Sitting of 19 December 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
West Cheshire Water Board Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    STATUTORY COMMISSION.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government, in connection with the Indian statutory inquiry, to announce more detailed terms of reference than those contained in the Government of India Act; and if the relationship of the Indian States to the paramount Power and questions connected with the working of the Indian Chamber of Princes will fall within the Commission's terms of reference?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The terms of reference as contained in the Royal Warrant reproduce exactly the language of the Act, which it is not intended to supplement.

    VIZAGAPATAM HARBOUR WORKS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry into the allegations of fraud which have been published in connection with the construction works at Vizagapatam Harbour, connected with the railway company?
    Earl WINTERTON: No allegations of fraud have come to my knowledge. The Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company are not responsible for the construction works at Vizagapatam.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If I give the Noble Lord the information on which this question is based, will he have inquiry made?
    Earl WINTERTON: I know something about the incident on which the question is based. But I think the hon. Member's question is based on a misapprehension. The Government, not the railway company, dispensed with the services of an official on the ground that he had sanctioned an excessive price for the purchase of land, but no allegation of fraud was made against him, and as his services have now been dispensed with, I imagine that the hon. Member and the House will probably not feel any further interest in the matter.

    CHURCH SERVICES (ATTENDANCE'S).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any information in his Department as to the average attendances at services of the civil churches in India which are maintained by means of moneys taken from the revenues of India?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many women's hospitals exist in British India both for maternity and general cases?
    Earl WINTERTON: The total number of female hospitals and dispensaries in British India recorded in the official reports for 1925 was 173, with 4,249 beds available; the number of beds available for women in general hospitals was 11,260.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any information is available as to the provision of public hospital accommodation in British India in relation to the needs of the population?
    Earl WINTERTON: The latest information available relates to the year 1925. The total number of State-public, local fund and private-aided hospitals and dispensaries in British India in that year was 3,972 and the number of beds available, 45,049; the number of indoor and outdoor patients treated was 738,570 and 40,472,780, respectively.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the action taken by His Majesty's Government on resolutions passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly since its inception under the Government of India Act of 1919, where action by the Government was demanded; and, if no action has been taken on any such resolutions, a statement showing the reasons for delay or refusal to take action?
    Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member will consult the indices to the bound volumes of the Legislative Assembly proceedings in the Library, he will find a series of elaborate statements
    4
    which have been laid from time to time by the Government of India on the table of the Assembly and which are reproduced in the proceedings. I cannot undertake to reproduce these statements afresh.

    TRADE DISPUTES (ARBITRATION BOARDS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have been in communication with the Provincial Governments with a view to the formation of arbitration boards with representatives of workers and employers in industrial centres?
    Earl WINTERTON: So far as my Noble Friend is aware, the answer is in the negative. The Government of India have, however, consulted local governments regarding the introduction of a Bill providing for the reference of trade disputes to boards including persons representing the interests of employers and workers.

    PROVINCES (FRONTIERS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government have under consideration the question of creating a north-eastern frontier province; whether any negotiations are in progress between the Government of India and the Assam Government on this matter; and whether in this connection it has been proposed that Silhet and Gaalhara should revert to Bengal?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend is not aware of any such proposals.

    GOVERNMENT AND INDIAN STATES (RELATIONSHIP).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government to institute an inquiry into the relationship between the Indian States and the paramount power; whether he is in a position to state the personnel of this Committee and the terms of reference of the inquiry; whether the cost involved will fall on Indian revenues; and whether it is proposed that this Committee should confer with the Indian Statutory Commission on questions arising out of the Government of India, Act involving the rights of the Indian Princes?
    Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first two parts of the question, the hon.

    5
    Member will no doubt have seen the announcement that has been made since the question was put down. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative. The procedure suggested in the last part of the question is not at present contemplated, but it is anticipated that the results of the Committee's inquiry will be available before the Statutory Commission reports.

    RODRIGUEZ (RESIDENT DENTIST).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will investigate the degree of demand and the probable degree of use if procured, and the cost, of a resident dentist in Rodriguez; and if he will, in the event of such a case being made out, provide one?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I will refer my Noble Friend's inquiry to the Officer Administering the Government of Mauritius for a report, but I may point out that there are great difficulties in providing dental treatment for small and somewhat isolated communities such as that of Rodriguez.

    DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House whether any applicant for the Dead Sea concession has offered to merge his interests with those of other applicants, with a view to forming the nucleus of a group for developing the concession?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There were discussions in 1926 between certain of the applicants with a view to combining interests, but the applications subsequently submitted were made on behalf of individual groups and not on behalf of any combine of groups.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the great value and extensive interests concerned in the Dead Sea concession, the Government will take measures for forming an independent British company on the lines of a chartered company for working out this concession in furtherance of Empire interests under adequate British control?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the terms of the mandate, it is not practicable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason to suppose that the concession as worked by the concessionnaires will not be in the interests of our industry?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I see no reason why any concession which we are likely to grant as a result of the negotiations which are going, on is at all likely to be inimical to the Empire.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman seeing that German interests are not brought into this concession?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The German interests have absolutely nothing to do with it.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the name of the group on whose behalf Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky are working; whether this group is connected with any German company or companies; and, if so, what company or companies?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 12th December to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). I have nothing to add to it.
    Captain FOXCROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any danger of these Dead Sea salts being handed over to a German monopoly?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have stated in reply to a good many questions, we are endeavouring in the negotiations to arrange that any concessionnaire selling outside Palestine shall not enter into an agreement with any one of the three big monopolies without the concurrence of the Government. Of course, it is very difficult to sell an article of this kind in the world markets except by some form of agreement with existing organisations.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky are supported by British capital almost entirely?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand they are supported by independent capital that is in no way connected with any of the existing chemical industries or potash owners or potash sellers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And British?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the date when Mr. Novomeysky formally applied, with a fully-worked-out scheme, for the Dead Sea concession; and from what recognised engineering or chemical corporate bodies Mr. Novomeysky holds the usual form of recognition?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Mr. Novomeysky's first formal application was made to the High Commissioner, who reported its receipt to the Secretary of State in July, 1921. The High Commissioner also reported that Mr. Novomeysky had, since 1911, been working on the question of the extraction of salts from the Dead Sea. As regards the latter part of the question, I understand that Mr. Novomeysky is a member of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Novomeysky was ever an official of the Soviet Government?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not even aware that he had any Russian connections whatever. I understand that his parents were of Polish-Jewish origin, but he is a Palestinian, and I am not aware that he has had any Russian connections since he went to Palestine.

  KENYA.

    ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the official plans of the Kenya Government for laying out the £100,000 allocated in the Kenya budget towards road making in the colony; how much of this money is to be spent; and how many miles of the roads under consideration are to be found in roads on land alienated to non-natives, roads connecting Government stations in native
    8
    reserves, and roads in native reserves other than those in the second category respectively?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Particulars showing the proposed distribution of the sum referred to, which represents the anticipated expenditure from general revenue on roads and bridges during the year 1928, will be found in Appendix H (page 118) of the draft Estimates for 1928, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. I am not in a position to furnish the details referred to in the last part of the question, but the Governor will be asked whether they can be supplied.
    Mr. HUDSON: If the right hon. Gentleman obtains the information from the Governor of Kenya, will he let me have it?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Are these roads going to be of a kind suitable for bicycles, which are being so largely imported into that country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes; as a matter of fact, the scheduled roads which receive a grant-in-aid from the Central Fund, apart from the locally provided roads, are most of them roads designed for motor traffic, and they are both in the settled areas and in the native reserves. There is a long schedule of about 50 odd separate items of expenditure, and I will place a copy of it in the Library of the House.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate this news to all hon. Members and not only to the hon. Member asking the question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly. I gather the hon. Member wants particularly details regarding some of the roads in the native reserves, which are financed by the native council, and are really, if I may use a colloquialism, glorified native tracks.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the taxes are provided? Are they taxes on vehicles or per head of the population?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is a poll tax on Europeans and other non-natives and on natives, and there are vehicle taxes, and various general methods of taxation.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is there any chance of a raid on the Road Fund?

    ORDINANCES (PUBLICATION).
    Mr. GRIFFITHS(for Mr. W. BAKER) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken to inform the natives of Kenya of official pronouncements and ordinances beyond their publication in English in the official gazette?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 28th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CENTRAL TOWER).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether immediate steps can be taken to replace the top of the central tower of the Palace of Westminster, which in its present truncated condition is a serious disfigurement to the whole building as viewed from Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, without waiting for the carrying out of the complete scheme of necessary repairs?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON(for the FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS): It is, of course, impossible to commence operations on the central tower until the stone to be used for the whole of the building has been selected, but my Noble Friend agrees that this portion of the building should be dealt with at an early stage.
    Mr. HARRIS: How many years does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it will take for the Committee to make up its mind as to what is a suitable stone? Have they not been thinking over it now for nearly two years?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not possible to finish this tower, at the top of which there are no carvings, in Portland stone, which we know will stand the London weather? Is it not only where carvings are necessary that this inquiry is essential?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: In regard to the last question, I would like to remind my hon. Friend that Portland stone is entirely in contrast with the present stone, as will be seen in the portico in Palace Yard, and I am by no means sure that the Fine Arts Commissioners would agree to Portland stone being used for that purpose. In regard to the question by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), it is true that this question has been under consideration for some time, but if he studies the history of it, the hon. Member will realise that it would be very much better to take a little longer and not to make any mistake.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MALTING BARLEY (DUTY).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Agriculture the reasons why the Government have not accepted the proposal for a duty on malting barley?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Government have given careful consideration to this proposal, but are unable to accept it. A White Paper will be issued to-day giving the reasons for this decision. In view of the partial disclosure by correspondence in the Press of the nature of the Report of the Treasury Committee which examined this matter in 1923, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consented to make an exception from the general rule that such reports are not to be published owing to their confidential nature, and the Report will be printed as an appendix to the White Paper.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not quite clear that the suggestion for a duty was only made in regard to malting barley, and not all barley?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, yes. An import duty on all barley would be quite unacceptable to agriculturists.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: What are the countries with which we have treaties that are affected by any possible change in this duty or by an Excise Duty?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think there are about five or six commercial treaties in which there is a definite provision against differential Excise, but this provision is

    11
    extended throughout the range of our treaties by the most-favoured-nation Clause.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he has given up all idea of a tax on making barley?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think my hon. Friend had better await the White Paper.

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORIRS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Agriculture how many beet-sugar factories were actually engaged in the manufacture of home-grown sugar during the last manufacturing season?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Fourteen beet-sugar factories were actually engaged in the manufacture of home-grown sugar during the 1926–27 season.
    Mr. BUXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many other factories are planned with a view to working in the next season?
    Mr. GUINNESS: There are five factories in contemplation at the present time.

    SMITHFIELD CATTLE SHOW (REFRIGERATING PLANT).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS(for Mr. HANNON) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, on the stand of the Ministry at the recent Smithfield show, refrigerating plant made in a foreign country was employed; and whether such plant is obtainable in this country; and under what circumstances preference has been given to a foreign exhibit?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am advised that automatic refrigerating plant, of the type required and made entirely in this country, was not on the market when arrangements were made to use the plant referred to by my hon. Friend, which was lent and operated, free of charge, by a firm that is incorporated in Canada and has behind it considerable British capital. I may add that a substantial part of the plant was, in fact, made in this country by British labour. I need hardly say that I should be glad to consider an application from any British firm who would care to undertake free of all cost
    12
    to the State the supply and management of automatic refrigerating plant of the kind required by my Department.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not a Canadian firm a British firm?

    ROYAL NAVY (CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider granting to chief petty officers serving in shore establishments the privilege of going on leave and returning from leave in plain clothes, since this is a request which has often been advanced and which would be much appreciated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The Admiralty regret that they are unable to accede to this request.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend state the reason or excuse for refusing this concession?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The matter was very carefully considered before the decision was taken.

    FOREIGN LEGIONS (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that several British citizens have joined a wing of the French army, designated the Foreign Legion, and that in doing so they have signed a pledge, binding for five years, involving an oath of allegiance to a foreign Power; and does he propose to amend the law so as to prohibit such double allegiance to two separate States or to disqualify such persons from British citizenship?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have ascertained that a man, on joining the Foreign Legion, promises to serve with fidelity and honour for five years, but that he is not called upon to take the Oath of Allegiance.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that during these five years it is likely a war may break out between that country and this country, and, in that event, to whom is

    13
    the fidelity and honour due from the British citizen who joins the Foreign Legion?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is likely in the course of the next five years, or at any time, for war to break out between this country and France, but I do not encourage the enlistment of any British subject in any Foreign Legion.
    Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that a British subject may pledge himself to serve faithfully any foreign Power without jeopardising his own British citizenship?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not feel that I can interpret the law as to the obligations of British citizenship in the limits of a supplementary question, but I think we should be entitled to deal as we thought fit with a British citizen found serving against his country in time of war.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the statement that John Harvey, the Cardiff man sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for deserting from the Foreign Legion and pardoned by the French Government on an appeal made by the Foreign Office in London, is to be sent back to the Legion to complete his term of service; whether he can say if this statement is correct; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: According to my information the statement referred to by my hon. Friend is not correct. Mr. John Harvey will be released from all military obligations as soon as the usual formalities in connection with his discharge are completed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the usual formalities include the payment of 500 francs to the French Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not know.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the usual formalities require Mr. Harvey to be returned to Africa before getting his release?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot say that, but I understand that as soon as those formalities are completed he will be released, and I again express the thanks of His Majesty's Government to the French Government for this act of grace and courtesy. Perhaps I might add that Englishmen who voluntarily join a Foreign Legion under another jurisdiction cannot expect that their Government shall interfere.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government interfered immediately in the case of their man, who was released?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that the American Government interfered, though I am aware that the French Government released the man, and, according to my information, some plea was made by the representatives of the American Legion when they visited France. But I again say, and I think it is desirable that it should be understood by ill Englishmen, that, if they choose to enlist under a Foreign Government, they cannot look to their own Government for safety.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Can His Majesty's Government take any steps to prevent this gentleman from writing sensational and exaggerated, and even untrue, articles in the Press regarding his experiences in the Foreign Legion?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If His Majesty's Government had that power, they would employ it in a great many cases.

    BRITISH TRAWLERS (ARRESTS, ICELANDIC WATERS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that three Hull trawlers, the "Stoneferry," the "Sculcoates," and the "Sea Monarch," have been arrested off Iceland for alleged illegal fishing and fined in each case the equivalent of about £625 in sterling, and their catches and fishing gear confiscated; whether His Majesty's Consul at Reykjavik assisted the skippers in their defence; and whether any protest has been made to the Royal Danish Government against these sentences?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The British Consul at Reykjavik reports that the skippers pleaded guilty and were fined 12,200 Icelandic kroner, the equivalent of about £563, each, and that their catches and gear were confiscated. The nearest British Consular officer to Siglufjord is the Vice-Consul at Akureyri, 43 miles away. As the trial took place the day following arrest, and communication between the two places at this time of year is very difficult, the Vice-Consul asked a local merchant of standing to render any assistance possible. I cannot decide whether there is any occasion for a protest to the Icelandic Government before the receipt of a full account of the Court proceedings.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If possible, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get some remission of these very heavy fines, especially in view of the hard times the British deep sea fishing industry is going through?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The accused pleaded guilty, and, in these circumstances, I can say nothing until I have received a full report of the proceedings.

    HOUSING (WHITE HART LANE ESTATE).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has been in recent consultation with the London County Council and the Tottenham Urban District Council in regard to the long-standing dispute between these two bodies concerning the inclusive collection of rent and rates upon the London County Council White Hart Lane Estate; whether his Department has suggested terms of settlement; and can he say whether there is any prospect of an early decision?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is keeping in touch with the position. He offered to call a conference, and, if necessary, to arbitrate in the matter. I understand that certain proposals are now being considered, but cannot say what are the prospects of settlement. My right hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, and it is for the local authorities to find a reasonable solution.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales, and the number of children under 14 of such recipients?
    Sir K. WOOD: On the 1st January, 1927, the total number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales was 1,548,911, of whom 569,581 were children under 16 years of age. The returns do not distinguish children under 14.

    IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the President of the Board of Trade at what date the Committee of Civil Research came to their decision with regard to the iron and steel trades?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The conclusion reached by the Government as the result of the Committee's investigation was announced in this House by the Prime Minister on the 21st December, 1925.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the circumstances have very much changed owing to the general strike and the coal dispute of last year?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that any changes which have taken place have made things worse than they were since this decision was arrived at, I think he is wrong. I do not think things are worse.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the total amount of production of steel ingots and castings for the month of October, 1926, and the month of September, 1927?
    (2) the number of blast furnaces in operation throughout the country at the end of October, 1927, as compared with the number at the end of September, 1927; and the total amount of production of pig-iron for the two months mentioned compared with the amount for the corresponding months of 1926?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: As the reply has been prepared in tabular form, the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is an increase or decrease?
    Mr. THORNE: An increase.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The comparable figure Which is asked for applies to October, 1926, and September, 1927, but of course October, 1926, was quite an abnormal period in regard to steel ingots and pig-iron.
    Following is the reply:

    Production of Steel Ingots and Castings.

    Tons.

    October, 1926

    …

    …

    …

    94,200

    September, 1927

    …

    …

    …

    777,000

    Blast furnaces in operation.

    Number.

    At end of September, 1927

    …

    160

    At end of October, 1927

    …

    162

    Production of Pig Iron.

    Tons.

    September-October, 1926

    …

    25,600

    September-October, 1927

    …

    1,187,800

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (SCHNEIDER CUP).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the action to be taken by the Air Ministry to retain the Schneider Cup next year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt have seen the statement issued by the Air Ministry on Friday. There has been general agreement in aeronautical circles for a considerable time past that the holding of the contest for the Schneider Trophy annually is not in the best interests of civil aviation, since an interval of a single year is insufficient under modern conditions to secure the progress in the design of marine aircraft which was the express object of the trophy's founder. This view has previously been urged by the delegates of the Royal Aero Club to
    18
    the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, but has not hitherto found general acceptance.
    An understanding has, however, now been arrived at with the Italian Government that they will support the project for a biennial instead of an annual contest in future, and that accordingly, providing the other countries which are possible competitors agree, no contest shall be held in 1928. The United States, French and German authorities have been consulted informally and are understood to be in concurrence.
    I may add that in discussing this question with the Italian authorities I made it clear that Great Britain was prepared to compete next year if this was desired by the other countries concerned. Whether the contest is in fact held in 1928 or 1929, it is my intention to take all action necessary to ensure that this country is worthily represented and no effort spared to secure another victory.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the latter part of the answer means that the Air Ministry will give support to the competition, and whether the pilots of the Royal Air Force will be allowed to compete?
    Sir S. HOARE: It will be premature to go into details, but we do intend to give it support. We shall consider a, question of that kind, and there is ample time for further consideration. In the meantime, we are proceeding at once with the development of machines and engines.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that pilots of the Royal Air Force will be permitted to compete?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot go into details of that kind, but we shall do everything we can to ensure success. We have already begun the programme of development of engines and machines.

    COAL PRICES, LONDON.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to make a statement respecting the recent increase in the London coal prices?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The recent increase of 2s. per ton in retail prices in Central London

    19
    is not due to an increase in pithead prices. The explanation given by the coal merchants who came as individuals in response to my invitation to the Coal Merchants' Federation and the Co-operative Societies was that, in the early part of the summer, they reduced retail prices by 10s. to 11s. per ton, which was more than was justified by the reduction in pit prices. This was done in an attempt to buy back domestic trade which they felt they had lost in consequence of the installation of electric stoves, gas stoves and oil stoves in households during the stoppage of last year, and, secondly, to meet the request of the collieries that they should encourage summer trade as much as possible this year in order to keep miners employed. The public took advantage of these reduced prices to a greater extent than was expected, with the result, the merchants state, that they lost more heavily during the summer than is usual, and more heavily than they had anticipated. The merchants state:
    "The present advance must be taken in conjunction with the large reduction in the summer and as an endeavour to restore this section of the coal industry to an economic basis."
    Against this it must be stated that the increase of 2s. is not universal. Two large co-operative societies and at least one large firm of merchants, with a few local trolley price exceptions, have not increased prices. A comparison of the margins between pithead prices and retail prices at this period of 1924 and 1927 shows that without the last 2s. rise the margins in favour of the merchants are higher now than in 1924. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the 2s. per ton increase in retail prices in Central London put into force on 29th November by the majority of the merchants was justified.
    Mr. OLIVER: In view of the opinion expressed in the answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take to see that prices are not raised?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The Government have no power to control retail prices. The whole of the merchants have not made this increase, and the public, if sufficiently interested in the matter, can deal with the matter effectively by refusing to pay more than the prices current before 29th November.
    Mr. OLIVER: In view of the fact that the Government took upon themselves to increase the working hours of the miners for the purpose of cheapening the price of coal, I think there is some obligation on their part to see that some action is taken against those merchants who have increased prices.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the misunderstanding which exists in the mind of the public on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing a detailed statement showing the costs of the coal between the pit head and household consumers in London and other districts?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I do not think that would be satisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the simple reason that it is difficult to say exactly what particular parcels of coal have cost. I think it is far better that ordinary competition should be allowed to operate. The public will have the opportunity of comparing prices and of dealing with the firms who offer the coal at the lower prices.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is not this increase in prices an actual part of the rationalisation of the coal industry which is so widely advocated?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that raising prices in mid-winter hits the very poor, who have no place to store their coal, while the well-to-do, who are able to store it, do not feel the increase?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to circulate a statement advising the public to purchase coal from co-operative societies who have not increased their prices?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think this question in the House and the answer given to it, which will be published in the Press, will be sufficient to explain to the people what is the position.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has no power of control?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the statement of the Minister that the Government have no power in this matter, will the Government consider the advisability of taking power to deal with it?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think we should wait, first of all, to see whether the public is not capable of dealing with the situation.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the whole of the Press to publish in full the statement which he has now made?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think there is no doubt the Press is fully alive to the interest taken in this matter.

    WIRELESS AND CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
    Mr. OTHO NICHOLSONasked the Postmaster-General whether, before any decision is taken by the Government in regard to wireless and cable communications, the same opportunity will be given to the wireless companies here, and in the Dominions and India, of stating their point of view as will be given to the cable companies; and whether the House can have an assurance that in any decisions which the Government may take nothing will be done to hamper the development of wireless in the British Empire?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): In reply to my hon. Friend's question, His Majesty's Government have invited the Dominion Governments concerned and the Government of India to nominate representatives to meet with them in conference on the question of cable and wireless communications. In the event of their agreeing to do so, the conference will take place as soon as practicable, and meanwhile I can obviously say nothing further.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the object of the conference to avoid competition and to put up prices, or to secure competition and to bring them down?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The object of the conference is to examine questions of vital interest both to His Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: May I ask whether the wireless companies will also be invited to attend?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is a conference between Governments.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister what decision has now been come to as to the inclusion of ex-service men from the Irish Free State in the schemes of overseas settlement?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My Noble Friend may rest assured that this matter has not been lost sight of, but it is not possible for me to say more at present.
    Viscount SANDON: In view of the fact that this has been going on since June, and of its great importance, cannot the matter be expedited?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that it is very important.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the present policy with regard to assisted emigration, and in particular, to the 3,000 families scheme, in view of the misapprehension which exists among emigration authorities both here and in the Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers already given to the questions which he asked on 14th November and 15th December and also to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) on 7th December.
    Mr. COUPER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the reported completion of the 3,000 families scheme? Is any other scheme suggested to take its place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down any question which he requires answered. I am not aware of any misapprehension to which he alludes.

    MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the policy of the Government with respect to the future of the Ministry of Transport, Department of Mines, and Department of Overseas Trade, respectively?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MORRISON: Did not the Prime Minister definitely promise to make a

    23
    statement before the House adjourned, and is he not in a position to do so, either to-day or to-morrow, or Wednesday, or Thursday? Surely we should get some answer from the Prime Minister?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to meet a deputation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that I am meeting a deputation to-morrow.
    Mr. MORRISON: Does the Prime Minister propose to make a statement before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question, and I shall require notice of it.

    IRAQ (TREATY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether a new treaty has been signed on behalf of His Majesty's Government with Iraq; what are its terms; and whether it is proposed that Parliament should be given an opportunity of discussing it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is proposed to lay the text of the new treaty before Parliament to-morrow. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member's question on the 12th December.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply stated that the usual opportunities could be taken by the Opposition in Supply, and that that is very unsatisfactory in the case of a Treaty of this importance? Could it be treated as the Treaties of Peace were treated, and brought forward in a separate Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I could not promise to do that. As I told the hon. and gallant Member, it will be some months before the Treaty is ready for ratification, and before that time there will be plenty of opportunity for debate if hon. Members desire it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he is taking away from this House its full rights over a very important Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. There never has been what he calls a right of discussion before a Treaty is ratified.

    WAR FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what sums of money, giving full details of percentages and profits in each case, have been received by, or are due to, the War Office from any film companies who have produced films using any materials or troops under the control of the War Office; and will he state the number of films that have been made or are at present in the making?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): Military facilities have been granted in the case of six films which have already been completed, and are being given, or have been promised, in three other cases. In addition, three applications are under consideration. It would be contrary to the normal practice to give the details of the financial arrangements made with the companies concerned, but over £6,500 has been received up to date for credit to the public in respect of these films.
    Colonel DAY: Is the £6,500 in respect of the War Office films, or does it refer to the 12 films that have also been photographed under arrangements with the Admiralty as well as the War Office? Is there any reason why the House should not have the information which is asked for in the question?
    Commodore KING: I am answering for the War Office only. I cannot reply for other Departments. With regard to the prices received, it is the custom not to disclose any financial arrangements of this kind between the War Office and its contractors.
    Captain A. EVANS: Has any application been made to use cadet battalions for this purpose?
    Commodore KING: I should require notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Member answer this without divulging secrets: Is the payment a lump payment down after the film is passed, or is a royalty drawn depending on the box office receipts?
    Commodore KING: As I have explained on several occasions, in some cases a lump sum is paid down, and in some cases a percentage of the profits.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Seeing that the production of these films is a comparatively recent event, how can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that there is a custom? Surely there is no precedent for this thing?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a very general feeling that the War Office may not be getting enough money for this service, and if he will not disclose the figures how can the public be protected?
    Commodore KING: That is only a matter of opinion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the War Office are getting the full competitive price for the services rendered by the War Department in assisting in the production of the films?
    Commodore KING: Yes, Sir, the War Office are perfectly satisfied; otherwise, they would not have entered into the arrangement.

  PLACES OF AMUSEMENT.

    LICENCES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the difference of conditions governing stage plays and music and dancing licences that exist in many towns in Great Britain, he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee for the purpose of advising him with the object of introducing legislation to make all such licences uniform or, alternatively, will he refer the matter to any Committee that may be set up in the future to deal with licences?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am not clear as to the point of the hon. Member's question, but the question of the licensing authorities has been brought before the Royal Commission on Local Government, and I must await their Report.
    Colonel DAY: Where a music and dancing licence is held over, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if any two people appear in that theatre they can be prosecuted by a common informer for appearing in a place which has not a dramatic licence?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know what the hon. Member is driving at. If he wants to alter the law, why does he not bring in a Bill?
    Colonel DAY: If I brought in a Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for it?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must wait until I have seen the Bill.

    DISTURBANCES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary whether there are any special police regulations in the Metropolitan police area, especially in the district within one mile from Charing Cross, that prohibit police officers from being called into places of amusement to restore order in case of disturbances; and the number of police officers that were engaged either on patrol or point duty between the hours of 7 and 12 on the evening of Tuesday, 13th December, in the C or E divisions in the Metropolitan police area?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reply to the first part of the question is that there are no such regulations. As regards the second part, 193 officers on C Division and 221 on E Division did patrol or point duty during the period in question, but not all were on duty for the whole of the period.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion there were very grave and serious occurrences at many West End theatres, and on occasions like the Oxford and Cambridge matches and "rags" of that kind will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the police

    27
    force in the West End so that the closing of theatres and riots of this kind will not take place?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope that in future there will be no need to increase the police force on the occasions in question.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the proprietors of theatres and music halls will be able to get any compensation from the London County Council for the very serious damage that was done inside those places?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a legal question that I could not possibly answer.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the Home Secretary not admit that some very disgraceful things happened on that particular night, and does he not think that these people should be dealt with in some way or other?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had my attention drawn to this matter. All I can say is that I regret what took place, and I think they will not be repeated in the future.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the heads of the universities are going to take any action in regard to this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information at the present time on that point.
    Colonel DAY: For the protection of the public, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the heads of the universities, and ask them, to see that such disgraceful scenes do not occur again in the West End?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask hon. Members to leave this matter for the moment in my hands.
    Mr. THORNE: If they had been gas workers you would have dealt with them.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRADE LICENCES.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he will inform the House of the reasons which
    28
    have caused the Ministry to withdraw entirely the days of grace hitherto allowed for the renewal of general trade and limited trade licences; and whether he is aware of the inconvenience and congestion likely to be occasioned by the new Regulation?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I was compelled to withdraw the concession of the 14 "days of grace" in the case of the renewal of general trade and limited trade licences, owing to legal difficulties which have arisen in dealing with contraventions of the Regulations governing the use of these licences. The motor trade organisations were consulted before action was taken. I might add that I have issued instructions to licensing authorities to give priority of attention to applicants for these special licences, and I do not anticipate that inconvenience will be occasioned by the withdrawal of the days of grace.

    RAILWAY RATES (SEASON TICKETS).
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the new quarterly season ticket rate, third class, from London to Tunbridge Wells, is £9 1s. 3d., not available at intermediate stations; that the present rate is £8 12s. 6d.; that the rate for ordinary season tickets specified in the schedule to the award of the Railway Rates Tribunal (S.R.O. 851) for the Southern Railway Company for the distance to Tunbridge Wells, viz., 35 miles, is £7 12s. 1d.; and that the new rate to Reading, 36 miles, published by the Great Western Railway Company, is £7 15s. for ordinary tickets and £7 5s. for tickets not available at intermediate stations; and whether, in view of the discrepancy between the rate announced for Tunbridge Wells and those specified in the award of the tribunal or charged for Reading, respectively, he will inquire into the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am in communication with the railway company concerned in regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's question and will communicate with him upon receipt of the company's reply.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any suggestions?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have simply drawn the attention of the company to the facts contained in my hon. Friend's question.

    GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT (RATES).
    Mr. GRIFFITHS(for Mr. JENKINS) asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware of the financial obligation upon the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council, due to the Glyncorrwg Colliery Company going into liquidation and owing in rates a sum of £9,700, which has not yet been paid, and that the rate is 34s. 4d. in the £ and whether, in view of the fact that it will cripple the other industries in the parish, he will grant some financial aid to them forthwith;
    (2) if he is aware that the Imperial Navigation Colliery, Port Talbot, has been closed down, where 1200 men were employed; and, in view of the fact that nearly 200 houses have been built by the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council for housing the workmen of this company and that the loss of rateable value and of rents seriously affects the council, will be consider what steps can be taken to case the burden in the area?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances of the district. As regards the Glyncorrwg Colliery, his latest information is that an arrangement was contemplated with the Receiver. My right hon. Friend does not know for how long the other colliery is likely to remain closed. As the hon. Member is aware, there is no fund out of which a grant may be made to the council; but my Department have assisted the council in various ways in dealing with their difficulties, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to arrange a further conference, if desired.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, in these mining districts which are becoming derelict owing to the closing down of collieries, the Government are going to facilitate industrial paralysis by simply doing nothing?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; the hon. Member is not to understand that.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman intimate to the House what financial or other assistance the Government are going to render to districts which are in a position of this kind?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; this is a question dealing with a specific case only.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Perth County Buildings Order Confirmation Bill.
Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No 2) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

ESTIMATES.
Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 129.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) (No. 2) BILL).
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move,
  "That this House declares that the extensive and long continued unemployment of approximately one million men and women is a matter of the gravest national concern; and, in addition to an adequate insurance scheme to provide for those temporarily out of work, this House calls for the adoption of a comprehensive national policy which will, in the first place, stimulate production, relieve industry in the necessitous areas from its exceptional burdens and provide work or, alternatively, training and adequate maintenance of the unemployed, and aim at the absorption of that section of the population for which the present economic system offers no prospect of steady employment with a decent standard of life."
  Something has been gained, in these repeated discussions on unemployment, in that there is now no considerable group in this House who believe that unemployment is caused by a double dose of original sin, and I think it is true that only a very few of the more ignorantly edited newspapers pretend that the unemployed are a collection of work-shys and wasters, while there are very few magistrates now who would care to risk their reputation by asking why the unemployed do not go out and get work, very much after the manner of Foulon, who asked, when the French peasants could not get bread, why they did not eat cake.
  The Amendment that is to be moved to-day by hon. Gentlemen opposite shows two remarkable omissions, to which I would beg to draw the attention of the House. In the first place, the Amendment denies, by implication, that there is any extensive and long-continued unemployment or that it is a matter of the gravest national importance, because it proposes that these words should be deleted. Further, while our Motion calls for the adoption of a comprehensive national policy which will stimulate production
  46
  and relieve industry in the necessitous areas, the hon. Members in whose name the Amendment stands propose to delete those words, being evidently of the opinion that the problem of the necessitous areas is not a serious one at all.
  There is now, I think, general agreement that unemployment is due, not to individual, but to national and, indeed, international causes. That is a great gain, because a proper diagnosis of the problem is indispensable to a proper cure. We on these benches quite frankly and openly declare that a social order in which there is such mal-distribution of wealth—of the social product—that millions of people have insufficient purchasing power to buy from the market the ever increasing quantities of goods which the ingenuity and inventive skill of man make it possible to produce, renders unemployment and restricted production inevitable. While the Government, probably, admit national causes of unemployment—and, indeed, the insurance scheme is in itself such a national admission—they persist in throwing, to a considerable extent, the burdens of exceptional unemployment upon the parish areas; they ask the poor to keep the poor. While the rates are rising in the distressed areas, as we call them, it should be remembered that these are the special areas in which our heavy industries are, as a rule, most hardly hit. If our heavy industries are to be subject to an ever increasing local rating burden, it will be impossible for them to recover; and, if it be impossible for them to recover, there will be, not a diminution, but an extension of unemployment as a result of the Government's present policy. If the cost of production steadily increases owing to an increase of local rates, trade will be impossible and unemployment will develop.
  Let me give one or two illustrations of what I mean. I have here some examples, supplied to me by the assessor in Glasgow. The Poor rate alone—the Education rate having been subtracted—in the city of Glasgow, is now 4s. in the £; while over an imaginary fine in the Parish of Cathcart, which some hon. Members opposite know perfectly well, the poor rate is only 3d. in the £—4s. on one side of the line, and 3d. on the other—and it requires no stretch of the

  47
  imagination to see what that means to the industries in the area. In the latest return issued by the Ministry of Health, dealing only with England and Wales for 1926–7, we find that there are no fewer than 41 areas where the rates are 25s. and over in the £. Industry, under these circumstances, cannot possibly develop. No business man is likely to start an industry there, and existing industries, where possible, will leave these areas, and bankruptcy and chaos can be the only result. In Lanarkshire we have parishes where the poor rate is as low as 2d. in the £—the parishes of Carmichael and Crawfurdjohn—and there are other parishes, Blantyre, for example, where the poor rate is 6s. 11d. in the £, and Dalserf, where it is 6s. 4½d. A deputation, representing the Northern Poor Law Union and other local authorities, recently waited upon the Minister of Labour and Councillor Rix, Chairman of the Gateshead Board of Guardians, is reported as saying this:
  "Auckland, with a population of 111,000 is badly bit. It is costing £1,500 per week for the relief of the unemployed, a cost per head of something like 4s. 1½d. Gateshead, with a population of 217,000, has a cost per week for the unemployed nearly £4,000, or per head 5s. 5d. Newcastle has a weekly cost of £3,773, or a cost per head of 5s. 6¼d. for the unemployed as against 4s. 2½d. for the ordinary poor, who cost £2,895 per week."
  At Tynmouth there is pretty much the same situation. The City Treasurer of Sheffield has issued the following statement:
  "The most difficult burden which confronts the City is the guardians' expenditure which has to be met by the corporation out, of the rates. Table 13 shows the rates levied since 1913–14 allocated between the guardians and the corporation. The cost of the burden of unemployment which has been imposed upon the city is unfortunately evidenced in part by the fact that the amount raised in the rate by the corporation has increased in the Sheffield township by 60 per cent. since 1913–14, as compared with an increase of 397 per cent. by the guardians."
  The Minister of Labour, who must be perfectly well aware of these facts, issues a local unemployment index, No. 10, which gives a series of the most remarkable and alarming figures, to which I should have imagined his attention would be drawn repeatedly in the House. Let me give one or two figures, for which
  48
  the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible. In Ferndale, in Glamorganshire, the number of unemployed persons on the register, on 17th October, 1927,—the percentage of the insured population—is no less than 71.2 per cent. Three out of every four insured persons in the area are unemployed, and there are whole reams of these figures, while almost side by side with them are areas where the numbers of unemployed are as low as 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. How hon. Members who are moving their Amendment to this Resolution can justify to their constituents the excision of a protest against our drawing attention to the high local taxation due to poverty and unemployment in these distressed areas, I cannot say. It is notorious.
  In yesterday's Press I find a statement to the effect that at one place in Glamorgan, Bargoed, the rate is now 34s. 2d. in the £. This is declared to be Britain's worst record. It could not be much worse than 34s. 2d. and be paid at all. Tradesmen declare that they cannot pay, industries declare that they will have to shut down, and the Government, so far as I am aware, has no national policy for dealing with the matter. In Scotland, the position is even worse. I have great difficulty in extracting from the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health an exact comparison of the facts and figures about Poor Law relief. The statistics are evidently arranged on a different basis, but, so far as I can get it now, it amounts to this, that in Scotland the proportion is 48 per 10,000 of outdoor poor relief, while in, England it is only 29, so that, however bad England is, Scotland is almost twice as bad. So far as I am aware, neither the Ministry of Health nor the Scottish Board of Health has any proposals whatever for dealing with this extraordinary situation, which we take to be the most serious problem that is facing us at the moment.
  More than that, we are now compelling boards of guardians and Poor Law authorities, not only to shoulder the burden of the able-bodied poor, but to borrow money at interest for shouldering that burden, and we get official figures showing that one-eighth of the total charges now being raised for the maintenance of the able-bodied poor is actually going to moneylenders, the other seven-eighths being the actual debt. Apart

  49
  from the devastated areas, which no one now alleges to be due to original sin on the part of the unemployed, we have spent some £380,000,000 since the Armistice down to the end of the financial year in 1925 upon one form or another of public assistance and have got nothing whatever in return for it—not a brick laid upon another—not a blade of grass made to grow. For God's sake, let us hear nothing to-day about our proposals being non-economic, for I can imagine nothing more non-economic than this wasting of £380,000,000 since the Armistice, and no social return for it whatever.
  We have drawn attention, further, to the fact that the policy that was in existence when the present Government took office, a policy which did relieve, to some extent, these exceptionally devastated areas, was deliberately and wantonly cancelled. The Lord St. Davids' Committee, as it is popularly called—the Unemployment Grants Committee—has been operating for five years, and it has issued, at any rate, five Reports. Anyone who imagines that there are no social, useful, necessary schemes of public work in the country have only to turn up the last Report of that committee. You will find that 18,000 schemes have been submitted to this committee by local authorities. There is not a Labour man on the committee. It is not a political committee. It is a committee composed of men like Sir William Plender, the accountant, and it is satisfied that no fewer than 11,900 of these schemes are suitable, useful, and necessary. The committee go further, and in their last Report, signed by Lord St. Davids, they said:
  "The policy indicated in the Circular issued to local authorities by the Committee on the 15th December last, at the instance of the Government, was accordingly designed to limit the making of further grants."
  It was designed to limit, designed to stop, this work. But the Report goes on to say that
  "the results obtained are of undisputed and permanent benefit to the localities concerned."
  Yet the Government have deliberately stopped the work. A lot of schemes were not submitted at all, because they would require Parliamentary interference with some dog-in-the-manger right, some vested interest. Because of those vested
  50
  interests thousands of useful schemes have never been submitted to the committee. The committee say that the local authorities have had public work done to the value of £104,000,000; that it has cost the national Exchequer only £40,000,000; that against that £40,000,000 there has been a saving of over £30,000,000 in unemployment benefit, and that the net cost to the State, therefore, is under £10,000,000. For that cost to the national Exchequer, the local authorities have had public work done of the value of £104,000,000, and 610,000 men have had work for a year.
  There is, where I live— it has always struck me as a classic example— an illustration of the waste and stupid folly of the present social order. There are hon. Members here who know the facts as well as I do. All round the town in which I live there are three little rivers choked with coke oven silt. These rivers flood over eight times a year, the water tearing up the roads and destroying crofts. The farmers lose their money. Land— miles and miles of it right down to the Clyde—goes out of cultivation. What it has cost the Ministry of Transport in the past 10 years to re-make the roads nobody can tell. You cannot obtain the figures. Because it is nobody's business to set 100 unemployed colliers to remove the silt and make banks along these rivers, the country loses miles and miles of the finest agricultural land in Central Scotland, and the State is put to very considerable financial expenditure. Nobody can move. If one landlord put things right on his own property, no good would be done, because the rivers further down would flood and his land would be flooded too. Nobody can move, and because there is no co-ordinated attempt on the part of the Government or of the Government Departments no unemployment committee set up by this House or by the Government to co-ordinate and to bring forward recommendations and reports to this House, agriculture languishes, goes backward in a way that would not be tolerated in any other country in Europe, and the State and the taxpayer are put to considerable expense, and the unemployed starve in the midst of it all.
  There have been temporary remedies suggested. We require, certainly, great national schemes—schemes which I will not attempt to do more than indicate this

  51
  afternoon. We require, for example, in the words of Mr. John A. Hobson, to make a determined international effort through the League of Nations to put down international sweating; to raise the standard of labour of the producer all over the world. If the League of Nations cannot be used for that purpose, millions of people will be bitterly disappointed. Mr. Garvin, Editor of the "Observer," makes other suggestions. He says that a loan of £100,000,000 could easily be raised for Empire development, that a loan of £100,000,000 properly used would bring a great and recurrent impetus to British trade and British industries. When it is recollected that the British Empire includes England, Scotland and Ireland, we can see what benefit would accrue from such a loan. We have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) suggesting that there should be Free Trade within the Empire. If we can get it, good luck! Another Noble Lord, Lord Inch-cape, speaking last week at a financiers' meeting in London, also made a suggestion. He would send the unemployed overseas, possibly in his ships, although he was wise enough not to make that suggestion.
  4.0 p.m
  There are schemes, if the Government would only move. Schemes have been suggested to the Government from all quarters. What is lacking is a coordinating committee to bring forward definite recommendations to this House so that the House can take the responsibility of saying "Aye" or "Nay." What we need is a great national policy. I ought, perhaps, to say, in case we should be charged with not saying it, that a very great deal indeed could be done, by using the Trade Facilities Act, to effect improvements in our marketing arrangements with our Colonies. Mr. Layton, of the "Economist," says that under our flag we have 60 per cent. of the world's wool and rubber, 70 per cent. of its tea and gold, 89 per cent. of its nickel, 99 per cent. of its jute, 30 per cent. of its ships and 40 per cent. of its cotton spindles, and, in the midst of all this potential wealth, the people are starving, while our capital, in many cases, is being exported abroad to finance sweaters to depress rates of wages, to lower the conditions
  52
  which ultimately compete with the working classes of this country, and to lower their standard of civilisation.
  In addition to these national schemes, surely something could be done immediately to stimulate a big road programme. The rate of increase to-day in registered motor vehicles is 200,000 per annum. In 10 years' time, it has been estimated, there will be 18 vehicles to every mile of our roads, and those vehicles will be crushed together at certain of the denser parts. If we only had the sense to have a great developing road programme for the nation, with the increased land values which would be created by this expenditure of public money, it is highly probable that this road programme would cost us nothing as a nation, would do nobody any harm or injustice, and would permit of employment in honourable, healthy work to hundreds of thousands who are at present unemployed. Then, at this Table, I have before urged that we should take our courage in our hands and loan to the Indian agricultural communities agricultural implements, pumping plant, etc., and I see that Sir Reginald Craddock, in the "Nineteenth Century" magazine crosses the t's and dots the i's of what I have repeatedly said in this House. He said that if only we could increase the purchasing power of India by these methods to the extent of three-farthings per head per week, we might increase British exports by no less than £48,000,000 per annum. The interest charges on what we might be required to lend for one, two or three years would be a mere fraction of what we are spending to-day on our unemployment insurance and Poor Law relief.
  Then we could take other steps, if the right hon. Gentleman wished to go to the Treasury and declare that there was something seriously wrong in a social order which kept 800,000 old men and old women of 65 years of age and over—I am giving the last census, that of 1921—still working for wages, while there are 800,000 young men and young women starving at the Employment Exchanges, drawing, probably, an average of £1 a week for producing nothing at all. If the right hon. Gentleman would put it to the Treasury, and next year we were to say to these old men and old women, "We will increase your pension of 10s. a week, and make it 30s. a week, on condition

  53
  that you get out of industry, and make way for the younger men and younger women who ought to be doing the world's work, "we could immediately break the back of this unemployment problem. As if that were not enough, there are 500,000 boys and girls under 15 years of age in employment. The grandfathers, the grandmothers and the grandchildren are working, while the fathers and mothers, the strong and able-bodied, are outside employment.
  Steps, too, should undoubtedly be taken, as speedily as possible, to increase the cultural development of our own soil. Afforestation should be speeded-up, and, taken in conjunction with small holdings, would provide useful employment in a profitable industry for our people. Small holdings have been discussed in this House time and again, but there is no doubt whatever, after the recent reports of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, that properly handled small holdings can be made to pay, and we find, in another Report that one egg in every 40 that we consume comes from China, while there are opportunities for raising millions of pounds of dairy produce in this country. I suggest that there again is an opening for the Minister of Labour if he chose to take advantage of it. No words of mine could paint the horrors, the tragedies, the waste of all this prolonged unemployment. The House may be moved by eloquence on the question of the Reserved Sacrament, but it does not seem to he stirred very greatly by the perpetual sacrifice of a million of our fellow-citizens.
  Perhaps at this time of the year it may not be amiss to remind the House that after many pleas and many attempts, even old Ebenezer Scrooge sent the Cratchits a turkey at Christmas. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get out of this wooden attitude of his towards this problem of unemployment, to face the thing in a big way, to see if he cannot bring some measure of hope and happiness into the distressed homes that are in Britain to-day. We know these homes, we know the boys there, and we know that some of them have never worked since the Armistice. Some of them have never had a job since the Armistice, and cannot get a job. It is no fault of their own that in the shipbuilding industry high policy dictated that there
  54
  should be reparation ships to flood the market. The only opportunity of work some of them have had has been an occasional job as a bookie's runner. What kind of race are we going to perpetuate by a social order like that? We know that men, thousands and thousands of them, are dyeing their hair, in a pathetic effort to restore the appearance of youth before some cynical foremen, who persist in giving them the sack when they reach the age of 40 or 45.
  These men sign on hopefully at the bureau for work two, three or four times week after week, ask their mates for news of a job, and crowd round the public works. One sees the gradual deterioration in clothing and in spirits, and the growing consciousness—and this is the tragedy—that never again will they be able to get anything of their own, never again buy a new suit of clothes, never again have coppers in their pockets to jingle. Empty cupboards facing them, physical deterioration, and, in some cases, their loved ones dying from want. Their extended benefit goes, and there remains the Poor Law. We know that there is no necessity for these tragedies. It is all waste; it is all folly. The Minister of Labour once said:
  "If he were asked what the Government had done to relieve unemployment, he would reply that that sort of criticism left him unmoved. The Government had never pretended that they had a remedy for unemployment."
  We believe rather with the Psalmist that
  "The needy shall not alway be forgotten; the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever."
  Because we believe that, we are determined to persist with our propaganda of not only national recognition of a national wrong, but national recognition that we are all brothers one with another, and that when one man falls, it is the duty of all to help. We do not want charity; we want work. We know that there is useful necessary work in this country to be done. We know there can be no greater waste than the waste in money, in body and in spirit that is going on now, and, because of these things, we move this Resolution.
  Mr. WINDSOR: I beg to second the Motion.
  This problem of unemployment is one which the Government have had brought

  55
  before their notice from year to year. It is many years since 1893, when the late James Keir Hardie in this House moved an Amendment and spoke on a King's Speech on a problem of this kind. Year after year the same problem has been brought before this House, and year after year the same kind of attitude and relationship to this problem has been taken by successive Governments. We do not say, and the Labour party has never said, that we have an immediate cure for the unemployment problem; but what we have said is, that we cannot cure the unemployment problem within the province and within the domain of the capitalist system. We have said that it is part and parcel of that system, and, being part and parcel of that system, a system which, after all, is not ours, but that of the party opposite, and, therefore, their responsibility, they ought to stand up to it, and try to make some effort in order to ameliorate the tragedy for which that system is responsible. This House, in a few days, will be rising for a seven weeks' holiday, and, at the end of this week, hon. Members on both sides will be listening to words of peace, it may be even listening to the appeal that will be ringing throughout the land on Christmas Day.
  "On earth peace, good will towards men."
  Within sound of the bells, there will be over 1,000,000 persons who will be asking themselves these questions: "Why am I out of work?" "Why am I in distress?" "Why am I suffering penalties and punishments for a crime of which I am not guilty?" "Why am I, a person able and willing to work, denied the opportunity to work?" This problem always faces the Government of the day. Can the Government deny their responsibility? They cannot say that they are bankrupt and without resources. When they were returned to power at the end of 1924, although they were returned largely on the strength of the Zinovieff letter, they cannot get away from the fact that the Prime Minister laid it down, as a definite plan, that
  "various schemes which had already been initiated for the relief of unemployment, would be examined with great care, and Parliament would be asked to make provision for the continuance and expansion of such measures as were likely to alleviate the present distress."
  56
  The Unionist party also issued a statement that
  "Unionist legislation aims at improving the lot of the workers, and helping in every way the struggling poor."
  What have we had from the Government which has led the country to understand that they would deal with the problem of unemployment? They have made certain attempts to deal with it. One of the last attempts was the introduction of the Mines Eight Hours Act, which has added considerably to the unemployment. They have also introduced legislation in the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill to stop Labour authorities from carrying out the duty which the Government ought to have carried out years ago. They have done all these things, and have done them remarkably badly. it is no use the Government saying that there is no money with which to deal with these schemes. Is it not a fact that, as a result of the encroachments on the Road Fund and the Public Health Funds, about £36,000,000 has been directly robbed from the people of this country for the relief of the rich? That £36,000,000 might have been used to promote schemes for providing work for the unemployed. It is no use the Prime Minister thinking in terms of "Peace in our time, O Lord," when in practice he and his Government do nothing to bring peace and prosperity about.
  We are all hoping for a revival of trade, and the Government are chiefly relying upon that, but there is one fact which they do not seem to realise. The Minister of Labour hopes to get back to a normal 6 per cent. unemployment, but the conditions of development under the capitalist system are such that by the introduction of cartels, the introduction of up-to-date machinery, the bringing into operation of more efficient brains and the greater concentration on industry, it is not a question of 6 per cent. unemployment; we may have to look forward to a permanent problem of possibly 10 per cent. unemployment. Let us look at the figures. There are over 1,000,000 unemployed people in this country, and it is agreed that the Government have inadequately dealt with the problem. When the Minister of Labour introduced his Unemployment Insurance Bill, he had to admit that he was not dealing with the subject of unemployment, but only

  57
  with the subject of unemployment insurance, and that he did not pretend to provide a solution for the problem of unemployment.
  Let me refer to the problem as it affects my constituency. The figures for unemployment relief in the Borough of Bethnal Green provide statistics in relation to a borough which is largely composed of workers who depend upon casual labour. Probably one of the most tragic things that we can see to-day is the position of the casual worker. The casual workers in Bethnal Green depend mostly upon the docks. In 1912, we only needed to spend £752 from the local rates in relief, but in 1926 and the beginning of 1927, the figure had grown to £137,000. I would ask hon. Members to try to think of that in the terms of Bethnal Green, which is the second poorest borough in London, and has only a total rateable value which brings in £2,100 on a penny rate; so that to-day a rate of about 5s. 6d. in the pound is what the poor people of Bethnal Green have to pay for the relief of their own poor. On the 31st December, 1924, of the persons normally insured, the unemployed in receipt of unemployment insurance totalled 53 per per cent. On the 30th September, 1926, that percentage had increased to 81 per cent.
  We cannot, as a House of Commons, sit down and merely watch the problem and give the same old reply. We must look forward to the prosperity of our trade, but the present Government have done all in their power to break down our trading relationships with foreign countries, who could have helped us if we had kept in proper trading relationship with them. It may be that the Bill which we introduced in 1925 and 1926 was not a cure for the problem, but it would have alleviated the problem. With the help of hon. Members opposite it was thrown out. It would have provided £10,000,000 annually towards dealing with the problem. The Minister of Labour, in connection with his Unemployment Insurance Bill, has given a little concession in regard to juveniles, but we are of opinion that those between 14 and 16 years of age, and those between 60 and 70 years of age, should be completely taken out of industry. We believe that in taking these people out of industry we should relieve the present unemployment problem to the extent of 500,000
  58
  persons. It might cost £40,000,000, but of that £40,000,000, you would save £30,000,000 in relief of local rates and unemployment insurance, and only £10,000,000 would be left which, considering the wealth of this country, is very little for dealing with this urgent problem. The Government have failed to deal with the problem. They have made no attempt to solve it, and the time is ripe when they ought to go out of power and appeal to the country. If they did so, the country would return to power those who are able, willing and capable to use the resources of the country to deal with this problem in a proper way.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House notes with satisfaction that, in spite of the grave setback caused by the general strike and the prolonged coal dispute in 1926 the number in employment during 1927 has been greater than at any previous period since 1920; and is of opinion that the absorption of those who remain unemployed cannot be effected by Socialistic measures and can best be assisted by a policy directed to encouraging the recovery of industry, promoting industrial peace and, while preventing hardship to those unavoidably out of work, taking all steps that are practicable to forward the readjustment of labour forces to the changing needs of modern industry."
  Anyone who has listened to the sincere and heartfelt speeches which have just been delivered and has been impressed, as I think everybody would have been impressed, by the story of difficulty and distress which they showed, would have expected that those speeches, coming as they did from sincere and able members of the Socialist party, would have said a little more about the remedies they propose and a little less about that which all of us know to be the case, namely, the terrible amount of distress which exists. Reading the Motion, one finds it extraordinarily difficult to reconcile it with either the speech of the Mover or the speech of the Seconder. We heard from the Mover of the Motion a number of suggestions, which I am certain he would agree were nothing but palliatives, nothing but temporary measures, nothing but things which might tide over a difficult problem, and, inasmuch, as the Motion says that

  59
  "the present economic system offers no prospect of steady employment with a decent standard of life,"
  in no sense touches that which the Mover said is the real problem. We all-know perfectly well that we have a number of unemployed which nobody desires to see indefinitely in this country; everyone desires to see the number reduced at the earliest possible moment. We all desire that this reduction should not be temporary in character, not a passing phase but something of a permanent character, the foundations of a system of industry in this country which would provide a permanent remedy.
  In fact, the words of the Motion themselves suggest that which both Mover and Seconder failed to suggest; a comprehensive national policy which will, in the first place, stimulate production. I listened very attentively, but I found scarcely a word in either of the speeches, in fact, no word at all, of any national comprehensive policy which would stimulate production and, therefore, one is rather in this difficulty, that you have to look for the proposals of the party opposite not to the speeches of those who have proposed and seconded this Motion but to the declarations which are made by the party in other places and on other occasions. One thing at any rate is clear, that even the palliative proposals of hon. Members opposite could not be brought into being without a considerable addition to the spending capacity of the Government. Every one of the palliatives suggested requires for its foundation a very largely increased expenditure of the already swollen expenditure of the Government. All these things are bound to cost money, and the question which has to be answered, and which I know hon. Members opposite would answer at once, is, where is the money to come from in order to provide these remedies?
  Mr. W. THORNE: We know where it is.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I look at the literature of the party opposite, and I find only one suggestion as to where the money is to come from. What is this national policy; and where is the money to come from to pay for it? It is said to be a national policy to stimulate production, but the most amazing elements
  60
  in a policy to stimulate production are suggestions for restricting the number of those who shall work, and restricting the number of hours that they shall work. That is not very much like a policy to stimulate production. We are to carry out a policy, according to the party opposite, which is to cost very large sums of money, and the only source from which that money is to come as far as one can gather is the Surtax, about which some hon. Members opposite are enthusiastic and some of them cold.
  At the last Conference at Blackpool a considerable number of statements were made about the surtax. It was brought forward in a comprehensive resolution. It was at first suggested that it was to be a tax purely and simply for the reduction of the National Debt, but when it got as far as Blackpool it was decided that a surtax for the reduction of the National Debt was not quite as good a vote-catcher as if it was used for other purposes and, therefore, the resolution in which it was recommended to the Blackpool Conference suggested the abolition of taxes upon necessaries, the development of social services, and, thirdly, a reduction of the National Debt. Much more recently we have had an authoritative statement issued as to what the surtax is to bring about, and from this statement one realises that the surtax is the foundation of this national comprehensive policy about which the Motion speaks but about which we have heard practically nothing this afternoon. It says:
  "(1) Steps to the new social order must be taken by the first Labour Parliament. Poverty and unemployment must be attacked.
  (2) Rates must be reduced by a more generous assistance to local authorities from national funds.
  (3) Development schemes, which will increase national production, must be set on foot.
  (4) The school age must be raised, with provision for adequate maintenance grants."
  and in the fifth place it says:
  "(5) The burden of the National Debt must be lightened."
  (6) The standard of life must be raised."
  "Can this be done?" says this authoritative statement, and the answer comes:
  "It, can be done by the surtax."
  I think, therefore, that I was quite right in saying that the foundation of this

  61
  national comprehensive policy is the surtax, and nothing else. What is it that the surtax is going to do? Apparently this authoritative statement is quite clear and specific about it. It says:
  "It is going to touch nobody."
  Mr. W. THORNE: Only you.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: No, it is not going to touch me, I am well outside the limit.
  Mr. THORNE: What are you growling about, then?
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I am not growling about it. I am not speaking from any personal point of view. What I am trying to point out to the House is that it is a little misleading to try and get support for the surtax upon one ground when the leaders of the party opposite are pointing out that it will have a totally different effect from that which is given in the leaflet which defends it. Let us see what the leaflet says:
  "A large proportion of the tax will be paid by Super-tax payers, of whom there are 97,000, and who have an average income, after all taxes have been paid, of about £80 a week each. It is absurd to suggest that these persons are going to suffer hardship from some extra tax."
  I agree entirely with that last sentence, but what I disagree with is the implication of it in a leaflet of this kind. The suggestion is that the surtax will affect people with an average income of £80 a week after payment of all taxes, and that it will affect nobody else. The real fact is that the people with incomes of an average of £80 a week, after the payment of all taxes, will not suffer hardship; they will still be able to get what luxuries they want, they will still be able to indulge in the extravagances they want to indulge in. They can still do that. But what you will have done——
  Mr. TINKER: May I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? The surtax is something which is suggested by the next Government; not to come in at the moment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion that has been tabled looks a long way ahead.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Just as the party opposite at their Conference at Blackpool thought it better to put other things in the background so on this occasion they would rather put their surtax
  62
  in the background than discuss the only constructive suggestion they have made for the purpose of finding the money to carry out the proposals they put forward. The only effect the surtax can have is this. It will affect only invested money, and it will therefore affect only that portion of capital to-day which is used for re-investment and for the development of industry. It will render surpluses less profitable, it will reduce surpluses, and it will prevent re-investment. After all, industry depends for its development upon the re-investment of savings, and it is for that reason that the encouragement of savings is so vital in an industrial community. No one has put this more clearly or more concisely than the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He has put the effect of the surtax as clearly as anyone could put it. So far from it touching only the people with an average income of £80 a week, the people who will be touched by the surtax are those who depend for relief from unemployment upon the expansion of industry and the increase of wage-earning facilities. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley said:
  "Trade revival is vitally dependent on capital savings. Before the War the saving was £400,000,000 a year. To-day we were certainly saving no more, whereas with the change in the value of money we could certainly be saving at least £750,000,000."
  There could be no clearer condemnation of the effect of a tax, which can only be a tax on cumulative savings, than this statement by the right hon. Gentleman. What happens is that our capacity to buy is directly affected, our capacity to expand industry is retarded, and, above everything else, there is still the question as to whether this wonderful surtax will, in fact, produce the money. In this connection the right hon. Gentleman is not only doubtful but almost certain that the surtax will not produce the money which is necessary. What is the purpose of it? Is it to catch votes? That is a suggestion which would never enter into the minds of hon. Members opposite. Is it to destroy industry? That again is a suggestion which, of course, would never enter into the minds of hon. Members opposite. No; but I find that the members of the executive of their party clearly regard the surtax, and the matters connected with it, as a method of destroying industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Non.

  63
  sense!"] Well, I will read something which one of the executive members of their party said:
  "Nationalism is only a part of Socialism. There is another part. The neglected part of Socialism is the socialisation of the national income. That will force the pace towards nationalisation, because every thrust forward, every slice of national income taken from the owning class, will make capitalism less worth while."
  So we understand; that is the position. The idea is to tax the owning class, to increase the taxation on the owning class, and to make capitalism less worth while. If you make it less worth while you stop the expansion of industry, and the people——[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite really do the capitalist an injustice if they think he will continue to invest his capital while they are making it commercially "less worth while." Further, says this gentleman, with a very good idea of electioneering as practised by hon. Members opposite:
  "How can Labour keep its majority to carry through the process of nationalisation if Labour does not use the national income to sustain and give hope and courage in the hour of need? A realist programme such as I have outlined would reach the labouring classes in town and country alike. A majority so supported would be secure."
  In other words, "Let us use the national income," says this gentleman, who in the last Parliament was the First Commissioner of Works and a Member for one of the Divisions of Bradford, and is still a member of the party Executive. I refer to Mr. Jowett. "Here," says this gentleman, "here is Socialism. It is a long way off yet, but in the meantime let us use other people's money in order to keep our party majority together." Why, even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is a child in matters of that kind compared with Mr. Jowett. But then, as is quite true, Socialism is behind. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition prefers to say it is in the background. Meanwhile the strategist of the party, the late First Commissioner of Works, says, "Let us use the income of the State to prop up our party majority." Other men still sitting on the benches opposite take rather a different view of propping up the party majority by means of that kind. They take a different view also of trying to prop up the people of this country by the use of other
  64
  people's income. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that one method of dealing with unemployment is to make it almost as profitable to be unemployed as to be employed. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is better to make it more profitable to be unemployed than to be employed. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to reserve their speeches and not to interrupt.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The hon. Member is very annoying in the statements which he is making. It is his untruthful statements that annoy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will be in the same position later, from the other point of view.
  Mr. THORNE: I shall if I start.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will delay the start until he catches my eye.
  Mr. THORNE: I will try to preserve my temper.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Hon. Members opposite seem to be a bit restive when I say what I think they have stated. Perhaps they will be less restive if I quote a member of their own party who, in speaking of the characteristics to be found to-day, used these words:
  "A desire to get something for nothing, to get money without working for it, and to live at the expense of others. The danger to be avoided to-day is to give the idea that the individual can look to the State to do everything for him, and that he is relieved from either personal responsibility or the need for personal effort."
  Perhaps hon. Members opposite will take from the right hon. Member from Colne Valley, whom I am quoting, what they would not take from me. Hon. Members, although not daring to say so this afternoon, declare by their Resolution that Socialism is apparently the only cure. But Socialism is neither a cure nor a palliative. Neither is there any guarantee that even the party opposite, if they had a majority, would be able to carry out Socialism. Their leader says that it is in the background. We know why it is in the background. It was put in the background at the last conference of the Socialist party, because Mr. Ernest Bevan then said that there were too

  65
  many Conservatives and Liberals in the trade unions to get the support of the trade unions for Socialism if they did not put it in the background. So they put it in the background for the time being. But not only that. We find in this House that Socialism is not always supported by those who sit opposite. When a question of municipal omnibuses for one of the Yorkshire towns was debated in this House, that keen and intense Socialist, the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), showed his individualist principles by voting against the municipal council that wanted to carry out municipal Socialism. When, recently, the municipal authority of Sheffield decided to municipalise the milk and the coal supply, they were brought down to their knees by that wonderful supporter of Socialism in this House, the Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who said that he represented the co-operative societies more than Socialism.
  In the meantime, the real difficulty of the Socialist party in dealing with questions affecting industrial peace and prosperity is that they are trying to do two mutually destructive things. They are trying as trade unionists to prop up and support, and very often they do support with very great ability, the capitalist system. It is their bounden duty as trade unionists to do it. Acting as men and putting aside for the moment their political convictions, they try to bring about a state of prosperity in industry. But the next moment their chances of doing that are dashed to the ground, because the same men are teaching the workpeople to try to destroy the capitalist system all the time. You cannot carry on two mutually destructive things of that kind at one and the same time. Yet at their last conference we had Mr. Bevan saying, "Do not talk about Socialism here; do not talk about this as a Socialist party. There are thousands of Liberal working men in the trade unions and there are thousands of Conservatives. Leave them to us. Let us bring them round to our way of thinking in the trade unions, and then you may claim them for the Socialist party." The man who tries to do that kind of thing in industry is trying to do something which is not possible, because even in its own doctrine and speeches "the house is divided against itself." You
  66
  cannot get rid of politics in industry so long as you are trying to do those two things.
  One finds the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who now appropriates to his own party the Almighty, in order to put the coal trade again in the vortex of political warfare. [Interruption.] I have never avowed publicly that I have trusted, in party politics, to other than human agencies. I think it is far better to trust to human agencies. But there is something which is detrimental and dangerous, and that is something which has been decried very definitely by the present secretary of the Trade Union Congress, Mr. Citrine, who said:
  "I believe more is to be gained by the direct exchange of views and opinions by leaders of industry on both sides, than by the interference of politicians bent on playing the party game."
  Before I pass to my Amendment I want to say a word or two about the figures of the present situation. They show very clearly that, while things may be dark, there is hope in the present situation. Let us take the position since 1920. I am quoting from a leaflet issued by the headquarters of the Socialist party in the last two or three weeks. Since the year 1923, 35 groups of industry have expanded and absorbed no fewer than 874,700 men. The distributive trades alone have expanded and taken 327,000 new employés. Road transport has taken 49,000, while building has absorbed 173,200, and brickmaking 35,000. We then come to rather smaller figures, but lead up to one of the few ways in which the Government can help industry. The construction of motors and cycles in that period has resulted in no fewer than 41,000 new men being taken on. Silk and artificial silk have absorbed no fewer than 17,700 new employés only is that the state of affairs but even real wages are 11.5 per cent. higher at the present time than they were in October, 1926, and 6.5 per cent. higher than they were in December of last year. Then if you take the figures of unemployment in September, 1927—[Interruption.] I am taking the last figures I can get, and, in order that there shall be no trouble, I have taken them from the "Labour Bulletin" issued from the headquarters of the Socialist party. I find that in

  67
  September of this year, in all industries excluding coal, there was 9.4 per cent. of unemployment as against 13.7 in September, 1926. In engineering, there was 9.4 per cent. against 16.3 per cent. in September, 1926; in shipbuilding, 21 per cent. against 41 per cent. in 1926; in iron and steel, 17.7 per cent. against 52.3 per cent, in 1926; in cotton, 9.1 per cent. against 24.1 per cent, in 1926; in building, 9.7 per cent. against 10.8 per cent. in 1926; and, among dockers, 21.1 per cent. against 32.2 per cent. in 1926. Those figures, as I say, are taken from the "Labour Bulletin" issued by the Socialist party. They are contained in the October number, and hon. Members opposite can verify my statement. They show, firstly, that an improvement is taking place, and, secondly, that the steps which His Majesty's Government have taken in the direction of safeguarding industry have led to the absorption of new employés and the expansion of the employment market, and in that way there has been steady progress towards the diminution of unemployment.
  I would here mention a curious and interesting fact for which there must be some explanation. It is one of those things that ought to be mentioned as publicly as possible. Within the last few weeks a Swiss firm has opened a well-equipped and up-to-date factory in my constituency dealing with the manufacture of artificial silk garments. They are trying to produce by British labour things which they formerly produced by Swiss labour in Switzerland. One of the extraordinary things about this enterprise, in connection with the present state of the labour market, is that although they have been seeking for weeks for 50 women at a basic wage of £2 10s. per week, increasing by piece rates to £3 10s. per week, yet for the 50 situations they have had only two applications. Does that mean that some of the doctrines of hon. Members opposite are making people a little less willing to exchange unemployment benefit for wages? However, that is the position.
  In reference to the terms of the Amendment I have just shown that, in spite of the set-back caused by the general strike and the coal dispute, the number in employment is greater than at any previous period since 1920. I have given
  68
  figures indicating that expansion. It is quite clear that, if we can show that expansion notwithstanding the handicap which was placed upon industry by hon. Members opposite and their party in 1926, then without that handicap we should have shown a much greater advance.
  Mr. SUTTON: What about the coal-owners?
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I say that the handicap was put upon the country by the party opposite for this reason—that the coalowners and the leaders opposite- agree, beyond all doubt, that that dispute was prolonged and prolonged and prolonged by the extremists of the party opposite. They perpetuated the strike and hoped that it would continue. One of the conditions which is necessary for the expansion of industry is confidence in investment, and you cannot get confidence in investment, if investment is constantly being threatened by the predatory politics of hon. Members opposite. Confidence in obtaining markets, certainty and security are also essential conditions, and you cannot get them if industrial peace is constantly being threatened by the agitation and the political doctrines of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The capacity to look ahead is required, and you cannot obtain orders unless you are able to guarantee to those from whom you solicit orders that there will be no industrial trouble which will prevent the fulfilment of those orders. There must be confidence of that kind. I have dealt with the question of whether some of these conditions can be secured by Socialist measures. At present, we only know the earlier parts of those measures, but we say that employment can best be assisted by
  "a policy directed to encouraging the recovery of industry, promoting industrial peace and … taking all steps that are practicable to forward the readjustment of labour forces to the changing needs of modern industry."
  I have said that confidence is necessary, but, above everything else, confidence is necessary between those who employ and those who are employed. That requires an advance on both sides. It is necessary that you should have the most up-to-date machinery and methods. It may be necessary—in my opinion it is necessary—that you should get rid of many of the restrictive

