Sitting of 16 February 1927

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

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Major Sir George Hennessy) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill,
Birmingham Extension Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Bradford Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Bristol Water Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Buxton Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second rime To-morrow.
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,
Chepping Wycombe Corporation Bill,
Colchester Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Covent Garden Market Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
East Anglian Electricity Bill,
Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill,
Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill.
Great Western Railway Bill,
Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Grimsby Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Leeds Corporation Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Manchester Corporation Bill,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
Nar Valley Drainage Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Reading Gas Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Smethwick Corporation Bill,
Southern Railway Bill,
Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas) Bill, Swansea Corporation Bill,
The Matlocks Urban District Council Bill,
Torquay Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
War Risks Associations (Distribution of Reserve Funds) Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
West Bromwich Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Westgate and Birchington Water Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  NICARAGUA.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Minister accredited to the Government of Nicaragua has been in Managua during the recent crisis; whether he is there now; whether it is the Government policy that a Minister accredited to more than one Government should, when possible, visit that country which is involved in a crisis during its continuance; and whether the Government of the United States gave a guarantee to provide, if necessary, naval or military defence for British interests?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Minister is, of course, in touch with His Majesty's Chargé d'Affairs at Managua, and would no doubt proceed to Managua if circumstances, in their joint opinion, made it advisable. In regard to the third part of the question, it is difficult to lay down any definite rule, and His Majesty's Government must be free to he guided by the particular circumstances of each case as it arises. As regards the last part of the question, the United States Government have promised to extend to British subjects the same measures of protection that they may afford to United States citizens.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    REGISTRATION OF TREATIES.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will specify the agreements, treaties, and pacts concluded between European nations (other than Russia) which have not yet been registered and deposited with the League of Nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he received on the 8th December, in answer to a similar question.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply there was no information, but only an
    900
    expression of a pious hope? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some more definite in formation than a hope that the law is being complied with?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make a statement as to all the engagements of other Powers.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations disarmament conference will discuss all questions of limitation of armaments before negotiations are entered into independently by the Government with any foreign Powers?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my Noble Friend's question arises out of the communication received last Thursday from the Government of the United States. I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not a question as to whether we have faith in the League of Nations or not?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I am at present unable to make any statement on the subject, and I must adhere to that answer.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided what concrete proposals for disarmament it will lay before the forthcoming Disarmament Conference on behalf of Great Britain?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The time has not yet come for a final decision.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.,

    FOREIGN OFFICE (FAR EASTERN DEPARTMENT).
    Colonel ENGLANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the Far Eastern Department of the Foreign Office have any personal knowledge of China; and whether he is encouraging the policy already adopted by one Government Department of enabling its chief members to visit those parts of the. world with the affairs of which they are more especially connected in their work in London?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Three members of the present staff of the Far Eastern Department. of the Foreign Office have personal knowledge of China, two being members of the China Consular Service with an expert knowledge of the country, extending over, I believe, 29 years' and 20 years' residence in that country. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member is perhaps not aware that the posts filled by Foreign Office officials in London and members of the Diplomatic Service abroad are interchangeable. The service of His Majesty's present Minister at Peking, to take only one example, combines two periods of service in the Far East, with service both in junior and senior posts at the Foreign Office.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in regard to the members of the Chinese Consular Service in London to whom he refers, how long they have been back from China, and whether they have experience of the present China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of a question as to exactly how long they have been back here.

    CLERICAL ACCOMMODATION (HEATING ARRANGEMENTS).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there is any standard of temperature fixed for rooms used by clerical workers in Government offices; and whether such rooms are provided with thermometers or what steps are taken to ensure that the temperature maintained is adequate for the health of the workers?
    Captain HACKING: The varying nature of the accommodation occupied by Government clerical staffs and the variable climatic conditions are such that it is impracticable to fix a rigid standard of temperature; thermometers are not supplied; heating apparatus or fires which are considered to be sufficient to maintain a temperature adequate for the health of the occupants are provided, and generally prove to be reasonably adequate.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that the Government insist that factories and
    902
    workshops should be adequately heated, and if so, why not Government offices?
    Captain HACKING: Because they are not included in the Workshops Act.

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to whether the French Government is contemplating any alteration in their visa system?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a note from the French Ambassador stating that the French Government has decided to maintain the existing arrangements, under which British subjects are not required to obtain a French visa as a preliminary to entering France.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an invitation has been received at any time from the United States of America Government for the abolition of visas on passports for American citizens travelling to the United Kingdom and British citizens visiting the United States of America; if so, what reply was made by His Majesty's Government; and what are the reasons for our retaining the visa for America?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the hon. and gallant Member will find the correspondence in Command Paper 2746.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the correspondence, he will find a full answer.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather extraordinary that we should have abolished the visa for France, but should keep it on for America?
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability, after consultation with other European countries, of doubling the visa fees for America, such amount to be devoted towards the repayment of the American debt?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of the Government was set out in the correspondence which was published as a Command Paper, and to that I have nothing to add.

  CHINA.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a telegram has been received by him from the Shanghai Bankers' Association and the Shanghai District Chamber of Commerce relative to the despatch of troops, and asking for their withdrawal?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have received a telegram bearing the names of various Chinese public bodies in Shanghai, including the two mentioned.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any other communication from representatives of Europeans in Shanghai, advising this course of action?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. I do not like answering these questions without notice lest I mislead.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the communications and societies which have signed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member had put that question on the Paper, I should certainly have given her the terms, but as she did not ask for them, I have not brought them with me.
    Mr. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider using Singapore as well as Hong-Kong as a place of diversion for the extra military forces which have been despatched to China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I can make no further statement as to troop movements at present.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what treaty rights are British troops to be landed on Chinese soil?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right of a State to protect the lives of its nationals abroad is not dependent on any Treaty provision.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Are we to understand that British forces will be landed in violation of international law, and that an Act of war will then have been committed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Certainly not.
    Mr. MOSLEY: If there is no Treaty right, will not the landing of these troops be a violation of international law?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has been granted by the authorities controlling the international settlement at Shanghai for the landing in the settlement of all or my of the British troops which have been despatched to that city?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the permission of the municipal council is not necessary, and it has not been requested.

    SHANGHAI MUNL.TIPAL COUNCIL.
    Mr. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names and the nationality of the members of the Shanghai Municipal Council?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The members of the Municipal Council of the International Settlement at Shanghai, elected in March last, are:

    Mr. S. Sakuragi (Japanese).

    Mr. S. Fessenden (American) (Chairman).

    Mr. H. R. Roe (British).

    Mr. V. G. Lyman (American).

    Mr. A. D. Bell (British).

    Mr. E. B. Macnaghten (British).

    Mr. J. J. Paterson (British).

    Mr. P. W. Massey (British).

    Mr. W. R. B. McBain (British).

