, which no doubt is a most reputable one, I am afraid I had not heard before to-day. The noble Lord quoted a statement about the expectation that that company was going to make £400,000 immediately and suggested that it was disgraceful that the land should have been given to it. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to invest his money in that company, but if I see that land is to be sold for great sums I ask how, and when and where. Lord Denbigh, as he passed by me, informed me that the company in question had already been in existence over twenty years. They introduced 5,000 merino sheep to develop the country, and had many other expenses.
But the point I want to make is this. If you can induce people to go into the highlands of Kenya, a great deal of which is unpopulated, and put their money there, you cannot expect them to do that for nothing. People can invest at 6 or 7 per cent, here at home with ease, whereas if they go to a country to develop it they take a great risk, and of course they expect to make money. By all means see that the native is safeguarded but if you have to wait twenty-two years for a return on your money you expect to make something. If you are to get four times your capital in twenty-two years it only works out at something like 5 or 6 per cent. per annum. I have not heard of this company before to-day and I do not in the least know whether the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, or Lord Denbigh are correct.
I have, however, been led away from the question of railways. May I point out that this fifty miles of railway which the noble Lord says is to develop the property of Lord Denbigh's company, will, I have no doubt, also develop a great many other properties? This railway as well as a corresponding railway through native territory shows that if the land owned by the company is developed the native land also is developed in the same way. The noble Lord asked to be told the amount of railway running through native land and I understand there is not less than 371 miles of

589
railway which run by or through native lands. I think I have said enough to show that the native lands are being well looked after in this respect.
The noble Lord in his next question branches off to Rhodesia. If I may have your Lordships' attention I would like to follow him to Rhodesia for a moment. The noble Lord said the results of the Land Commission were translated into methods manifestly favourable to the European. If I remember correctly, I heard the noble Lord say here no longer ago than June last that this was the most broadminded and liberal document he had seen from any official source with regard to Rhodesian land.
LORD OLIVIER: I said that of the Report, not of the policy of the Rhodesian Government.
LORD LOVAT: I am coming to that point and I am glad the noble Lord interrupted me. What is the action of the Southern Rhodesian Legislative Assembly? They have approved generally of the Report. On one important matter there were two alternatives and they decided on the second. I have not the least doubt if they had decided on the other alternative the noble Lord would have said that they should have adopted the first.
The noble Lord referred to the juvenile apprenticeship law. May I say in the first place that the Act is one for regulating the employment of native juveniles and docs not deal with apprenticeship, which is regulated by another law that has been in force since 1901? The main object of the new Act is to give the Government power to control the employment of native juveniles who seek employment voluntarily. Children with no control get into the town and I believe some of them are female children. It is therefore possible for the Government through the Native Commissioner to take action. He may in the absence of a parent or guardian contract a male juvenile for a period of service not exceeding six months to any fit and proper person willing to engage him. We have the Southern Rhodesian Government's definite statement that it is not anticipated that a Native Commissioner will exercise his powers of contracting juveniles under this section more than once or twice a year. They point out that the juveniles in question will be
590
those who have entered a town without the consent of their parents or guardians and that it is eminently desirable the Native Commissioners should have the power to assume guardianship in such cases. This is not an apprenticeship law. That was passed in 1901 and, as the noble Lord is aware, that law has existed all that time.
I pass now to the question raised about the Labour Committee's Report. Surely an experienced official, as the noble Lord is, is fully aware that in every Colony Committees are appointed to investigate every sort of thing. Those Committees report sometimes, wisely and sometimes not wisely. I can imagine that the noble Lord, when he has occupied high positions, has had experience of Committees whose Reports were not accepted. Those Reports carry no weight until the Government decides to take action on them. The mere fact that this Committee, which the noble Lord says was constituted almost entirely of these hated settlers, made certain calculations, does not mean that we should accept them here as a final statement on the subject.