  69
  conditions with which trade unions in their wisdom have fettered industry. But no employer has a right to ask for that, unless he is prepared to say to the men employed by him, "I am not going to use the removal of these restrictive conditions for the purpose of doing injury to you or your class." Everybody knows that a Beat many of these restictions were fastened upon industry because it was found necessary, in some cases, to protect people from evil employers who were ready to take advantage of them. That does not affect the position that these restrictive conditions are painful in their influence at the present time. My own suggestion is that there should be conferences—not spectacular conferences of all the industries in the country or anything of that kind, but conferences within the industries themselves. There should be conferences between the men who employ and the men whom they employ, and they should not be conferences which take no thought of the human element in factory or workshop.
  Mr. COMPTON: Start with the legal profession.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Neither the legal profession nor the hon. Gentlemen opposite should have any place in these conferences between employers and employed. They must be conferences in which confidence will be given on both sides and where there shall be, if you like, a full disclosure of the profits made and the way in which particular things done in the workshop affect the profits, and a full disclosure of the way in which restrictive conditions are affecting the chances of the industry in the markets of the world. Let there be full and free discussion of that kind, and, if I know anything about the English people, you will get to a solution which will bring about fair and honest work in that industry. But you will never reach that position while one political party is trying to undermine the basis of our industry by preaching from the special to the general—taking the illustration of the bad employer and suggesting that it is typical of the whole race of employers. You will never reach that position as long as the trade union leader, who finds that his trade union activities do not give him the publicity he desires, thinks he can do better in a political position as a Member
  70
  of this House. You will not reach it while men forsake their trade union duties for the propagation of a policy which can only undermine industry. While that sort of thing exists it is impossible to obtain the confidence which is necessary.
  Let those who have to deal with industry do so without the assistance of the politicians. Let the trade union leader no longer have "Socialism in the background." Let him cease from calling the capitalist system a system of robbery, let him cease from pointing to certain things which take place and saying that they are inevitable under the capitalist system. Let him tell his people the truth, namely, that these things about which he complains are not part of the capitalist system, but are things which, if indulged in, would bring the capitalist system and everything else to ruin. Let the trade union leaders be honest with their own people. Let the employers be honest with the men whom they employ, and let the men be honest with their employers. Then you will, at any rate, have a chance of discussion, a chance of confidence, and a chance that men will work, not against the employers, but for the sole purpose of making their industry prosperous. In that way prosperity will extend to the people in other industries, and there will be a steady diminution of that unemployment which we all deplore.
  RAMSDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Mover of the Amendment that we all deplore the large figure of unemployment still existing in this country. We in this party, just as much as the members of any other party, would like to see this blot removed as quickly as possible. I think, however, that in the present circumstances we may congratulate ourselves and feel that the conditions might have been worse than they are. I, like the Mover of the Amendment, feel that, had it not been for the deplorable events of last year, the unemployment position would have been much better to-day. If we cast our minds back, we find that the figure of unemployment in April, 1926, just before the general strike, was, for the first time in many years, well below the million. It was, in fact, a figure of 981,877 persons. Unfortunately, owing to the

  71
  general strike and the mining dispute, the figure rapidly increased during 1926, and it was only towards the end of that year and in the course of the present year that it decreased to any considerable extent. It is also just as well to remind Members of the official Opposition, who blame the action or inaction of the Government for the high rate of unemployment, that at the present moment the figures are somewhat better than they were when the Labour party came to the end of its term of office in 1924.
  At the end of October, 1924, there were on the registers of the Employment Exchanges 1,190,592 persons, and at the end of November of the present year the number was 1,145,200. It is only a small gain, but I feel very strongly that we can congratulate ourselves on the number being less when we consider the very great upheaval that British industry went through last year. I was astonished to find no mention in the Motion that has been moved of the necessity for peace in industry. It seems to me that the party opposite, as well as everyone else, must recognise the paramount importance of peace in industry, if we are to find a solution of the problem of unemployment. However the Members of the official Opposition may think about this question, there is not the slightest doubt that people in the country are recognising more and more the value of peace in industry. A very great debt of gratitude is due to the Prime Minister for the way in which he has advocated its necessity, both in season and out of season. He has done it in the face of great criticism, in many cases unfair criticism. Sometimes he has not even received the support of people who ought very definitely to have helped him to achieve his object. Fortunately, the value of the work that he has done is to be seen and can be proved very easily indeed. During this year the number of days lost owing to strikes and lockouts, roundabout 1,000,000, is considerably less than anything we have had for a number of years past. This is undoubtedly something for which we can thank the Prime Minister and the spirit that he has managed to impart.
  I do not know whether people realise what is the effect on industry of such disputes, particularly ones like the mining
  72
  dispute of last year and the general strike. I am afraid some people imagine that the evil effects of a strike come to an end with the cessation of the strike or lock-out, but, unfortunately, that is not all that takes place. Even the mere menace of an industrial dispute does a considerable amount of harm and may mean the loss of orders that should have come to this country. I know from personal experience that if there is the likelihood of a dispute taking place in any industry, the foreign buyer takes steps to see that his requirements are met from some other country, and in that way we frequently lose orders which would have found employment for our own people. There is no better illustration of this than in the coal industry, where, owing to the very frequent disputes of recent years, we have lost very valuable markets which would otherwise have been ours. There are some countries that have gone in for extensive schemes of electrification and others that have found new sources of supply, simply because they could no longer continue to run the risk of obtaining their fuel from this country. The disputes have been so numerous that they felt it was much too risky a course to take.
  I agree with the Mover of the Amendment in thinking that it has been very difficult to discover in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion any practical suggestion to deal with the question of unemployment. It seems to me that, as he said, all that they have offered are palliatives. These are, in effect, merely drugs which may for the time being ease the pain, but which, like drugs when applied to the human body, and if taken in excess, do harm or, in some cases, destroy the patient. We have to go further than they have done and try to get down to the root of the evil, and not simply confine ourselves to suggesting palliatives. I am one of those who feel that it is only trade that can bring this country out of the difficulties in which she finds herself at present. When I say trade, I mean an increased trade, in the production of manufactures for use at home and for export abroad, also in the fostering of our great agricultural industry. If we cannot increase our trade, if we cannot find economic employment for our people, we are certainly in for very difficult days. All these

  73
  palliatives, such as unemployment insurance and employment on public works, are more or less in the nature of trying to live by taking in each other's washing.
  This country is dependent on export trade, and we must consider, in the first place, how we can possibly increase that vital part of our commerce. I do not want to traverse again the ground that has been covered by my hon. and learned Friend, but I feel with him that the Socialist Opposition is very largely responsible for the present state of industry. Their constant attacks on capitalists, industrialists, and all who are trying to run the commerce and industry of the country, have certainly made the position much more difficult than it should have been. I hope they will recognise that they also must help industry and commerce if we are going to find economic employment for our own people. It is not the slightest use suggesting schemes of social reform which will involve the expenditure of large sums of money. If we do, we are only going to sink ourselves deeper into the mud.
  We are already spending vast sums of money in this direction. For instance, last year the amount devoted to social services came to £308,017,360, out of which £47,691,578 was spent on the working of different Unemployment Insurance Acts, £40,142,000 in relief, £27,448,900 on pensions, and £6,624,000 on the new Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. Incidentally, it seems to me that this scheme of contributory pensions at 65 years of age is going to carry out the desire of one of the speakers that we should remove from industry a number of those who attain the age of 65 during the course of the next year, and from thence onwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "On 10s. a week?"] In any case, whatever the sum, it will be a definite help, and I am sure that those who receive it will find it much better than nothing at all.
  The great need of the present moment is, so far from encouraging expenditure, to encourage economy in national and particularly in local government. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) referred to the very large burden which is placed on the shoulders of the local authorities. I agree with him that this burden certainly bears very heavily on industry, but you are not going to remove
  74
  the difficulty by transferring this burden from the shoulders of the local ratepayers to those of the national taxpayers. The burden will still remain. You will have to do something more than that if you are seriously going to help. If hon. Members opposite really wished to help, they should suggest to all their colleagues who happen to he serving on local authorities of any kind, whether county councils, city councils, boards of guardians, or any other form of local authority, that the best way to help the workers of this country would be by effecting every possible economy and reducing rates and taxes in every possible way. I think in this way they could do something very definite.
  But we have to go back to the fundamental fact that it is to trade and industry that we must look in order to find more employment for the workers of the country. I want to see everything possible done to encourage trade and industry to do their work efficiently and well, so that they can find employment for the large number of people at present without work. I will say, from my own personal experience, that I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee when he said that the great bulk of those at present unemployed do not want to live on the bounty of anyone, but want to have a job for themselves and to earn wages so that they can maintain their family in the comfort to which they are entitled. I am frankly of that opinion from very constant and frequent experience of those who are unfortunate enough to be without work.
  There are two directions in which we can look for further trade. The first is with regard to export trade. I am not very sure whether sometimes we have not been better manufacturers than we have been salesmen. I think our manufacturers should initiate a special campaign and offer their manufactures in every country where there is a possibility of their being sold. There is practically nothing that is manufactured in this country which cannot find a market in some other part of the world, and it is the duty of every manufacturer to try and find out these markets, wherever they may be. I am afraid that sometimes our manufacturers and our merchants have not concerned themselves sufficiently in finding out the possibilities of the markets of the world. It

  75
  is of the greatest importance that they should visit these markets, investigate their possibilities on the spot, and spare no effort in seeing that their products are offered for sale.
  We have, I believe, in the export trade very great opportunities for increasing our sales, particularly as far as the Dominions and the other parts of the British Empire are concerned. I should have been very glad to see, in the Motion which has been moved from the Benches opposite, some reference to the importance of Empire trade, because I believe very strongly indeed that in the future, more than ever, we must look to the Empire as a market for the manufactured goods of this country. I certainly regret that this Motion did not make some reference to that aspect of the question. It is fortunate for us that the Empire trade has been increasing very considerably. I do not intend to go into detailed figures, but I would like to remind the House that even since 1925 there has been a very marked increase in the purchases made by the different parts of the Empire. In 1925, their share came to 39.16 per cent. of the total British exports, whereas in 1927 it came to 42.76 per cent., which is quite an appreciable advance, I may say that the figures I am quoting are for the first 10 months of the years 1925 and 1927, respectively.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the
  hon. Member aware that Australia has recently passed legislation to increase the taxes on the iron and steel imported into that country?
  Mr. RAMSDEN: I am quite aware that Australia has increased certain of her rates of duty quite recently, but I would just like to remind the House of the fact that, in spite of the increases of duty which have taken place in Dominions like Australia, these Dominions happen to be the very best buyers that we have got at the present moment. Take, for instance, the case of Australia, to which the hon. Member has just referred. Here we have got a country which, with one three-hundredth part of the population of the whole world buys from us one-tenth of the whole of our exports. As a matter of fact, even in the year 1926, when the export trade of this country suffered along with the general trade, Australia bought from us goods to the
  76
  value of somewhere about £1,000,000 more than she did in the previous year. I regret that they have increased their duties on certain specific articles, but the fact nevertheless remains that the Dominions and the Colonies have found a considerable amount of employment by buying British manufactures during the past few years. We should have been in a very sorry plight had it not been for the enormous purchases they have made. I feel that we should certainly concentrate on selling our goods in the British Empire, because there we have a population only too willing to buy our goods if they can posibly do so. I do not say for a moment that we should neglect any foreign markets, no matter how small they be. We should try to sell our goods everywhere. There is, however, one thing we must do, and that is to leave no stone unturned in offering our goods in British markets overseas.
  There is one other thing to which I want to refer, and that is with regard to the home trade. I am rather surprised that no reference has been made to the effect upon employment of the large volume of manufactured goods coming in from abroad. Up to the end of November this year they totaled £296,050,262. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion referred to the possibility of the League of Nations taking action with regard to sweated labour in foreign countries, and, I suppose, with a view to the prohibition of imports, if they are made under such conditions. I think, however, that we ought to try to deal with this ourselves. We certainly can do so if we wish. Take this £296,000,000 odd which I referred to. Even if half of it had been kept out, it would have found a considerable amount of employment for the people of this country. This sum of £296,050,262 shows that we imported £9,000,000 worth of goods more than in 1926, and £3,000,000 more than in 1925. Unfortunately, it appears to be a progressive amount; in any case it is doing a considerable amount of harm.
  I think that a practical way of helping industry would be to extend the Safeguarding of Industry. Owing to the pledges given by the Prime Minister, the mandate of the present Government is limited as far as safeguarding or any other method of protection is concerned, but within the limited scope which it has

  77
  been applied, there is not the slightest doubt that it has been a great success. I find that in the first 10 months of this year we imported safeguarding goods—that is, of all kinds, including those subject to the McKenna Duties, etc.—to the extent of £38,253,000, which has to be compared with the figures for the same goods in 1925, which amounted to £54,730,000. In other words, owing to the imposition of these duties, there has been a decrease of 30.1 per cent. in these particular articles. This shows, consequently, that a considerable amount of employment must have been found in producing for home consumption the goods that otherwise would have been imported. This is all the more remarkable, as during the same period the imports of non-safeguarding goods actually increased from £188,445,000 to £210,610,000, or an increase of 11.7 per cent.
  In connection with this, there is one other thing I should like to say. The theories of the Free Traders with regard to the effect of safeguarding on imports have been proved to be entirely fallacious, for during this period the same goods have been sold abroad either to the Dominions or to foreign countries in larger quantities. The exports of non-safeguarded goods decreased during the first 10 months of this year by 12 per cent. It is very important to know that safeguarded goods were imported in decreased quantities and were also exported in increased quantities. The export of those manufactured in this country increased to the extent of 8.3 per cent. We have, consequently, two very distinct gains, both in the reduction of imports, which has found more employment for our people, and an increase in exports, which has also had exactly the same effect. I think along these lines, that is, first, a definite effort to increase the sale of all British products abroad, and also to keep out foreign goods which are taking away the livelihood of our people, there is undoubtedly an opportunity of finding employment on a very much larger scale than is the case at the present moment. In order to do that, industry must feel secure, and the party opposite would be well advised in letting industry know that, even if they are returned to power in the next few years, it is not their intention to do anything which would make its task more difficult or would
  78
  place obstacles in the way of additional capital being invested in industry. If they do so, they are not going to help create further employment, but will help to create further unemployment.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) made some references to the Sheffield municipality in connection with the sale of coal and milk, and attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) a certain responsibility for these matters being withdrawn from the Corporation Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not know what he is talking about, and what he said in regard to my hon. Friend was entirely untrue. He made certain references to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), but I think he cannot at all have appreciated some of the other things to which my right hon. Friend has made reference in regard to the necessity of a restoration of trade and industry. He was speaking about the same time to a resolution which was sent to the National Savings Committee, and which appealed to that Committee to promote a national campaign, pointing out in specific terms that the diversion of vast sums from non-productive to productive spending would help the restoration of trade and the removal of unemployment. That resolution had reference more particularly to the £300,000,000 which was spent annually on intoxicating liquor, and I think it is somewhat unfortunate that, when we are dealing with a Debate on unemployment, the chief spokesman should be one who is looked upon by many of us as the chief brewers' advocate.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I once, in this House, spoke on a licensing question—only once. I have never had the slightest interest in licensing or brewing or anything connected with it. I dealt with the Bill concerned with the administration of justice. The man who says that I am a brewers' advocate says something that is not only untrue, but dishonourable to himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
  Mr. WILSON: If hon. Members will give me an opportunity, I will at once withdraw what I have said, but it is not quite fair to shout "Withdraw" without

  79
  giving a Member an opportunity of withdrawing. I want further to say that Sir George Paish, who may certainly be taken as an authority in regard to some of these questions, strongly expressed the view that industry would be restored if we got rid of some of the items of unproductive expenditure, especially in regard to drink and gambling. My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution made reference to the extremely serious position in which the Sheffield Board of Guardians was placed in consequence of the very great increase of 397 per cent. in the rates owing to the position in which they have been placed because of unemployment. I want to refer to the effect of the change that has been made by the Ministry of Labour in regard to persons who have been transferred from unemployment benefit to the guardians. On 21st February, 1925, the guardians had before them 2,250 cases of insured persons receiving benefit. The numbers now receiving unemployment benefit have been reduced to 414. Then, in addition to that, those who were not receiving benefit have been increased from 966 to 3,979.
  In other words, there has been a transfer from unemployment benefit to the guardians of more than 3,000 cases in that very short period. There has been a weekly increase of some £3,000 in consequence of this transfer. The cost to the city since this change was made, a cost which has very seriously affected the whole of the trades of the city, has been very nearly £500,000. The guardians themselves have had to borrow £1,300,000. of which a certain portion has been repaid. For the repayment of this loan they have to find £180,000 during the current year, in the following year £112,000, then £149,000 for four and a-half years, and the final payment in respect of this loan will only be made nine or 10 years hence. There is no question at all that this involves an extremely heavy burden—for the poor, etc., there is for the current year a call of 7s. 8d. in the pound—affecting all the heavy industries in Sheffield. This is a burden which the city alone ought not to have to bear, as it arises from the fact that in the past it undertook so much work on behalf of the Government. When the hon. Member says we ought to advise our friends not to impose burdens which cannot be
  80
  borne, we are entitled to reply that burdens have been placed upon us which we ought never to have been asked to bear.
  I would like the House to look at this matter from another point of view, and that is in regard to the numbers on poor relief per 10,000 of the population. We find from the Ministry of Labour Gazette that in districts other than London, West Ham and Scotland, there are, on the average, 372 per 10,000 of the population. Unfortunately, the Scottish figures are very much worse, showing 645 per 10,000. The Sheffield unemployed alone show 282 per 10,000, as against an average of 372, which includes all other cases of poor relief in these other districts. I have here also the figures of the Sheffield and Attercliffe Employment Exchanges, showing the total number of persons wholly unemployed and the number on short time. For every 100 who are wholly unemployed there are in Sheffield 33 short-time workers, and in Attercliffe 63 short-time workers. These short-time workers are not included in the figures which have been quoted to us this afternoon, and while it may be perfectly true that the figures of unemployment show a substantial reduction, these very large numbers of short-time workers ought to be included if we are to get a true perspective of the situation. I have taken out from the Ministry of Labour Gazette the industries in which there are 200,000 or more insured persons. They comprise 54 per cent. of the total number of insured persons. These industries include a number of productive and largely basic industries, and certain others which are not productive. In the first category come coal mining, steel works, engineering, constructional and repair work on motors, shipbuilding, cotton, wool and building; and the nonproductive category includes the printing, distributive trades, local
  government employés and employés in hotels and elsewhere. In the basic industries we find that the total number of insured persons has increased between 1924 and 1927 by 11,670, but the number of persons unemployed has increased by 62,000, so that there has really been a decrease of 50,000 in the number employed. Therefore, while I do not dispute the accuracy of the percentages which have been quoted by the hon. and learned

  81
  Member for Norwood, unless he also takes into the comparison the actual number of persons employed between the two periods the true position cannot be ascertained. As regards the non-productive industries, it is quite true, as he said, quoting more particularly the distributing trades, that there has been an increase of 288,000 in the number employed between the years referred to, but an increase in employment of that kind is never going to solve the problem that is before us. Even though we increase very largely the numbers in the distributing trades, unless we have a considerable increase in those employed in production we tend to get nowhere at all.
  A few days ago I put a question to the Minister regarding schemes which had been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee or the Ministry of Transport, asking the number of schemes in operation, the number of men employed and the estimated cost of the schemes, in September of each year since 1921. From the reply I find that, whereas in September, 1923, 667 schemes were submitted and 150 approved, and in the following year 301 were submitted and 266 approved, that we have now come to the position where only six schemes have been submitted and four approved. Whereas the man-months approved in 1923 numbered 41,000 and in 1924 103,000, there are only 1,900 man-months in the schemes approved at the present time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Is the hon. Member referring to the schemes authorised by the St. Davids' Committee?
  Mr. WILSON: I am referring to the schemes referred to the Unemployed Grants Committee.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Yes; it is the same
  Mr. WILSON: While those schemes can only be regarded as palliatives, they undoubtedly do something towards meeting temporarily the problem with which we are faced, but I do not think the House sufficiently realises what unemployment really means. If we are to judge by what the hon. and learned Member for Norwood said a few minutes ago, we should have to believe that a very large number of those unemployed do not want work
  82
  and would prefer to be idlers rather than working. I think that was the inference to be drawn from some of the remarks towards the end of his speech.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The inference I want to be drawn is this, that if you go on indefinitely making it as profitable not to work as to work, or, rather, more profitable, you are almost bound to increase the number of people who do not want to work at all.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Do you think there are no honest people amongst the workers?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Do you think they prefer 17s. a week?
  Mr. WILSON: I accept that explanation, but I would only point this out. As things stand, all that a man, his wife and three children can get is 29s. a week, out of which they have to find their rent and rates and food and clothing. Estimating the rent and rates at the low figures of 8s. a week, that leaves 21s. to provide five of them for a week with food and clothing. How is it possible for people to live in real decency on that sum? Anyone suggesting that that is an inducement to a man, unless he were a downright shirker, not to seek work, shows the most complete ignorance in regard to the whole problem. It is quite true that there may be shirkers here and there—and shirkers do not belong to one class—but the vast body of people, as any relieving officer, or any man at an Employment Exchange will tell you, really desire work and are going about day after day trying to find it, although they know that the search is almost hopeless, and that unless they happen to be at a place at a particular moment or have some friend to assist them they are not likely to get employment. Those of us who live in the midst of these things and see what is going on from day to day cannot help feeling very strongly on this matter.
  The suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Jonhston) were made with the very best intentions. It was never supposed that they would provide a perfect solution of this terrible problem, but merely that they would do something to relieve the present difficulty. Everyone is agreed, I suppose, that the problem we are facing

  83
  is a very serious one and I am glad the Prime Minister is here. I want to ask whether the country is likely to continue to have real confidence in Parliamentary government if Parliament can do nothing towards solving this problem which has been with us for so long. If we cannot solve it, surely it is better to say so and not to pretend that we really care about this problem of human suffering. Ours is the responsibility. The responsibility has been put upon us by the country, and if we think there is no solution it is a great deal better to say so straight out and let people know that we are entirely incompetent, rather than to do nothing and to keep on hoping that something is going to turn up and that things will turn out better. This is no question to be dealt with in a party spirit. It is up to every man and woman in the House to see whether, by putting our heads together, we cannot bring an end to a situation which has been causing so much trouble and anxiety. It is causing an immense amount of suffering, such as the House does not sufficiently realise, I am afraid, and it is causing deterioration of our people, making them very much worse than a C3 population. I hope we shall not deal with this question in the way in which it has sometimes been treated, and that is by bandying proposals from one side of the House to the other. At this time of year, when we are talking about peace and good will, we ought to remember that the best way of achieving it is by restoring these people to some measure of prosperity instead of leaving them in the dreadful position in which they are to-day.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In considering the very serious problem of unemployment in this country there is no statement which is more frequently made than that "the only real cure for unemployment is to provide work." Although that statement finds acceptance in every part of the House, the major part of our Debates on unemployment is concerned neither with the problem of finding work, nor with the equally serious problem of preventing work leaving the country, but with Debates upon the necessity of providing relief when no work is available. In former years the problem of unemployment suffered throughout the whole country because it had been considered a
  84
  political problem. The problem of unemployment is in no real sense political. It is an economic problem; it is much more of a national problem than a party problem. Instead of the whole energies of the country and the whole energy of those connected with industry being concentrated in an endeavour to find some method whereby more work can be made available, our energies are devoted to other things.
  Hon. Members opposite seem to think that their duty has been fulfilled, in the absence of available work, if they deplore the situation, and demand maintenance in lieu of work; and yet they wind up with a general statement that the capitalist system has failed. A large number of industrial leaders of organised workers say they have no obligation to put forward constructive industrial proposals inside their own trade. Is it to be wondered at that in circumstances like those the problem of unemployment is difficult of solution? Is it to be wondered at, when in the Motion before the House which has been moved by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) we find the statement that
  "the present economic system offers no prospect of steady employment?"
  If that is believed, is it surprising that we find it so very difficult to solve this great problem? What are the main points? It is well known to the House that the really critical problem of unemployment affects the main staple trades. There is, broadly speaking, no problem of unemployment so critical as in the iron and steel trades, with the subsidiary trades of engineering and shipbuilding, and coal and textiles. Those three broad trades cover the critical position in regard to unemployment. Why is it that these main staple trades during the last seven months have been singled out for this special depression? Is it because our natural resources are failing us? Is it because capital is not available? Is it because the men are not good enough or because management is failing? Allowing for exceptional and special cases, I do not think capital is failing. I believe that capital can be provided where there is a prospect of a reasonable return. I do not think that our workmen or those responsible for management in this country are inferior to those in competitive nations. I do not think our natural resources are failing.

  85
  I think the answer to the problem is to be found in a consideration of the fact that all these special trades have been faced by special post-War problems. The whole of the commercial community has been unable to solve the special problems which are incidental to the post-War period. I believe it has been the incursion of politics into industrial questions that has materially affected this question. Take, for example, America, where coal is more expensive than it is in this country, where they have to import a large percentage of their high-class steam coal, and where wages are higher. Nevertheless, America has produced 95 per cent, of the motorcars of the world. With higher prices for raw materials and higher wages, America has been able to produce a cheaper commodity than we produce, and what is the reason? It is to be found in superior efficiency of production.
  The figures have been put forward that for 10 years the productive efficiency per head of the American workmen has risen three times. I do not believe that industrial efficiency in this country in the same period has risen at all. In America, there is no political view of industry, and everybody concerned in industry is pulling in one direction. From the smallest operative to the managing director, all realise what the improvement of industry means. They fully realise the importance of the production of wealth. They concentrate upon the manufacture of commodities in the most economical way in large quantities. Everybody realises that, and everybody works towards that end. In this country there is no such unity of view. Capitalists, to a great extent, consider that industry is there to provide them with the means of making money, and they quite forget in many cases the essential thing, which is efficient production in maximum quantities.
  On the other hand, labour is content to expend most of its abilities in forcing up wages or opposing the methods of the capitalists. You have, on the one hand, the capitalists' desire for profit, opposed by the desire of labour for a higher standard of living. I believe that it is this mental attitude, this opposition of the two factors engaged in industry in this country, that is much more responsible for the failure of our main staple
  86
  trades to deal with the post-War problem of surplus production, and so forth, than any other factor. With the particular trades that are specially affected, namely, iron and steel, coal and textiles, I am not competent to deal, but I would like to say a word or two on the particular trade with which I am personally connected, that is the cotton trade. Probably, I should be out of order if I were to discuss in any detail the special difficulties which are upsetting the cotton trade to-day, but I think that I shall keep myself within the confines of this Debate if I dwell specially on the progress of unemployment in the cotton trade, and if I give my idea as to what should be done to remedy that position.
  Unemployment in the cotton trade during the three months from April to June, 1927, was approximately 7 per cent. During the three months from July to September it was slightly over 9 per cent. In October, unemployment had risen to 11 per cent. I have not been able to work out the percentage of unemployment for the last month, but I know that unemployment in November has risen by 7,000 more over and above the 11 per cent. for October. In other words, unemployment in the cotton trade is increasing rapidly. In my view, unless something like the policy which I hope to advocate takes place, then unemployment in the cotton trade is going to increase still further. It is the spinning trade—and perhaps to a less extent the manufacturing trade—that is specially affected by this difficult problem of dealing with surplus production. For over seven years the cotton industry has endeavoured to face this problem of how to deal with surplus production in Lancashire. Many methods have been tried. Short time has been tried, and so has the policy of basic process, that is, sticking to regulated prices. We have also tried the policy of a restricted output. All these schemes have been tried, and they have failed.
  Perhaps it would be out of order for me to go into details on these points, but I think very few people, with knowledge of the subject, believe that the only solution of Lancashire's problem lies along the lines of large scale amalgamations, whereby we can obtain a reduction in overhead costs and management expenses. We must eliminate obsolete and

  87
  inferior concerns. I may be asked if it be the generally agreed policy in Lancashire to go in for large scale amalgainations, and, if that be so, I may also be asked why I do not proceed with that policy. I will endeavour to explain the special circumstances which are preventing this policy being pursued in Lancashire to-day. In normal circumstances, as is well known, when a concern loses money year after year, and finally is unable to meet its creditors, then the process of liquidation takes place. The assets are realised, and that concern only starts as a productive unit in the same trade on the economic consideration as to whether it was bought at a low enough price, and whether or not the prospects of the trade are dwindling. This is a normal state of things in Lancashire, to-day. There are 200 mills in the hands of the banks, and money has been lent by the banks to the cotton spinning trade to the amount of something like £15,000,000. A large proportion of this money is unsecured. One finds that, when the mill cannot meet its creditors, instead of it being allowed to go into liquidation, at the instigation of the largest creditors—which are the banks schemes of arrangement are instituted; a policy is being followed in Lancashire to-day whereby the mills are prevented from going into liquidation by schemes of arrangement, which act for a period of five years.
  In other words, these uneconomic concerns, which have been brought down by, amongst other factors, the very high burden of financial overhead costs, are put in a position still to produce for a further five years; and—and I would emphasise this point—they still produce without any lightening of their burden of financial charges. It, may be said that, if they are carrying on like this for five years, they are, surely, making tremendous losses and it may be asked, if they are making tremendous losses, where is the money coming from? They are, indeed, making tremendous losses, amounting on an average to from £200 to £800 per week; and the money is coming from the shareholders. It should be recognised that, in the case of practically all these mills, there is an uncalled liability on their shares. The capital is not fully paid up, and, under these schemes, the money which is being lost in day-to-day
  88
  trading is being provided by calls which are made on the shares. The shareholders are being forced into very difficult circumstances, some into absolute penury. Bankruptcy is taking place on a very large scale in Lancashire——
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do not the shareholders control the companies?
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: No. When the shareholders' money has gone, it is obvious that the concern is controlled by the creditors. The shareholders, obviously, are only of advantage inasmuch as they have uncalled capital; they are only of interest to the concern because they are people from whom money may be obtained; but they obviously can have no right to control the business, and the scheme of arrangement is necessarily controlled by the creditors. What I would like the House to realise is that these calls, which produce very great hardship, are not doing the one essential thing, that is to say, lightening the financial burden upon the mill and making it capable of producing more economically. Therefore, under these schemes, you have a situation in which the mills are forced to produce uneconomically for a period of years, and, at the same time, the shareholders are forced to provide the losses and enable this uneconomic production to go on. If this policy is pursued, we are month by month, as this uneconomic production takes place in Lancashire, giving hostages to our competitors overseas, and, if something be not done, then, in Lancashire's cotton trade, which provides the maximum amount of our exports—it is the largest exporting trade of this country—we shall, at the end of five years, not only have extracted all the available money which the shareholders and loanholders have, but we shall have ruined our industry, and, probably, ruined it to such an extent that we may never recover the position to which we hope to get back. The view which has been put forward, that we have only to wait a certain number of years for a return to pre-War conditions, is an entirely fallacious view. We shall never get back to pre-War conditions. The competitive power which is now being put up against Lancashire never existed in earlier years, and we must tackle the problem in some quite different way from merely hoping for a return of pre-War conditions. What is this way to be?