    Mr. R. SMITH: Is not the fact that so many representatives on the council are British a sufficient explanation of the way in which Chinese opinion concentrates against the British?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is using an argument, not asking a question.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A very mischievous argument.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in regard to the Chinese situation, he will now consider the desirability of applying Article 11 of the Covenant, so that the League can take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations?
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Chu at Geneva that he is authorised to speak for both the Pekin and the Canton Governments; and whether, in view of this statement, he will now bring the question of Anglo-Chinese relations before the Council of the League?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together. I have seen in the Press the statement to which the hon Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) refers. His Majesty's Government have already made a full statement to the League of Nations of their policy in China, in a letter to the Secretary-General, dated the 8th February, which was published in the Press in this country on the 12th February. The last paragraph of that letter reads:
    "His Majesty's Government have felt it right to make this communication to the League of Nations so that its members may have before them a full statement of His Majesty's Government's policy in China and may understand how completely it is in accord with both the letter and the spirit of the Covenant. His Majesty's Government deeply regret, that there does not appear to be any way in which the assistance of the League in the settlement of the difficulties in China can be sought at present. But, if any opportunity should arise of invoking the good offices of the League, His Majesty's Government will gladly avail themselves of it."
    To the view there expressed His Majesty's Government have nothing to add.
    Mr. DALTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get into touch with Mr. Chu with regard to the pospossibility of a new situation having arisen?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have not endeavoured to communicate with him or be with me.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that a new situation has arisen now that there is a
    906
    Chinese representative at Geneva able to speak for the whole of China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that he is able to speak for any Government having authority throughout China.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into this claim?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I did make inquiries on one occasion, which was after his extraordinary outburst last September, when he attacked the British Government, and was replied to by my Noble Friend Lord Cecil. I was then informed by the Government at Peking that he was not acting upon instructions.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Is it not the case that when he was said to have made an extraordinary outburst he was attempt-in o- to make a statement with regard to Wanhsien which the Government has since made no attempt to correct by issuing a White Paper?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend Lord Cecil said all that was necessary at the moment with regard to the intervention of Mr. Chu, which was in defiance of the rules of the society, as was pointed out by the President of the Assembly at the next sitting.

    TREATY PORTS AND CONCESSIONS.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Powers are still interested with our-selves in Chinese treaty ports and concessions; acid which Powers have relinquished such privileges?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the Treaty Ports of China are the only places in the country where foreign merchants can reside and establish businesses, all nations having commercial relations with China are alike interested in them. Concessions exist at only a few of the Treaty Ports. The Powers, other than Great Britain, which hold such Concessions, are Japan, France, Italy and Belgium, the last named of whom has recently announced her readiness to return to China her undeveloped concession at Tientsin. The Austrian, Russian and German concessions at Tientsin and the Russian and German concession at Hankow have reverted to Chinese control.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Are negotiations still in progress with Mr. Chen?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been some delay, not for the first time, in the transmission of telegrams from Mr. O'Malley at Hankow, and I do not yet know what is the position, but I understand from statements that I have read in the Press that Mr. O'Malley felt it necessary to refer home for further instructions. I have had some telegrams from him, but they all relate to a telegram which only came this morning, and is not yet deciphered.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot he use the wireless on our ships at Hankow?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think wireless has been used.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are there any limitations of the rights of Chinamen in this country corresponding to the limitation of the rights of Britons in China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. R. SMITH: In the case of those Powers which have either voluntarily or otherwise given up their privilege in China, is there any evidence that their trade has suffered in China or that they have not been deal with fairly in submitting cases in the Chinese courts?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard conflicting reports.

    ITALIAN NAVAL FORCES.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Italy has despatched any forces to Shanghai?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Italy has at present one cruiser at Shanghai and two gunboats on the Yangtse. An Italian destroyer is due to arrive shortly to reinforce this squadron, and I understand that further reinforcements will be despatched if necessary.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Were these forces despatched at the request of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Was the despatch of these forces discussed in any way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his recent visit to Rome?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think I heard that question answered some time ago.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet taken any steps for the protection of British subjects in China not residing in Shanghai?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: British warships are, and have been for some time, stationed at all important centres in the Yangtse basin, where British subjects are resident, from Chungking down to Shanghai. British warships are also stationed at Canton, and visit the ports on the coast when occasion arises. British missionaries residing in the interior, in Provinces where disturbances are to be apprehended, have been advised to withdraw to the Treaty Ports, and but a few of them have acted on this advice.

    NAVAL RATINGS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make as to the attempts recently made to distribute Communist propaganda among naval ratings about to embark for the Far East; and whether any action has been taken against the persons concerned?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply to this question, and would refer to the answer which the Home Secretary gave yesterday to similar questions by the hon. and gallant Members for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) and for Stirling and Clackmannan Western (Commander Fanshawe).

  GREECE (POLICE MISSION).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress of the British Police Mission in Greece; whether the restrictions put upon the mission by General Pangalos have now

  909
  been removed; and, in particular, whether these police are now replaced in the charge of Criminal Investigation Department work and operating in all the cities of Greece?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, of course, aware that the Police Mission are the servants of the Greek Government, and that therefore His Majesty's Government do not receive regular reports of their activities. I believe, however, that it is commonly recognised in Greece that Sir Frederick Halliday and the mission have admirably discharged the duties entrusted to them.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the second part of the question, as to whether the sphere of their operations has now been restored to what it was before General Pangalos imposed his restrictions?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I do not know.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can inquiries be made?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is my business to inquire into these matters.

  DODECANESE (MRS. TILIAKOS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the assault on Mrs. Tiliakos, a British subject, by Italians in the Dodecanese, whether he has received any report from the British Consul at Rhodes, who went to the island of Kalymnos to make inquiries?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Reports have been received both from His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Rhodes and from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome. It would not appear that there was any assault on Mrs. Tiliakos, and what did happen seems to have been somewhat exaggerated. I understand that Mrs. Tiliakos has since addressed a declaration to the Governor of Rhodes retracting most of her complaints, and that the Italian naval ratings concerned in the disturbance which did take place have been suitably dealt with by the Italian authorities.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Consul at Rhodes did actually visit the island, and see Mrs. Tiliakos?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without notice.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will give notice.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lady will be compensated for any damage done to her property?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a letter from the lady to her husband, which explains that immediately after the incident the officers from the Italian ship, of which sailors had been engaged in the disturbance, called upon her, apologised for their action, and offered compensation, which she evidently refused as degrading.

  POLAND.
  Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action as a result of representations made to him by the Polish Government with reference to statements published by a recent political delegation to Poland?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Polish Government have made no suggestion that I should take any action in this matter, for which His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible.
  Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that members of this delegation obtained credentials as members of the official Labour party, and when they got to Poland they declared that they were members of the International Class War?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now trying to put in the form of a question something that was not allowed.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the two ex-Ministers who gave letters of introduction and sponsored these Members of the Labour party, and whether—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That again is a matter which does not concern this House.
  Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that in one organ of the Press there have