The next point that the noble Lord raised was the question of the burgher force. Surely in great countries like Kenya, possibly in others, certainly in South Africa, there is a definite necessity for the protection of white women. It is surely better to be armed and ready in case horrors such as have happened in the past should happen again. Surely it is infinitely better that it should be known that such a force as this exists than that there should be burnings and lynchings such as are frequently reported in the American Press. We never have, or practically never have, in our Colonies burnings and lynchings and mutilations such as happen in other countries. Those who live at a great distance from any armed bodies and have their womenkind with them must surely feel that some organisation of this kind is essential.
Then the noble Lord raised the question of justices of the peace and of Mr. Justice Feetham's recommendations on the subject. I would submit that in matters affecting justice for the native people—I am sure the noble Lord knows it as well as I do—what is essential is rapidity. It is infinitely better to have a decision given and the matter settled quickly than to wait a long time before

591
a stipendiary magistrate can be got to deal with the case. Surely in this area it should not be impossible to find the very few people necessary who are of such probity, and of such recognised probity, that they are able to carry out these duties even in matters which may perhaps affect their own class. Nothing has been decided yet on this point, but anyone who knows these wide spaces and the character of the natives generally will agree that it is a matter which is well worth full investigation. If powers were given and were not properly exercised they could be taken away in a moment.
The noble Lord also raised the question of taxation and compulsion to work. I assure the noble Lord that there is no intention of introducing compulsion to work on farms, and that there never has been any such intention. On the question of taxation I am prepared to believe that, just as in this country, the incidence of taxation is not always fair. I have not been able to get the whole of the facts about the area which paid £250,000 in taxation and had not any buildings raised on it, but I must remind the noble Lord that this particular tribe, the Akamba or Kitui, were the most witchcraft ridden natives in the district. They were continually harried formerly by the Kikuyu and the Masai and they had the habit of travelling the very shortest distance from their own dwellings. The Pax Britannica was the greatest possible blessing to these people. If they got nothing else, they got at all events their own safety. Like many of the tribes of the country, one of their principal vices was drink, and perhaps the noble Lord on some future occasion will complain that Sugar Ordinance No. 31 was enforced there so that they should not practise the drinking habits which had formerly disgraced them.
The noble Lord referred also to a tribe which was prevented from growing wheat. I have not been able to get any facts about that. The only fact I have been able to elicit was that one tribe did grow 150 acres of wheat on one occasion. If that was put down there must have been some reason for it. It may have been that there was dahar smoking or something of that kind. I should have to inquire further into the position before I was satisfied that there was any action conceived in any way hostile to the natives. I only had notice this morning
592
that the matter would be referred to, and I have not had time to get the facts, but I really doubt whether a trifling matter of something like 150 acres of wheat is likely to affect the fiscal policy of a place the size of Kenya. May I say in conclusion that as the spokesman of the Government I have no quarrel with the noble Lord over the questions he has raised to-day? On the question of trusteeship, the question of compulsion to work, the question of paramountcy, I do not think there is much difference of opinion between the noble Lord and His Majesty's Government.
May I add a word as a private individual? I happen to have visited French Colonies, Italian Colonies, Portuguese Colonies and German Colonies, and I can say from my personal experience that I do not think in any one of those Colonies—I am speaking of some time ago—the treatment of the natives is such, or the friendship between the natives and the resident white men is such, as it is in our Colonies. I know that frequently Ordinances have been passed to prevent men near the border crossing the border in order to get under the British flag. The last time I travelled up the East Coast of Africa I happened to travel with the second most important German official who ever visited their Colony. A boy came aboard who could not have been more than twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, and who had been practically controlling something like half a million natives. The official talked to this boy most of the morning, and in the evening we visited one of their Colonies. The first action of the local official who came on board was to kick in the stomach the native who was assisting him over the side because he dropped his bag. That night the official said to me: "You succeed with natives because you have centuries of experience of controlling natives, you have a system of justice, you send out a different class of men from that which we are able to send out and you have a real affection for the natives of Africa." I believe that to be absolutely true.