  89
  Ninety per cent. of these 200 mills—shall I call them the lame ducks of the cotton industry?—are in the hands of four banks. Those four banks should meet together and discuss Lancashire's problems. They have a greater stake in the Lancashire cotton trade than anyone else. They should decide on some very definite policy which can be pursued by the banks working together, and it is essential that that policy should put the concerns on a sound economic financial basis. It will probably be found that among those 200 mills there are, say, 50 that are obsolete. Those obsolete mills should go out of production. It may be asked, "How are you going to help unemployment by putting mills out of production?" The point is that, if you get rid of your obsolete mills, you can look forward hopefully to getting rid of your unemployment; but, if you carry your obsolete mills on your backs, the situation is going to grow, not better, but worse. Then the other 150 mills must be put on a sound financial basis, and it would be necessary for the banks, in order to do that, to make sacrifices. They may have to write off £1,000,000, they may have to write off £2,000,000, in respect of their overdrafts in Lancashire; but it is better that they should do that now than, it may be, in five years' time, lose the whole of their £15,000,000, and at the same time ruin the Lancashire cotton trade. The banks have the power, and they alone can give the lead.
  I should, however, be making a very grave mistake if I put forward this proposal with a view to suggesting that the banks alone are the people to make sacrifices. The banks can give the lead, but, if they will give that lead, I am confident that the shareholders, the loanholders, the management, and every part of the Lancashire cotton trade, will also make the maximum sacrifice that is in their power; they will do their level best to get on to a real basis of economic production. I want the House to realise that they cannot do that, if these schemes are to go on, unless the first move comes from the banks. The key to the situation is in the hands of the banks. They should, in my view, act now; every month makes the position worse. Unless they do, unemployment, in my view, is bound to get worse, and it may be that many busy mills—and once those busy mills were the pride of industrial England—will, if
  90
  we go on with this policy, become silent, derelict buildings, monuments to a departing industry.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) has given the House an extremely interesting speech, showing the House that the Lancashire cotton trade would benefit by a form of restriction of production. I do not agree with him that employment will be increased, or that benefit will be obtained in the long run, by a restriction of production. I think that what we suffer from——
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he has thoroughly misunderstood what I said. I do not propose a restriction of production; I propose the cutting out of obsolete concerns, and the working of full time by the remainder, so that the whole of the production would be economic.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member proposes the closing down of certain mills in order that there may be a possibility of working other mills full time. That is a restriction of production. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] As a matter of fact——
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: We know something of the trade and of the poverty, because we live in Lancashire also.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If all mills were working full time, the shutting down of certain mills would be to that extent restricting production. The hon. Member's scheme is to redistribute the orders by eliminating the unproductive mills and concentrating on other mills. That idea could be applied in various branches of industry; it is what is called the rationalisation of industry. I maintain, however, that it is all based upon the fallacy that there is over-production at the present time. What we are suffering from is not over-production, but under-consumption. All the people of this world want things which they cannot buy because they have not large enough wages with which to buy them, and we have to look at the matter from that point of view also. I do not, however, propose in any way to criticise the speech of the hon. Member, because I think it is excellent that we should have, from that side of the House, constructive

  91
  proposals. We are too accustomed to have from that side of the House the ordinary—shall I call it?—Hampstead Debating Society style. We are told that everything would be beautiful in the garden were it not for, on the one hand, the wicked working man, and, on the other hand, the Socialist party corrupting the morals of the working man.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been to the Hampstead Debating Society?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I apologise to Hampstead; I was thinking of the Union Debating Society at Cambridge, where I last had the opportunity of debating with the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and where very similar speeches are made, in which you call attention to the hopeless incapacity of your opponents and the moral iniquity of the working man. For the consolation of hon. Members opposite, I will admit that the working man in this country is not what he ought to be, and that the Socialist party is a corruptor; but, even if that be so, are not other nations in Europe cursed in the same way? They all have these working men who think they should be doing better for themselves, and Socialist parties stirring up and agitating the working man's mind and making him less docile and humble and obedient——
  Mr. GRACE: Not in America.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think the hon. Member can know America very well. What about the I.W.W.? You find these Socialists everywhere, and you find everywhere people who want to do better for themselves, and who think that they are not getting quite a fair deal at the present time. That has to be accepted everywhere. I propose, however, to leave these natural iniquities of human nature on one side for the moment. I do not propose to say that everything would be beautiful in the garden were it not for that incompetent Government, though that would be a natural tu quoque. I believe, honestly, that the Government is not thoroughly and fundamentally bad; I believe that it is merely stupid. I propose just to——[An HON. MEMBER: "Prove it!"]—to ask hon. Members if they would apply their minds to acquiring
  92
  a little information about what is being done in other countries to meet precisely the same difficulty with which we are faced here. I happened recently to be in Greece, and it struck me that what Greece was doing and had done was an admirable lesson to His Majesty's present Government. I should like to see the Minister of Labour taking a little trip to Greece and seeing there what has been done for the unemployed in Greece. It so happens that as it were on one morning, 1,400,000 unemployed refugees were dumped upon the shores of Greece. The total population of Greece was then only 5,500,000, and 1,400,000 unemployed refugees were put ashore with very little money, without clothes and without the average number of men in the population, because the men had been killed off.
  These refugees were an unemployed problem unparalleled in magnitude when we consider the wealth and the population of the country involved. What did they do? They went to the League of Nations and, through them, borrowed £10,000,000 from British capitalists. Then they arranged to get hold of a Scotsman. It is wonderful how these brain waves are caught by foreign statesmen, and yet His Majesty's Government cannot think of it. [Interruption.] Yes, but the Greek Government gave their Scotsman some powers to act. They appointed a committee, a Scotsman, an American and two Greeks. Owing to frequent changes of the other members of the committee, the Scotsman, Sir John Campbell, conducted the whole of the repatriation and re-establishment of these 1,400,000 refugees. He had £10,000,000. The Greek Government said to him, "You will want money, you will want land, and there are the refugees." The Greek Government did not interfere. They had other fish to fry. At that time Greek Governments were changing with extreme rapidity, and with many dangerous consequences to the ex-Government. What they did was to say to Sir John Campbell, "You can have what land you require, you can take any land that is not being used at present and, if it is owned privately, or if claims are made upon it, we will settle with the owners afterwards." Therefore, we had the capital, we had the land and we had the people—people with some knowledge of agriculture, though I would not say

  93
  honestly more than a half of the refugees had any previous experience of agriculture whatever.
  I would not have the House suppose for a moment that the work done by the refugee settlers in Greece has been solely devoted to agriculture. They have started new cement factories, new carpet factories, new pottery works, weaving factories, in fact now Athens and the Piræus together are the biggest cities in the Mediterranean, and about one-half of the 1,400,000 unemployed in Greece have been re-established in new industries in the cities of Greece—an enormous addition to the strength of the Greek population and their productive policy, and even to their intellectual capacity. The other half has been settled by Sir John Campbell in agriculture. If you go to Macedonia, you will see a series of little red-roofed villages all over the countryside. A countryside which was previously uncultivated is now, I will not say a prosperous garden, but a cultivated area, every inch of it being used. They have done it on economic lines. They have, of course, provided the money for the settlers to build their homes. Those homes have been built to plan more or less, but they are excessively primitive. The family and the cattle live under the same roof, there is no chimney and there is a mud floor instead of a wooden floor. The conditions are not what we should consider satisfactory, but they are in their own houses. They have supplied them with stock and they have to supply them with food for the whole year for themselves and their stock. Each family has either one ox or one cow. They co-operate together and they have sunk wells in every new village, they have developed roads and have carried on a vast campaign for exterminating malaria.
  They have spent their £10,000,000, to my mind, very wisely and there have been, as far as I can find out, no complaints whatever of graft, though there must have been enormous opportunities for that sort of thing. The actual cost, as it has worked out, has been about £80 per family for establishing these unemployed refugees on the land of Greece. It has been excessively cheap, but they had the enormous advantage of having the land. What they did at the beginning would interest the House. The
  94
  people from the same sort of settlement from Asia Minor or Thrace got together and chose a delegation of three or four of their members to go out into the country that was to be sold, and select their spot. They were given a map and a free hand, and these little groups of settlers went out and chose the new home for the old village. That area, very roughly and inefficiently surveyed, was set apart for that group of settlers. They arranged how the land was to be divided among them, and then they carried out their material and, with the very slightest assistance from Sir John Campbell and the Commission, they set up their new homes.
  This is an example of a way of dealing successfully with unemployment by people who are not very high in the scale of civilisation, guided by the intelligence of people like Sir John Campbell and of a good many Greeks there who have been the founders of these new cities—an admirable piece of work and, I maintain, an example of what the Government should be doing now for other refugees who are out of work in this country and who cannot expect, under the present conditions of industry, to get back to their old employment. I wish the Government would make inquiries into what has been done, and see whether something similar is not possible in this country, even though it involves taking land which is not being used and putting it to use without compensating the owners. Sir John Campbell is no longer in Greece. The job has been handed over to our old friend, Sir John Hope Simpson, and Sir John Campbell is free, and has now gone to help the Jews do similar work in Palestine. He is now reporting on an experiment about which the Government also should know something in order that they might again apply the experience of other people to the similar problem in this country. Many hon. Members have been to Palestine, and know that stretch of land right across to the Jordan—derelict land, which was marsh and unused by anything except water-fowl, a breeding ground of malaria. A strip of land some five miles wide and 50 miles long has been converted in seven years into a real garden, more intensively cultivated even than Macedonia and Greece to-day. That, too, has been done by intelligence combined with capital and the land necessary for carrying out the experiment. They have had

  95
  to pay, in the case of Palestine, very heavily—as much as £20 an acre for land which it was impossible to regard as useful for anything. Capital had to be supplied to drain the land, but they got the land and they got the settlers—settlers who knew nothing about agriculture and did not know a pick from a shovel when they left Palestine. They have been converted into a successful pioneer population—free men with free land producing for themselves.
  I think the House too often thinks about this unemployment problem as though we wanted work. No man in his senses wants work. What we want are the results of work. The only sort of opportunities for employment we want in this country, or anywhere else, are opportunities for useful productive work, and not for useless parasitic work. In both these examples, in Palestine as in Greece, the unemployed have been converted into useful, primary productive workers, producing food first of all for themselves, and, secondly, for export. In Palestine, it cost much more than in Greece. In Greece, Sir John Campbell managed to do it for £80 a family. That was extremely cheap—the cheapest thing that has ever been done. In Palestine it has cost, when you take the land into account, up to £1,000 a family. In both Greece and Palestine, the settlers are beginning to pay back, not only the interest, but the capital. In Greece they are paying it back the more readily, because, until they pay it back, they do not get their exact plot of land defined. They cannot get their title. They are anxious to start paying so as to have the title and show that they are the owners of the land. In Palestine it costs £1,000. Do not let hon. Members think that is exceptionally extravagant. Our similar experiment in Australia cost no less than £2,000 per family. The cheapest example that has even happened is the Greek example.
  A similar policy of dealing with exceptional unemployment is found also in Russia. The Soviet Government, by their very constitution, have naturally thrown out of work an enormous number of small shopkeepers and petty traders. The extension of the co-operative movement, the municipalities and the State, taking over a great deal of the distributing services, has thrown out of work an enormous
  96
  number of small shopkeepers and traders. Those people were mostly Jews, because Jews in Russia were not allowed to do anything but that sort of work, with the result that they have been faced with this problem of a permanently unemployed class very similar to the case of the miners in this country. The change in the system of production in that country and here has scrapped a lot of people whose skill lay in a trade which is no longer wanted. In Russia, they did the same thing. They had the land. They got rid of the landlords in that country as they did in Greece and they are able to get land in the Crimea and the Ukraine, free. The Russian Government told these Jews who were out of work that any applicant would receive assistance from the Government in order to establish himself in a new industry. Only those applicants who could produce a number of roubles which I cannot translate into pounds, but, I think, about £70 to start with, were accepted as settlers. The Government added to their capital by loan, and they went to the rich Jews of America and got enormous contributions from them. I believe Mr. Rosenthal gave £2,000,000 towards the experiment.
  They have had gigantic financial assistance from America, largely in the shape of supplies and machinery, but also in the shape of expert agricultural advisors. Roughly the settler finds one-third, the Government finds another third and the American Jews find the other third of the cost of establishing these men on the land. The Government also gave them free transport on the railways and gave them Government forests where they could cut down timber for making their houses, and the Government also exempts them all from rent for this land, or they call it tax there, for a period of, I think, five years till they are established. That particular experiment only started in 1924 and in the two and a half years which have gone between the commencement of that experiment and the last report, no fewer than 50,000 families, amounting to a population of 200,000 people, have been settled on the land and have started paying their first instalment of interest on the loans made by the Russian Government.
  The Greek Government, the Russian Government and the Zionist organisation can do these things for their nationals

  97
  when they are straitened, as our miners have been in this country by a complete change in the system of production. Why cannot we do something similar in this country? We have the money. It will be observed that in the Greek experiment they used British capital. We have got the men to do it. It will be observed that in the Greek experiment and the Palestinian experiment they have used people trained in these islands to do the work. In Russia, they have used American genius and American capital. Why cannot we do the same sort of thing? It is perfectly true that three-quarters of the people who are out of work to-day would not welcome a scheme of establishing themselves in a new trade upon the land of England or Scotland. They do not know how to do it. They would be frightened of it. But even if only one-quarter of those who are out of work welcomed the scheme, ought we not to put into operation, or attempt for this country, something similar to what is being done by those other nations, more backward, poorer in education and in cash? I cannot conceive of any reason against it, except the natural conservatism of the present Government. The refusal, in the first place, to learn wisdom from other inferior countries, and, secondly, the reluctance to interfere with the present rights of landed property, and to force the hands of landlords in this country so that the experiment might have a chance of starting. But I do beg of the right hon. Gentleman, before we have another Debate on this subject, to make a close and strict inquiry into the three examples I have given—Greece, Palestine, Russia, They have not solved the unemployment problem, but they have attempted, at any rate, to deal with the unemployment problem, and, as I think, they have attempted to deal with it on the right lines, turning the unemployed into useful, productive workers and not finding temporary jobs which are not of permanent value, and which are not creating a new industry. They have done all this in those countries, and do let the right hon. Gentleman between now and the next Debate on this question see what has been done, and how far men with the experience of Sir John Campbell can put into practice in this country the same good work which has been done elsewhere to solve a difficult problem.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): We have had one or two very interesting speeches this afternoon dealing with one or two different aspects of the problem, but, subject to that, I cannot help thinking that it is a pity, for a reason to which I will refer in a second, to raise this question of unemployment just now. It is impossible to review the general position of unemployment at this moment in this country without a reference to the troubles of last year and the effect of those troubles on the present state of affairs. The last thing that I would wish is to do anything to fan again the embers of the controversy that one had hoped were dying down. If I have to refer to them in dealing with the subject generally, I hope it may, at any rate, be quite clear both to Members of this House and to those outside that it is far from my wish to deal with these subjects any more than I can help, for the sooner the flames die down and the old controversy of last year is allowed to pass away the better for everybody in this country. At the same time, if anyone wishes to give any clear view of the present unemployment position it is impossible to do so without a glance at the circumstances that have caused the state of affairs at this moment.
  All through the years just after the great slump, from 1921 to 1924, the position steadily improved. There was very often, as we all know, a slight increase of unemployment in the winter. There was nearly always that sort of seasonal movement. But, taking the subject in general, from 1921 to the middle of 1924, when the party opposite were in power, there was a steady improvement. The lowest level of unemployment since the great slump was reached in June, 1924. There was one difficulty which still remained, one difficulty which was quite clear and overshadowed the future position, and that was the position of the coal trade. It was perfectly obvious to anyone familiar with the state of affairs, either in the country generally or in the coal trade, that trouble was bound to come in that trade before ever the country and the trade itself could get properly straight again. It was only going on as it was owing to a series of, for it, fortunate accidents, one after the other, and the

  99
  last of them—of course, I say fortunate accidents from the point of view of the English coal trade only—was the occupation of the Ruhr. As soon as the occupation of the Ruhr was ended and foreign production was likely again to be unfettered and foreign competition was to have its free play, the fact that there was bound to be trouble in the coal trade was patent to everybody.
  The change came in the early months of 1924. The effect of it was not felt at once, because old contracts were running out, but as soon as it began to have effect, from the middle of 1924, the position got gradually worse. Everyone remembers the chequered career of the industry in the months that followed—through the last half of 1924 and through the whole of 1925. Once again in 1926 an improvement started and a new low level in unemployment was reached, but then the whole position of this country was completely upset by the coal dispute and the general strike. The effect of the coal dispute, or the consequences of it, as everyone in this House is aware, did not end at the termination of the dispute. The results of it have dominated the whole of the position this year, quite apart from all the misery and hardship that were felt by the people, both those who were parties to the dispute and those in other industries who were affected by it and who were as numerous as those who were thrown out.
  One result has been that the whole country is much poorer this year. The vast majority of the people of this country are at this moment, a year after, not so well off as they would have been if it had not been for the trouble of last year. I remember—I think it was the figure put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) as the cost of the coal dispute to this country—that it cost the country 500,000,000 of money. That is probably true, and it has affected the country as a whole both by retarding the development of industry, and also by diminishing the purchasing power of the people to a, degree that can be felt most distinctly even now during the present Christmas trade. That is the reason why I say that this year has been dominated and is affected in
  100
  large measure still by the result of the coal dispute. Therefore, when hon. Members opposite arraign the Government for the continuation of unemployment equal to the present then, if they wish to fix responsibility, it comes down to what I hoped had been done with—the old barren controversy of the faults of the past and who was responsible for the coal dispute. If hon. Members wish to argue that, I am ready to argue, but it is far better, I think, to let that chapter in this country's history be forgotten.
  Mr. WILFRID PALING: It is the easiest way of doing it.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Well, of course, no party was 100 per cent. free from criticism—no party or set of people. I would never claim that.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Not even the Government.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not even the Government, nor anyone else, but if any body of men, party apart, are talking among themselves, then they say without question that the two men more predominantly responsible than anybody were the two chief leaders of the miners and those who supported them. Everyone knows that. [Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to have it stated plainly let it be stated plainly, and there is no one among the leaders of the miners themselves or the other workers' leaders or anyone else who is not willing in his conversation in his own circle to admit that fact.
  Mr. TINKER: We do not admit that.
  Mr. PALING: Ask the miners, and they will say the Prime Minister equally emphatically.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Everyone knows that the main and primary cause of the coal dispute was the fact that Mr. Herbert Smith refused to accept the Report of the Commission. He was asked whether he would accept the Report of the Coal Commission. That offer was, "Will you accept it if everything else the Commission recommends is carried out," and the answer was "No." Therefore, I say——
  Mr. B. SMITH: What of the coal-owners?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Government offered and asked him whether, if they were prepared on their side to see that every recommendation was carried out, he would accept it, including, of course, the reduction of wages together with all the other recommendations, and the answer was "No." That is a question of the past.
  Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that the coal question is now before the House and can be discussed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion which has been moved gives a regular catalogue. It covers almost anything. If hon. Members will bring forward such complicated Motions, I cannot attempt to confine the Debate to narrow lines. It is the scope of the Motion itself.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I put a point to the right hon. Gentleman in, I think, justice to Mr. Herbert Smith in regard to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made? Is it not a fact that Mr. Herbert Smith refused to accept the Report to which reference has been made if there was attached to it a condition that he must first accept a reduction in wages?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He quite categorically refused to accept the Report as a whole.
  Mr. PALING: Did not the Prime Minister just as categorically state that, before the Report could be discussed, he must agree to a l0 per cent. reduction?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Never within my hearing.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer back to the proposals sent to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and also to the Coalowners' Association, in which a definite statement was made that a reduction of wages of possibly up to 10 per cent. would have to be accepted as part of the general proposals, he will see that the coalowners categorically turned down the whole of the Prime Minister's terms?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We made an offer to the miners and asked whether they would accept the Report if we undertook to see that the whole of it was carried through, and the answer was "No."
  102
  I will just make this remark in reply to the interjection of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). With such an arraignment of the Government I was bound to reply by pointing out what I considered had dominated the position throughout this year. A few minutes ago I was ready to pass this question over without wishing to try and place the responsibility on one person more than on another. I have only made the statement I have done—to which I adhere absolutely—because I was challenged by hon. Members opposite. That is what has caused the position this year. The figures of unemployment last year showed a greater improvement just before the trouble began than on any previous occasion since the great slump. There was everything to show that the improvement was continuing——
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: But not in the coal trade.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am talking of the country as a whole and that would have reacted on the coal trade in the end. Taking the position as a whole, it was improving. It had in April last year reached the best position since 1920–21. The improvement was going on, and it was then interrupted. This year the whole trouble has been largely caused because of the comparative poverty of the country, the poverty of general purchasing power, and the difficulty of getting capital for the expansion of industry, but there has been a wonderful recovery under the circumstances. At the present moment, trade is in a better position—even in winter—and there is a better hope for the future than there has been for some time past. A new low level was created this spring when the figure of unemployment was lower than at any time previously.
  Mr. COVE: Since the lock-out?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, since the coal strike or lock-out, whichever you like to call it, the lowest level was reached this spring. I admit, frankly, the extraordinarily painful and difficult position in the coal mining industry, and the large number of men in that industry who are out of work, but I would remind the House that, while that is true, it is also true that the improvement in the other industries has so far continued that the total number of unemployed has

  103
  reached a lower figure this year than at any time since 1920. That is the position as it is at the moment, and it just depends on how far this country continues to go on peacefully with its work whether it can make up its lost position, and whether it can make an improvement and bring that unemployment to the level at which it ought to be.
  I have had specific schemes recommended to me. Let me deal with some of them. The hon. Member who has just spoken is an enthusiast for settlement on the land. I have listened with interest to his account of what happened in Greece. I have seen it myself. I have also listened to his account of the developments in Russia, though I have not seen them. I would ask him whether he thinks it would be possible for one moment to get people to settle on the land in this country under the conditions under which they have settled in Greece. He knows that they would not for one moment.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Under the conditions under which people were settled in Palestine they would.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. and gallant Member realises that, whether it is the Palestine settlement or the Russian settlement, they are settled in a country with better chances of making a considerable living from a small beginning than is possible in this country, and that he could not settle them in this country with the same chances of success.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of the Home Croft movement in this country or of intensive cultivation?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, and I have seen it myself, but, if the right hon. and gallant Member really wishes to help with settlement on the land, then the best opportunity is offered in migration to the Dominions. It is perfectly clear to anyone who has studied the subject that there the land gives greater opportunities than it does in this country with a far better chance of return and a far better chance of living at a decent standard. If the right hon. Gentleman would help in a movement of that kind we would welcome his help or that of anyone else.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Why should people go so far away from home to the Colonies and leave this land at home which is in close proximity to the great markets here?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The reason is that there is a law of diminishing returns.
  Mr. MacLAREN: In British agriculture?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes. There is not the same scope in this country for people to get a living and a chance of a decent return for their effort. I will now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) who opened this Debate, that of unemployment relief work. He referred to the Report of the Unemployment Grants Committee. The same hon. Member previously had been laying stress upon the damage done to industry by the burden of rates, and I ask the House to note the illustration that he took. So far as I remember his figures, they were that there were schemes before the Unemployment Grants Committee to the extent of £104,000,000.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: That was the value of the work that had been executed.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At a cost to the Exchequer of £40,000,000. I would ask the House to note that in that case the balance comes from the rates. To that extent, there is a burden on local industry. He asserted that the Government had deliberately stopped work of the kind going forward because of vested interests.
  Mr. JOHNSTON indicated dissent.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member did not say that I withdraw at once. I took down, as I thought, his actual words at the time. If he did not say it, I am perfectly willing to withdraw. The point is that in some cases an unemployment grant may be a business proposition, and then it is worth while that it should be given. In certain cases, again, which are exceptional, there may be an area which is so hard hit that a scheme financed by an unemployment grant may be worth considering, though it is not advantageous from the point of view of the country as a whole, because the difficulties and the despondencies in

  105
  a given area may be so great that it may be worth while to do a thing, which in itself is uneconomic.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lord St. Davids' Report, the last Report issued, which I quoted, it is said that there are no fewer than 10,900 schemes which have been passed by this Committee as business propositions?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite well aware of that, and I am coming to a point in that same Report which the hon. Member omitted to notice. That Committee came to this conclusion, which is contained in the covering letter:
  "If the scheme is pursued indefinitely it would be difficult to avoid subsidising work properly undertaken by local authorities in the normal course of their business, and in such cases but little could be added to the sum total of work performed in the country. In so far as special schemes might continue to be evolved, there is the further objection that they might well have a tendency to divert capital from the normal trade developments which are now to be looked for, and would thus hinder rather than assist the relief to unemployment through the proper channel of trade recovery."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the paragraphs which the right hon. Gentleman has read out were subsequent to the paragraphs in the Report which indicated that, on the instructions of the Government, a Circular letter was sent to the various public authorities asking them to send no more schemes?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The passages which I have quoted in the covering letter signed by the Chairman are sufficiently clear as to what is the final opinion of the Committee. The fact is that, with rare exceptions, it is probably true that grants of this kind in these days do less to diminish unemployment than to create it, and the reason, if one would analyse it, is admitted by nearly all economists of authority. It is exactly like the well known case that has been so often quoted of a man who has a pane of glass broken and his neighbours come to console him and say, "Do you not see how good it is for trade? Do you not see what work it gives to the glazier?" What is not seen is that the man has not the shillings he would be otherwise spending on a pair of boots for his young son. With regard to this question
  106
  of unemployment grant, exactly the same is true at the present day. What is seen is the men who are being employed to lay out a park or some other piece of work of that kind, but what is not seen is that the liquid capital which is used up and frozen in a piece of work of that kind is not available for ordinary trade expansion. The result is that industries which would otherwise be using the extra capital are not able to use it and, consequently, less employment is given to men at their own trade.
  Miss WILKINSON: There is no shortage of capital.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the "Economist." Undoubtedly, capital will grow and expand from time to time, from year to year if the country is going ahead, but at any given moment there is only a definite amount of liquid capital, and, if it is used too freely on unemployment work, it is not so readily available for use in stimulating industry along normal channels. Therefore, I would challenge hon. Members opposite on this question, and cite the great bulk of economic opinion, which is that the more that unemployment schemes are stimulated, the less will business be able to get the capital it normally requires. For that reason, while there might be more people employed on schemes the utility of which is doubtful, or the return on which is remote, yet there would be fewer people employed at their own trade, at which it is best for them and best for the country that they should be employed. That is the reason and the convincing reason which I advance. I am convinced that from the point of view of employment itself to use up, or, as some people would say, to freeze up capital in unemployment schemes, is not a good thing for employment.
  It is different when one comes to certain abnormal pieces of work that can be taken in hand. Some schemes there are, and they are exceptional, which can and which should be taken in hand. There are some schemes which are beyond the power of an individual to cope with or beyond the power of an association of individuals or a company to cope with. Just such a scheme is the electricity scheme. That is a scheme which is more analogous than any I know of to another

  107
  great scheme which was carried out, the Suez Canal scheme, in which the Government also took an interest.
  Mr. HARDIE:Nonsense! Sheer nonsense!
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is an expert, and he will have a chance probably of giving his opinions in his own time. The point I put to the House, and I do it with no less assurance despite the hon. Member's interruption, is that you may get a scheme which is beyond the capacity of individuals to cope with. It may be that its size is too great, or that its cost is too great, and for that reason a scheme like the electricity scheme stands apart, without being a precedent for other special schemes. It may be that time will prove that we were mistaken in thinking that that was a right scheme to push ahead, but when you get an abnormal scheme like that, a scheme of an exceptional kind, then you have a scheme in which the Government can and should take a hand. That is the reason why we have adopted that scheme, as contrasted with the ordinary unemployment scheme. The benefit of a scheme like the electricity scheme will, we hope, begin in the near future. One of the contracts has been made and other contracts are in contemplation at this moment, the chief benefit of which will not he in the actual work set out in the contract but in the stimulus given to the other industries that will be affected by it when once it is in working order. That is one of the schemes which we have carried out.
  I will take another scheme, which was the subject of debate in this House the other day, and which represents another abnormal case, namely, the creation of a new industry like the sugar-beet industry. That is justifiable from another point of view. It is justifiable because it means a new industry in the country which it would be difficult ever to establish without a strong stimulus at the start. The right hon. Member for West Swansea criticised it very severely in a very interesting speech, but that speech was vitiated by one fundamental error. He took the view that the fault of the sugar-beet enterprise lay in a vast expenditure of money which entailed each man's work being paid for at the rate of £1,000 a year. The error was this,
  108
  that he measured the amount of work given in this year by the expenditure of money in this year. He should not have put one against the other. This is a question of a subsidy which tapers away and finishes after a few years. Therefore, the expenditure for these few years is a capital expenditure meant to build up an industry for the future, and in judging the expenditure and the work in the way he did he made a fundamental error.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: Supposing the industry tapers, as well as the subsidy?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is exactly the sort of risk that is run, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that exactly the same objection was made, I think, by the right hon. Member for West Swansea, and others who think with him, on a previous occasion. There was an occasion in the very early years of the War when we had a case very similar to that of sugar beet. The trouble with regard to sugar beet is that you have to start two industries, as it were, at the same time. You have to start the factory side of the industry and you have to start at the same time an alteration in the agricultural crop. To overcome the difficulty of getting them both started together a strong stimulus is needed. Some years ago, in a similar position, there was the question of increasing the growth of an industry in this country, the margarine industry. There was the question of importing a new substance for use in the manufacture of margarine, and also the question of getting the remains of that substance used as a food in agriculture. There we had the same difficulties as now, and precisely the same kind of objection from precisely the same quarter was raised. It was said to us, "What is going to happen if you do this, and then the industry tapers out"? The only thing I would point out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Crawford) is that the imports into this country of that particular substance on a permanent basis are many times more than they were before the experiment was made, and that the margarine industry has grown in this country and is continually being enlarged on a permanent basis. That has happened after the help to the industry has been taken off. I maintain under these conditions that it is well worth

  109
  while trying some such experiment in regard to sugar beet.
  Owing to interruptions from the other side of the House I have taken longer than I intended. I have outlined the kind of obnormal case that can be taken and should be taken in hand, and I will leave to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the other type of help that can be given by way of safegarding. I would urge upon the House that these really are the ways in which industry in this country can best be helped. Deal with the abnormal cases while you can, safeguard industries by import duties suited to the circumstances, and get an expansion of those industries in which men can be employed at their own work. But when we are told to squander money on a lot of schemes the utility of which is remote, my reply is that those are ways which will injure industry more than benefit it. I have tried to outline the safe path. In conclusion I would point out the greatness of the improvement there has been in trade. We have four great trades which have not got over the effect of the War. The cotton trade is one. The shipbuilding trade is another: there they have not got over but they are getting over their difficulties. In the iron and steel trade the difficulty is getting less. Lastly, there is the coal trade. Taking the country generally, there can be no question as to the improvement that is taking place. There are more men and women employed to-day and have been within the last three months in this country than at any time in the country's history.
  Mr. DUNCAN: At greyhound racing.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member knows more about that than I do. I repeat that there are more men and women employed in industry in the last three months than at any time in the country's history.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Is it full-time employment?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes. There are more men and women in full-time employment, and more days have been worked. If the hon. Member wishes to have the figures I can give the actual days worked. This year there have been over 100,000,000 more days worked than
  110
  in 1924. The exact figure is 110,000,000 more days' work done in this country from March to November than in the same period in 1924. All the time the condition of things is improving, and getting towards the point which we wish to reach. The truth is that the recovery this year has been due very largely to one fact which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood who moved the Amendment (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) mentioned. The reason for the improvement this year is that there has been less industrial trouble than for many years past. Of working days lost through industrial troubles there were 10,000,000 in 1923; 8,000,000 in 1924; 7,000,000 in 1925 and a huge number last year. This year only about 1,000,000 working days have been lost, or one-seventh of the best year there has been for many years past.
  While there is no one here who does not regret the unemployment and the misery that is caused, I submit that it is no good trying to find panaceas for it which are in truth no real cure. Here and there a scheme can be found which is a good scheme and which is abnormal in its nature, and you can start a scheme of that sort. You can also deal with the situation by what I believe to be a good system, that of safeguarding. But what I believe would do more good than everything else is to try to enable industry gradually to work out the cure which it was working out in 1924, which it was working out in 1926 when it was stopped and which it will work out again if it is given the chance through a period of industrial peace and quiet. In that event, I say now as I said in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill, that I have every hope that we can get down to 8 per cent. or less of unemployment within the next two years.
  Mr. HARRIS: We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his optimism, but we regret that his speech has been barren of any constructive suggestion. To the 1,000,000 or so unemployed his constructive policy consists of two things. First, there is the sugar-beet industry. He seems to think that here is something which is a contribution towards a solution of the problem of unemployment. That is poor consolation to London. While there may be a few extra people employed in Norfolk in these new factories, there are many men out of work in Silvertown because

  111
  of the closing down of the sugar-refining industry; and the same applies to Liverpool, and to Greenock. His other contribution, which is little more promising, is the development of electricity. I agree that there is some hope for an improvement of trade in the reorganisation of electricity in this country. But it is very belated. It should have been done two or three years ago. The Government put off their scheme for three years, and even now, because of their timidity and the restrictions which were forced upon them by some of their own supporters, it is making very slow progress.
  I am afraid I am rather a practical person on these subjects. I cannot help thinking of the rows of miserable men in the East End of London, willing, able and competent to work, who cannot find employment. That is the urgent question and it is poor consolation for them to be told that things are improving, and that in three or four years' time they will be usefully occupied. Meanwhile, they are losing their industrial morale. Men cannot be out of work for two or three years and still keep their industrial efficiency. The policy of the Government is very short-sighted. It is a mere negation. In other words, they are like Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up. The Government have a responsibility. Other Governments did try to do something. I was not a blind supporter of the Coalition Government, but we did get from that Government some proposals, Export Credits, the Trade Facilities Act, and Unemployment Grants, all of which did something to keep these men at work and maintain their industrial efficiency. The Government throw overboard all these schemes and put nothing in their place. That is the tragedy of the position at the present moment. Men are waiting patiently and hopefully for something to be done to improve matters, but the Government at this Christmas time, when snow is falling and we have to face a bleak and bitter winter, can only send them a message to this effect: We have no policy; we do not intend to do anything; our policy is to wait and hope for trade improvement.
  I do not agree with all the high sounding phrases about nationalisation and a complete change in our industrial system, but the way to drive desperate
  112
  men to support desperate measures is for the Government to have no policy whatever. Where I quarrel with the Government is that there is in existence the machinery to find out what is the real problem before us. Thanks to the existence of the Employment Exchanges, we can diagnose the industrial position. We know to what trade these men belong, and how they are classified. If you go to an Employment Exchange, you will find an elaborate card system in use, by which you can tell to what trades the men out of employment belong. We have heard a good deal about the staple industries of the country, cotton, iron and steel, shipbuilding and coal. They are, of course, in a bad condition, but the problem is quite clear in these cases. The men in these industries are almost entirely employed in the areas where they are living, but in London and the great cities the problem is more complex. These great industrial centres are suffering because of the depression in the industries, and I am prepared to admit that you would get the great industries going again if you could get back their markets. If the cotton trade was back on its old scale, it would reflect throughout the country, because it would also affect the iron and steel trade, the coal trade and the shipping trade. In that way it would help largely the unemployment problem in London.
  London is suffering from the general trade depression in exports. We hear a lot about safeguarding. Hon. Members opposite always produce safeguarding as their one practical contribution to the problem. It is not the home trade which is in such a bad condition as the export trade. Take cotton. Everybody knows that the home, trade is not bad. Manufacturers of cotton cloths for the home market are busy and fully employed. Where the cotton trade is suffering is in the export trade to China and the East, and the Continent of Europe, and that must adversely reflect on all the great ports in the country, London, Liverpool and Bristol. The result is that you have men out of work in all the carrying trades. What I am going to suggest to the Minister is that, instead of being passive, he might utilise the machinery of the Employment Exchanges in order to find out in what trade these men have been employed in the past and, having ascertained that fact, that he should

  113
  extend his inquiries and find out whether there is any prospect in the immediate future of these men being reabsorbed in their own industry or in any other new industry. As far as my inquiries go, a great number of these men are employed in industries which will never get going again on the same scale. Conditions have changed, and methods have so altered that there is no prospect of their getting back into their old industry.
  Take the case of the carrying trade down to the docks. In London, before the War, this was done entirely by horse-drawn vehicles. Now the motor lorry has taken their place, and men of 40, 50 and 60 years of age have no prospect of ever finding useful productive employment in this work again. Would it not be wise for the Government, instead of sitting still and waiting for something to turn up, to try to see if some new employment could be found for these men? It has been suggested that they might be diverted to agriculture, but I am very doubtful about, that as a practical proposition. It is difficult to get men who have been living in the towns to work on the land, and agriculture is not such an easy craft to learn as some people would have us believe. I am sure that for the older men, at any rate, it is not a practical proposition, and, therefore, I think, we should try to see whether they can be trained for some other industry. Many of these carmen, if they had the opportunity of attending an intensive course in motor mechanics, could become motor drivers. It costs money, but I think the Government would be justified in starting training centres where these men could get an intensive course in motor mechanics and qualify as motor drivers, so that when things get going again at the docks, they would have some trade of an economic value to themselves and to the country. It may be difficult with the older men, but it should not present the same problem in the case of the younger men.
  One of the tragedies of the East End of London is that there are hundreds of young men who have never been in any regular employment since 1918. They have never learned a trade, have been largely on casual work, and this employment, has been very casual. What I wish to suggest to the Minister is this—I was going to mention it but was ruled out of
  114
  order the other night—that the Government should provide real training centres for these young men between 18 and 24 years of age. I would make it a condition of their receiving unemployment insurance pay that they should attend at some training centre for three or four months. But to make this possible, the Government must make up their minds to make these centres really training centres, not amateur shows where young men can get a little occupation, but where a man will really learn a trade and craft, and obtain industrial skill. That may seem a rather ambitious scheme, but it has been done abroad. They had the same industrial problem in Germany as we have here, and it is not unreasonable to ask that the Government, in the interests of the whole country, should realise that in a changing industrial system it is not wise to let young men grow up with no trade, no craft, no training. At any rate, I suggest that they have an obligation to these young men, who are largely the product of the War, and the direct result of the disorganisation caused by the Great War. Many of them served overseas, getting into the Army by subterfuge, and surely it would be wise to provide them with some sort of training centres where they could acquire industrial skill. It is rather remarkable that while the great staple industries are arrested, a number of new trades are coming into existence, highly skilled, highly organised, and dependent on scientific methods for their existence.
  Take one example, the artificial silk industry. It is expanding every day, but depends for its expansion on a large supply of highly skilled young men and women. It seems common sense that young men who are to be engaged in this industry should have the advantage of skilled industrial training. Would it not be wise, instead of men having to lean against lamp-posts with their hands in their pockets because they cannot get work to do, to provide them with some training which would give them a chance of being absorbed in the new and growing industries of the country? I put that suggestion forward for what it is worth. In the meantime the Government have to face the fact that in the East End of London, and in most of the industrial districts, there are large numbers of men idle through no fault of their own. The