  911
  been rather serious charges of breach of faith against the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) and myself, which appear to be substantiated in these questions, would you allow us to make a brief personal statement after Questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If there be any statement affecting the honour of two hon. Members made in the House, of course they would be entitled to make an explanation, but for statements in the Press they have a different remedy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: They can bring an action against the Press to vindicate themselves.
  Mr. BECKETT: I would point out that the allegation has been made in this House that the hon. Member for Darlington and myself made misrepresentations to the Polish Embassy. I would very much like to make a short personal statement, with your permission.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that according to our Rules a personal explanation can only refer to a matter which has arisen in the House. I was careful to disallow a question which conveyed even a hidden allegation against the hon. Member, and the answer which has just been given confirms the wisdom of that step.
  Mr. BECKETT: The suggestion was distinctly made by the hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House that misrepresentation had been made by us to the Polish Embassy; and whether that statement is made in the Press or is made by an hon. Member of this House, it is a deliberate lie, which they know to be a lie.
  Sir F. HALL: Why not take your action against the Press?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PERSONNEL.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of the Admiralty headquarter's staff, and the numbers serving under the Admiralty command in February, 1914, and the corresponding figures for the present time?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I regret that figures for 1st February, 1914, are not available. The figures for 1st August, 1914, are 2,072 and 215,331 re spectively; and for 1st January, 1927, 3,193 and 174,473. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL PEPORT.
    The details are as follow:
    The total civilian and naval staff (including messengers are charwomen) employed at the Admiralty on the 1st August, 1914, numbered 2,072. On the 1st January, 1927, the number was 3,193.
    The personnel of the Navy on the 15th July, 1914, numbered 146,047. On the 15th January, 1927, the number was 101,434.
    The total civilian staff employed in all Admiralty establishments at home and abroad, including Admiralty headquarters, numbered 71,204 on the 1st August, 1914, and on the 1st January, 1927, the number was 75,880. These figures comprise the following:

    1st August, 1914.

    1st January, 1927.

    Non-Industrial Staff:

    Headquarters

    …

    1,920

    2,841

    Elsewhere

    …

    3,586

    5,930

    Industrial Staff:

    65.698

    67,109

    Total

    …

    71,204

    75,880

    If the hon. Member will refer to the reply of the 18th November, 1925, to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 358–364] he will find a detailed explanation why the number of civilian staff cannot be proportionately related with those of naval personnel.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to ask for an increase of the personnel of the Royal Navy, in view of the international conditions?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I trust that the international conditions referred to by the hon. Member will not be so prolonged as to make it necessary to ask for an increase.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES.)
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men have been discharged from each of His Majesty's dockyards or establishments since January, 1926; how many men are under notice discharge in each place; whether it is contemplated making further discharges in the coming financial year; and, if so, whether the Admiralty has any idea of the number to be discharged?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the -answer to the last part of the question, which does not involve any figures?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEPLDLAM: I think I should prefer to leave it all to be circulated in the OFFICIAL, REPORT, if the hon. Member does not mind.
    The reply is as follows:
    The numbers or workpeople discharged from the Vote 8 Departments of the several Dockyards since 31st January, 1926, are:

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    387

    Devonport

    …

    …

    289

    Chatham

    …

    …

    243

    Sheerness

    …

    …

    35

    Rosyth

    …

    …

    700

    Pembroke Dock

    …

    …

    444

    The numbers under notice of discharge in the same Departments of the Dockyard are:

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    …

    7

    Devonport

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Rosyth

    …

    …

    …

    2

    The further discharges contemplated, to be made between 26th March and 14th April next, are:

    From Portsmouth

    …

    …

    600

    From Devonport

    …

    …

    600

    From Chatham

    …

    …

    700

    From Sheerness

    …

    …

    100

    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider permitting established men in His Majesty's dockyards to take a modified pension at the age of 55 and upwards should they so desire, and relieve the present congestion in the yards and the necessity of wholesale discharges?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that the suggestion that established men in His Majesty's dockyards should be given the, option of retiring prematurely with modified pensions cannot be entertained.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already very considerable distress in His Majesty's dockyards; that in these dockyard areas there is practically no other work outside the dockyards, and that, therefore, a large number of men arc going to be thrown on the insurance?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope they will be able to find employment elsewhere. I regret very much that, owing to the necessity for economy, these discharges have to be made. Nobody regrets it more than I do, but I am glad to think that, owing to better prospects of trade at the present moment, there is more chance of employment in other yards than there was.
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: In making these discharges, will consideration be given to the retention of those men who are house owners at Sheerness and other dockyard towns, and who, therefore, will find great difficulty in being able to get away to other employ-merit?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that is already done, but if not, I certainly will take notice of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and remind the authorities of that point.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that exactly the procedure suggested in this question was followed when there were discharges from the Royal Navy, and that officers were allowed to take their pensions before they were due? Would it not be economy to adopt the same procedure here?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member is confusing the question between hired men and established men. If the hired men aye discharged, established men remain. Therefore, the only point of the question is to enable established men to go and hired men to stay.

    CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to utilise the money saved

    915
    in naval construction as a result of the strike during the current financial year for new construction during the coming year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. Money voted by this House to defray expenses coming in course of payment during the current financial year must, in so far as it is not so spent, revert to the Exchequer. The House will in due course be asked to vote fresh provision, for the naval services, including naval construction, in the year 1927.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the unemployment in the dockyards arising out of the discharges made by the Government, could not some means be discovered of utilising this money which has already been voted?
    Mr. HARRIS: Would the right hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the possibility of effecting economies?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is perfectly obvious, if the money has not been spent, it has been economised.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to President Coolidge's message to Congress of 10th February last, in which it is stated that a memorandum has been addressed to various Governments, including His Majesty's Government, suggesting a further conference for the purpose of limiting the building of war vessels not already limited by the Washington Treaty of 1921; and whether, in view of this and the postponement of cruiser-building in the United States, he proposes to cease work on further shipbuilding for the present and until the outcome of the proposed conference?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Prime Minister's reply of the 14th February to the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 552–3).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. the reply—which I heard—does not deal at all with naval shipbuilding, with which the question is most concerned and will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think if the hon. and gallant Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that question was dealt with. The Prime Minister said the whole point was under consideration.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Foreign Office working in active consultation with the Admiralty on this question, and has the Admiralty made representations as to the connection between air armaments and naval armaments and the possibility of separating the two?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There will be an early opportunity of debating that question on the Estimates.

    STORES AND MATERIALS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage value of all foodstuffs and of all other stores and materials of any kind purchased by his Department during the year 1926 and which were of foreign origin?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend may rest assured that most of the foodstuffs and stores, etc., purchased from foreign countries are unobtainable in the British Empire. To give an exact percentage of stores so purchased would involve a greater amount of labour than would probably be considered justified by the circumstances. But I may say that the percentage value oz foreign foodstuffs bought in 1926 was between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent., whilst the corresponding percentage for all other stores and materials would be considerably less than 1 per cent. This latter figure excludes oil fuel (which must inevitably be largely of foreign production), and also excludes special purchases of foreign coal which were necessitated by the national coal stoppage.

    DISABLEMENT PENSIONS (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of sailors discharged from the Navy in 1926 suffering from tuberculosis; and how many of those men were granted disablement pensions?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The number of men so discharged was 197.