I have spent nearly four years in different ways in Africa and I believe that the number of bad things that are done by white men against natives is remarkably small. I believe that the administrators as a whole have the greatest wish to improve the condition of the natives

593
and I think that criticisms of the settlers, unless they are fully founded upon fact, do not help the cause of the natives, which we all have so much at heart I would only say in conclusion that I can answer in a word the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor. If he will turn to the passage, he will see that his point is safeguarded by the third principle, beginning with the words:
"To give effect to Article 10 of the Mandate, Tanganyika Territory.…"
and so on. I need not read it to the noble Lord. The Government have Article 10 in mind, and the gentlemen who are considering the matter will no doubt consider it when they are making their recommendations.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Olivier replies, I should like to say a few words about the speech of the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government. We always listen to his speeches, which are too few, with interest. He brings great experience, great industry, much travel and knowledge of very varied occupations to bear upon his subject, and he has done so to-night. In one respect the conspicuous merit of the speech has been a drawback. My noble friend Lord Olivier began his very careful speech by taking a number of concrete points on which he asked whether the principle of trusteeship, expressed in the White Paper of 1923, had been carried out. His criticism was addressed to the question whether that principle had been observed in the matters of which he gave details. Then came the speech of Lord Cranworth, also an interesting speech because Lord Cranworth has been in East Africa, has lived there and knows the people. Lord Cranworth told us a good deal, but he devoted his speech mainly to a defence of the British settlers against the accusations that have been brought against them.
I would say at once, in answer both to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and to the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office, that we do not fail to recognise the very great good that has been done in East Africa by the British settlers. We know very well that, without their energy, their capital, their enterprise and their knowledge, Kenya, for instance, could not have been the fairly prosperous Colony that it is at
594
present. We give them full credit for that. But that is not the whole of the story. We have watched, and watched with anxiety, some of the things that have been done—I am far from saying by all the settlers, because there are very good men indeed among them, but by some of them. We look at the documents and at the records, and we see some cases, at all events, in which the principle of trusteeship in its real meaning has not been fully carried out. Whether you take the conditions of employment or the conditions of taxation, there are at least questions that require careful scrutiny before we can be satisfied. Some of us here, and I was among them, read carefully two books which have appeared comparatively lately. I am not taking their contents by any means as gospel, but they were books which impressed me because they were very carefully documented and were full of extracts from speeches and reports of proceedings. I refer to Dr. Leys's book on Kenya and also to Mr. Macgregor Ross's book, which appeared subsequently. I do not take everything that is there as a completely accurate narrative. No doubt there is another side to the story. But I do say that these books are full of specific allegations which demand the closest investigation and scrutiny at the hands of the British Government.
What I understand by the principle of trusteeship is that we have gone into a great tract of territory and that we have there undertaken the obligation to treat the natives as they should be treated according to principles of equity and justice, to give them liberty, to give them education and to give them the advantages of civilisation. I was impressed by the instances which the noble Lord gave us of the good things that have been done—largely scientific, but also industrial—by the British Government in East Africa, and I think I could have added to the list a few more instances equally creditable. All that is to the good, but it does not alter the fact that we must be meticulously careful to avoid giving a sense of wrong to the native population with which we are dealing. These people, after all, come first, simply because they are there. British settlers who go among them certainly go to develop the country and they must certainly be encouraged to make money in every legitimate way,

595
but at the same time they go with the obligation to observe the basic condition on which we are there, and that is the right treatment of the natives.