  115
  Government have an obligation to try to find some kind of useful work for those men. All the main-road schemes have come to an end. Local authorities cannot carry out street improvements because they cannot get assistance from the Government. All the unemployment grants and various other methods of assisting local authorities have been stopped. The result is that to-day there is less being done to assist local authorities to provide useful employment, than has been done at any time since 1920.
  I think the figures will bear me out, as does my own knowledge of what is going on in the East End. A year or two ago various schemes for the laying out of public parks, the making of new roads, the building of swimming baths, the expediting of housing estate development, were being undertaken. All those schemes have been stopped. That is a very serious thing from the point of view of the local authorities, for they have to bear the whole burden of maintaining their unemployed, many of whom have exhausted their benefit. Cannot the Government recognise the fact and do something to assist these areas in pushing forward useful constructive schemes that will add to the wealth of the country? We have had a very unsympathetic reply from the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when he speaks will show that the Government have something in mind and are not merely standing still, bankrupt in ideas. If 1,000,000 men are compelled to lose their self-respect in idleness, it is to the detriment of the country and the injury of themselves.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I had no intention of taking any part in the Debate, but I would like to draw the attention of the House again, and I hope the attention of those who may read the reports of this Debate, to the very interesting and remarkable speech made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) in reference to the cotton trade. I know nothing about the cotton industry, but I could not help being struck by what the hon. Member said. It was a contribution which everyone who heard it will admit was of the kind which sometimes comes out in a political discussion, which has really nothing whatever to do with politics but may be extremely useful
  116
  to those who are concerned is a particular industry. The short point of his speech, as I understood it was, that a very large number of cotton businesses are at present in the hands of banks, being nursed under schemes of arrangement. One need not go into the peculiar details with regard to uncalled capital and the way that capital is held very largely by employés in the business. You have there the position that these concerns, instead of going through the normal process of liquidation, are being nursed by the banks in the hope that their goodwill will someday produce something for the creditors.
  The remedy that the hon. Member put forward was amalgamation, not, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, amalgamation of some of the better concerns and the shutting out of some of the less competent, in order to restrict production, but the amalgamation of those concerns in order to reduce overhead charges, to make management more efficient, to increase production, and to get better methods of disposing of the products. What appears to be the difficulty that has to be met in order to do something on those lines? As I say, I know nothing about the industry, but I do happen to know, and have had considerable personal experience of, what has happened in other cases, where the banks have been obliged to nurse bankrupt concerns, where money has been owed to the banks for which the banks held practically no realisable security. If you have the position in Lancashire that some four or five big banks are nursing a large number of these concerns, and if they continue to do it and nothing extraordinary happens to improve Lancashire trade, all their nursing will be for no good; the goodwill which they are nursing will be gradually dissipated and will disappear.
  If a similar state of affairs existed in Germany, I believe the German banks would take a definite hand in the industry and would themselves take steps to bring about amalgamation and reconstruction of the concerns, no matter how drastic might be the operation of cutting down capital which represented lost assets or anything of that kind. Our English banks do not do that, and on the whole I do not think they are to be blamed. Our banking system is the finest and

  117
  safest in the world, and by its conservative methods—I am not using the word politically—saved this country in 1914. If the banks have got themselves into that position, I suggest that the time has come when the banks, or the people outside the banks, who are largely interested, should see whether they could not with the help of the banks bring in one or two big men who would advise as to what was the best method of realising, or turning into an asset of tangible value, the goodwill which they are nursing. The hon. Member for Stockport, having made that speech to-night, I hope that some notice will be taken of it in Lancashire, and that some attempt will be made to get an improvement in the industry on some such lines as those suggested. The method would have the great advantage that it would be an effort by the industry itself to help itself without Government interference. The speech was an interesting contribution to the Debate by an hon. Member who obviously knew the subject about which he was talking.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has just left the House, because I cannot sit down without a reference to one of his suggestions. Of course he labours under the particular misfortune that he is incapable of making a speech without branding himself as a Liberal, either by a shout of glory over free trade, or a sneer at safeguarding. When the hon. Member did try to make a definite suggestion, he, turned to the former horse-drawn traffic in the neighbourhood of the London Docks and mentioned that it had been replaced by motor traffic. As far as I could understand, his one suggestion was that the Government should give intensive training to a number of old drivers of horses and turn them into efficient drivers of motor lorries. I know from experience that drivers of motor lorries are not difficult to get, and I fear that such a course of intensive training as the hon. Member suggested would only be adding more congestion to an already congested occupation. The hon. Member failed to observe that the substitution of motor traffic for horse-drawn traffic round the Docks, has not only been a saving of expense and economically sound, saving that by the encouragement given to the motor industry in this country, employment has been increased enormously in the building of
  118
  motor vehicles. I only wish that the hon. Member, who tried so hard to make a constructive suggestion, could sometimes forget that he is a Liberal and could consider quite calmly whether there might not, in some cases, be a possibility of doing good by methods of safeguarding.
  8.0 p.m
  My closing note on that would be, that I hope the Government will not entirely turn down the idea of considering the possibility of some measure of safeguarding for the iron and steel industry. I am not going to pledge myself as to whether it is a good thing or not, but I do say that it has become evident that an improvement of the iron and steel industry in this country would have far greater ramifications than has generally been supposed. One industry which it would help more than any other is that most unfortunate coal industry, which is the worst spot in our record of unemployment. I hope some form of safeguarding for these industries will not be entirely ruled out by the Government without careful inquiry.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: We are discussing this subject in a very thin House, and one cannot help comparing the proceedings of this evening with the interest and enthusiasm aroused by the Debate on the Prayer Book Measure on Thursday last, when these benches were full from the time the House opened until it closed. I consider we are to-day discussing one of the most urgent matters that could be considered by any Government, and one of the most serious problems which any country ever had to face. I do not complain about the interest taken in the Debate of last week. In fact, I am very glad to find that the old Protestant spirit is still alive; but this is also a serious problem and one which is, at least, entitled to as much attention and interest as the question at issue on Thursday last. The other place gave three days to the Debate on the Prayer Book, but spent two hours on passing the Eight Hours Act, which has caused so much unemployment and suffering among the miners.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think I heard the hon. Member criticise the procedure in another place. We cannot allow that here. We have quite enough to do to look after our own proceedings.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I am much obliged, Sir, for your correction. I thought if I referred merely to the "other place" it would get over any difficulty. However, the comparison was one which impressed me, and I think, at least, as great interest should be taken in the subject now under discussion as was taken in the subject of last week's Debates. We are not discussing a new problem. One would think from what the Minister said just now that, had it not been for the stoppage of last year—which was caused by the coalowners closing the mines until the men had a mind to accept their terms—there would not be any unemploy-now, but that is not the case. We have had unemployment, and serious unemployment, in the past. I remember that in 1910, and even long before then, we had serious unemployment, and as far as one can see we shall always have unemployment. We hear a great deal in these Debates about peace in industry, and when hon. Members speak of peace in industry they always look to this side of the House as if hon. Members here were the people who were preventing the achievement of peace in industry. But it is to the other side that hon. Members should look when they speak of peace in industry. We wish for peace in industry, but I see little hope of it. On Wednesday of this week the representatives of the South Wales miners will have to appear before an independent chairman, in order to resist a proposal for a further reduction in the minimum wage and also in the subsistence wage. How can there be peace in industry when men have to fight in this way to keep what they have got? The subsistence wage itself I consider to be a disgrace to any industry. It is arranged on the consideration, "HOW little can a person exist upon?" and I believe that in South Wales only three grades in the mining industry are above the subsistence wage.
  It is the employers to whom we should look for the spirit of peace in industry. The men do not want strikes. I never knew a workman who wanted to strike for the sake of striking. Striking is a hard business, involving suffering, privation and hunger, and men only strike when they are compelled to do so in order to protest against hard conditions or to protect themselves. We want peace in industry, as I have said, but
  120
  the other people do not want it or, at any rate, they do not try to get it. Unemployment at present is at a figure of about 200,000 above what is estimated to be the number of unemployed in normal times. When Dr. Macnamara was Minister of Labour he constantly employed a figure to represent unemployment in normal times, and his figure was 800,000. The Blanesburgh Committee has not exactly, but almost confirmed that figure. They used a figure of 6 per cent. unemployment in normal times, and that means, as far as I can find out, a total of about 720,000. So we may take it that between 700,000 and 800,000 people will always be unemployed in normal times. The Blanesburgh Committee took a term of, I think, 15 years, which was meant to provide for the good and bad cycles of trade of which we heard so much. Taking the 15 years they said there would be 6 per cent. always unemployed. How to deal with that 6 per cent. seems to be the real problem. If the figure were brought down to 200,000 it would be a simple problem and many of the suggestions which have been made in the course of this Debate could cope with a situation of that sort, but when we have to deal with over 1,000,000 it seems an impossibility. The Labour party have introduced Unemployment. Bills more than once. I do not believe these would have cured unemployment where there are one million unemployed, but if it were a matter of 200,000 I think they would have been effective. They were useful measures. They proposed to set up a committee to look into the future, to schedule work and to see what could be done to put works in hand when bad times came. These proposals were all right, but they would not have dealt with the whole of this problem, nor do I believe that any party can deal with the whole of the problem by finding work. I think that is an impossibility.
  There is one way in which we might put unemployment at the right end of the scale. The hon. Member who moved this Motion to-day gave a figure of 800,000 people of over 65 years of age who were engaged in industry at the time of the 1921 Census. If that be correct, it is safe to say that there are still over 800,000 people over 60 years of age engaged in industry to-day, though there is more unemployment to-day and, I suppose, in the mining industry there are

  121
  not as many old people engaged as there were before 1926. My opinion is that these old people ought to be pensioned off, on pensions which would enable them to live—that they should be withdrawn from industry and that their places should be taken by the young people who are now walking the roads and standing at the street corners and living by their wits. It may be said that if this were done, we should still have 800,000 idle people. That is true, but there is a great difference between having idle 800,000 old people who have worked nearly 50 years, who have already done a good day's work and who deserve a rest, and having idle 800,000 young people, many of whom have never done a day's work, who have never learnt a trade and who have no responsibilities. A question was asked just before the Adjournment of the House in the summer, as to the number of boys and girls between 14 and 18 years of age who had never done a day's work, and the figure given was something over 51,000. The fact is that these young people were not insured persons between 14 years and 16 years, so that many thousands would not be registered at all and the figure of 51,000 was confined to the registered persons. I suppose it would mean that between the ages of 14 and 18 we have anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 young people who have left school, who have nothing to do and who have never done a day's work.
  To me, that is a serious matter. To have the old people idle is not a danger to the future of the country but to have this number of young people idle is a real danger to the future of the country. The time is coming when they will be the men and women of the country and they will be without skill or responsibility. The future of the country is none too bright when we have such a large number of people in that class. If I had my way, I would pension the old people off just as those are pensioned off who are engaged in education or the police. The only trouble with the police is that they are pensioned off too soon and they look for other jobs in which they can earn a wage at the same time as they are drawing the pension. We do not want that, but I would like to see these old people given pensions which would induce them to leave industry and 10s. a week will not do that and never could do
  122
  that. I believe it could be done. Where there is a will there is a way in this as in everything else. Why not apply unemployment benefit to the old people? I know the Minister could not do it without altering the law, but this House could alter the law, and if we have to maintain out of the Unemployment Fund 800,000 young people what is the difference to the Fund if we change them for 800,000 old people. If this were done and if the pensionable age were reduced from 65 to 60—which would be the only cost to the country—I believe a pension could be made up on which these people could live.
  I do not know why there should not be some sort of consolidation of the different services of health, unemployment, workman's compensation and so forth. What is the difference, whether a man is sick or unemployed or injured and in receipt of compensation? The fact is that he cannot earn wages and maintain himself and his family. If these different services were consolidated there could be a great saving and something would come out of it towards the pension scheme. There are many ways in which it could be done with little extra cost to the State if there was the will to do it. A person who has worked for 50 years has done enough, and if we carried out the scheme on these lines I believe we would break the back of unemployment. These 200,000 people or whatever the number might be, would be such a small problem, that bits of schemes such as those we have put in force in roadmaking and other respects would absorb them almost at any time, but when these schemes are compared with an unemployment figure of 1,000,000 people they seem to be useless—they do not touch the fringe of the problem. I commend this proposal to the Minister as the only way in which to put unemployment right.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: We are embarked to-night upon another of these interminable Debates on unemployment, and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), who has just sat down, complained of the House being practically empty when discussing a question of such national importance, but surely the reason for the poor attendance is not very far to seek. We have had the same old arguments, the same blame thrown upon the Government, the same suggestions and palliatives, and we have had only

  123
  one really concrete suggestion, which was that of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), as to the line upon which improvement may be sought. We seem to be wasting our time in this House in indulging in these threadbare arguments, and the time is really over-ripe for us to get down to the essentials and try and tackle them, not in a party spirit, but with a real desire to arrive, first of all, at the causes underlying unemployment and then to try and find out what the appropriate remedies are.
  Before I come to the general position surrounding this problem, I want to say something—and I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will not accuse me of being deliberately provocative—about the general position in the coal industry, because I happen to be the representative of a coal mining constituency, and I am just as much concerned as is any Member in this House with the lot of the men, women and children in that industry. I do not know that any good purpose can be achieved by apportioning blame for the present position of the coal industry, except that I think we ought to realise, as I am sure the men and women in my constituency are realising, what is responsible, at any rate, for part of their troubles to-day, and I want, if I can, without being provocative, to say what my conclusions are, after having spent many weeks during the last few months going around the coal mining villages in the Lichfield area. I am convinced that the men to-day are under no misapprehensions whatever on one point. The little homes in that constituency, and in every other constituency where coal mining is the main industry, are overburdened with debt. Many of the miners have parted with all their most precious possessions, and at last they are realising that, while it may not be true to say that the problem of the coal industry could have been solved last year altogether if a different line had been taken, at any rate they are clear to-day upon this point, that the position in which they stand is due absolutely to one cause, and that cause is rank bad leadership.
  That is true and cannot be denied, and I would like very briefly to relate an experience of my own in one of the colliery districts only three weeks ago. I was talking to these people, many of
  124
  whom were viewing the future with great hopelessness, and I was begging them to realise that, while peace in industry might not bring them all they wanted, it is indeed one of the fundamental bases of the success of their industry, if success is to be achieved in the future. I was telling this audience of miners that I knew full well that the distress in their area was great, that many of them had lost all their belongings and some even their homes, and I was asking them, not as an extreme party man, but as a real well-wisher of the miners, not to break up their Federation, not to break up their unions, but to throw over absolutely all men who preached strikes, whether in the coalfields or anywhere else. When I had finished, a man got up in the audience and said, "Every word you have said to-night about the condition of those who live in this area is true, and here in a nutshell is my own experience. I am a collier. I am not a member of your party. All my life I have been a member of the Miners' Federation, and prior to the coal stoppage of last year I had always saved and put by a little money. I had saved £260, with which I purchased a house. It cost me £500, and as a result of that stoppage I have lost my house. It was sold because I could not keep up the instalments to make up the balance of the purchase money, and I stand to-day without a farthing in the world."
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Who was it that stopped the industry?
  Mr. WILSON: My hon. Friend knows very well, and the House knows very well, that at any rate in April, 1926, the Government were ready to accept the Coal Commission's Report, although they did not like it, and the Miners' Federation absolutely refused to accept it. I do not say that the acceptance of that Report would have cured all their ills, but certainly the men in my area to-day who have lost their all would not have been in the position in which they now stand. I do not want to develop that point, because I do not want to be labelled as an extremist in this House. I am not an extremist, but I see the facts in these little mining villages, and it is right that here, in this House, I should state them as I see them, with the hope that we may all draw the lesson from last year's stoppage.

  125
  Coming back to the general position, I suppose there is nobody in this House who will deny that the seven months' stoppage in the coal trade last year dealt a most serious blow to all the industries of this country. How serious that blow has been, I am quite certain that the majority of people in the land do not quite realise. Our memories are short, and it may be just as well that we should cast our minds back to last year, just before this unfortunate coal stoppage. The position then was this, that the unemployment figures in this country had, for the first time over the period of five years, dropped below the million mark, and there were unmistakeable signs, as I know from my own experience—because I come into touch with all classes of industry in this country—of a trade revival, particularly in the heavy industries of the country. The coal stoppage threw all that back, as we know to our cost, it may be for a year, it may be for two years—I cannot say—but undoubtedly it struck a most serious blow at our trade and industry.
  I should like to ask those in this House who really wish to think about these matters from a constructive point of view to remember that Germany has during the last twelve months made enormous strides in her export trade. I speak here with some authority, because I have examined the position in Germany. No less an authority than the Dresdner Bank in Germany, which is one of the five big banks there, in its recent bulletin made the significant statement that the direct result of the coal stoppage last year in Great Britain was to give great benefit to German industry, with this remarkable result, that while, 18 months ago; there were 2,000,000 unemployed in Germany, to-day there are only something like 500,000 men and women out of work in that great country. Surely these are factors which we should take most carefully into our consideration. I do not at all agree, if I may so with all respect, with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that we should regard 700,000 or 800,000 people as being a permanent quota of unemployed people in this country. In Germany, the figures are down to 500,000 people, and I should despair about the future of this country if we were to expect anything like 700,000 or 800,000 unemployed as a permanent feature in this country.
  126
  At any rate, this seems to me to be abundantly clear: we in this House of Commons are not going to make any serious contribution to this great problem by hurling invective from side to side, by criticising the Government, and by asking the Government why they do not produce and create schemes for the relief of unemployment. Schemes for immediate and pressing relief are well enough, but employment is a disease which will never be cured by temporary schemes, which are often far more expensive than would be the employment of an equal amount of capital in another direction. We have to go further and deeper into this problem if we are really going to make any serious contribution to better the position. What can we do, we politicians in the House of Commons, to help forward the improvement of trade and industry in this country? I know that there are those who sneer and laugh when the words "peace in industry" are mentioned. I am not one of those. I think that peace in industry is one of the essentials for the improvement which we all desire, and I am absolutely convinced that at last it is dawning upon the minds of men that strife in industry brings with it only one result, and that is starvation and penury for the workers, the very people who should command the best we can give them.
  What can we do? Something has been said to-night, and has been frequently said in this House, about the benefits of safeguarding. I have been too long engaged in business to dogmatise, or to care to dogmatise, about any principle which shall have for its ultimate object the advancement of trade; but I have tried to approach this question, not from a party point of view, but with an open mind, and I have come to this conclusion, that safeguarding some of the distressed industries might conceivably be an admirable thing, and if we look back during the last two years to what other industries which have been safeguarded have done, surely there is a great encouragement to us to press this experiment a little further. I know there are difficulties in the way from the Government's point of view. I know that two years ago the Committee of Civil Research made a Report to the Cabinet, which on the whole was against the safeguarding of steel and iron, but if we are going to get a vital change in

  127
  the economic condition of the steel and iron industries in this country, it has not to be a party measure. Some of the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, I believe, are coming round to the conclusion that the safeguarding of trade, the trade by which the workers get their living, is just as essential as safeguarding hours of labour. If we could only get real helpful, concrete, practical support from the leaders of the Labour party and of the great trade union movement towards the safeguarding of the iron and steel trade, I for one could go forward with a Measure of that sort with a great deal more confidence than I could feel if it were going to be made the shuttlecock of party politics.
  There are four great industries in this country which are languishing at the present time—cotton, iron and steel, mines and shipbuilding. I have dealt very briefly, and very ineffectively I realise, with the question of iron and steel, but may I just say one word about the cotton trade. I have no doubt there may be a good deal in what the hon. Member for Stockport has said about the position of some of the big cotton mills in Lancashire. I have no doubt it is true that many of those mills are indebted to their bankers, and that this may be attributed to a certain degree to the difficulties which surround the cotton industry, but we have two factors to remember. If you can, only increase employment and prosperity at home in mines, shipbuilding and iron and steel, you can get a much greater demand for cotton goods in this country than you get at present. The second factor is that the position in China and abroad generally to-day is still unsettled, and I am afraid we cannot hope for full time, at any rate in the cotton trade, until the position abroad improves, and until we can make some improvement in our other industries. I am not going to deal with the question of shipbuilding. It is an industry I know nothing about, and I am sure there are speakers quite competent to deal with it.
  I would like, in closing, to repeat myself. I do not think that these Debates in the House of Commons, so long as they are conducted on party lines, so long as we go over the same ground which has been traversed so often during
  128
  the last few years, can lead to the solution of this question. I do not believe—and I feel this most strongly—that this country is down and out. I do not believe that we are incapable of rising to great heights again as a, commercial nation and of taking our place in the forefront of commercial nations of the world; but we shall never get back to real days of prosperity unless all parties in this House, and particularly those who represent the workers, and who have a tremendous responsibility on their shoulders—and I am sure they realise it—until all parties in this House realise that Acts of Parliament by themselves and temporary schemes are merely palliatives. We have got to get down to fundamental facts and realise the position not only in Europe, but in the whole world, and set, ourselves as a united nation to solve these problems on the only lines on which they can be solved.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, except, perhaps, with one or two references to the question of the cry we have had from every speaker, the cry of "peace in industry," and perhaps later on I shall deal with matters he mentioned in connection with the coal industry. The Debate has produced the same cry from the benches on the other side, that the only thing necessary to solve the unemployment problem is to have peace in industry. I would like to ask, who is responsible for the conditions of the spirit, in industry at the present time in this country? A good deal was made last year of the fact that during the last seven years 330,000,000 working days had been lost through industrial disputes, that is, since 1920. When one attempted to analyse those figures, it was found that nearly three-quarters of the time lost, through industrial disputes during the last seven years has been caused by attacks from the employers upon wages and conditions. At a time like this it is useless to pay lip service to this desire for peace in industry. I well remember speaking to a well-known and an honoured man who sat in this House for a quarter of a century, who did a great deal of work during the War and who was a very large employer of labour. He often told me and others who represent the miners, "If I had to work as the miners have to work,

  129
  for the wages they have to work for, and to live as they have to live, then I would be the biggest rebel in South Wales." That was a statement made by the late Lord Rhondda. There is no question at all about it.
  The Minister of Labour has often referred to the need for peace in industry. I think we all admit that it is necessary to have peace in industry, but it is no use first to beat the workmen down and then to cry for peace in industry and ask the workmen to co-operate with the employers. The Prime Minister himself. speaking in 1924, said:
  "I am convinced of this, and I want you all to be convinced of it, that you can have no peace and no prosperity in England until you have the masses of your people at work and working with the prospect of good wages and of bettering their conditions."
  That is the only basis upon which you can have peace in industry—having a contented working class. I was very much disappointed with the statement of the Minister of Labour in dealing with this question. I am afraid the Minister's Department is not in existence for the purpose of grappling with unemployment, but purely for the purpose of administering the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I wish we could get the Government and the people to realise that there are in this country at the present moment more than a million men and women unemployed. We have had this army of unemployed for more than seven years—with, perhaps, the exception of two or three weeks. We have used these figures so often and listened to them so often that it really seems as though they have come to make no impression at all upon us; but when we say that the unemployed population of this country is now, and has been for the past six years, larger than the total population of Wales and Monmouthshire, we can realise the magnitude of the problem. In a reply given to a question to-day by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) it was stated that there are no less than 1,500,000 persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. That makes the total number of those dependent upon unemployment benefit and Poor Law relief something like 4,500,000 people. No one can be content with conditions such as those, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the provision of suitable work for these unemployed people.
  130
  These figures are mere statistics. Let us translate them into terms of human life, and consider what they mean in the homes of the people, and we shall find a pathetic burden of misery. It might well be said that a recruiting agency has been at work and has gathered a million men and women into the army of poverty during the last five or six years. I know many of these men—not like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson). I am not saying anything against him, because I well remember the courageous step which he took during the stoppage last year. My point is that I do not visit my constituency during a few weeks in the year only, I live in the midst of these men and women who are unemployed. Many of the men in these forlorn ranks are quite young, with all their lives before them. Some have never had, and many more have lost, the habit of regular work. Already they are a long way down the road towards demoralisation and failure. Can no one bring home to the Government and to the people the appalling decay and loss of man-power involved in this state of things? I am afraid that long acquaintance with this distressing problem is inducing a sense of helplessness and inevitability in our minds; we are passing the unemployment queue to-day with less anxiety than we did six years ago.
  I am going to deal briefly with the position of the mining industry. The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to the very tragic situation there. He has seen some homes in his Division where there is want and poverty, and, unfortunately, that state of things is prevalent in every mining Division. I lay the blame entirely at the door of the Government. As regards a large percentage of the unemployment in the mining industry, I say that no one is more responsible for it than the Government and the Prime Minister, through their action in lengthening the hours of the miners during last year. [Interruption.] A right hon. Gentleman says it is not true. I say it is true, and I hope I shall be able to prove it in the course of my few remarks. We were told last year that if the miners worked a longer working day there was the possibility of prosperity being restored to the industry. At the present time the miners in South Wales are working a longer working day than any miners in Europe.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: May I ask this question because I want this matter to be made perfectly clear? Is it not a fact that they need not have had the eight hours' day if the Miners' Federation had accepted the Coal Commission's Report?
  Mr. HALL: If the Miners' Federation had accepted the principle of a reduction in wages and the consideration of the Report, then there was the possibility, although as far back as 1921 Mr. Evan Williams, the President of the Mining Association, said he regarded his action in signing that portion of the Sankey Report giving the seven hour day to the miners as the greatest mistake of his life, and he said he would do everything he could in the future to erase the Seven Hours Act from the Statute Book. He prevailed upon the Government to carry out his bidding, and the result is that we now have no less than 221,000 miners unemployed. I shall deal with that a little more fully, because not only have we in some of the exporting areas a, longer working day for the miners than has any other coalfield in Europe but it is interesting to note that since the advent of this Government, since 1924, until some three weeks ago, there has been a reduction in the miners' wages in South Wales alone of no less than £230,000 a week, £12,000,000 a year. When we consider the position of the miners generally throughout the country, we find that the weekly reduction in their wages in 1927 as compared with 1924 amounted to no less than £800,000, or something like £40,000,000 a year. So here we have long hours and low wages and unemployment. I have here a return published by the Minister of Labour, and it gives the percentage of persons unemployed in the Employment Exchange areas up to the 15th of November. In the three industrial counties of South Wales, Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, and Monmouthshire, I find no less than three areas where there are more than 50 per cent. of the male insured persons unemployed. In Blaina, we have 58 per cent. of the male insured persons unemployed; in Merthyr Tydvil 52.6 per cent., and in Pontypridd 51 per cent. There are five areas where the percentage of male insured persons who are unemployed is over 40 and under 50; 18 areas where the percentage is over 30 and under 40, 11 areas where it is over 20 and under 30. Of the
  132
  50 Employment Exchange areas in those counties, there are only 13 areas with less than 20 per cent. of the male insured persons unemployed.
  What does this mean? It means that the position in those areas has become unbearable. Not only are the miners themselves poor, but this reflects itself on the business and professional classes, with the result that we have in South Wales at the present time a condition of things which is almost unbearable. I know that we are blamed, where we have Labour majorities on the local authorities, for the high rates. Let me give the position in sonic of those areas. In the Rhondda area for the year ending 30th September this year, the rates amount to 29s. in the £, and out of that, 19s. in the £ goes to the poor rate. In the Mountain Ash district, which I represent, the rates are 28s. in the £ and the poor rate is 19s. In the Aberdare area, the total rate is 29s. 2d. and the poor rate 19s. 5d.
  For the last two or three years, the tendency has been to strike men off the unemployment register, with the result that they have had to resort to Poor Law relief for their maintenance. The Merthyr Tydvil Union, during the last six months, spent £35,000 in relieving unemployment, and the amount of poor rate paid in that area reaches no less a sum than 10s. 3d. per head of the population. As a result of these very high rates, in the areas of 16 local authorities, a list of which I hold in my hand, the uncollected rates amount to no less than £980,000. That is the problem with which we are faced.
  As a result of the action of the Government in co-operation with the mine-owners, we have been able to produce cheap coal, and we have been selling cheap coal. The export trade of coal from this country for the first 11 months of this year, is just 1,000,000 tons more than for the first 11 months of 1925, and the amount of money received for a 1,000,000 tons more coal than was received in 1925 is nearly £4,000,000 less. It is a well-known fact that the coal-owners in every coal area have now realised, what the Government ought to have realised last year, that it is not so much a question of increasing production as of stabilising and fixing prices. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour looks with much concern upon the schemes that the mineowners are going to put into operation in the Midlands

  133
  and in South Wales, and it must be borne in mind that every other coalfield will be bound to follow that lead. In South Wales there is to be a fixing of prices, and that is bound to restrict output. With a restriction on output you are bound to throw more men out of work.
  The same thing is going on in Yorkshire and in the Midlands. There they have a scheme which is going to control the price of between 70,000,000 and 75,000,000 tons of the output of coal. The Yorkshire and the Midland miners openly admit that not only will their schemes stabilise prices, but it is aimed at the restriction of output, and if any coal-owner exceeds the output of that which is laid down in his quota, that coalowner is going to be fined no less a sum than 3s. a ton. What we say is that if there is to be such a scheme, it should be inaugurated under a seven-hours day and not an eight-hours day. I think the Government is bound to admit that their policy of last year, in adopting the eight-hours day, was a mistake, and even the coalowners have admitted that. Under these circumstances, the Government should do the courageous thing, that is, put the mining industry, as far as the working hours are concerned, back to where it was before they interfered with this question last year by legislation. I am pleased to note that the Labour party is pledged, as soon as it comes into office, to put right this wrong which the Government did last year, by removing the Eight Hours Act from the Statute Book, replacing it with a Seven Hours Act. I know the Government have under consideration a scheme for the transfer of men from some of those districts where there is stagnant unemployment. In the Cwmamman area, there are three or four collieries owned by one company, and in that area there are between 2,000 and 2,500 men who used to be employed in those pits who have not done any work for the last four or five months. I notice that in reference to the scheme outlined by the Minister of Health at Birmingham on Friday, he said:
  "The number of men who had permanently lost employment in the coal industry might be put at something over 100,000, and perhaps fewer than 200,000. The Government felt that they had got to make up their minds for a special effort to get these people away from the valleys, where there was no more work for them, and take them to places where they could
  134
  find work, and they were going to appoint a special board, called the Industrial Transference Board, consisting of three men. Their business would be to find out how many people there were in each of these spots, who were not likely to find work there, and see where they could be given work, making whatever arrangements might be necessary to transfer them from the old places to the new, and give them a fresh start in life."
  I do not want to criticise this plan before I know exactly what the scheme is, but I should like the Minister of Labour to take note of a few things which the Government will come up against when they attempt to put into operation a scheme of this kind. In the Cwmaman district, to which I have referred, they are producing a very dry kind coal. That district, I think, was affected more than any other by the French embargo, their trade being very largely a French trade. It is possible that in this district the collieries will work again. There is an abundance of coal, and it is fairly good coal of its kind. The difficulty with which the Transfer Board will have to deal will be as to the district in which they shall operate. The Minister must realise that a colliery company with a capital of between £500,000 and £750,000 is not going to abandon its collieries, but will be hoping for the possibility of increased trade, because the abandonment of these pits would mean that the whole of the capital would be lost. If, however, there is any prospect of these collieries again opening up, and if the work of the Transfer Board is being carried on, it will mean that the very best workmen will have to leave these districts, so that if at any time the colliery opens up again, the colliery owners will have only those that are left after the best workmen have been taken away, and, unless we are very careful, we shall, as the result of the working of this board, have a number of men of the age of 50, 55 or 60 who will be left stranded. I do not know whether the Government have already appointed this Transfer Board, but I hope it will include someone with knowledge of the industry. If the Government would only do what they ought to do, the work of this board would not be very difficult. I do not want to deal with the general question of unemployment, because that has been dealt with by several of my hon. Friends, but I want to emphasize one point. I think it has been admitted that, while

  135
  we have 1,000,000 persons unemployed in this country at the present time, there is a possibility of that number being reduced to something like 700,000 or 800,000. I am hoping that the Minister is correct. Let us put it at 600,000——
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I only put it at 8 per cent., which I trust may be a possibility within the comparatively near future. I think there ought to be quite a fair chance of a reduction much below that.
  Mr. HALL: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me the number? It might help me.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No; naturally I should be loth to prophesy as to what would happen a number of years hence. I said the other day that I was ready to make a bet—a thing about which I am generally pretty cautious—with an hon. Member on this side of the House who was very apprehensive during the Debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I said I was prepared to make him an alternative bet as to the figure going down to 4 per cent., at any rate by 1932, or to 3 per cent, by 1933. I offered that the decision should be made either by the Minister of Labour at that date or, if he thought that I was still likely to be there, by the Chairman of the Economic Society.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. HALL: The right hon. Gentleman was very careful to confine the bet to hips side of the House. He has not extended it to hon. Members on this side, or there might be some here who would be prepared to take some of his ready money from him. As far as I am concerned, I am hoping that his prophecy is correct. Not only do I desire, but every Member of the House desires, that it should be fulfilled. I care not what Government may be in office at the time, the one thing about which I am concerned is this grievous question of unemployment. What I would like the Government to do would be really to carry out the election pledge of the Prime Minister on this question. While he certainly did not say that he had a remedy for unemployment, he did say that no effort on the part of the Government would be spared to see that this question of unemployment was tackled and dealt with.
  136
  9.0 p.m
  I should like to emphasise the request that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), and also by a number of other hon. Members on this side. I can see the possibility that the number of unemployed persons in this country will be considerable for some time to come. The export trade, unfortunately, is not what it was, and home markets are not what they were. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) referred to the question of efficient production. I wonder whether he has read the preliminary Reports on the Census of Production, where we find that, in a large number of industries, production has increased by over 100 per cent., and in some instances by 200 per cent. and even 400 per cent., and yet the number of persons employed in those industries has been reduced. Take the cotton industry. I think it is well known that the production per person in the cotton industry in this country had increased, in the year 1924, by 100 per cent. as compared with 1907; but the actual number of persons employed in the production of cotton goods in this country has been reduced by nearly 70,000.
  Sir BASIL PETO: That is the result of its being an efficient industry.
  Mr. HALL: I wish the hon. Member had been here to listen to another hon. Member describing the cotton industry. If he had, he would not be of opinion that it was an efficient industry. I do not want to go into the question of efficiency or inefficiency in industry, but I say that the application of machinery to industry will throw a very large number of persons out of work. As there is this increased production, I think the Government ought to concentrate on getting a scheme of superannuation for old people. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury only a fortnight ago, asking the retiring age of policemen in this country, and the answer was that the retiring age of policemen, based on the Metropolitan Police, is 47½ years, and that, they are in receipt of pension for something like 20 years. Teachers and civil servants retire at 60. I am not for a moment arguing that these people are not entitled to their pensions, but I think the