    917
    Of these, six were found to be attributable to the conditions of service, and pensions on the attributable scale were awarded.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If these seamen all pass the medical test prior to joining the naval forces, how does the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the fact that only 3 per cent, of them have obtained pensions, and 97 per cent, have been refused?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Presumably all ratings are examined before joining the Service, but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, complaints of this kind develop later on, and are therefore somewhat difficult to attribute to service. It is a matter which is exercising the earnest attention of the Board of Admiralty, who naturally are most anxious to see that all the men are satisfied as far as possible. If the hon. Member asks me to explain the particular reasons for a particular circumstance I am afraid I cannot satisfy him.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any appeal against these decisions?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is an appeal to the Board of Admiralty.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Have the Admiralty decided how many years a man must be in the Service before a disease is held to be attributable to service?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the hon. Member should give me notice of that question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of these facts, will the Admiralty consider once again the necessity for establishing an appeal tribunal, before which the invalided person might appear, personally or through a representative.?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As at present advised, the Admiralty consider that the Board is by far the best final appeal tribunal.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the applicant for a pension the right of personal appearenee at that Court, or appearance through a deputy or solicitor?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I should have notice of that question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed on works instituted by local authorities and others under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; the total amount of expenditure involved; and the corresponding figures for a year ago?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The number of men employed on the 29th January, 1927, on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee was 14,510, as compared with 33,273 men employed on the 30th January, 1926. The total estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee during the 12 months ended 31st January, 1927, was £6,355,979, as compared with £19,532,111 during the year ended 31st January, 1926.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the great increase in the number of unemployed, is it not possible to increase the number of men employed on this class of work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That raises a question of policy, with which I cannot deal in answer to a question.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the policy of the Department to reduce the sum of money for this purpose year by year, as has been done?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question does not raise the matter of policy.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of complaints being made that a. large number of persons are now being disqualified in Glasgow for not having a reasonable period of work during the past two years; if such refusal is authorised by any circular or letter issued either from his Department in London or Edinburgh, and, if so, will he state the nature of same; and if this circular or letter is applying in particular to the Glasgow Exchange?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Representations with regard to these disallowances were made recently to the Divisional Controller by the Glasgow Trades and Labour Council. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, this ground of disallowance is a statutory one. Explanatory directions are contained in L.E.C. Memoranda with which, I think, the hon. Member is familiar. No special instructions have been issued for Glasgow as to the considerations to be applied in determining these cases. I may mention, however, that as a result of a recent scrutiny of claims with large debit balances in Scotland generally, a certain number of cases were referred to Committees and disallowed by them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at certain employment, exchanges in Glasgow procedure is being taken which is not uniform throughout the whole of the Glasgow area, and will he state why there is a difference between exchange and exchange?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, I was not aware of that, and if the hon. Gentleman will come and see me, or give me particulars, I will go into the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that an inspector called at the Finnestoun Employment Exchange, Glasgow, and examined the papers of certain persons who had been passed for benefit by rota committees; that he afterwards decided to call the applicants before him and in certain cases stopped the decision of the rota committee from taking effect, and sent the cases back to he reheard; and that the committee again granted payment, but that benefit is not yet paid, and during interviews the inspector treated the applicants for benefit inconsiderately; if he has made inquiry; and what is the result of the same?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have made inquiry, and find that the usual periodical test of extended benefit claims was recently made at this exchange. What took place was substantially as stated in the question, except that I am assured that no claimant was treated inconsiderately.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the conditions in which an inspector has a right to stop payment at least on two occasions when the rota committee have decided to allow it? What statutory right has an inspector to over-rule a rota committee?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The statutory right is the right in the Act of 1924, which imposes on the Minister himself the ultimate decision whether or not a case for extended benefit is to be allowed.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: On account of the widespread interest in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman say what takes place after a committee twice allows benefit, and the area officer turns it down?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can I give notice that I intend to raise this question on the first opportunity on the Adjournment?
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like an answer to my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to see the hon. Member's question in writing, because it does not deal with this specific case. It is evidently a general question.

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. CADOGANasked the Minister of Labour how many men have completed the full six months' course of training under the new scheme for young unemployed at Claydon, Birmingham, Brandon, and Wallsend-on-Tyne centres, respectively; how many have left before the end of their course in order to take up employment; how many are now in training; how many have been placed on farms overseas; and whether the establishment of any more of these training centres is contemplated?
    Mr. BETTERTON: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information.
    The question of providing further training facilities is at present under consideration.
    Following is the statement promised.:

    Scheme of Training for Young Unemployed Men.—Statement Showing the Position on 9th February, 1927.

    —

    Claydon.

    Birmingham.

    Brandon.

    Wallsend-on-Tyne.

    (1)

    Number of men who completed the full course. (In the case of men for overseas the course was not necessarily a full 6 months).

    356

    412

    146

    586

    (2)

    Number of men who left before the end of their course in order to take up employment.

    9

    667

    —

    106

    (3)

    Number of men in training

    196

    438

    198

    332

    (4)

    Number of men placed on farms overseas.

    206

    —

    129

    —

    PAYMENT OF BENEFIT (WAITING).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large number of men have to stand in the public streets for a long period of time, often in inclement weather, in order to obtain their unemployment pay; and if, under these circumstances, he will consult the managers of Labour and Insurance Departments as to the possibility of adopting some method which will remove this hardship from the unemployed?
    Mr. BETTERTON: A great deal of attention has been given to this point and, in general, by means of the timing system, the periods of waiting are reduced to a. minimum. From time to time, when such large numbers are being dealt with, cases of delay are almost unavoidable, particularly if there are sudden increases in the numbers attending, but I think I can say that, taken on the whole, such cases are rare. If my hon. Friend will let me have a note of any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Member aware that in the Walworth Road, at the Borough Exchange, the men have to wait an interminable time in the rain?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am not aware of that. As I have said, if the hon. Member or any hon. Member has any case of the kind arid will bring it to my notice, I will be happy to look into it.

    JUVENILE CENTRES.
    Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Labour the total number of juvenile unemployment centres now in existence;
    922
    the number of authorities in whose areas they exist; and the average number of students attending per week?
    Mr. BETTERTON: On 4th February, 91 juvenile unemployment centres were open in the areas of 34 local education authorities. The average weekly attendance was 6,966. In addition an average of 145 juveniles attend day continuation classes in Edinburgh as a condition of the receipt of unemployment benefit.
    Mr. COVE: Is the number less during the last year? Has the tendency been to decrease?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I could answer that question quite easily with notice, but I am afraid I cannot without.

    INSURANCE (BLANESBURGH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government proposes to embody all the recommendations of the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Committee in its Unemployment Insurance Bill; and when he proposes to introduce this Measure?
    Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan). I cannot yet give a date for the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, before any legislation is introduced, the Ministry will give special attention to the position of seasonal workers in certain classes of industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. That point, of course, is dealt with in the Report itself. The whole Report will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

    MINERS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many mine workers were registered as unemployed on the last convenient date, and will he give the figures for the same date in 1925 and 1926?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The number of persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry who were recorded as unemployed on 24th January, 1927, was 200,476. The corresponding figure for 25th January, 1926, was 125,669 and for 26th January, 1925, 100,061.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the hon. Gentleman's Department or the Government taken any steps to provide useful work for these 200,000 miners out of work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: We are doing our best to provide for everybody out of work. That, of course, involves a statement of policy, and I cannot give an answer.
    Mr. WILLAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what the Government have done to find these men work since the Eight Hours Act was passed?

    BUILDING OPERATIVES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers, plasterers, joiners and plumbers were unemployed at the latest convenient date; and the figures for the same date in 1926?
    Mr. BETTERTON: On 24th January, 1927, there were 10,038 carpenters and joiners, 4,807 bricklayers, 874 plasterers, and 2,894 plumbers classified as belonging to the building industry recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. The corresponding figures for 25th January, 1926, were 7,525 carpenters and joiners, 2,953 bricklayers, 653 plasterers and 2,167 plumbers.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the increase in the number of skilled operatives out of work has any relation to the financial proposals of the Government?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, I think not. As far as I can judge, it is one of the repercussions of the coal stoppage.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of bricklayers and plasterers on the London County Council housing estates? Is his Department prepared to bear the expense of moving these men to where they are required?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There are bricklayers and bricklayers.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly bring that before my right hon Friend, but I am not very hopeful that the Government can incur expense in the matter.