This question has been illustrated to-night by the speech of Lord Olivier. Lord Cranworth has brought up other phases, although he confined himself mainly to a defence of the British settlers. But I think that this is only half the question. The question is whether our administration is being carried out in a wholly satisfactory fashion. I know our difficulties. No one who knows Sir Edward Grigg as I have had the opportunity of knowing him doubts that he will do his very best, but he is working under difficult conditions and to a certain extent with difficult people around him, and he needs every encouragement. What is, I think, necessary above all is that His Majesty's Government should adhere firmly and stoutly to the basic principle laid down by the Duke of Devonshire and contained in the White Paper, that the interests of the natives come first in the sense of being the condition subject to which everything else is done. I believe all that can be carried out without prejudice to the industrial development of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has made a very interesting speech, and given us a great deal of detail. Some of the points were points about which questions may be raised. He was entitled not to tell us anything about matters which have been referred to the Commission, on the ground that that Commission should not be prejudiced. But everything has shown the necessity of debates from time to time, and there is no better place than this House in which to hold a debate on the policy of His Majesty's Government in East Africa. I therefore hope that Lord Olivier will be inclined to repeat his Questions and Motions on a subsequent occasion in the coming Session, and let us have from the noble Lord opposite such developments of information, and such fresh material as he can give us, in order to satisfy us and deliver us from that feeling of unrest which reading such books as I have mentioned, as well as what we have heard from public sources, has inspired. If only the public feels that in this House there is the guardian of native
596
interests, then I think we shall not only confer benefit upon the public but be doing our duty as a House.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am much indebted to Lord Lovat for the trouble which he has taken to answer as many of my questions as he was able to. I must, however, protest a little against some part of his speech, and also I must protest against Lord Cranworth having brought into this debate lines of argument against points none of which were indicated in my speech in the slightest degree. I asked merely for an interpretation of what the Government meant by the words "paramountcy" and "trusteeship," and I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, for having given us, in careful words, the statement of the Government, which is now on the records of the House. I was certainly not dealing with the record of the white settlers in Kenya. Indeed I hardly referred to them at all. I was dealing with the question of the record of the Government in its exercise of the duty of trusteeship, and I said I trusted that the Commission, who were exceedingly well qualified to go into these questions of administration and finance, would do so.
One definite question of administration and finance which I wanted to have gone into was the moot point between Sir Edward Grigg and Mr. Ormsby-Gore, as to whether native taxation does act as pressure upon the natives to go into employment. I also want them to go into the point as to whether taxation upon the natives is not really onerous and excessive, having regard to the incidence of taxation in more equitably arranged countries. I want them to look into the question of what the Government, have done in carrying out the policy of developing local agriculture, and I am bound to say that the reply of the noble Lord must, I think, have struck your Lordships as extremely jejune. He has told us things that have been proposed to be done, but my trouble is that nothing has been done. I want to know how many experimental agricultural stations have been established. Speaking from past experience I say that what you want to do, and what you ought to have done, and what the Kenya Government did not do, was to go to other Colonies

597
and find out what has been done there. Why have they gone on year after year saying they are going to set up experimental stations? We set them up in Jamaica thirty years ago, and we found that nothing very much came of it. What you want is men who will go round among the settlers and help and advise them. You must do it by working on their own land, and giving them an interest in producing their own stuff.
With regard to what was said by Lord Cranworth, of course I perfectly well recognise the advantage of white colonisation and of white contact with the black man, and I confess I was surprised at what Lord Lovat seemed to say. I was merely criticising the details of the Kenya administration and trusteeship, and I was saying that it had been very far less than it might have been. I say that I have watched the Kenya Government with consternation for years, and watched their neglect of what they could do, and my complaint is not of my fellow countrymen in the Colonies but of the Colonial Office, and its totally wrong policy. With regard to the work that Englishmen have done in Africa, and all over the world, nobody can be more proud of it than I am, and it is perfectly ridiculous to say that I am a man who comes in and attacks everything which is, done by the white man in Africa. In my books I have over and over again justified the settlement of white men in Kenya, and of Europeans in Africa, and I say again and again that it is to the benefit of the natives, and must be, provided the settlers adhere to considerations of equity and justice, and stand aloof from oppression.
I am sorry for the prejudice with which any one who may speak on this subject for the Labour Party is apt to be received. I gave a very careful reference to the work of the African Land Syndicate, of which Lord Denbigh is Chairman. The noble Lord said that I attacked it. I ask any noble Lord who heard my speech whether I did attack it, or any noble Lord who may read my speech to-morrow whether I attacked that syndicate. I said nothing except what was complimentary of it. I was attacking the policy of giving away a large estate for very little, and then giving the railway, and paying out of taxes a subsidy towards the loss on that railway, and not levying any kind of taxation in compensation upon the company.