  137
  Government should consider, in dealing with this question of unemployment, an extension of schemes of superannuation, in order to take out of industry these old men of 60, and replace them by the younger or middle-aged men who, unfortunately, are out of work. I hope that this Debate will not have the same result as a number of others have had, but that the Government will realise the seriousness of the position, especially in mining areas. It is going to be a very black, dark, dreary Christmas for the majority of our people. In my own area, in one out of every three of the homes of the people, there are unemployed persons, and I have already referred to the fact that in three areas in South Wales more than 50 per cent. of the male persons are unemployed. With a position like that, the Government, instead of treating Debates on this question as they have treated them, should get right down to the fundamental causes of unemployment, and see if they cannot produce a scheme to deal with them.
  Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: In listening to the remarks of the last speaker, I found a note which gave me great satisfaction. I think that the Debates in this House should have as their object the better governance of the questions dealt with, whereas too often they merely consist of recriminations. I do not want to go into the question of coal, because I am not engaged in the coal industry. I am connected with shipbuilding, where good feeling among the employers and employed has led to very good results. It has led to a great development of the industry, and I am sure there are those who can testify in the district to which I refer to the work that has been done and the satisfaction that in general prevails. So far as this problem of unemployment is concerned, I think there is not sufficient stress laid upon the two points of the increased number of people who are employed and the increased advantage to the people. After the War we suffered a lot of confusion in every industry, particularly in those that had been stimulated. I speak feelingly in connection with the shipbuilding industry, where we were stimulated to make good the destruction of German submarines, and at the end of the War there was no necessity to replace ships which were no longer sunk and no
  138
  necessity for an enlarged labour programme and we found ourselves on evil days. In spite of it all, during the last year we have arrived at a time when our production has increased and is increasing, and that is very largely due to the better understanding of the problem that exists in that particular part of the world. So far as shipping costs are concerned, they are naturally composite costs, which include a great many items.
  I wish to contribute some considerations to the Debate. We are not going to solve unemployment with one general remedy. Many of us on political platforms are challenged by our adversaries to say what is our remedy for unemployment. Of course, there is no one remedy. There are thousands of kinds of unemployment and many different kinds of remedies, but the one remedy, to my mind, is a better understanding. We must all put our brains together and say what is really the cause of this man or that man, this group or that group, being out of employment, and try to deal with the question. We have had a great deal of very able speaking on the question of coal. I am not a coal-mining man and do not propose to go into it. I will deal with the shipbuilding side. The costs of shipbuilding are composite and are very largely dependent upon coal. They are also dependent upon all our social services, upon our rates and taxes and so forth. I have brought a few figures with me showing the difference in the incidence of certain costs between pre-War time and the present. I find, for example, that local rates are nearly 150 per cent. up, Income Tax (Schedule A) is up 280 per cent., compulsory insurance 225 per cent., Board of Trade fees 440 per cent., Lloyds' register fees 130 per cent., supply of electric current, and so on. I will not go into the great mass-of the figures I have, but what we have to do is to build ships in competition with other nations who build under different conditions. Therefore, all these additional costs put upon us are costs that we have to bear. If we cannot meet them we cannot build ships.
  One recent speaker talked about beating workmen down. Another, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) talked about the representatives of the workers. I should like to take up those two points. I do not admit that any one

  139
  party in the House is the representative of the workers. I claim always that I represent all those who work, whatever their capacity and whatever their politics. It is a mistake to talk about the representatives of the workers. Again, when we talk about beating wages down, what does it mean? It means, in shipbuilding at any rate, that we have to get contracts abroad to build ships. We cannot build them permanently at a loss, because we should be plunged ultimately into bankruptcy. We have to build the ships so as to get, first of all, the best wages we can for the men, and, secondly, some return for our shareholders. It is obvious that we cannot carry on industry unless at a profit. I am certain that we can always compete with the foreigner provided we have this good understanding, provided we know what all the costs are and realise their various ramifications.
  I was in Germany some little time ago, and one of the chief manufacturers there, a man who I believe is responsible for employing nearly 100,000 hands in various establishments, made a remark which sunk into my mind. I have never forgotten it, and I never shall. He said the world lives on that which it produces, neither more nor less. We must not get into any confusion of ideas between the distribution of the products and the production of the products. As a manufacturer concerned primarily with the production of goods, I have to produce them in international competition. I have to offer certain prices. Provided I and my staff are capable, and provided I am not unduly handicapped in certain directions, I can offer those prices against the world. I want to get the House, if possible, into the spirit of studying all the bearings of the question, not trying to attach all the blame to this or that person, because all the blame is not to be attached to this or that person. These are matters of growth. We have to pay for our social services, for our protection, for our Empire, for our Army and Navy, and it has to come out of somewhere, out of some production, because the world consumes that which it produces, neither more nor less, with the exception of a little waste. In order to maintain our population we have to produce. I think we can produce in competition with the
  140
  rest of the world, and we are bound to continue as far as we can.
  We must have a good understanding for another reason. Once we allow our establishments to deteriorate we shall no longer be able to compete under any circumstances whatever. A recent speaker referred to the best men leaving the collieries. Shipbuilding establishments do not spring up in a day. I saw in the wartime a remark by a newspaper correspondent that in the days of Queen Elizabeth we built ships on the seashore, and he asked why do we not do it now. You cannot do it. You have to build them in establishments which have grown up with a great deal of technical knowledge and efficiency, and those establishments which have technical knowledge and efficiency can certainly compete. At the same time, when we talk about grinding other people down it is not a question of grinding people down but of how you are to avoid serious loss. Anyone can talk about dividing profits; it is not everyone who talks about how to deal with losses. This particular industry is very efficient. If you cannot get any orders for it you must not break it up. Holding the baby is all very well, and lots of people are very clever in selling out and getting rid of their interest and leaving someone else to hold the thing. But those who have any pride in their life's work feel that they must maintain the industry at whatever cost, must make sacrifices in building it up and must make reserves in order to be able to face future competition. That is a point we have heard several times discussed in the House. We have heard people talk about undivided profits. Undivided profits are often very wise reserves. What is wanted is a good understanding among all parties. It is no use trying to blame anyone. Everyone knows the position is bad, but what good will you do by saying the Government, or this person or that, is to blame? Speaking at that Box in 1924 the Labour Minister said that we were going to have for the present a 1,000,000 unemployed and probably 800,000 permanently, or words very nearly to that effect. We must realise that that is so and that you are not going to be able to get employment for everyone, but we can get employment for the greatest number if we understand how to manage our works in the most efficient manner.

  141
  A thing that is very troublesome in competition with other nations is the demarcation of labour. I will not throw the blame on the trade unions and say they should not do this or that, but when costs are going up they can help us to relieve them. If we find that a man is suitable to do a certain work, he should certainly be allowed to do it and should be able to work with people in other parts of the world. When I was in Germany, some time ago, I found there was a great deal of difference in the demarcation of work and in the kinds of different categories—men of lower categories being put on skilled work—than in England. That is a thing very well worth consideration. We are the representatives of the people and the representatives of the workers. It does not matter what our particular occupation in life may be, we are all proud we are here, and proud to try to do something to contribute to the betterment of our people, to the maintenance of our country, and to restore it to prosperity. I am sure we shall do that better if we take up every item separately, each contributing our little bit. For my part, I hope to do something in regard to shipbuilding, and I hope that every other Member in his own line will try to do the same.
  Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I have, been very much interested in the appeal which has just been made to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Ohertsey (Sir P. Richardson), especially as I am connecting it with an earlier attack upon these benches by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), who seconded the Amendment which we are still discussing. I want to compare something which has just fallen from the lips of the previous speaker with the attitude taken up by the Member for North Bradford. The charge has been made frequently to-night, and you cannot get away from it, in spite of the well expressed intentions of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, that the main cause of our present inability to deal with the unemployment problem is our insistence on these benches, and the insistence of those who support us in the country, upon what is called war in industry, but that, if we would pursue a policy of peace in industry, if we would persuade our people to sink their differences, at any rate, for
  142
  the present, somehow or other things would come right, production would be increased, and the lack of employment, from which to-day we are suffering, would be considerably removed.
  Let us examine that charge, and I ask particularly the hon. Member for North Bradford, who knows the situation as well as I do in relation to the position that to-day exists in Yorkshire with regard to the great staple industry of that county. Two years ago there was a great conflict in the industry, a conflict that arose out of the attitude of the employers, who locked out the workers, a conflict, which when it had run its course, finally led to an arbitration out of which a settlement was effected. Two years of settlement have now, at last, been followed by the cancellation of the agreement under which to-day the industry is being run. At this moment the workers of Yorkshire, in a state of great doubt, are going forward to Christmas and the months that follow, expecting some time or other a blow being delivered from the back, the result of which will be a reduction of their wages. They have to-day nothing between them and such reduction. The old agreement has gone. The reason, as far as I can discover—and I daresay the hon. Member for North Bradford will agree with this—why at this moment the wages of the Yorkshire woollen workers have not been reduced is because there are in several of the firms—firms in my own constituency in Huddersfield, some firms in Bradford, too, and firms in the Colne Valley, I would add—so many orders that in some cases they are working overtime in order to deal with the situation. Therefore, rather than imperil their immediate profits, although they have decided upon the cancellation of the agreement and thrown over the arbitral award that was obtained two years ago, the Yorkshire woollen manufacturers at this moment are waiting for a convenient opportunity to lower the wages of the Yorkshire woollen workers and to obtain from them what they ought to obtain themselves by an improvement in the organisation of their industry. Although that is true, we get an hon. Member representing a Yorkshire constituency closely identified in his own interests with those same Yorkshire woolen manufacturers, coming here——
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your leave to intervene, I should like to make it perfectly clear to the House that I have no interest whatever in the manufacture, either of woollens or of any other goods, but I do take an interest, as every hon. Member should, in the staple industries of my own particular neighbourhood.
  Mr. HUDSON: I should very much regret if I gave the impression that I was making charges of a dishonourable character. I did not mean that. I meant that in this general outlook the hon. Member has interests in Yorkshire in connection with the woollen industry that puts him, shall I say—and I mean nothing more than this—in very general sympathy with the employers in that area.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Excuse me. If the hon. Member has read any of the speeches which I have made recently in Yorkshire, he will find that I have very strongly advocated peace in the textile industry, and I have shown no more sympathy for the textile manufacturers than I have for the textile operatives. What I have pointed out constantly has been, that peace in the industry was essential for both employers and those engaged in the industry itself.
  Mr. HUDSON: I understand that, and I have read the hon. Gentleman's speeches which he has recently delivered in Yorkshire. I must say to him quite frankly, I have not discovered that he has used the opportunities that have been given to him to tell the Yorkshire manufacturers some of the same sort of truths that he has been trying to tell us on these benches to-night, that it is our fault and the folly of the workers. I want to throw back that charge and to ask hon. Members opposite generally to face the issue, that although on several occasions the workers in the last year or two have shown signs of trying to find arrangements by which our industrial conditions can be made more permanent, and can be carried on along more peaceful lines, they have very rarely been met by the employers in a way that would make peace in industry possible. But I want to carry the charge away from the immediate industry of Yorkshire, with which I am more particularly concerned, to the industry of the country generally,
  144
  and to the policy the Government have been pursuing in regard to it. It has come out during our arguments to-night that one of the things that might be done to make more opportunities of labour for workers now unemployed would be a reduction of the hours that some of the present workers in industry have to put in.
  It is upon this question of the reduction of hours in industry that I want to address a very special appeal to the Government. The Government know to-day, as well as we know, how mistaken their policy was with regard to the coal industry. They know that the increase of hours from seven to eight has produced none of those things which they anticipated, but has had exactly the opposite effect. Although they have learnt that fact, they, apparently, are not prepared at this moment to take any stand with us in preventing, in the immediate future, employers going even further in the increase of the total hours that the workers are being compelled to work. I suggest that in connection with this issue the Government's policy with regard to the 48-hours' week ought to be very carefully investigated. I cannot understand what it is that after eight years still restrains the Government from carrying out the agreement that was signed, or practically signed, at Washington when the 48-hours' week was agreed upon.
  In 1924 a very careful investigation was made in an international conference at which the British Minister of Labour of those days attended, at which all the outstanding difficulties were examined, and at which, finally, an agreement was reached which should have enabled our Government and the other Governments to ratify the 48-Hours' Convention. Nothing happened. Another international conference was held in 1926 at which the present Minister of Labour was present, when, apparently, again any outstanding difficulties left were finally disposed of; but, still, the 48-Hours Convention was not disposed of. I am told—indeed, the Government admit it—that there are in this country at the present moment only about seven per cent. of workers who are working longer than a 48-hours' week, and that of those seven per cent. three or four per cent. are already provided for under the interpretations that have

  145
  been agreed upon with regard to the Washington Convention. So that practically, if our Government at this moment would agree to the ratification of that Convention, only two or three per cent. of the workers would be brought from the present state of things where the hours are longer than 48, down to the point that the Washington Convention laid down as the limit.
  Why do not the Government take this line? They talk to us in the House of Commons about foreign competition and the necessity of giving our workers an opportunity against it. We know that in France, in Italy and in Germany the workers—far more than 3 per cent, of them—have been working longer than these hours, and we know, too, that if we could ratify the Convention it would lead very rapidly—almost certainly—to the ratification of the Convention by other countries, and we could prevent the element of unfair competition facing our industries, and they would get a better opportunity. Why, then, is it not done? It is here I come to the central part of the charge which I am making against the Government as a whole, and which, at the commencement of my remarks, I was making against the hon. Member for North Bradford. The Government know perfectly well that the employing classes in this country in the years to come expect to have an opportunity to steal one more march against the workers, and are believing that an opportunity will come—as the Yorkshire employers are expecting an opportunity in the near future—to reduce wages, and where it will be necessary for them—as the coalowners said it was necessary—to have a further increase of the hours of the workers.
  Rather than be prepared to do the right thing now, which would assist us in dealing with the problem of foreign competition and thereby the problems of unemployment, the Government prefer to drift on year after year. For eight years they have done it, and still nothing has happened to bring that Agreement about. I submit that unless the Government on this very small issue—great in its importance in the long run, though it may be very small now—are prepared to do their duty and to carry out the provisions which they have practically, at any rate in theory, agreed to, they cannot spend
  146
  much time in charging us with any responsibility for the present situation. I appeal to the Government once more to consider the need for the immediate ratification of the Eight Hours Convention.
  Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: Earlier on in this Debate the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) challenged some figures quoted by the Mover of the Amendment we are now discussing. The figures may or may not be right, but I am perfectly certain it will interest the House, and more particularly hon. Members on this side, to learn that those figures which were quoted were taken from a publication issued by the Trade Union Congress which purported to show that, since 1920, the total number of new entrants into industry was 874,000, and during that time 304,000 had left industry, leaving a net balance of 570,000. Those figures were quoted in that pamphlet, not in order to show the advance which had been made under the Conservative Government towards solving the unemployment problem, but to show their own people that they had made a singularly bad effort to get those 570,000 new entrants into the trade unions, and that the increase in the number of trade unionists had only been some 2 per cent. Whether those figures were right or wrong, they were quoted on the authority of a document emanating from the other side.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: There has been an increase in population.
  Mr. HUDSON: That has nothing to do with it. The point is that practically 874,000 people have gone into industry, and only 2 per cent. into the trade unions. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who initiated this Debate, held up to our horrified gaze the enormous number of millions spent on the relief of unemployment since the Armistice, but he was very careful to refrain altogether from mentioning what he meant by maintenance. If we are to judge by the ordinary standards of the questions which we get in speaking up and down the country, we must understand that maintenance, in his view, is very considerably more than the figure that is at present obtained in the way of benefit. Therefore, I assume the millions, and hundreds of millions, he said had been spent already in giving benefit since

  147
  the Armistice, would have been very largely increased had the Socialist doctrine of work or maintenance been in force.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: What I mentioned was the total amount that had been spent by way of public assistance. I did not confine myself to the benefits under the Insurance Act at all. I added the Poor Law figures and said that the total amount spent by way of public assistance for which the nation had no goods or values in return, was so much.
  Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that affects my argument, because had the Socialist Government been in power, and had their schemes of maintenance, the total amount would have been very much greater indeed. It is a very parodoxical argument by which the hon. Member far Dundee becomes one of the new recruits of the so-called Economy Group of this House, complaining about the amount spent on public relief.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely the hon. Member is not aware of what I have said, or does not understand what I have said. We are pointing out that by our proposals we want the unemployed set to work to produce goods and valuable assets to the country. I said we had been prepared to provide the minimum amount of sustenance for the unemployed, and had been getting no goods or values in return.
  Mr. HUDSON: I have very little time, and I am not going to bandy words with the hon. Member for Dundee on that particular point. What I really want to come to is the very practical question of the remedy we can find. We have heard a good deal lately in this House of attempts that, have been made to get the Government to promise that they will introduce no legislations during the lifetime of this Parliament that will result in increased expenditure from the National Exchequer. One of the chief persons who believes in that, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), in a Debate the other day, was led, I might almost say betrayed, into making a most valuable admission. He said that it was not true economy to shift the burden from the Exchequer to the employer. Surely, the corollary seems to be true that it is not true economy to shift the burden from the Ex-chequer
  148
  on to the rates, which have to be paid by the employer, because rates—it is almost a platitude to say it—have to be paid whether any profits are earned or not. The real and proper method for the economists to adopt is, not that the total of national taxation shall in no case be increased but that the sum total of expenditure, both local and national, shall not be increased.
  We heard the other day from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that the total amount paid in rates had decreased in the last five or six years. It is true that it has decreased during those years, but it has not decreased to anything like the same extent as the cost of living or the wholesale prices index. The burden of rates today is proportionately greater than it was six or seven years ago. The problem we have to solve is one of transferring the burden from the shoulders of employers in the distressed areas, on to the national Exchequer. You are then faced with the problem of how to tackle the question of responsibility for this expenditure. A very prominent economist, speaking the night before last in Manchester, said that Parliamentary institutions were breaking down in this country owing to the fact that we had not time to discuss fully all the questions submitted to us, and he suggested that the solution lay in increased devolution, in increasingly giving to the local authorities further and further power and further and further responsibility. Surely, our present system of Poor Law has completely broken down, and the question is not that of giving more and more responsibility to local authorities but how to take that responsibility away from those local authorities who, according to recent reports of the Ministry of Health, seem to be proved to have misused the responsibility which has hitherto been accorded to them. The real problem that we have to meet is how we can, instead of devoluting further responsibility, take back some of the responsibility that has been confided to them in the past.
  The system under which we are working to-day dates back to the days of Elizabeth, and it is no wonder that in the stress of these days it should be breaking down. It was a system eminently suited for relieving, and probably still is eminently

  149
  suited for relieving, old persons and people who in rural districts fall to be relieved by the boards of guardians and relieving officers, but it certainly is not fitted for dealing with the problems in distressed areas, and if we want to help industry to recover, to relieve the shipbuilding industry from the heavy burdens of rates, to which the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson) referred, and if we want, as every Chancellor of the Exchequer desires, to see the revenue go up, we must bring in some measure of relief for local taxation and transfer the burden to the national Exchequer, provided, and this is the difficulty, we can at the same time make sure that local rates will not go up by the amount that has been taken off them and transferred to the national Exchequer. It is because I believe we are essentially the party that ought to do this, and essentially the party that can find the proper via media between the Socialist doctrine of work or maintenance, and the Liberal doctrine of laissez-faire, that I urge upon the Government the desirability of putting this reform in hand at once, because I am certain that if we do not do it ourselves, some other party will do it in the future and will do it far less well than we should otherwise have done.
  Mr. RILEY: The hon Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson) referred to the difficulties under which the great staple industries are labouring through the burden of local rates and other charges, and I noticed that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) has also emphasised that aspect of the situation. The remedy is entirely in the hands of the Government. Since 1914, in the matter of local rating there has been an increase, approximately of from £80,000,000 to £170,000,000 in England and Wales. That burden rests upon the localities and particularly the industrial localities. On the top of that, there has been a growing burden in the shape of social services, such as health insurance, unemployment benefit and the pensions for widows and orphans. In that respect, it is notable that hon. Members opposite should complain about industry being handicapped by burdens of this kind, when their Government have done more in that direction than any previous Government. We have only to remind ourselves of one of the latest burdens
  150
  placed by the Government upon industry, namely, the pensions for widows and orphans. That is a direct new addition to the burdens of industry.
  The remedy is simple. As the hon. Member for Whitehaven has said, let the Government recognise the situation and seek to readjust the burdens by placing, at least, some substantial portion of the burden now handicapping industry upon the National Exchequer, and recouping themselves from Super-tax and other sources. I do not suggest that the burdens complained of are not real. The figure which I am about to give may be confirmed upon investigation. If you take the £170,000,000 of local rates now resting upon the localities, and mainly upon industry, and you add to that the £60,000,000 which has to be borne by industry for health insurance, unemployment benefits and widows' and orphans' pensions, it means one shilling on every pound of goods turned out in every industrial centre. That is a serious handicap. The Government ought to say that they will, at any rate, halve the burden and relieve the localities to that extent.
  What schemes do the Government suggest for dealing with this admittedly serious problem of unemployment? So far as I can find, no proposal whatever has been made, and yet we are constantly seeing reports from Committees and Commissions appointed by the Government describing in the most emphatic language the urgency of certain national work being undertaken. I have in my hand a Report of a Commission which was appointed to deal with land drainage in England and Wales, and on page 22, paragraph 57, there are these words:
  "It is estimated by the drainage engineers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that the productive value of not less than 4,262,000 acres of land in England and Wales, or approximately one-seventh of the total area of land now used for agricultural purposes, is dependent for its fertility upon arterial drainage. Of this total 2,892,000 acres are situated in existing drainage areas, while the balance of 1,370,000 acres is outside any drainage district. The Minister of Agriculture has stated, moreover, that at least 1,075,000 acres of land are in immediate need of drainage, and of this area only 285,000 acres are within existing drainage areas."
  This is a work on which the Government might very usefully employ the miners who are out of work, and who are well

  151
  fitted for such work. One aspect of this problem which has never been explained, and for which no suggestion has been made, is the absorption of numbers of men for whom apparently there is no further occupation in the trades in which they have hitherto worked. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) has stated that in the mining industry anything from 100,000 to 200,000 men will never be obsorbed in the mining industry again. Here is some national work to which these men might be put instead of receiving unemployment benefit without producing anything. They would carry out work of national importance, increase the productivity of the land, increase the purchasing power of the people, all of which would be reflected in the general well-being of the country. It is in that direction that the best work can be done so far as unemployment is concerned. Everyone agrees with what the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson) has said, that it is upon production that the country has to live, and no remedy for unemployment is going to be permanent unless it increases productivity. Why do not the Government tackle it with something like imagination?
  Lieut.-Colonel ANGUS McDONNELL: I want to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. Member opposite, also by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson), and the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson), that unemployment should never be made a party affair, that it is a national question, and should be tackled in a national way. We have to stop accusing each other and endeavour to find the best plan for meeting the problem, otherwise we shall never get down to real business. We have naturally, owing to the great distress prevailing, devoted a great deal of this Debate to find alternative methods for unemployment. Unemployment is not a disease, it is only a symptom of the disease, and any scheme of insurance or relief work does not go to the root of the matter. They are narcotics, and, like all narcotics, have to be administered with great care, otherwise their ultimate effect is to do more harm than good. Why is it that we are being beaten at our
  152
  own game, the greatest manufacturing country in the world, by foreign countries not only abroad but in our home markets; beaten by competitors who pay higher and lower wages than we pay here? We talk about the iron and steel industry as being a declining trade, but the general use of iron and steel is growing every day.
  I believe that our troubles are due to this fact, that both employers and leaders of labour—I do not use labour in the party sense—have not realised to the same extent as they have in competing manufacturing countries, especially in the United States, that labour and capital, employer and employé, must be partners in business and not opponents. As long as we have employers, we still have bad ones, who cut piece-work rates simply on the ground that the piece worker is making too much money, as long as we have employers who set a limit on the amount a man can earn by piece-work rates, as long as we have leaders of labour who do not realise that day-work rates are only mass piece-work rates, as long as you have some trade union leaders who try to use trade unions for political purposes, instead of using politics for trade union purposes, and until capital and labour as partners agree to make the best deal they can with each other in industry, and then work together as partners in industry, we shall never regain our position as the primary manufacturing country in the world. There are signs of a better understanding at the present moment between capital and labour, and it is the bounden duty of any man who has anything to do with either, every thinking man, to promote that spirit. It is by this line that we are going to get back our old manufacturing superiority.
  You can believe in nationalisation or in private enterprise, it makes no difference at all. If hon. Members opposite socialise industry by constitutional means they do not want to take up a bankrupt concern, they want to take up a paying concern. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said this many times. It seems to me, whether you belong to the Labour party, the Liberal party, or the Conservative party, whether you are master or man, that our prosperity depends upon keeping politics out of business. I firmly

  153
  believe that. No measure any Government can pass will have half the effect in doing away with unemployment that a national will to work together, to co-operate to produce, will have. We either pay higher wages, work shorter hours, or have more social services in this country than any other country with which we are in competition. If we are going to maintain these services, indeed improve them as everybody agrees, we have got to co-operate together and stop this bickering across the Floor of the House as to whose fault it is, we have to get together again, cut out party politics and get down to work.
  Mr. CLYNES: I have heard nearly all the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the Debate, and the least that can be said of quite a number of them is that they have been very serviceable contributions to a very difficult problem. I cannot say that of the speech which should be deemed to be the principal speech of the Debate, namely, that of the Minister of Labour. I regard that speech as extremely unhelpful and indeed exasperating in many of its parts, and in no sense a useful and constructive contribution to the problem of unemployment. I am driven to the conclusion that the Minister has not read the Motion on the Paper, and I therefore invite the attention of hon. and right hon. Members to its terms. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the House rightly said that you cannot solve this problem by palliatives. But it is no use telling the man who is out of work now to wait for a perfect and complete scheme which will solve the whole problem. If you find the man a job and you care to call that a mere palliative, I reply that you have found him work, and so far as he is concerned you have solved his problem. It may be a temporary solution.
  We do not limit ourselves to palliatives. We are driven to palliative measures because of the Government's refusal to take the slightest notice of the Bills which we have introduced and the Motions which we have formulated, and of the terms of the Resolution before the House to-night. I do not think that any Member, taking this Motion and dissecting it, could single out any one part of it and say, "I object to it." On whichever side of the House he may
  154
  be, let him take the Motion and see what it really seeks to do. We say that the condition in which we are now is a matter of grave concern. Who would deny that? It is one of the most baffling conditions in which we have ever found ourselves, and it is a matter of the gravest concern. We then go on to say that we call for a comprehensive national policy which will in the first place stimulate production, relieve industry in the necessitous areas from exceptional burdens, and provide work or, alternatively, training and adequate maintenance. Is there anyone who does not want a comprehensive measure which will aim at those objectives? We, of course, would differ as to the precise terms and form of national policy, but the Government must choose between such a policy or the application of its ideas of such a policy, and doing nothing at all. So far as I can see the Government prefer to select the latter course and to take no action whatever.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour began his speech by declaring that he regarded this Debate as altogether inopportune. Why disturb the festive season by bringing forward such a proposal as this? he said in effect. He feared that he could not at the moment deal with the subject without going back a little into history. I wish the Minister of Labour had preferred to go forward into the region of definite constructive suggestions made by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion. The Minister did not even glance at the Motion and in no sense touched any one of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). Then the Minister proceeded to review the position at a glance from 1921 to 1927, stopping at great length midway to remind us of blunders and offences of the miners' leaders, of whom he named two. Any Minister thinking of the history of the mine workers of this country should think in terms of at least some sympathy towards the men who have had to lead such a body of workers and to organise and raise them in some degree from the position of the very lowest level of industrial slavery at which they stood before they were organised by the leaders of the Miners' Federation.
  There is no more indispensable and valuable manual worker in Great Britain

  155
  than the miner, and it may be fairly said that there is scarcely anyone who is worse treated. It is our good will, our sympathy and assistance that ought to be extended to these men, particularly to Mr. Herbert Smith, who was mentioned by name by the Minister, instead of the sentences levelling against him something of which I think he was not guilty. I repeat that I regard Mr. Herbert Smith as having said in the course of the controversy referred to by the Minister, that he could not accept the Report to which the Minister referred, if such acceptance had to be preceded by the acceptance of a reduction in wages. What he said was that if it could go through without conditions and without his having to guarantee acceptance of a reduction in wages, he would be willing to examine that Report from cover to cover and sit down with all those who were prepared to find a solution through the medium of that document.
  Had the Minister of Labour been here, I would have liked to ask him why he could not say anything as to the set of constructive proposals put before him by those same miners' leaders, Mr. Herbert Smith, Mr. A. J. Cook and the rest, only five weeks ago. I gathered from the newsaper reports that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to stay to give any reply, but the Parliamentaray Secretary did reply, on behalf of the Government, that the suggestions would be fairly considered by His Majesty's Ministers. I have not seen any public announcement as to any further reply, and one would have thought that the Minister of Labour would have made this Debate the occasion—especially in view of his condemnation of the miners' leaders—of some announcement as to what could be done on those suggestions. I observe that the last of the suggestions submitted by the miners' leaders was that a Government Committee, representing all parties, should be formed to consider immediately the ways and means of carrying out the measures submitted by the deputation.
  In the review of the Minister to-day there was one very noticeable gap. He made no reference to what I call the subsidy period or to the action of the Government, without terms or arrangement or effort at a bargain, without
  156
  laying down qualifications and conditions, in providing some £20,000,000 odd of public money on the off chance that some good might come of it. My profound conviction is that if at that time, in 1925, the Government had had some wisdom and a definite policy to be pursued, and if the Government had laid down terms to both masters and men and had said to them, "Here are £20,000,000 on certain conditions," then we may have hoped for a settlement, and the miners' lock-out and national strike might both have been avoided. I draw attention to that gap in the Minister's review and I repeat that the strike was the inevitable consequence of the lock-out. It was created out of the spirit of a few millions of men to stand by others whose standard of life they deemed to have been attacked. In addition, those millions of men saw in many pronouncements with which distinguished supporters of the Government were associated, that if the miners went down and suffered a reduction, down also other workers would have to go in the matter of their wage standard.
  I followed the Minister's speech with every desire to do justice to his argument and to understand what is now his position, and I understood quite clearly that he no longer believes in palliatives even to the extent of grants from any Government source with a view to finding what is termed palliative work. If all such plans and schemes and financial aids are to stand condemned, what are we to say of the Government which has relied alone on that method so far, for anything they can do in regard to the unemployment problem? The Government have encouraged local authorities to produce schemes, to do the preparatory work and to incur certain liabilities in getting ready to carry out those schemes. Now the Minister urges that these schemes do not find work at all, that they are not supplemental to any other industrial pursuit, but that they supplant and displace. That is the argument of the Minister, and I take it that all he has said is a censure, quite unconsciously delivered, of his own policy and of such efforts as his Government have made in relation to this problem. I have here a long list of schemes sent to me by the secretary of the local authorities in Lancashire and Cheshire.

  157
  These are not Socialist bodies; they are not labour clubs or organisations, but municipal authorities large and small, some as big as Manchester, others as little as a parish council. It is a list of some 36 schemes, headed with the statement that the list shows particulars of unemployment relief work which could be put in hand if Government grants were available, and at the total cost of these works, if undertaken and carried through, would reach nearly £1,400,000. This matter is worthy of reference because until to-day we understood that the Minister of Labour was responsible, in his own person, for that form of Government encouragement given to local authorities to prepare schemes, in the anticipation of getting a certain measure of financial support. The secretary of the body to which I refer sent me from Manchester to-day this telegram:
  "Please urge upon Parliament the urgent necessity for modification of their restrictions on Government grants towards cost of unemployment relief works. The position is becoming more critical."
  If we are not to have any assistance from that quarter, will the Prime Minister tell us, even now, at the tailend of the Session, where are we to look for hope and what is to be done? Is there anything whatever to be expected in the way of a plan, a scheme or a method that will hold out the faintest hope to those who are still unemployed. The Minister of Labour said there were exceptions to this general and sweeping censure of schemes which have depended upon grants from the Unemployment Grants Committee. There is the case of the electricity scheme. As the Amendment put down in opposition to our Motion roundly condemns Socialistic measures, may I draw the attention of the hon. and learned Mover of that Amendment to the fact that when this very electricity scheme was before the House—and before the House with our support—the principal spokesman of the Government appealed to hon. Members behind him not to vote, on the ground that it was a Socialistic measure, against the plan. The fact is, that nothing constructive in this realm of wealth production can be undertaken or carried through unless it is of a Socialistic character.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to carry it
  158
  a little further. If I remember aright, the Attorney-General asked Members not to be led into voting against the proposal by the suggestion that it was a Socialist measure, and he added that, in fact, it would prevent Socialism.
  Mr. CLYNES: I was drawing attention to the argument and not to the fears upon which the Attorney-General was playing. Of course, it is natural if a Minister in a Conservative Government is compelled to admit that a certain measure is Socialistic——
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: He did not admit it. That is the point.
  Mr. CLYNES:—that he should add that it is the very last thing in the world he he doing, and that nobody who is listening to him should in the least believe it. Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is an exception in this regard, an exception which is still receiving Government assistance, in the matter of sugar beet. I would remind the House that we on this side had a hand in the bringing in of that proposal and that it has received our support. When we see that the national interest requires national financial assistance, no question of theory and no matter of opposition, will deter us from taking the right attitude. Let me as a Manchester Member deal for a few minutes upon this question as it affects the city of Manchester. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, in view of the telegram which I have read and the very serious situation in that city and many other parts of Lancashire. In this House, I think, on 26th November, 1925, the Minister of Labour announced that approval—I presume Government approval—would not be given to these schemes in places which were not particularly distressed. Any Member hearing that statement would take it for what it was worth as a very general announcement that places that were not particularly distressed were not to receive assistance from the source of these grants. It is, I suggest, a very elastic term.
  Then we found that as a matter of administration, as a matter of private communication with the local authorities, the Minister of Labour—I assume with the assent of the Cabinet—had fixed a definite percentage, namely, 10 per cent.