  WASHINGTON CONVENTION (HOURS OF WORK).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the German Government's pronouncement as to the 8-hour day; and whether, if the other countries concerned are now in line on this matter, legislation can now be introduced?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I have seen reports in the Press of the declaration to which the Noble Lord refers. I am not yet in a position to announce the intentions of the Government in this matter.
  Viscount SANDON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the other countries primarily concerned in this matter, and whether any of them have made any decisive declaration, such as have been made by France and Germany?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I think there is a later question on this very point.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the hon. Member's reply that the Government have not yet made up their minds whether they will ratify the Eight-Hour Convention?
  Mr. BETTERTON: No. What the hon. Member is to gather from my reply is that the matter is now under the close consideration of the Government.
  Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask if shop assistants will be included?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's next question raises that point.
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to include shop assistants and commercial employés in any forthcoming legislation for the ratification of a 48-hour working week, in accordance with the agreement reached between the Labour Ministers of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium at the Conference held in London last year to consider the interpretation of the Washington Convention;
  (2) what steps, if any, have been taken, since the Conference held in London last year, in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium to ratify the 48-hour week, in accordance with the terms of the Washington Convention and the agreement as to the interpretation arrived at last year between the Labour Ministers of the countries above named?
  Mr. BETTERTON: Since the London Conference Belgium has ratified the Washington Hours Convention. In France a Bill enabling the Government to ratify conditionally on ratification by Germany and Great Britain has been passed by the Senate. In Germany the Government has issued a Workers' Protection Bill, certain clauses of which are designed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. Italy had already ratified the Convention subject to its being ratified by Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain and Switzerland. I am not yet in a position to state the intentions of His Majesty's Government in this matter. As regards shop assistants and commercial employés, I would remind the hon. Member that the Washington Hours Convention applies only to industrial undertakings.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be possible for the Government to include shop assistants in any general legislation, apart altogether from the actual terms of the Convention?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I take it that any Government can include any class of persons in any legislation, but what I tried to make clear in my answer was that the Washington Hours Convention does not include the class of person to whom the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Are the. Government prepared to consider similar provi-
  926
  sional ratification on the lines of France and Germany?
  Mr. BETTERTONObviously, I cannot deal with that point in reply to a question. I understand that the whole of this matter is being discussed at a very early date, when, no doubt, the hon. Member will raise that and other matters.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that the other countries are waiting on England, and that it is far more important from the point of view of England than of the others that this should be ratified?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is taking the form of a debate.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total sum which has been expended on aeronautical research since the beginning of 1919?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The total sum expended on scientific research and technical development, as detailed in Appendix II of the current Air Estimates, from the let April, 1919, to 31st March, 1927, including expenditure still to be incurred this financial year, is approximately £8,500,000.

    AIRCRAFT (RE-FUELLING).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken with a view to ascertaining how far it is possible for aeroplanes to re-fuel in mid-air when travelling at normal speed; and what steps have been taken with a view to the creation of aerial petrol pumps?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the practicability of re-fuelling aircraft in mid-air was demonstrated by successful tests at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, some years ago. As regards the second part, I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind; if he means a system of aviation spirit pumps

    927
    similar to the wayside petrol pumps for motor cars, I do not think the need for it has yet arisen.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. baronet say whether steps have been taking place to fill one aeroplane from another while it is travelling?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I said so in the first part of my answer.
    Colonel DAY: Are the experiments still going on?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The experiments were successful.

    Low FLYING.
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will issue orders to the aerodromes in the vicinity of Biggleswade that pilots are not to perform low flying over any portion of that town?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Orders are already in force on the subject of low flying over towns or thickly inhabited districts, and, in particular, forbidding pilots to fly or manœuvre their machines in any manner likely to cause accident or annoyance to any person or persons or damage to live stock or property. The regulations, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, appear to me to provide sufficiently for the prevention of all flying of a kind to which reasonable exception could be taken. No further orders on the subject are considered to be necessary, but if persons who suffer annoyance from low flying will note the number of the aeroplane and will notify it, with the date, hour and locality of the occurrence, to the Secretary, Air Ministry, full inquiry will be made and action taken in the event of any breach of the regulations.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: Will the hon. Baronet be good enough to include in the Regulations all the cases during the last six months in which disciplinary action has been taken for low flying and stunt flying?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I will consider that point.

    HENDON AERODROME,
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for Air the price paid for Hendon Aerodrome and the land, and what is the cost per acre?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The precise cost cannot yet be given since it will depend upon the prices realised for the surplus property included in the purchase, but not required by the Air Ministry. It is estimated, however, that I he final cost of the 300 acres, together with buildings valued at £100,000, will work out at approximately £300,000.
    Sir F. WISE: Has any of the outlying part of the land been sold?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The negotiations are still going on.

    AIRSHIP GAS CONTAINERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that the gas containers for the new airship R 100 are being made in Germany, he will say whether the material for this purpose can, at the present time, be manufactured in this country; and, if not, what is proposed to be done to remedy this state of things?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry have been informed by a firm in this country that the material can now be manufactured through their agency in Great Britain, and this statement is under investigation. Research is being carried out with a view to providing a synthetic substitute for skin-covered fabric.
    Sir F. HALL: Do I understand then that the gas containers are not being made in Germany but are being manufactured in this country?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The firm to which I referred are at present undertaking experiments for manufacture.
    Sir F. HALL: Do I understand we are left at the mercy of foreign countries for the manufacture of one of the most vital parts of the airships of this country?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My answer expressed the hope that it world not be so.
    Sir F. HALL: There is no satisfaction in that.

  CITY OF LONDON COURTS (FEES).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General the total amount of fees received in the City of London Courts for the last complete year as compared with the expenses which were incurred?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The fees received in the year ending 31st March, 1926, were £34,534 7s. 7d., which, with other items of revenue, made a total revenue of £35,103 19s. 9d. The expenses were £28,477 15s. 5d.

  JUDGES' MARSHALS.
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General the annual cost to the Treasury of the provision of Judges' marshals; and whether the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the necessity of this annual expenditure?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The cost to the Treasury of the provision of Judges' marshals for the financial year 1925–6 was £3,135 6s. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason for any alteration of this arrangement.
  Mr. BAKER: Is it not a fact that marshals are chosen quite frequently on the basis of boon companionship, and, in these circumstances, is it justifiable that the Treasury should pay this money?
  Mr. BLUNDELL: May I ask whether boon companionship of a Judge is not a quite respectable occupation?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In answer to the first supplementary question, the marshal is nominated by the Judge with whom he is in close association. I have not inquired of His Majesty's Judges what are the motives which influence them in making the appointment. With regard to the second question, I cannot say I have any personal reason to believe that the occupation is anything but respectable.

  EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.
  Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Labour if he intends to introduce legislation during this Session of Parliament embodying any of the proposals of the Report of the Malcolm Committee on Education and Industry?
  Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Labour are considering the Report. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES.
  Sir JOSEPH NALLasked the Prime Minister when the Select Committee on Estimates will be set up; and whether he will consider the desirability of setting up two or more such committees to deal respectively with Estimates for the fighting services, Civil Service, and other groups of Estimates in order to ensure adequate scrutiny before the Estimates are considered in Committee of Supply?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The necessary Motion to set up the Estimates Committee will be moved as soon as arrangements can be made. As regards the second part of the question, I think it preferable to follow the procedure adopted last year. The Select Committee should it so desire can, of course, arrange to appoint sub-committees.

  VACCINATION PAYMENTS (KEIGHLEY UNION).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health what are the salaries paid to the public vaccinators in the Keighley union area?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The public vaccinators in this union are not paid by salary, but by fees. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of these fees.
  Following is the statement promised:
  Fees paid to public vaccinators in the Keighley Union:

  (1) A fee of one shilling in respect of every child whose birth is registered in the district of the public vaccinator, or who is resident in that district and whose birth has been registered in some other district or has not been registered at all, except in the case of a child who has died or has removed from the district before attaining the age of four months, or who has been duly certified to be successfully vaccinated otherwise than by the public vaccinator or to be insusceptible of vaccination or to have had smallpox, before reaching that age, or with regard to whom a valid statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination is in force.

  931

  (2) A fee of two shillings and sixpence in respect of each Case of successful vaccination or revaccination by the public vaccinator elsewhere than at the home of the person vaccinated or revaccinated.

  (3) A fee of seven shillings and sixpence in respect of each case of successful vaccination or revaccination by the public vaccinator at the home of the person vaccinated or revaccinated.

  Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health what are the fees paid to private practitioners in Keighley for every person successfully vaccinated, and what are the fees paid to the medical officer of health?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information on these points, but I may say that no fees are payable out of public funds for vaccinations performed by private practitioners, and that the remuneration recommended by my right hon. Friend's Department for the vaccination or re-vaccination by a medical officer of health of persons who have been in immediate contact with persons suffering from smallpox is a payment of not less than 2s. 6d. per case.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS NEWS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General how many wireless organisations are distributing wireless news from this country, either for payment or gratuitously; and whether he will give the names in each case and the conditions under which each operate?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson)—
    HON. MEMBERS: "Shoot! Shoot!"
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I gave my hon. Friend this information in reply to a question by him on 23rd November: last, and I am sending him a copy of that answer. There has been no change since then, and the only two distributors are the Foreign Office and the Wireless Press, Limited.
    Mr. THURTLE: In the event of any of these organisations distributing in-Correct news, what penalty does the right hon. Gentleman inflict?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

    WIRELESS TELEPHONY (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of wireless telephony calls between Britain and the United States and the United States and Britain for January?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of telephone calls in the Anglo-American service from 7th January (the date of inauguration of the service) to the end of that month, was 105 from Great Britain and 160 from America.
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of making a reduction in the cost of this very costly service to the subscriber?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think we must wait a little.
    Mr. J. JONES: And then be shot.

  HIGHWAYS OF EMPIRE MAP.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the world map entitled Highways of Empire, issued by the Empire Marketing Board, on which the mandated territories are printed in the same colour as the annexed portions of the British Empire, while the Sudan is printed in two colours, showing that it has not been annexed by the British Empire; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending that in future issues the mandated areas should be shown in a colour which will indicate that their status differs from that of other British dependencies?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. Having regard to the nature of the purposes for which the map in question was issued by the Empire Marketing Board, I see no reason to think that its colouring is likely to cause any misapprehension as to the position of the various classes of Mandated Territories.

  MOTOR COACHES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Transport, whether, in view of the numerous accidents to motor coaches and other similar vehicles, he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary to make it compulsory that a first-aid outfit be carried on all such vehicles?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): While I view with considerable satisfaction the action of many operators of public service vehicles in equipping their vehicles with first-aid outfits and appliances, and in training their employés in their use, I do not think it would be reasonable to make the provision of such equipment compulsory; nor, indeed, have I at the present time any powers in the matter.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask what action the right hon. Gentleman will take?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I have no power to take action.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS, HULL.
  Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Transport if he has any particulars of the cause of the railway disaster in Hull, on Monday, 14th February; and whether, seeing that this is tin second accident in the same place in 10 days, he will cause inquiries to be made into the construction and arrangements existing at Paragon Station and its approaches for the arrival and departure of trains from this centre?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I have ordered inquiries to be held into the, circumstances of both of the accidents to which the hon. Member refers, and until I receive the reports of these inquiries, I shall not be in a position to snake any statement. I have, however, called the attention of the Inspecting Officer to the points raised in the question.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there have been no complaints at all about the efficiency of the station itself at Hull, and that the accident occurred well outside the station?
  Colonel ASHLEY: All I have asked the Inspecting Officer to do, when he is
  934
  inquiring into the exact cause of the accident, is to inquire into all the circumstances.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it is one of the most up-to-date stations in England?
  Mr. GROTRIAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the amalgamation of the railways, the London and North-Eastern Railway Company have closed two passenger stations in Hull, and thus aggravated a situation which was becoming intolerable?
  Mr. THOMAS: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman keep in mind that there is still to be an inquiry which may involve the personal position of men, and would it not be much better not to prejudice the case?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I have no wish to prejudice the case; all I wish is that the inspecting officer should he fully seized of the position.
  Sir J. NALL: Is it not thoroughly undesirable to raise an agitation before these inquiries are held?
  Colonel ASHLEY: No agitation has been raised. An inquiry is always held, and all I said was that I would draw the attention of the inspecting officer to the points raised in the original question.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers.
Mr. SULLIVAN: If the number quoted, 68, is correct, it is mine.
Mr. SPEAKER: The number is 68, and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) claims it. On looking at the name a second time I think it is Mr. Sullivan.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  MINING INDUSTRY.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the position in the Mining Industry, and move a Resolution.

  SOCIALIST ORGANISATIONS (COMMUNISTS).
  Major BRAITHWAITE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I

  935
  will call attention to the failure of the Socialist party to exclude Communists from their organisations, and move a Resolution.

  AGRICULTURE.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  SALE OF FOOD AND MUGS BILL,
  "to amend the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907," presented by Mr. JACOB; supported by Mr. Clayton, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Womersley, Colonel England, and Mr. Fenby; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  PARISH COUNCILS (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES) BILL,
  "to remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by parish councils," presented by Mr. RHINE; supported by Sir Charles Wilson, Mr. Webb, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Robert Richardson, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Jephcott; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.
  CLASS II.

    BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE.: Last night I had an opportunity of speaking on this question for two or three minutes before Progress was reported. I was then referring to some questions put to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) who took a considerable part in establishing this industry, and who has expressed throughout his interest and encouragement in regard to it. In dealing with the question whether the sugar subsidy is justified or not—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong in allowing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) to raise the question of the policy of sugar subsidy because that has already been decided. Seeing that this is simply a Vote due to under-estimating the amount required for the subsidy, it will not be in order to discuss again the policy of the subsidy.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to be clear as to how far we are going to be allowed to debate the effect of the subsidy, not on production but on the finances of the factory. The Act of Parliament makes provision for the presentation of the accounts, and unless we can make proper criticisms on the Supplementary Estimates there is no other way of safeguarding the rights of Members of this House.
    Colonel GRETTON: While it may be perfectly reasonable to exclude a discussion on the policy of these subsidies, surely we may be allowed to discuss the expenditure in these Estimates upon a new factory.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this is an occasion for a discussion upon the policy of the subsidy. This question of policy has been discussed on previous occasions and it has been decided by the House. It is now only a question of under-estimating the amount of the money required for the subsidy, therefore no question of policy can arise.
    Mr. HARRIS: Surely a ruling of this kind makes it impossible to discuss the question of policy in regard to these subsidies at all.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not an occasion to discuss the policy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention, Captain FitzRoy, to the fact that in the past, when dealing with a large sum of money like this, a fairly wide scope has been allowed in regard to the discussion. This is a very large sum indeed, and I put it to you respectfully that you might allow a fairly wide discussion.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I agree that it is a very large sum, but it is only a fraction of the original Estimate, and that fact in no way affects the policy which has already been decided upon by the House.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I propose to confine my remarks to the very satisfactory indication conveyed to my mind, and to the minds of others interested in the sugar beet industry, by the fact that a, Supplementary Estimate is necessary this year. When the original Estimates were drawn up, there was approximately accurate information as to the acreage that would be put under sugar beet this year. Where the original Estimates fell short of actual experience is in the volume of the crop grown per acre, and the quality of the beet that formed that crop. Those are the two factors which are the measure of commercial sugar produced on each acre of beet. Both of those factors have made a most satisfactory increase this year over the ex-

    951
    perience of last year. Last year, in its turn, showed higher figures than the previous year. This indicates to my mind that the hopes of the pioneers of the sugar beet industry in this country are being justified. The farmers, and their labourers who are working this beet production on English farms, particularly in the Eastern Counties, are learning year by year to produce a larger quantity and a better quality of beet. It is of great importance that that should be so, because it is only by a steady improvement in the quantity and quality of the beet grown per acre, and the amount of commercial sugar produced per acre, that we based our hopes that the industry could establish itself in spite of the gradual fall and the eventual disappearance of the subsidy. There are many farmers who a few years ago were producing five, six or seven tons per acre of second-rate beet which are now producing 14, 16 and even 18 tons per acre. It is a justification for the subsidy that the tonnage per acre is a full ton more than was estimated, and the sugar percentage 1 per cent. more than that shown in the figures for last year. That is a strong indication that this House was right in deciding to make a great effort to try a great experiment in establishing a sugar beet industry under subsidy.
    4.0 p.m.
    What is the exact position with regard to the fall in the subsidy which takes place next year? There is one more year of the high-grade subsidy to go, and then it drops 6s. 6d. per cwt. of sugar. That 6s. 6d. drop, converted into terms of raw material of beet, means approximately per ton of beet delivered at the factory. That is on a 15½ per cent. basis. Probably, if the beet continues at the higher quality, as it is to-day, it will mean something over £1 per ton—that has to be borne either by the factory or by the farmer or both—from the present price which the factories are paying the farmers for their beet. I am a beet grower myself, and I say without hesitation, though I dare say many people will blame me for saying it, that the experience of this year proves beyond all doubt that the farmer who is growing beet with proper methods on suitable land is well able to bear a, full share in
    952
    the inevitable fall in the price of beet owing to the fall in the amount of the subsidy. I am extremely hopeful, as are all those connected with the industry, that this improvement both in quantity and quality which we see this year will be maintained and will be progressive, and that, just as the farmers who have been growing for five or six years are producing at least double the amount of sugar per acre than they did when they started, so those who have grown this year for the first time will in four or five years' time be growing a much heavier crop of much higher quality than they are to-day, and that by that means we shall find that four years hence the second drop in the subsidy need be feared no more than I for one fear the impending drop next year.
    There was one matter which I should like to deal with if I am not out of order, and that was the interjection—it was quite friendly—which came from the opposite benches when I started to speak last night. I was referring to this increase of production, and the interjection suggested that the result of that, and I gathered the only result, of that increase would be an increase of rent.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a question which we can discuss on this Vote.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I dare say that another opportunity will arise when I can do so. In addition to the agricultural side with which I have attempted to deal insofar as it bears on the need for this Vote or this increase of subsidy, there is another element which also bears upon it. It is that, just as the agricultural side have tuned up year after year to greater efficiency, so has the manufacturing side. The efficiency in the factories producing beet sugar has been steadily improved. There is still room for improvement, but it has been steadily improving, and that, also, is a very good sign that our hopes and anticipations will prove to be justified and that when the subsidy comes to an end this industry may find itself on so sure a foundation that it will be able to compete with its international competitors in the sugar markets of the world.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Some of us on these benches, in discussing the grant of the subsidy to the British beet indus-

    953
    try, have had occasion to make certain references to those who are engaged in the financing of it. I want to say at the outset that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) who, as he published last night, has been mixed up with this industry from the beginning is in my judgment not the class of person engaged in the industry whom we ever desired to attack. I want to say here, as I have said before, that his long and devoted service to the cause, however mistaken in my judgment it may be, is from an altruistic point of view one of great worthiness, and, whatever I may say at a later stage, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will not think that I am in any way referring to his association with the industry. He has referred to the Vote as proving one or two things, and, as he has been allowed to make those points, I think you will also allow me to reply to them. He has stated that the request for an additional grant of £450,000 is really a proof that the production per acre has been better and that everything is going very well for the future of the sugar-beet industry. I recognise that there has been a slight increase in the yield per acre, and I recognise also that there has been a slight increase in the percentage of sugar content, but I altogether disagree with the hon. and gallant Member if he thinks that those slight increases show a clear period of prosperity for the sugar-beet industry in this country. I myself still think that when the industry comes to meet keen competitive winds on the first half subsidy rate and then with no subsidy at all these prognostications will prove to be entirely fallacious.
    The hon. and gallant Member referred to the fact that all three parties in the House had been proved to be right in making great efforts to establish this particular industry. While it is true that the majority of all parties in the House were in favour of it, it is also true that there was at least a fairly important minority in each of the parties in the House who were against granting the subsidy, and I think when it comes to balancing the matter either in a year and a half's time, or, perhaps what will be a more important period, in five years' time, the minority in the matter will prove to have been on fairly safe ground. Moreover, he says that when the first reduction in the subsidy takes place its effect will be that
    954
    the factories and the growers between them will have to provide rather more than £1 per ton, which is at present covered by the subsidy. It is very significant that the hon. and gallant Member should then say from his personal experience as a grower that he thought the farmer would be well able to meet a share—I gathered from the tone of his remarks a considerable share—of that £1 per ton which had to be found. Then what becomes of the claim which has always been made in connection with this subsidy, that it was going to mean considerably higher wages for the workers in the agricultural industry?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member began his remarks by saying that he thought I should allow him to reply to some remarks which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). I think he has gone far enough in that direction now, and he must return to the actual Vote.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very loath, to be at variance at any time with the Chair, but the hon. and gallant Member has made a statement that the farmer is well able to bear a share of the reduction, and surely it is not unreasonable to be able to answer the point that he has made. It is difficult for us to reply to that unless we draw the proper deductions from the result of the farmer bearing a share of the reduction. If I am not allowed to pursue the matter, I limply ask the hon. and gallant Member to think it over in the meantime. I do not want to beat variance with the Chair on the point, but I am quite certain that it is not going to be possible, as the industry goes on under the new conditions, to fulfil the pledge that was made in respect of higher wages, if the farmer has to bear that share of the reduction. I would also remind him on that point that, when it comes to the end of the total period of the subsidy, the farmer will have to look to a very much larger reduction, and, whereas the price of beet, which has had to be covered under the subsidy which we are voting to-day, has been, I suppose, a variable figure from 44s. to 50s. per ton, Sir Daniel Hall, the expert of the Ministry of Agriculture, has said on more than one occasion, and perhaps never more clearly than in his introduction to a book on beet sugar production, that,