598
I say that it is crazy and imbecile finance giving away the whole of that land to the company at the expense of the taxpayers. You are getting back improved and developed land, and the improvement of these lands—I am not so sceptical as the noble Lord—would more than enable them to pay the guarantee of loss on the railways. I say it is bad finance, though that is a matter of opinion. But that is not an attack on the company, but an attack on the Foreign Office policy of 1903 in developing the country by these grants.
There was one very extraordinary statement made by the noble Lord, namely, that the white defence force was for the defence of the white women. Anyone who has been in Kenya, I am sure, recognises that the white defence force is founded on the old idea of a burgher force for defence against the natives. What justification is there for saying that in Kenya Colony you want a defence force for white women against the natives? Kenya has been defended, the natives have been pacified, and the whole work was done by the King's African Rifles, which was a black defence force under white officers. In all our Colonies where there has been a scare about the black man—a perfectly unreasonable scare in Kenya, where the natives are peaceable—I have said, as in the West Indies and elsewhere: "Yes, have a constabulary force under white officers, if you like, with military drill, and have the blacks as your privates and non-commissioned officers." Does anybody tell me that this white defence force is meant for the defence of isolated women in out-of-the-way places? Sir Edward Grigg, speaking last November, said himself that the defence force was not for the purpose of holding down or repressing the natives. I think the noble Lord is mistaken, and I think Sir Edward Grigg was mistaken. I think, from my experience of dealing with these questions of white defence forces, that they are intended as a sort of warning to the natives that they are not to indulge in palavers, and not to congregate together, and, if they do congregate together and discuss their grievances, they are liable to be shot by white men. I think it is a most unwholesome principle. It is not necessary for the maintenance and defence of public peace, and it is unwholesome and hateful because it instils into the mind of the

599
white man and the white woman the idea that they need to be defended against the natives, and into the minds of the natives that the white men are there to hold them down.
The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, I am sorry to say, made a speech which he had prepared before he heard what I had to say, because I said nothing whatever by way of an attack on the white settlers in Kenya. I only quoted from them a deliberate statement of what their policy would be if they had control of the Legislature, and that policy was to teach the natives to work; it was an educational policy. I said in the course of my speech that that was a theory which was sincerely held by many people. I profoundly dissented from it, but I did so without suggesting any turpitude on the part of those who held that opinion. Many admirable persons have held the theory that it is necessary to apply compulsion. It is an educational theory—a perfectly pestilent and misleading educational theory, as I know from my own experience of the working of that theory in the West Indies. But that is not an attack on the settlers.
In regard to the noble Lord's statement that I continually attacked the settlers, especially Lord Delamere, I should like to say that I have great admiration for Lord Delamere, and I have paid a tribute to his public spirit in organising that little picnic down to
600
Tukuyu and getting resolutions passed. I asked the noble Lord why he thought I attacked Lord Delamere, and he said it was because he had read my writings. I have never said anything about Lord Delamere except to make certain quotations from his speeches and writings—quotations of his own policy, which was the policy of making the natives work. If he has altered his opinions on that subject I am very glad. But I have made no attack on Lord Delamere, and I rather protest against that sort of red herring being drawn over the trail. I also rather protest against the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, trying to suggest that I did not recognise the good that the white Government did in Kenya. I raised certain definite points about that, and put them on record, and I am bound to say that the noble Lord's answer is not particularly satisfactory to me. He has not been able to show me that the trusteeship has been properly exercised. I do hope that the Commissioners will pay some attention to the humble contribution I have made to the discussion of this subject. In regard to the Motion for Papers, the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has told me that there are no Papers that could be laid, therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GIFFNOCK RAILWAY BRIDGES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

EGREMONT AND CLEATOR MOOR ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Whitehaven in the County of Cumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HASSOCKS AND HURSTPIERPOINT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Cuckfield and Chailey in the Administrative County of East Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LUTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural district of Ampthill in the County of Bedford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WIGAN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Billinge-and-Winstanley and Orrell in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.