  159
  as being the recognised general level of unemployment in the country. He had then gone on to say that a place where the percentage of unemployment was less than that level would not be entitled to receive a Government grant. I argue that it was not a fair thing on the part of the Minister to use a general term in the House and a definite, particular term in this communication to these local authorities. They certainly have been hard pressed to meet Government requirements in the preparation of schemes and were entitled, I think, to far more generous support.
  Lancashire has suffered severely, not only because there are so many out of work, but because a very large part of the population for years have been only in part employment. It has been no time at all for many thousands, and short time for a very long period for even a very much larger number, and you must take the general facts of the situation into account in determining what you are to do with a particular problem. I understand the Minister's position now to be that a particular place can still make application for these grants, but what is the good of that if it happens that that particular place falls below the 10 per cent. level arbitrarily fixed, fixed without the assent of this House, by the Minister of Labour? I do not say that Lancashire has been absolutely isolated as a county suffering exceptional distress, but it has indeed had a very bad time, because the cotton industry belongs almost entirely to that county, and when one great industry like that is exceptionally afflicted for a period of years the suffering is severe indeed.
  I, therefore, listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), which was a revelation, I dare say, to many, but contained points familiar to those of us associated with the life of Lancashire, and perhaps he will not object if I give my view of the gloomy story which he had to tell. I fear that we cannot expect the banks to forfeit their hold upon the mills or turn their backs upon the debts which arc due to them. I doubt whether a remedy can be found in that direction. It may be in their interest that they should do it, but it is not like human nature, not like
  160
  financial human nature, to deal with it in that way. My hon. Friend urged the view that the Lancashire cotton trade could never hope to get back to anything like its pre-War condition. I doubt whether the Lancashire cotton trade will ever survive the shock of the years 1920–21. Those were the years of internal financial juggling, the years in which mills were bought and sold several times over, the years in which men made fortunes and escaped from the county as quickly as they could. It is the most natural thing in the world that an industry undermined by financial proceedings of that sort should live to rue the day and that the continued trade depression should find it in a state of such financial instability as is now, unhappily, the case.
  May I ask the hon. Member who drew our attention to this position to what is involved in his admissions? I thought I never heard—whether it was intended or not—a more eloquent condemnation of the Capitalist system than the recital of all that has led up to the financial difficulties of the Lancashire cotton industry. Human nature, and the social suffering, and all the claims which hundreds of thousands of people have for a good standard of life have never been taken into account by those who have had the most to do with the building up of the Lancashire cotton industry. I imagine that in the main there are two counts which have been briefly stated as explaining the distress in this trade. The one is the diminished demand for cotton goods. The two great markets outside our shores for cotton were India and China. Strikes in this country have been far less fatal to trade than political policy. Our handling of affairs both in India and China has in a period of years had a good deal to do with our lost markets.
  We have heard something about a movement called Non-co-operation in India, and I was driven to the conclusion by the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport that we can find non-co-operation nearer home. It can be found in Lancashire; many efforts have been made in recent years to get the millowners to co-operate to find a solution in respect of these troubles. So the lack of co-operation, the refusal to co-operate, to do the things more in common for the common good on the part of the

  161
  Lancashire millowners is, I allege, one cause of the continued trade depression in the county. Before I leave this point and draw my remarks to a close, may I suggest that in respect to Russia our political policy is a matter which requires some further attention, for in Lancashire there is not only cotton to be manufactured and sold, but immense quantities of machinery to be produced and sold. I know from some little contact with these great firms how important it is to great firms like Hetherington and Sons, Ltd., of Manchester, Mather and Platt, of Manchester, and Platt Brothers, of Oldham, that nothing should be done which will take a prospective order away. I recently read that as the result of the Government's last political action in respect of Russia—the breaking-off of the ordinary trade relations which practically inevitably followed from the political breach—trade has fallen off by more than half as between Russia and ourselves in the period which has elapsed. It is all very well in a moment of political passion to jeer at the Russians as being unfaithful to their contracts, but that is not true. There is not a business man in Britain who can cite a single instance where they have not been faithful to the commercial arrangements they have made. [An HoN. MEMBER: "In the past?"] Yes, in the past. I shall give evidence. In any of these discussions not one hon. Member has been able to cite an instance of a commercial man alleging any breach of faith or breach of contract on any matter of business between Russia and ourselves. I am not thinking of the general underground differences between Russia and this country, though I do believe that they could have been settled had we faced them in a non-party temper, and with a view to pursuing the real commercial interests of this country. This is from the speech made at the annual meeting of a great Manchester firm—John Hetherington and Sons, Ltd.—by the chairman last year:
  "With regard to Russian contracts, of which I spoke to you last year, in view of the general attitude towards Russian affairs which until recently it has been the fashion to adopt, you will probably wish me to say a word or two. The contracts have been kept punctiliously, both in the letter and in the spirit. We are, in fact, very pleased with the way the business has been transacted and with the scrupulous exactness with which the Soviet authorities have regarded their contracts. You probably noticed at
  162
  the time the President of the Board of Trade mentioned on 1st July in the House of Commons that the Board of Trade were not aware of any instance whatever in which commercial contracts made by the Soviet Government had not been kept."
  I think, therefore, that if hon. Gentlemen opposite will get away from the bogey of Communist propaganda, which is always being raised when we might do business with Russia, we shall do much more business than we have done. I observe that the Prime Minister is here, and I ask his attention to the fact that his party in its literature and speeches assured the country at the last election that that party had a remedy for unemployment. [Interruption.]
  An HON. MEMBER: That was before the election of 1920.
  Mr. CLYNES: That party was led by a Prime Minister who, in the course of that contest delivered many speeches, in one of which he assured the country that, if returned, it would be the immediate business of the Government to grapple with this problem of unemployment. If what has been done is to be regarded as grappling with this problem, I would like to know what it would mean to have the problem evaded altogether. I would not mind if the Government had tried and failed, but my argument is that they have attempted nothing at all, have not even tried to make good the solemn pledges given in the course of the election, and repeated on two occasions in the Speeches from the Throne read in this House. We have come now to the position in which we have got a hardened refusal to do anything whatever, and nothing now is thrown from that side of the House to this other than prophecies of a silver lining that somehow, sometime, will appear in the dark clouds which overhang us. It may be that hon. Gentlemen will return to the method of asking us what we are going to do. We have now reached the stage in Parliamentary affairs where it is not the Government who are expected to do anything, but the Opposition who are required to formulate their plans.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee drew attention to the really appalling desperation of the local authorities, on to whose shoulders a large part of this burden is thrown. I marvel that business men submissively support

  163
  a Government who in large measure are responsible for maintaining that burden, or for throwing it upon local shoulders. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee answered the question about the cost of dealing with this problem. As he pointed out, £380,000,000 have been spent in relieving the unemployed by way of free grants, or "doles," as they are sometimes called. It is no longer a question of, Can we afford to find the money to deal with this matter? The question is, Can we afford to go on finding money for the wastefulness which alone represents the Government's policy to-day? Had we had something like scheme, method, idea, or principle, in grappling with this difficulty, nothing like the sum of £380,000,000 would have been paid without our having a brick to show for it. Lastly, the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment taunted the trade unions with being the cause of unemployment, alleging that they imposed restrictions in various occupations.
  Sir W. G REAVES-LORD: What I said was that those were matters which ought to be discussed, and taken into account between both employer and employed, but no employer should ask for them to be removed without safeguards against unfair competition.
  Mr. CLYNES: Most of the work and at least two-thirds of the work done in this country is done under piece-work conditions. The remaining one-third is performed under the eyes of supervisors, superintendents, foremen and managers under the stress and the fear of poverty if the work is not well done. Therefore, so far as that question is concerned, the result is so tiny as not to affect the industrial problem at all. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) is associated with the legal profession, and he should be the last person in this House to talk about restrictions in an industry of this kind. The hon. and learned Member gave an instance upon which he built a most unworthy charge. He said that an employer in his constituency could provide work for about 50 women and only two applied, and his suggestion was that that was due to our having cultivated amongst these workpeople a disinclination to work. That is a monstrous suggestion to make from
  164
  the opposite side of the House, because by inference it is a reflection upon the Minister of Labour, whose duty it is to see that those who can get work and will not take it must not receive unemployment benefit.
  It has been a very frequent argument used by hon. Members supporting the Government that people were not entitled to unemployment benefit because they did not pursue the task of genuinely seeking employment. I can tell my hon. Friends that on this side of the House it is not our business, as he has alleged, to foment strife, nor is it true that in the instance of the coal strike strife was fomented by the Labour leaders either singly or jointly, because twice they put forward proposals for a settlement and they were rejected. It was only after the dispute with the Prime Minister that the negotiations reached the stage in which the employers were told that they were acting with obstinacy and unreasonableness. I fear we have not extracted from the Government anything likely to be of the slightest service that will give relief this side of Christmas to the large army of unemployed. I can only say in the presence of the Prime Minister that it was in the year 1925, just when the winter of that year was approaching, that he said on behalf of the Government in this House:
  "We are going to make a great and a special effort to meet the needs of the approaching winter."
  That great effort was not made in 1925 and it has not been made since. It would now appear that no such effort is to be made in 1928.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Curiliffe-Lister): As the time at my disposal is not adequate to cover the whole of this voluminous Motion, I will follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), and address myself to what he calls the substance of it. I have read the Motion with care, and the main problem which it puts is that we should have a comprehensive national policy which will stimulate production. The only test whether a policy will stimulate production is whether it is going to improve trade generally, and whether it is going to give encouragement to particular industries which are in distress. The allegation contained in

  165
  this Motion is that the present economic system cannot either improve trade generally or help particular industries, and that, therefore, the issue is between Socialism and private enterprise. The argument is adduced that private enterprise has failed, and that Socialism, if it has not already succeeded, still hopes to succeed.
  I ask, in the first place—and this is the whole essence of the Motion—what evidence is there that the alternative system has given any advantage in any other country? I think that that is a very pertinent question. If it be alleged that there is better employment in any other country, if it he alleged that there is better business organisation in any other country, it certainly is not in a country where the Socialist system rules or where Socialistic ideas are practised. [Interruption.] That is not begging the question in the least; it is answering a question. In the only country in which Socialism has been tried up to the present on any comprehensive scale, namely, Russia, a paper which bears the name "Trud" meaning, I understand, "Labour," and which, I understand, is the counterpart of the "Dairy Herald," says that in the year 1926–27 there was an increase of 40 per cent. in unemployment in that country.
  There being no evidence that Socialism is going to produce employment, the right hon. Gentleman is careful, both in his speeches outside and in the Motion which is now before the House, to add to this system a policy of work or maintenance, and the comprehensive system which we are invited to adopt is a comprehensive system of nationalisation coupled with a great increase of taxation, such as has been advocated by nearly every speaker on that side of the House to-night, in order to provide maintenance where work is not forthcoming. [Interruption.] I have been left about 20 minutes, and I hope I shall be allowed to proceed without interruption. It certainly is not likely to be argued on any evidence that nationalised industries are going to provide more work. There will be, of course, the usual political pressure which inevitably happens where every person employed is a voter; there will be the usual lack of elasticity, just in those very industries where, with our world-wide trade, elasticity
  166
  is of the essence of success; there will be a lack of capacity to take a quick decision—the one thing that a Government machine can never do; there will be a lack of willingness to take risks, which no controlled system will ever take; there will be a damping down of initiative and enterprise. All that is going to mean less trade, and, consequently, more unemployment; and, in order to meet that, the right hon. Gentleman—and in his Motion he is quite frank—says, let us add, to the scheme of nationalisation, maintenance out of taxes.
  What does that mean? It means that the individual who is thrifty—the spendthrift, apparently, is to get off scot free—the individual who is thrifty is to be taxed on what he saves, and the industries which for the time being are not nationalised are also to contribute their quota in taxation. What does it mean? Of course, it means that because there is more taxation there will be less money for investment—money will be dearer and not cheaper—less money for research, less money for development and less money for stimulating invention. It was glibly stated on that side, where they quote the Colwyn Report without reading it, that the Colwyn Report says national savings are increasing, and there is no need to worry about it. I wish hon. Members who quote the Colwyn Report would read it. What it said about savings was not that there was plenty of capital and that savings were increasing. Paragraph 60 says:
  "Generally we conclude that the falling off in national savings, equal to £150,000,000 or £200,000,000 at present-day prices, gives ground for anxiety but not for pessimism."
  If we are to be informed that all future savings are to be taxed, that will give ground not only for anxiety but for the greatest possible pessimism.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Who says that?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Colwyn Report, which was quoted at me. There never was a time when the need for new money in industry was greater. Let no one underrate the value of what I may call surplus wealth. It is easy to say rich men do no good. If you look at the history of invention and development, whether it is the development of manufactures by new processes or the development of new markets by merchant adventurers, you will find in

  167
  every case that the money for these ventures which once, twice or three times may fail and only after several failures succeed, comes from people who have surplus wealth at their disposal. It is the history of every invention, and there would not be a trade union in the country if rich men had not put their money into these ventures. Socialism with its cumbrous and devastating inefficiency would fail to supply what great adventurers in the past have supplied, and the result would be a vicious system where there would be less trade, more unemployment, and more taxation.
  You will do one thing more. You will give acute discouragement to the foreign investor who at present comes here. It will give a shock to the security of our financial and our commercial system. Money which finds its way here to-day because it is safe and secure in this country will not come here. You will cease to have the use of it, and you will lose a very considerable trade financed on your invisible exports. That is what we are invited to substitute for a scheme which experience has proved. I say with confidence that experience has proved it, in spite of this Motion, which would suggest that things are far worse to-day than they were two, three, four or five years ago. We have been passing through very difficult times. It is very wonderful that things are not worse than they are. Do not let us paint the picture blacker than we need. It is really no help to our trade, under whatever system, competing in foreign markets, if responsible men say the position of Britain is getting steadily worse. Responsible men who have held responsible office ought to remember that they are always the commercial travellers of their country and they ought to be very careful what they say and what they broadcast through the markets. We are not going back. We are undoubtedly going forward. What is the test? I take the test. proposed by the last three speakers on the other side. Are we putting men into work? We have put 1,160,000 people into work between 1922 and 1927. During one year of that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office and the improvement went on, but it went on not because he put his Socialist principles into practice but because he kept them securely locked up.
  168
  We are told that present prospects are much worse. I think not. I ventured the last time I spoke here to say that I thought that when the November trade returns came out we should find that they would show a considerable advance in our exports. I was challenged on that. What is the fact? We have now received those returns. We see an increase of 16 per cent. in value as against November two years ago. That probably means, in volume, something like 25 per cent. of improvement in exports, and that is about equal to the average month of 1913. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much is coal?"] Coal is about the same as usual. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Gentlemen would allow me to make my speech. I am dealing with the charge that prospects to-day are better. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not correct!"] Of course it is correct. They are the published returns. I have never given figures to this House which are incorrect. I am quoting official figures which are the official figures published by this country and recognised to be correct. That picture is borne out by the general impression that one gets. I had sent up to me the other day a number of reports and they are summed up in this way, that on the whole there is a general trend towards permanent and more active business. Take two indices.
  I take the index of shipping which, of course, is a very good index of general trade prospects. At the present time there is less shipping laid up in our ports than at almost any time in the past. In October, 1925, 574,000 tons of shipping were laid up, and in October of this year only 273,000 tons. The position is also reflected in shipbuilding orders. Everybody has always agreed that shipbuilding can only begin to improve when there is sufficient trading prospects to justify the placing of new orders. I am glad to say that at the end of the third quarter of 1927, 1,536,000 tons of shipping were under construction (that is 50 per cent. of the whole world's construction at that time) and at the end of the first quarter of 1926 only 843,000 tons were under construction, representing only 42 per cent. of the world's construction at that time. I take one other case. The net imports of raw material are higher to-day than they have been for a considerable time past. They are better than they were in 1925, and

  169
  they are better than they were in 1924, and all good Free Traders will agree that if you import a large amount of raw material, it is going to be of benefit to the manufacturers. The visible adverse trade balance has been very considerably reduced in the last month when it was £25,000,000. I think there is a better understanding and greater mutual confidence in industry at the present time.
  The right hon. Gentleman then challenges me and says, "You have not got a comprehensive policy." If his conception of a comprehensive policy is a policy in which the State takes over the whole of industry, when indeed we have not got a comprehensive policy, but if by a comprehensive policy he means a policy which reviews the whole field and endeavours to help industry where it usefully can, then I say our policy is comprehensive. I take the foreign field. The whole of our foreign policy has been designed to help trade. Taking Europe, apart from Russia, with which I will deal presently, can anybody say that the whole policy of the Foreign Secretary—Locarno and the appeasement of Europe—has not made for improved trade conditions? I am challenged about Russia. People are free to trade with Russia to-day. For the first three months after the breach, the Russians sold here more than they sold us in the period before the breach. If they are free and able to sell, certainly they are able to buy here, and it is the lack of wish to buy and not the lack of facilities to buy which is the point. No self-respecting country can be blackmailed into trade at any price. Frankness and honesty and plain statement of fact have never done any harm in matters of business. We have in international affairs worked for and achieved a very considerable advance in improving trade facilities. There have been the Shipping Conventions and only a few days ago a Convention for the removal of import and export prohibition. We have done all that in the foreign field and in the Empire field we have developed Imperial Preference, and when you come to consider that 44 per cent. of our exports of (1925) manufactures go to the Empire, excluding the Irish Free State, I think even those who opposed the policy of preference a few years ago have probably now become convinced.
  170
  Finally, in the home market we have had a comprehensive policy, and the home market to-day is becoming increasingly important. Foreign manufacturers have provided for many of the overseas markets which previously took our goods, and the home market has become very important. What do we find? There is not a single proposal that we have put forward for assisting any trade or industry in the home market which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not opposed. There has not been a duty which they have not opposed, although every one of those duties has put men into work and not one of them has raised prices, and in nearly every trade the exports have increased as a result. New factories have been put up. The motor industry is expanding. We were told that we should only expand our home market and that exports would go down. What were the facts? In the first half of 1925 we exported 12,800 cars and chassis, and in the first half of 1927 we exported 21,300. Is not that increasing employment and trade? Of course those duties are to come off if ever hon. Gentlemen opposite got into power. We have set to work to build up the key industries which are as vital to this country in time of peace as ever they were in time of war, and we have succeeded. Take magnetos, which before the War were hardly produced here at all. There were only three out of 37 firms who made motor cars who dreamt of putting British magnetos into their cars. To-day every one of them is fitting almost exclusively British magnetos. In 1925 we sold five times as many as we did in 1921, and at half the price for which they were sold in 1921.
  The same story is true the whole way through the list of key products. We have been challenged about the range of the list, but I do not mind if there is a large number of things in the key industries list when every one is putting men into work and helping subsidiary industries and increasing export trade and reducing prices. There is the glove industry, which had not been taking apprentices for years. To-day there are a thousand extra men and women at work and they are taking apprentices for the first time. I could go on with the story. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has this to do with employment?"]

  171
  What has this to do with employment? All these schemes have to do with employment. The one way to find employment surely is to find people work, and work on something that people will buy. The only idea of some hon. Members opposite seems to be to dig a hole in the ground in connection with some local authority's unemployment scheme. We set to work to build up the dye industry. Before we started, before the War, 80 per cent. of the dyes that were used in this country were of foreign manufacture and only 20 per cent. British. To-day 80 per cent. are of British manufacture and only 20 per cent. foreign, and the average price has come, down from 4s. 6d. a pound in 1921 to 1s. 7d. a pound.
  We introduced the Merchandise Marks Bill, which was opposed by hon. Members opposite. Is it said that that does not help employment? Let me give two examples. An Order was only passed in the House a few nights ago. In anticipation of these Orders, I have heard that in connection with mowing machines and wire netting—both of which are included, one in an Order and one in a report which is not yet an Order—large dealers who had hitherto dealt extensively in foreign articles are placing their orders in this country. Hon Members opposite opposed that Bill. They also opposed the Films Bill, although it is going to put people into work and is going to be the greatest advertisement of British enterprise that could be found.
  Hon. Members opposite are not content merely with opposing Measures which are proposed, but even when a voluntary appeal is made to people to buy British goods, they criticise it. We have heard plenty of criticism of the dole. Surely the best criticism of the dole is to take a man off the dole by buying something that he makes. When we make the voluntary appeal to people to buy British goods, the whole force of the Labour party is mobilised in order to detract from it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON indicated dissent.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I make one honourable exception in favour of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston).
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. There are two hon. Members sent to that Committee officially on behalf of this party.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On the question of buying British goods?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then all I can say is that I am very glad there is a difference of opinion in the Labour party. I have been attacked repeatedly by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who said that it was a most fantastic appeal that I was making. I am glad to find some allies in the Labour party, and I hope that in this comprehensive and very good policy, in which we can all join, we shall find a few more allies in the Labour party. I would say in conclusion, on the main issue of Socialism as against private enterprise, we shall fight that out, but it is a matter which has to be decided finally through the ballot box. In the meantime, whatever system is to hold sway in this country, we have to live by our trade and by our trade alone, and nothing else can find work for our people and by nothing else can we find our food and our raw material. I do make a most sincere appeal to men of all parties. Let us, if necessary, in the final political issues dispute as to the ultimate political system which is to be adopted in this country, but let us not by word or deed do anything which will detract from our prospects; let us do all we can to help to foster and encourage that trade by which all of us alike live.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part, of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 256.

  Division No. 483.]

  AYES.

  [11.1 p.m.

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

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Compton, Joseph

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

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Connolly, M.

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Ammon, charies George

  Bromley, J.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Buchanan, G.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Duncan, C.

  Barnes, A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Barr, J.

  Clowes, S.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

  Batey, Joseph

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gillett, George M.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Gosling, Harry

  Greenall, T.

  March, S.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Stephen, Campbell

  Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Ponty pool)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Groves, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Thone, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Pailn, John Henry

  Tinker, John Joseph

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

  Palling, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hardle, George D.

  Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Vlant, S. P.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ritson, J.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

  Westwood, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Kennedy, T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Kenworthy, Lt -Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Scurr, John

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifte)

  Lansbury, George

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wilson, R. J, (jarrow)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Windsor, Walter

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherbithe)

  Wright, W.

  Lowth, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

  Mackinder, W.

  Snell, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  ( Mr. Hayes and Mr. whiteley.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Couper, J. B.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Alnsworth, Major Charles

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crowe)

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Apsley, Lord

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Atkinson, C.

  Dalkelth, Earl of

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davles, MaJ. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovlt)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Balniel, Lord

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Dean, Arthur Weilesley

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Illffe. Sir Edward M.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

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

  Blundell, F. N.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  King. Commodore Henry Douglas

  Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.

  Forrest. W.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Foxcroft. Captain C. T.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Bralthwalte, Major A. N.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Framartie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Gaibralth, J. F. W.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Gates, Percy

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gault, Lleut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lumley, L. R.

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

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Grace, John

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

  Buchan, John

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Burman, J. B.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McLean. Major A.

  Butt. Sir Alfred

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Mianningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir f. (Dulwich)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Mason, Lleut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hanbury, C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Christie, J. A.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Clarry. Reginald George

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Murchison, sir Kenneth

  Cockerili, Brig.-General Sir George

  Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Henn. Sir Sydney H.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Cope, Major William

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

  174

  175

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Waddington, R.

  Nieid, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Oakley, T.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Sanderson, sir Frank

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sassoon. sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Savery, S. S.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapte)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wells, S. R.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  White, Lieut-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Pilcher, G.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel George

  Radford, E. A.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Stott, Lleut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ramsden, E.

  Streatteeld, Captain S. R.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Suqden, Sir Wilfrid

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Tasker, R. Inlgo.

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Colonel Gibbs.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. SCURR Mr. SCURR rose——
  It being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Commander EYRES MONSELL Commander EYRES MONSELL rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Resolved,
  "That this House notes with satisfaction that, in spite of the grave setback caused by the general strike and the prolonged coal dispute in 1926, the number in employment during 1927 has been greater than at any previous period since 1920; and is of opinion that the absorption of those who remain unemployed cannot be effected by Socialistic measures and can best be assisted by a policy directed to encouraging the recovery of industry, promoting industrial peace and, while preventing hardship to those unavoidably out of work, taking all steps that are practicable to forward the readjustment of labour forces to the changing needs of modern industry."

  COLONIAL PROBATES (PROTECTED STATES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES) BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]
  The remaining Government orders were read,and postponed.

  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH- EAST ENGLAND.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BARNES: I desire to be brief on the matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport. If I abbreviate my remarks however it is not because I wish to under-estimate the importance of the issue but because other Members desire to speak. The Electricity Commissioners have now submitted their scheme for South-East England to the Electricity Central Board. It affects 165 authorised undertakers. It will fix supply and price for 14 counties and in the area covered by the scheme a population of something like 11,000,000 persons is affected. Among the 165 authorised undertakers there are 59 municipal undertakers and the trade unions catering for their staff represent 30,000 to 40,000 employes affected. Therefore, we can claim that the scheme is of considerable dimensions and ought not to be put into effect unless all those interested and particularly the public bodies, feel that every side of the case has been thoroughly considered. The 59 municipal undertakers, with possibly one or two exceptions, feel that they have a

  177
  strong case in the first place against the financial structure of the scheme. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that they challenge the financial basis of the scheme. Secondly, they have grave doubts as to whether the scheme will yield cheaper electricity supply to the users, particularly under those authorities which have efficient municipal stations. Their third contention is that whereas now the local authorities share in almost equal proportions the generation of electrical power, it is assumed, I think, on good grounds, that under the scheme a good deal of the generation of municipal power will pass to private companies. Whatever our views may be of private or municipal generation I do not think Parliament contemplated that municipal enterprise should suffer from that type of legislation.
  I do not hold myself responsible for the statements which have been made but I feel there is a sufficient weight of opinion behind those statements to demand a public inquiry. I must condense my remarks into a form which may appear blunt and therefore I put a series of questions to the Minister and I hope he will be equally direct in his replies. First, does the Central Electricity Board accept the financial structure of the scehme as prepared and submitted by the Electricity Commissioners? Secondly, is Section 5 of the scheme ultra vires? Thirdly, will municipal generation under the scheme suffer as compared with the proportion' now existing?
  I would also like to ask the Minister if he can make a frank statement with regard to his powers under this form of legislation. As I understand it, under Section 4, paragraph (2), of the Electricity Act of 1926, provision was made for a, public inquiry under certain conditions. I recognise that the Central Board have more or less the final power, but under what conditions can we have a public inquiry if the present situation does not warrant one? Here we have 59 local authorities—one or two may have been accommodated now—who consider that their difficulties and doubts in regard to the scheme are sufficiently weighty for them to press for an inquiry. Apparently such is not going to be considered, or rather, so far no statement has yet been made. Are we to take it that we
  178
  can have a large volume of public opinion, which local authorities must be assumed to represent, and the Minister is going to take up the position that he has no powers and that the Central Board can override views of that description?
  The Minister, while not having direct powers, has, I understand, certain opportunities under the Act. The Central Board cannot raise the necessary finance for the scheme unless, first, the Minister, with the Treasury, passes certain Regulations, and gives them certain powers, and surely the withholding of those powers should give the Minister an opportunity of conveying public opinion as expressed to Parliament on this important matter. My final point is that if the Minister is not disposed to assist us to obtain a public inquiry, or if the Central Board stand pat on the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ask that the authorities interested may have an opportunity of revising the scheme which the Central Board may ultimately put forward, before it passes?
  Mr. SCURR: I want to support the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), and I will imitate my colleague by the bluntness of the way in which I shall put my views forward, owing to the lateness of the hour. So many statements are made on behalf of the municipal authorities regarding this scheme that I think the case for inquiry, prima facie, is absolutely made out. For example, it is said that the consumption figures, which are taken in the proposed scheme as being at the rate of 16.9 per cent. for eight years, and 20.4 per cent. thereafter. are entirely wrong, based on consumption during the last few years, which has been 11.5 per cent. There is the further point that, of the 29 stations that are to operate under the scheme, 24 will have not spare plant above their peak load needs. Those two facts alone, I think, call for a very keen investigation. We are not putting this forward in any obstructive sense, but we think it is absolutely in the public interest, before a great scheme of this kind comes to be put into action, that there should be an inquiry, and therefore I support my hon. Friend's appeal.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I know that a few of my hon. Friends want to talk, so I will

  179
  be very brief. May I explain the position under the Act of last year? It is the duty of the Electricity Commissioners to put up a scheme to the Board. The Board, when they receive that scheme, have the duty of publishing it and asking for representations, and then, when they have received the representations, they can adopt it wholly or in part. Before adopting it they can hold, under the Act of last year, such inquiries, if any, as they wish. It is, therefore, quite clear, rightly or wrongly, that under the Act of last year absolute discretion as to what sort of inquiry should be held rests with the Central Electricity Board, and with nobody else. I am within the recollection of those who were on the Committee upstairs last year that the criticisms made when we were discussing the powers to be given to the Board were, not that there should be a public inquiry, with all its expense and probable delay, but that there should be given some real opportunity to those who may be vitally affected of orally putting to the Board their point of view.
  May I inform the House what has been the procedure of the Board up to now, and I think they will agree that it is a very sensible and a very common-sense one? Directly the intimation was given to those concerned that they should send in representations, the Chairman of the Board and his Chief Engineer visited practically all the big interests and had long and informal conversations with them. The Board, since representations have come in, has been in constant, almost daily session, and is receiving deputations from all the interests concerned, and discussing the matter with them. The Central Board has also had the advantage of several interviews with the Joint Electricity Authority of London, a very important body, and they will shortly receive a deputation from the Conference of Municipal Authorities. What is as important as anything, is that the engineer officers and accounting officers of the Board have been in consultation with a great number of those interests concerned with a view to discussing costs and efficiency, so that the whole thing may be thoroughly explored. I put it to the House that no more business-like procedure could have been adopted so far to enable the Board to get a clear view of what the case is, and
  180
  also to remove any suspicions of underhand conduct or want of sympathy on the part of the Central Board. They have relied hardly at all on written representations, but are relying on oral representations.
  Finally, the members of the Central Electricity Board are, as I think everyone will acknowledge, men of business, of high character and of outstanding public attainments. It is inconceivable that they should wish to favour municipal enterprise as compared with private enterprise, or private enterprise as compared with municipal, because they are not the sort of men to do that. As a matter of fact, in the scheme for Scotland, which has gone through, I understand that municipal enterprise has practically been chosen for all the selected stations. Possibly in London it will be the other way round. But what the Board have to do is not to consider politics—municipalisation or nationalisation, or private enterprise. They have, for their own sake, to make a sound and workable scheme. They have to justify the scheme, justify the finance of the scheme, and the success of the scheme, and only by taking the most efficient stations for their selected stations, whether municipal or private stations, will they be able to do that. With that explanation I hope the hon. Members opposite will be satisfied that every consideration is given to the interests for which they are so justly anxious.
  Mr. BARNES: May I ask whether the Minister will answer particularly the last point I put to him? The investigations now going on are into details. When the Central Board have come to their definite conclusions will they consider their complete revised scheme?
  Colonel ASHLEY: When they have the evidence they will consider, as is their duty under the Act, whether any inquiry is necessary or desirable.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Of course, I agree with my right hon. Friend that in no circumstances could there be any suggestion of anything underhand being done by the Central Board or any of the parties connected with this investigation. I would like to say, to the hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, that it is largely due to the activities of his own Friends in Committee upstairs that

  181
  we have this peculiar position, namely, a Central Board whose actions are removed entirely from the purview of Parliamentary discussion. I think that the hon. Member has been somewhat at sea in referring to the Commissioners, because the Central Board, who now have this scheme sent to them by the Commissioners, have nerely to discharge the duty imposed upon them under the Act of Parliament, and that is, in their discretion, having investigated the scheme, to discover whether it is necessary, in order to arrive at a, correct judgment, to have a public inquiry or not. I have no idea whether they will decide that it is necessary to have a public inquiry.
  Colonel ASH LEY: May I make it quite clear that they are not leaving public inquiries out of account, but it is only when they have gone through these various processes of consulting all the parties privately that they will come to a decision.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I quite agree. I think my right hon. Friend is only reinforcing what I am saying. As far as I know, the Board are exploring this scheme in a quiet, unbiased manner, detached from all political influence. When they have explored the scheme, I presume—I do not know, I have no reason to know—they will decide whether a public inquiry is necessary. They may decide that it is necessary or they may decide as a result of their inquiries with the municipal authorities and companies that a public inquiry is not necessary. Whatever decision they come to it cannot be questioned in Parliament. Hon. Members upstairs put on the Statute Book an authority detached entirely from Parliamentary criticism. My only point is that the Electricity Commissioners are not involved in this question, and the Ministry of Transport is not involved. They have discharged their duty and sent this matter to the Central Electricity Board who are not answerable in any sense to Parliament. When the scheme is settled they can carry it out absolutely without being responsible to this House.
  Mr. BARNES: They cannot.
  Mr. BALFOUR: They are the creatures of Statute. They are entrusted with duties which they are bound to discharge, and no criticism whatever can be levelled against them in this House in discharging those duties. As far as I know, the gentlemen who compose that Board will, according to their information and according to the evidence submitted to them, discharge honourably and faithfully that duty, but when they have discharged it we cannot question their decision and have loyally to abide by whatever they decide, owing to the powers we have entrusted to them.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has rather forgotten that, before the actual closing down of any station takes place, there is an appeal to an independent arbitrator. That is a very important safeguard.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is quite a small subsidiary point, which, I agree, can be checked by an appeal to an arbitrator; but it is not the point which is before the House at the moment.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: That may be true, but we have been told in the last few days that we are unsuited to investigate the Prayer Book, and it seems to me that we are still more unsuited for investigating a technical subject like electricity. A small number of people in this House are, but there are not many who could really debate this question. I tried to find out, in listening to the hon. Member who introduced this question, for whom he was speaking. After all, in London the Joint Electricity Authority are overwhelmingly municipal, and yet they do not come here and ask for an inquiry, but two independent Members do. I see the time has arrived for me to stop; otherwise, I could make a very eloquent oration on this matter.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

  WAGES (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).
  WAGES (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  KING'S ROLL.
  KING'S ROLL.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, CHELSEA.
  PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, CHELSEA.
  HOLY PLACES, JERUSALEM.
  HOLY PLACES, JERUSALEM.
CHINA.
  CAPTAIN LALOR (CAPTURE AND RELEASE).
  CAPTAIN LALOR (CAPTURE AND RELEASE).
  BRITISH SUBJECTS (CASUALTIES FROM VIOLENCE).
  BRITISH SUBJECTS (CASUALTIES FROM VIOLENCE).
  RAIDS (BRITISH VESSELS).
  RAIDS (BRITISH VESSELS).
  BOYCOTT, CANTON.
  BOYCOTT, CANTON.
  MANCHURIAN RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).
  MANCHURIAN RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).
  BLIND PERSONS ACT.
  BLIND PERSONS ACT.
HOUSING.
  COBHAM, SURREY.
  COBHAM, SURREY.
  TOWN PLANNING, SCHEME, HENDON.
  TOWN PLANNING, SCHEME, HENDON.
  SMALLER LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).
  SMALLER LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).
  GLYNCORRWG COLLIERY COMPANY.
  GLYNCORRWG COLLIERY COMPANY.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH- EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH- EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRICITY LINES (WAYLEAVE RENTALS).
  ELECTRICITY LINES (WAYLEAVE RENTALS).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIAL LIST).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIAL LIST).
  GOVERNMENT WORK, BIRMINGHAM (WAGES).
  GOVERNMENT WORK, BIRMINGHAM (WAGES).
  ARMY VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
  ARMY VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
INDIA.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  BANKING FACILITIES (COMMISSION).
  BANKING FACILITIES (COMMISSION).
  STATUTORY COMMISSION.
  STATUTORY COMMISSION.
  IRRIGATION, LYALLPUR.
  IRRIGATION, LYALLPUR.
EDUCATION
  NATIONAL SAFETY-FIRST ASSOCIATION.
  NATIONAL SAFETY-FIRST ASSOCIATION.
  RUSKIN COLLEGE, OXFORD.
  RUSKIN COLLEGE, OXFORD.
  KENYA (RAILWAYS).
  KENYA (RAILWAYS).
  HERRINGS (EXPORTS).
  HERRINGS (EXPORTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before this Bill is read a first time I would like to consult your Lordships as to the future proceedings upon it. I need not dwell upon the fact, which is self-evident, that it has reached your Lordships at a very late period of the Session, and I do not conceal from your Lordships how greatly I disapprove personally of the circumstances which drive us to the consideration of Bills at such a moment. Therefore I propose to put the Bill down for Second Reading tomorrow, but if, after conference with noble Lords of influence in the House, it seems impossible to proceed further with the Bill, on behalf of the Government I should not dare to press it upon your Lordships. The Bill, however, is very much required, and if your Lordships, sitting in all parts of the House, were willing to allow the Bill to go through in the remaining days at our disposal, of course the Government would be pleased. I do not press your Lordships for a decision at this moment, but if you will allow me to put it down for Second Reading to-morrow, between now and then I shall have an opportunity of hearing what are the views felt about the Bill, and I can then decide as to the course to be taken.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, if there is a Bill of urgent importance which comes very late to this House, however much we may object to its coming
1128
late I think it is our duty to help it through. I have not seen this Bill but only heard of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will not be circulated until to-morrow.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I understand its object is to provide for the registration of nursing homes. That is a very desirable thing, and so far as I am concerned, much as I dislike this way of thrusting Bills before us, I think the greater is of more importance than the less, and I shall be desirous of getting the Bill through, subject, of course, to my first seeing it. Of course I do not know what other noble Lords may have to say.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I entirely concur in what has been said by the noble Viscount. The matter depends upon the contents of the Bill. I am moved to think that it is probably an admirable Bill, because of the excuses made for it. If it had been a bad Bill it would have been introduced earlier, for the noble Marquess would have taken care to see that it would not have been necessary to make excuses for it. I am, therefore, prejudiced in its favour on that account.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am gratified at the result of the noble Earl's cogitation, although not by the method at which he has arrived at his conclusion. In these circumstances the Bill will be put down for Second Reading to-morrow. It will be circulated tomorrow morning and in the course of the day I shall have an opportunity of hearing from your Lordships the view you take as to future proceedings.
Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EAST HULL GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1927.

  NEWHAVEN GAS ORDER, 1927.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name in reference to these Orders.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 29th of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House, do new resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Buxton has three Amendments down to this Bill, but I regret to say that he is unwell and unable to be here. I am afraid that in his absence I am not prepared to move his Amendments without further knowledge.
Bill reported without amendment.

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill may I ask the noble Marquess a question in reference to subsection (3) of Clause 1, which reads as follows:
"If any person acts as a member of any local authority when disqualified under this section he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
Does that cover voting? If so, I think the chairman who accepts the vote should also be penalised and I am prepared to move an Amendment to that effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will consider the Amendment when I see it, but on the face of it, it seems to me that all that this subsection has reference to is the case of a man who has broken the law in the sense that he has been responsible for the surcharge, and, as he is therefore recalcitrant to the law, he should be disqualified.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not know whether the word "acts" covers voting. If it covers voting I wish to move my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will put down an Amendment on the Paper for the Third Reading I will see that the point is satisfactorily explained then.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Appeals against decisions of auditors.
(2) In the case of a surcharge the person surcharged may, whether or not he appeals under the last preceding subsection, apply to the tribunal (whether the High Court or the Minister) to which he appeals or, if he does not appeal, to the tribunal (whether the High Court or the Minister) to which he might have appealed, for a declaration that in relation to the subject matter of the surcharge he acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law, and the Court or Minister, if satisfied that there is proper ground for doing so, may make a declaration to that effect, and where such a declaration is made the person surcharged, if by reason of the surcharge he is subject to the disqualification imposed by this Act, shall not be subject to that disqualification, and the Court or Minister may, if satisfied that the person surcharged ought fairly to be excused, relieve him either wholly or partly from personal liability in respect of the surcharge; the decision of the Court or Minister under this subsection shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"() Where any person is aggrieved as aforesaid and the decision of the district auditor relates to any item or items in an education account, references in this section to the Minister of Health shall be construed as references to the President of the Board of Education."
The noble Lord said: I indicated broadly on the Second Reading the scope of what it is that I desire to effect. This Bill, as was made clear on the Second Reading, increases the penalties on persons who may be surcharged for certain expenditure in connection with local government, and indeed such persons may now be made bankrupt, because the liability for a surcharge, if it is upheld after appeal, becomes a civil debt, and therefore bankruptcy may in certain cases ensue, and indeed, in the case I

1131
am afraid of many members of local authorities, would ensue, because as a rule these persons are not at all well-to-do. The law before was much less stringent, and therefore the matter is one which wants very careful watching. In regard to the procedure for appeal against a surcharge, I think it will be agreed that the tribunal should be as trustworthy as it can be made, and such as to command the greatest possible measure of confidence. But that is not true of this Bill as it now stands. It is not true unless the Amendment which I propose is accepted. As the matter now stands, an appellant cannot have very great confidence in one aspect of the tribunal.
A large part of local expenditure is in respect of education. But, as the Bill now stands, in the case of a surcharge which is less than £500 those surcharged can appeal either to the Courts or to the Minister of Health. I think it is quite clear that if the persons who have been surcharged decide not to go to the Courts—and they may so decide—they should then have the alternative of appealing to the Minister of Education rather than the Minister of Health, because obviously the Minister of Health knows nothing whatever about matters of education, some of which are very complicated, and the Minister of Education is the person who ought to adjudicate in respect to an appeal which has to do with education expenditure. It may be said that there is nothing in all this, that if persons are surcharged it will be only in some quite clear or flagrant case, about which there can be little or no doubt, and therefore that the Minister of Health can do what is required perfectly well; but experience shows that that is not so. It is no good saying that the kind of situation which I adumbrate cannot arise, because it has arisen. Things have happened in regard to surcharging which show that there is no guarantee whatever that a very difficult situation may not arise.
The noble Marquess last week said that this Bill was intended to deal with persons who defy the law, and again this evening he has spoken about breaking the law. But the question is what is the law In regard to some of these matters of surcharge it is most difficult to know in advance what may or may
1132
not be done. We have in the House of Lords some of the greatest lawyers in the world, and I undertake to say that in a difficult case no one can guarantee what their judgment will be, and indeed it is entirely improbable in a difficult case that they will all take the same view as to what precisely the law is. Therefore the matter is one of great complexity and difficulty. Your Lordships will remember that I referred last week to the Cockerton case, which is very much in point on this Amendment, because this Amendment has to do with education expenditure. As I said last week Mr. Cockerton, who was a local auditor, took the view, quite unexpectedly, that certain subjects which had been included as part of elementary education should not be so included and that they could not properly be brought into the purview of the word "elementary." Nevertheless those subjects had been so included, I believe, for many years. The Board of Education had regarded the matter as quite clear and Parliament had voted the money; but Mr. Cockerton took a different view and his opinion was upheld on appeal. It did not go to the House of Lords because, I think, it was not thought worth while carrying it there after what had been said. At any rate, it did not go there and it really required a special Act of Parliament to regularise the matter and to put right an act which, as I pointed out last week, also had other consequences, though I will not go into them now.
What has happened before in regard to education expenditure may very well happen again. The point I am putting, therefore, is a very reasonable one because education expenditure deals with matters which are very intricate and complicated. What guarantee is there that there will not be another Mr. Cockerton? There may be for aught we know some other Mr. Cockertons lurking behind, anxious to emerge and materialise themselves at the proper moment, and anxious also to point out some matter of very great difficulty in regard to education expenditure. They may surcharge members of local authorities. Should that happen, as it may, then those surcharged possibly, for quite good reasons, may prefer not to go to the Courts, but to appeal to a Government Department and they

1133
will have to appeal to the Minister of Health. Surely it is quite an irregular thing in a matter of that sort that the appeal should be to the Minister of Health. Clearly it ought to be to the Minister of Education because it has to do with his Department. I do not know the precise procedure which might be followed in such a case of appeal, but I suppose it would be on the lines of appealing to some tribunal; various officials would have to hear evidence and consider the case. Those officials would tie necessarily officials of the Board of Education and not of the Ministry of Health, who do not know anything about the matter.
It may be suggested that the officials will come over from the Board of Education, and the President of the Board of Education will be consulted and will send his views to the Minister of Health, and that after all in the end that will come to the same thing. I do not think that is a way in which such matters should be dealt with. There is no harm in the Amendment which I propose. On the contrary I can see very many advantages, and if ever an Amendment was uncontroversial this Amendment is. I do not put it forward in any controversial spirit, but with a view to making the tribunal more appropriate and more competent to try this particular class of case. I think the case for this Amendment is a very strong one and I very much hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say one word at the outset with reference to the illustration which the noble Lord has given in support of his Amendment. He referred again to the Cockerton judgment. He seemed to think that the auditor in that case was a busybody who ought to be looked at a little bit askance for the action he took. As a matter of fact, he turned out to be absolutely right. He questioned the law. No doubt it had been held to be different for many years by those who were interested; but it turned out that they were wrong and that he was right as to the law. That really hits very little to do, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, with the present case.
1134
The important point which the noble Lord ought to have gone on with and told us was what happened to the members of the local authorities, I suppose of the education committees of the various counties, in consequence of the Cockerton judgment. I do not know what happened; but I will say that had this Bill been in operation then nothing sinister could have happened to these gentlemen because the Bill contains within its clauses provisions under which those who sin unwittingly are relieved of the consequences of their acts. Therefore, whatever mistakes these gentlemen interested in education may have made at the time—as the noble Lord said, it was a very important case and had very formidable consequences—under the provision of this Bill had it been in operation they would have been relieved of the consequences. I think very likely they were relieved.
LORD PARMOOR: They were.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were relieved, and they certainly would have been under this Bill, because whether they appealed in the first instance to the Ministry or to the Courts, there is under this Bill a dispensing power which would have been used in cases of that kind and they would have been relieved of the personal consequences which otherwise might have befallen them. So that so far as the Cockerton judgment is material at all it is an argument in favour of the Bill and not against it.
Coming now to the noble Lord's Amendment, he says that surely in a case which relates to education, the appeal in regard to surcharges of under £500 ought to go, not to the Minister of Health but to the Minister of Education. Of course even under £500, if the incriminated local gentleman wishes, he may go straight to the Court. But supposing, as the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to suggest, he elects to go to the Department instead, the noble Lord asks why he should not go to the Board of Education instead of to the Ministry of Health. This Bill does not propose really to change existing procedure except in so far as it mitigates the severity of it in the manner I have already described. In so far as there has been an appeal to a Ministerial Department, the appeal always has been to the Ministry of Health in cases of this

1135
kind, or, I suppose, to the Local Government Board before the Ministry of Health came into existence. So it would really be almost outside the purview of this Bill. I do not mean to say for a moment that it is out of order; but it is outside the intention of this Bill to alter that part of it.
Not only is it contrary to the intention of the Bill, but it would not be advisable. You want uniformity in dealing with this question of surcharge, as to the action of the auditor, because it is the same auditor whether he deals with education matters or public health matters or other matters. And in controlling his decision, which the Minister sitting as a court of appeal would do, you want a certain uniformity. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that if his Amendment is to be any good at all he must go a great deal further. It is not only the Board of Education which is the case in point; there is the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour; all these are involved in exactly the same argument. It does not follow at all that the matter should only be a Ministry of Health question or a Board of Education question. All these other Departments come in.
I am not putting an imaginary case. There was not long ago a case which arose with reference to the wages of tramway employees who were the employees of a local authority. The question was whether they had been overpaid and there was a surcharge. An appeal was entered against that. According to the arguments of the noble Lord the appeal ought not to be to the Ministry of Health but either to the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Labour. I do not know which, because they are both evidently involved in such a case. That is an illustration of the elaboration which the noble Lord seeks to put into our very simple little Bill—our simple Bill which is merely to relieve the delinquent local authorities from the consequences of their act when they act unwittingly, and to apply a much more convenient and effective remedy if the delinquency is on purpose. That is the whole scope of the Bill. It is not merely to make the appeal more effective where the delinquent is to blame, but to make it more merciful where the delinquent is
1136
not to blame. That is the whole point, and it is not a question of the Ministry of Labour, or the Ministry of Transport, or the Board of Trade, or anything of that kind. That is all entirely beside the mark. We do not interfere with the law as it exists. In so far as the appeal is to lie to a Minister at all, it will lie to the Minister who is responsible for the whole of the audit work—namely, the Minister of Health. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Marquess has not dealt with the argument of my noble friend who sits beside me. His point is this. It is not a question of controlling the auditor, it is a question of entertaining an appeal from the auditor's decision. If that goes to the Courts there is the disadvantage that the Courts are not familiar with the subject of audit. The can, of course, take it in, but they have to learn a good deal about it before they can decide. If, on the other hand, you go to the right Department there you find a good deal of knowledge of the subject. The obvious way would have been to have distributed the appeal among the Ministries in the way that the noble Marquess spoke of. That has only not been done because my noble friend has taken one case—a case which is well known because of the controversy which arose over it in the Cockerton matter. The Cocker-ton matter is not as important as it was, because the Education Act swept away all distinctions between primary education and other forms of education and enabled both kinds of education to be administered together more or less in one whole. The Cockerton question, therefore, does not arise in the old form, but it may arise in other forms, having regard to the new kind of training which it is found necessary to give for industrial purposes. It does seem to me absurd that all these things should go to the Ministry of Health. It is not a Ministry which is familiar with them and the logical way would be to have done what the noble Marquess himself spoke of and distribute the appeals according to subjects. That is the principle which is at the foundation of government to-day and it is the one that ought to have been adhered to.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the Motion is put there are one or two points in this Bill to which I should like to call the attention of your Lordships. I mentioned some of them on the Second Reading. So far as those who act with me are concerned we desired that the Bill should pass and we took no part in Committee because we did not wish that there should be any difficulty as regards time in the ultimate passage of the Bill during the present Session of Parliament. But there are one or two matters appearing on the face of the Bill to which I think attention ought to be called. In Clause 4 of the Bill the suggestion is to compensate in respect of goodwill a tenant to whom notice to quit has been given. The tenant's goodwill is a property which belongs to him and which, I think I may say in all cases, has either been built up by his energy or skill or is a property which he has bought from his predecessors. I think everyone is agreed that not only is it of public importance that these businesses should be built tip to a maximum of efficiency but, if this Bill is to be operative, it is also important that fair compensation should be paid.
What do you mean by fair compensation in the case of tenant's goodwill? I may say that I have been engaged in a very large number of these cases in old days and it is simply this. Premises are taken—that arises chiefly under the compulsory powers of a statutory company—and if the tenant has to leave the
1138
premises of which he is in occupation he is entitled to compensation, which in some cases is as much as the total value, for the injury done to his goodwill. I agree with what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said. We all understand what is meant by goodwill and when you want to ascertain the amount due to the tenant you first of all look into his business accounts and find out the right figure. It may be, say, £ 1,000. Then you consider how many years' purchase it is worth. From three to five years generally is the period, and therefore the amount would be in a case of total value from £3,000 to £5,000. The whole consideration is to what extent is the goodwill of the tenant who owns the business injured by his removal from the premises? If your Lordships will look at Clause 4 you will see that in respect of goodwill it says the tenant shall
"be entitled at the termination of the tenancy on quitting the holding to be paid by his landlord compensation for goodwill"—
and so on. Then there are a series of provisos which have nothing to do with the injury to the tenant or the loss of the tenant. The amount payable for goodwill is made to depend on the advantage which the landlord may obtain.
That of course is a very different thing and it should not be mixed up with the idea of compensating a tenant who, by his skill and energy, has built up what is known in law as goodwill in connection with his business. Of course when he leaves the premises he takes that goodwill with him. In some cases it may not be injured, but it some cases it may be practically lost. I will take the very simple case of a tenant whose goodwill would be practically destroyed by having to leave certain premises. If he were to have compensation for his loss of goodwill it would be some such sum as, say, £5,000. Why should he be deprived of that because the landlord gets no corresponding benefit? If you are not going to give him anything when the landlord gives notice to quit, well and good, but do not call it compensation for goodwill. It is nothing of the kind. The tenant's goodwill may be injured whether the landlord's interest is affected or not. There is really no connection between the two things. If you are proposing on the one hand to give compensation and on the other hand to take it away by bringing

1139
in irrelevant factors as regards the position of the tenant, it seems to me that this is not a Bill for giving compensation to the tenant but a Bill to preserve every right of the landlord. It seems to me the effect will be to give protection to the landlord whatever the loss to the tenant may be.
That is not what is said in the Bill, and I should imagine that it is not the principle underlying the Bill. Clause 4 says that if the landlord can use the premises for a different and more profitable purpose the tribunal are to have regard to the effect of such change of user on the value of the goodwill to the landlord. There is no goodwill to the landlord. It is a perfect misnomer, a perfect misuse of the term, in cases where the tenant is carrying on a business. Why should a tenant be deprived of compensation because on his going out a landlord can make more profitable use of the property? I should have thought that the tenant should be compensated. He is turned out because the landlord can use the property for a more profitable purpose. I am not dissenting from the landlord's action, he has to consider what are his own reasonable interests, but why should you deprive a tenant of compensation when he is turned out in order that a landlord may get a higher rent for use of the premises for more profitable purposes? As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows very well there has been quite properly added to the Bill a definition of what "more profitable purposes" indicate. I can see no principle there. You say that a man should have the benefit of what is due to his skill and energy—that is what goodwill is—and yet on the face of the Bill he is to be deprived of it because the landlord gives him notice so that he can use the premises for more profitable purposes.
The notion that tenant's goodwill adds to the value of the premises is, of course, absurd. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand tenant's goodwill has nothing whatever to do with the value of the premises. There is no relation between the two things. He goes away with it and the question is whether, if it is injured, he shall be compensated. There are pages of limitations and all I can say from my long experience of compensation cases
1140
is that they appear to be wholly irrelevant if you are going to give compensation. You may have two tenants side by side. Both are turned out and in each case there is a goodwill worth £5,000. I am taking a very normal sum. One of the landlords has to pay the whole of that sum, quite rightly, but another who wants to put the premises to more profitable use escapes liability. I have read this through several times, and with some knowledge of these compensation cases I regard the scheme as really unworkable if the main purpose of it is to give compensation to the tenant.
There are one or two other matters which were mentioned on which I should like to say a word or two at the present time. A good deal was said in the course of the debate on Second Heading and in the course of discussion on the clauses of the Bill in Committee, as regards expert evidence. I want to say only a few words to show how impossible it is without expert evidence to carry on a very large proportion of the business of the Courts. The Courts are deeply indebted to the assistance they get from expert witnesses. I will give illustrations with which I am very familiar. Of course on the question of valuation the Court must obtain assistance from an expert surveyor. It is obvious that a man does not, because he is a Judge, know the value of property, say, in the East End of London, or in Birmingham, or in some other place. Let me give another illustration to show the advantage of expert witnesses. Expert witnesses ought not to be run down. They ought to be welcomed, because their evidence is the only means by which a large part of the business of the Courts can be effectively carried on. When I was at the Bar I was engaged in a large number of chemical patent cases of an extremely technical character, heard before Judges who had no notion—after all they need have no notion—of the most elementary principles of chemistry. How could they determine questions connected with chemical patents without expert evidence? Two of the greatest Judges in my time were Mr. Justice Parker, afterwards Lord Parker, and Mr. Justice Warrington, now a member of your Lordships' House. I wish Lord Warrington had been here to-day. I should like anyone who has experience in these

1141
matters to tell your Lordships' House how, without expert evidence which is to be trusted, matters of this kind could possibly be decided fairly in any Court of law.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I have no objection to make to the tribunal. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has produced a tribunal to which certainly I do not object, but it was suggested that there was a Constitutional right to go to the Law Courts on questions of this kind. It is exactly the contrary. The whole principle of taking land, for instance for public companies, has been to call in arbitrators, as under the provisions of the Railways Clauses Acts. Judges cannot deal with questions of this kind. The principle is, surely, that when you introduce some new right or obligation which involves such questions as valuation, an appropriate Court is set up, just as an appropriate provision is made in this Bill. There is no Constitutional right whatever. When a landlord's property was taken under the Lands Clauses Act, reference was made to an arbitrator under the terms of that Act. Immense sums were involved and there were very great difficulties regarding legal obligations, with several cases coming up to your Lordships.
I beg to say that, in my view, the principle is this. When you are dealing with matters of this kind, I will not say that it is the duty of the Government, but at least is is a fair way of initiating such legislation to give the people whose property is affected the power of resort to a court instituted for the purpose, at which they can get fair treatment and justice without enormous expense. As for the number of cases that will arise under this Act, they will be nothing either in amount involved or in principle as compared with those arising under the Railways Clauses Acts and similar Acts. As for the suggestions regarding the choice of arbitrator, in this particular Bill it is proposed that the arbitrator shall be appointed in the most careful manner and in a way which everybody admits should have our confidence, whereas in many other cases you merely have two men selecting a third. In complex modern legislation of this kind, when you are often interfering with proprietary rights,
1142
surely it is far better and less expensive to adopt the principle of the Lands Clauses Acts than to go to the Courts themselves. I cannot understand how an allegation to the contrary can be made. The Lands Clauses Act is a particularly well-drafted Act, which many Acts of Parliament are not nowadays. It was really a Consolidation Act, taken from a number of Private Acts which had led to a thorough discussion and consideration of the matter.
Although the noble and learned Viscount has not yet moved his proposed Amendment as to premises subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts, I should like to refer to it now, as I do not want to trouble your Lordships again. The effect of the Amendment would be, to consider only the question of goodwill, that compensation should not be given where a tenant is tenant of premises under the Rent Restrictions Acts. I think that puts it quite shortly and accurately. Why not? It is the same old principle. So far as the goodwill has been created by the energy of the tenant himself, why has he not the same right in these cases as in all other cases? This is really bringing back an incomprehensible principle regarding the law of compensation, which declares that you give compensation, not on the loss to the person who is injured or damaged, but in consideration of whether some other person may have suffered some loss or gained some advantage.
My general criticism of the Bill, in addition to those points, is the old-fashioned one which, I am afraid, has been expressed so often that it does not seem to be very effective. I speak of its drafting. I hope that some day—I address this particularly to the noble Marquess opposite—there may be an opportunity in this House of appointing a Committee to consider the whole question of drafting. It is becoming worse than a scandal. We are getting an enormous amount of legislation which it is impossible even for a lawyer to understand. I know that at home, where I have a law library and references to old Acts of Parliament, it is quite impossible to make my way through modern drafts, and how the ordinary layman is to do it I am sure I do not know. This is a matter of great importance. Drafting is a very difficult thing. I remember a learned Judge saying that it was "putting your

1143
brains down on paper." To do that accurately means a great deal of care, and I hope that some day the noble Marquess who leads the House will consider whether, instead of having this constantly reiterated complaint, we cannot have some Committee, or something of that kind, appointed to inquire whether our system of drafting might not be enormously improved. I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, but I was anxious to call your Lordships' attention to these points.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Motion. I am afraid that this Bill is going to create a great shortage of trade and business premises and that no one will let or lease in the future if he can avoid it, but will only sell the premises. There is an unknown liability in the future, and the result will be that rents will go up. I ask myself who in future is going to build business premises. So far as I am aware, nobody will do so, unless it is to sell. They will not build to let. To a great extent this Bill puts an end to the leasehold system. There are many people who want to lease premises. They do not want to wrap up their capital at 4 per cent., 5 per cent, or 6 per cent., but to utilise it in their business. Big firms in particular do not want to buy but to lease. One trader well put it that under the leasehold system he was able to use his landlord's capital instead of his own in obtaining premises in which to carry on his trade.
We know that the Lloyd George Land Taxes had the effect of creating a shortage of houses. I believe that this Bill will have the same result in regard to trade and business premises. Mortgages will be called in and trustees will not lend money because of this unknown liability at the end of the lease or letting. Litigation is written on the whole face of this Bill. People will be inclined, where they cannot sell, to give short lettings in order to avoid a large claim for the loss of goodwill. Insurance companies and friendly societies have largely invested in ground rents and reversions. Their security will now be diminished, and they will no longer invest in what has been considered a first class security. In fact one might say that no one will want to purchase a lawsuit. I am afraid, as I mentioned a
1144
moment ago, that mortgages will be called in on trade and business premises, since the landlord may be compelled to lower his rent to avoid paying a large sum as compensation for goodwill.
Let me take a concrete instance. Supposing a shop is let for £150 a year, that the owner has mortgaged it and that the interest on the mortgage amounts to £120 a year. At the end of the tenancy the tenant claims for loss of goodwill, let us say £2,000. The lease is fixed by the tribunal for thirteen years at £110 a year, to wipe out the £2,000 claimed; for the Bill says in Clause 4, Subsection (1) (b):—
"at such rent and for such terms … as … the tribunal may consider reasonable."
Then the owner may not be able to pay the mortgage interest, and then, if the mortgagee forecloses, the mortgagee can get only the rent fixed by the tribunal. No one would object to a Bill which would redress the grievances of tenants of business premises, nor would legislation to bring all landlords up to the level of the best landlords have been opposed, but the present legislation goes far beyond that. I believe it would have been quite possible to have had an agreed Bill. This Bill has been rushed through the House, giving us no time to consider it properly in detail. Time can only show what its full effects will be, but I greatly regret that a Bill drawn on the lines of the present measure has been introduced, and is about to become the law of the land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, points of principle have been raised, and raised rather late in these debates, but I think that, out of respect to the two noble Lords who have spoken, I must say a few words in answer to each of them. Dealing first with the points of principle raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, he complained that under Clause 4 of this Bill compensation is paid to the tenant, not on the loss of the tenant when he moves at the end of his lease, but on the gain to the landlord. That is exactly what the Bill is intended to do. The noble and learned Lord has, I think, been misled by his familiarity with compensation cases. Those cases arise when there is compulsory expropriation of some man by some corporation and

1145
there, quite properly, the corporation is made to pay the full loss accruing to the person expropriated by reason of that act. That is quite right. In those cases, of course, the tenant gets full compensation for loss of goodwill.
This Bill deals with a totally different case. It deals with cases where a tenancy comes to an end by agreement between the parties, and where the tenant leaves behind him either some unexhausted improvement, or some goodwill attached to the land or premises, which will immediately enure to the benefit of the landlord when he comes in. The landlord is only made to pay, not what the tenant loses but what the landlord gains, and I can see no reason why he should pay more. Of course, the tenant may take some goodwill away with him, or some may fall entirely to the ground, but unless it remains attached to the land, house, shop or building, the landlord ought not to be, and is not, called upon to pay for it. I think that is exactly what the Bill intends, and I think it does justice. My noble and learned friend also descanted upon the value of expert evidence. No one denies that it is not only valuable but expensive, and it is not very edifying to see a long series of experts called on one side or the other. The only manner in which this Bill deals with experts is in subsection (4) of Clause 20, where it says that only one expert on either side shall be heard, unless the tribunal otherwise determines.
With regard to the Rent Restrictions Acts Amendment I would ask leave to deal with it when it is moved. Lord Dynevor takes another line. He takes a rather gloomy view of the effects of this Bill on the leasehold system. I beg to remind him that the Select Committee, on whose Report this Bill is to a great extent based, was in favour of the leasehold system, and was of opinion that it would be for the good of that system if these cases of injustice could be remedied. They recommended, in substance, the main clauses of the Bill as really supporting and assisting the maintenance of the leasehold system, and with great respect to the noble Lord I do not share his misgivings. The Bill only calls upon all landlords to do what good landlords do to-day. It gives the landlord an option of either compensating in proper cases or renewing the lease, and it provides full
1146
safeguards. I do not think that the noble Lord's prophecies will come to pass. I believe that leases will be granted in the future as much as they have been in the past, and that the Bill, while redressing injustice, will do no harm to good landlords.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 7:—
Provisions as to premises subject to Rent Restrictions Acts.
" .—(1) The tribunal shall not entertain an application under section three of this Act if at the time of the application the applicant is a person in possession of the premises by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925.
(2) No compensation shall be payable for goodwill attaching to any premises if and so far as such goodwill is attributable to the trade or business carried on thereat during any period during which possession of the premises has been retained by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925, and such period as aforesaid shall be excluded in computing for the purposes of this Part of this Act the length of time during which the trade or business has been carried on at the premises."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have to move my first Amendment after Clause 7, to insert the new clause printed on the Paper. We had in Committee, and on Report, discussions on this matter, and I took the view, and I think your Lordships' House as a whole took the view, that it was rather hard on the landlord when his tenant remains in possession against his will, and becomes a statutory tenant under the Rent Restrictions Acts, that the tenant should be enabled to make improvements, or pile up goodwill on the premises, against the landlord's will and desire, and then claim compensation. I promised to deal with the matter by Amendment after the Third Reading, and therefore I have put down this Amendment, which I think will satisfy the views of noble Lords who raised the point.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to express to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack my great gratitude to him for having put down this Amendment. He has gone at least six-sevenths of the

1147
way, if not the whole way, to meet me, and I repeat that I am grateful to him
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not wish to argue the Amendment at any length, but I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor one question. It has been already pointed out that the limitation of the tenant's claim is an advantage to the landlord. Supposing—and it is a supposition which is likely to be proved—a tenant who is in occupation under the Rent Restrictions; Acts has in fact, by his skill and energy, improved the landlord's interest in the premises; that is, the value of the premises concerned. I do not quite follow the argument why, in those circumstances, he should be deprived of that advantage because he happens to be under the Rent Restrictions Acts. He is not asking any special advantage. The words here are:
"No compensation shall be payable for goodwill attaching to any premises if and so far as such goodwill is attributable to the trade or business carried on thereat during any period during which possession of the premises has been retained by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925."
What difference does that make? Assuming, as I suppose one may assume, that the rent is a low rent, that is not a reason for taking away whatever is the right compensation. It is a matter, I agree, which may be considered in fixing the amount, but that is a different thing. Here it is said that the tenant is to have no compensation, although the assumption is that, but for the Rent Restrictions Acts, he would have had compensation. I do not see the logic of the distinction myself, and I am sorry this Amendment has been introduced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do see a great distinction. A landlord has voluntarily let his properly to a tenant, and the tenant during the tenancy builds up a goodwill—that is one case; the other is the case where a tenant holds in spite of the landlord and then claims compensation. Others may take a different view, but at present that is my view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:—
Restriction on contracting out.
". This Part of this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the con
1148
trary, being a contract made at any time after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:
Provided that if on the hearing of a claim or application under this Part of this Act it appears to the tribunal that such contract as aforesaid, so far as it deprives any person of any right under this Part of this Act, was made for adequate consideration, the tribunal shall in determining the matter give effect thereto."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, on the Report stage of the Bill your Lordships cut out altogether Clause 9, which was intended to prevent contracting out. Well, it appeared to me that it was undesirable that the Bill should go to another place just as it stands to-day, with the total omission of that clause, because no House of Commons could accept the omission of that clause. Its omission would make the Bill purely nugatory, because probably in every case there would be a contract made that the Act should not apply, and I thought it very undesirable that this House should be put in the position of sending to another place an Amendment which no reasonable person would consent to accept. The Commons would certainly restore the clause, and every impartial person would say that the Commons were right and that this House was wrong. I have therefore put down on the Paper a modified provision against contracting out. I propose to provide that—
"This Part of the Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, being a contract made at any time after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-
seven—"
that is to say, the date when the Bill was introduced.
The effect would be that the Act would not be excluded by a future contract, nor by any contract made after the date of the introduction of the Bill. I do not think your Lordships would really wish that in those cases the parties should be at liberty to exclude the operation of the measure. It is true, that leaves in effect any contract which might have been made before the Bill was introduced and which might by anticipation exclude any Bill of this character. But I suppose that sort of case is very rare. There must be few, if any, landlords who looked forward and inserted a clause in a lease excluding the operation of the Bill. I take the risk,

1149
therefore, of leaving those contracts in effect. I feel sure that this clause meets the point reasonably taken against the old Clause 9.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, as one who voted against the old Clause 9 I should very much like, if I may without seeming impertinent, to express my gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for introducing this new clause. I entirely agreed with the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, and, while admitting frankly that there must be some clause of this kind preventing contracting out, nevertheless I could not agree with the old Clause 9. The Lord Chancellor in this new clause has in my opinion met us most reasonably on all the criticisms that were made on the old Clause 9.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Provisions as to tribunal.
(7) Rules of the Supreme Court may be made regulating proceedings under this Act commenced in or transferred to the High Court and those rules may provide that on the hearing of a summons for directions, the court or a judge thereof may, without any application for the purpose being made by any party, order the matter to be referred for inquiry and report to such one of the said panel of referees as may be selected by the court or a judge thereof; and in any such case the referee so selected shall be deemed to be a special referee within the meaning of section eighty-eight of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (7), after "thereof," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "subject to such directions (if any) as the court or judge may think fit to give." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is put forward in reply to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, and gives the High Court power to give, special directions.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 31, after ("thereof") insert ("subject to such directions (if any) as the court or judge may think fit to give").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 23:—
Mortgages.
". No amount payable for compensation under this Act, whether secured by charge or not, shall rank in priority as against any sums or interest secured by a mortgage or other charge on any premises subject to the provisions of this Act, whether such mortgage or charge were created either before or subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act, unless at the date when the mortgage charge were entered into the charge for compensation had been registered."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of mortgages. I put it down again as I gave notice that I should when discussing the question on the Report stage. I am extremely anxious that it should be stated in the Bill that mortgages take priority over the charges imposed by the tribunal, so that individuals and mortgagees may see at once what the position is. I have been told more than once by the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Peel that mortgages do take priority over the charges imposed by the tribunal, but I want to see that actually stated in the Bill. I am sure it would be best so.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, after Clause 23, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid this Amendment is something more than unnecessary and that it might really prove mischievous and injurious to landlords. The Amendment suggests that there is a charge for compensation. There is no such charge in any part of the Bill. The liability to compensation will be merely a simple contract debt between the landlord and the outgoing tenant and will create no charge at all upon the land. The only case in which a charge can arise is where the landlord is a limited owner, a tenant for life or something of that kind, and where he pays compensation and gets it charged upon the land. In that case he can create a charge. But he can only create a charge on what he is the life tenant of, namely, the land subject to any existing mortgage. He cannot possibly do more, and no lawyer would for a moment say that he could create a charge in priority to an existing mortgage. The Bill follows the precedent of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which has been in force for 50 years, and

1151
during that time there has never been any question of a mortgagee's interest being affected by the liability of the landlord to pay compensation. No one has been bold enough to suggest it, and I am unwilling to add anything to the Bill which would have the effect of suggesting a doubt. If those words were inserted the Courts might feel bound to try to give some meaning to the clause, and it is possible that they might infer from the language of the clause that it was intended to give a charge for compensation, and in that case it might have an effect adverse or injurious to the landlord's interest.
This is the third occasion on which this Amendment has been put on the Paper. On the second occasion it was not moved, but it is moved to-day. I hope the noble Lord will accept the statement I have made and will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, we were told during the course of the proceedings that if the mortgagee entered into possession he would then be liable for all the compensation payable by the landlord and that the only way of avoiding that was by not entering into possession. Is that so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would be so. If the mortgagee goes into possession he becomes for all purposes the owner and is in the position of a reversioner and it is quite right that he should pay.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: In that case in order to avoid his being put under that obligation it would be necessary for him to appoint a receiver and not to enter into possession?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is so.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his explanation and I hope that what he has said about mortgages will be very widely read. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.

WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.