    955
    ultimately the farmer will have to face the production of beet at a price of not more than from 25s. to 30s. per ton. The hon. and gallant Member agrees.
    All I can say is that the imports of sugar as compared with home-produced sugar during the last two years do not show to me that under such circumstances the British farmer will be able to make a success of beet growing at that price. Ws were told yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) that one result of the subsidy had been that we were now in this country producing, instead of a negligible quantity, five weeks' supply. Yes, but when I examine the figures of this year in more detail I find that imported refined sugar has increased in volume, although we have also this larger measure of home-grown sugar. Really, what has happened has been that the sugar which was formerly known as British refined sugar, in which there was a considerable volume of employment in this country, has been merely substituted by the homegrown sugar from the beet industry. In 1925 57 per cent. of our sugar was British refined. In 1926 it was only 35 per cent., a drop of 22 per cent. It is significant, in those circumstances, that the homegrown sugar has increased from 7 per sent. to 22 per cent-. While the subsidy which we are voting to-day may be argued by some to have been providing employment in agricultural areas, and I agree at once that it has provided a certain amount of employment, it has also displaced in Silvertown and in Greenock, men who are now on the Employment Exchanges unable to get work as the result of the payment of this subsidy.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Can the hon. Member say what the effect on unemployment has been on balance, taking into consideration the extra employment in agriculture?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Could the hon. Member also say anything about the volume? If he has the figures with regard to that, I think they would be interesting.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have not, as a matter of fact, got them with me at the moment—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be entering into an argument with hon. Members on the other side as to what has been the effect of the subsidy upon unemployment. That, however, is not really the point before the Committee to-day. This is a Supplementary Estimate to provide for the fact that a larger quantity of beet has been grown under the subsidy than was originally contemplated. That is the only question before the Committee.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is very difficult to exercise an effective check upon the large expenditure from public funds which is involved in a Supplementary Vote of £450,000—which is not a small sum—unless we can also exercise our right to criticise the object of the expenditure when we are voting as representing the people, and, although I agree that it is difficult sometimes to get away from Standing Orders, I hope that you, Sir, will take the view expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that, when we are considering such a large sum, we should be allowed as much latitude as is possible in the circumstances.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure I should be wrong in allowing, on a Supplementary Estimate, so wide a discussion as the hon. Member suggests. This Supplementary Estimate is only for the increased sum required in respect of the increased amount of sugar beet that has been grown.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: If that be so, I shall do no more than inform the House as to what is the financial result of the voting of the money, and I think, Sir, you will agree that that will not be out of order. When the Bill itself was passing through the House, we insisted on the insertion of a Clause providing for the laying before the House from time to time of duly audited accounts of the beet factories which were set up as a result of the subsidy. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Minister at the time that the accounts should be as detailed as I should have liked, and we are confined to an audited statement of liabilities and assets. Even so, from that we are able to get a very fair idea as to what the effect of the subsidy really is. Taking the season 1925–26, the accounts

    957
    of which are published in White Paper No. 133, the Kelham Factory shows a surplus of £3,125, Cantley—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that has anything to do with this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate has nothing to do with the accounts of the various factories; it is merely a question now of the amount of sugar that is going to be grown, and for which the subsidy is required. That is the only question before the Committee, and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to adhere to it.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: In that case I am not going to pursue my argument to-day, but will only say that I think it is unfortunate—I am not in any way reflecting upon the Chair; I am sure you will understand that—that, in the voting of such a very large sum as this, we cannot be allowed to express the views of constituents and of taxpayers generally upon the object for which it is asked for.
    Major G. DAVIES: As a rule, when the House is faced with Supplementary Estimates, it is a field day and an opportunity for hon. Members who happen to be in Opposition, to whichever party they belong, because their Whips come to them and say, "If you cannot legislate for your country, you can procrastinate for your party." On this occasion, however, the severe limits which you, Sir, have set to the Debate will not only facilitate the smooth passage of this Estimate, but will rather cramp the style of everyone who wishes to take part in the Debate. I do not complain of that for a moment, but certainly it does rule out a great many matters of general interest which some of us would like to touch upon. You yourself, Sir, have pointed out that the real matter before the Committee is that an additional amount of Government subsidy has to be provided because an additional amount of sugar beet beyond that which was estimated has been grown in this country during the past year. The right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Agriculture when the Labour party were in office pointed out yesterday that he regarded the whole question of this subsidy as an educational grant. If that be so, surely we may take unction unto ourselves that the policy of His Majesty's Government has resulted in such an extension of well-applied
    958
    subsidy towards the matter of education with regard to agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman expressed some doubt as to whether the farmers of the country had been taking full advantage of the educational facilities of various kinds which this and preceding Governments have endeavoured to place at their disposal, but, nevertheless, it does seem to me that, although, as the last speaker pointed out, this is in itself a considerable sum of money that we are asked to vote to-day, that is a proof of the soundness and the success of the policy which deliberately decided that some such sum should be applied, not only to broaden education in the matter of agriculture—
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. Hon. Members are allowed to say from the other side that the voting of this sum of money to-day is a proof of the wisdom of the policy which has already been decided in this House; but, when that point is made from the other side, we are not allowed to use any facts or figures or make any general case to show that we do not approve of that and to prove that the statements made by hon. Members are not well founded.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood my previous ruling. I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was only stating what had been said by a previous speaker.
    Major DAVIES: In the interests of harmony and in my own interests I shall endeavour to keep within the rules of order as I understand they have been laid down in regard to this Debate. I was merely endeavouring, in a general way, to point out that what we are being asked to do is to approve of a Supplementary Estimate which, in itself, was absolutely inevitable if there was to be a really successful result of the policy which was originally laid down in connection with the provision of the subsidy. The reason is simply that, as you, Sir, have said, there has been an additional area of sugar beet planted, and that sugar beet itself has been a move valuable article. I myself can bear testimony to what was laid down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) with regard to the improvement of methods and results in this nascent industry. While we can

    959
    all pose as prophets with regard to what the results are going to be in the times that are ahead of us when the subsidy is entirely removed, surely, even if we take a pessimistic view of those possibilities, it is a matter of satisfaction that, under the present conditions at least, the result is one of progress rather than of recession. Therefore, it does seem to me that, of all Supplementary Estimates that may come before this Committee—and we always deplore the necessity for such things—this is one which it is impossible to deplore, because it is inevitable, having regard to the development of the industry, and from our point of view it is a satisfactory proof of the desirability of the policy that has been deliberately pursued by His Majesty's Government. Therefore, my feeling, in voting in favour of this Supplementary Estimate, is an exception to my feelings on other Supplementary Estimates, and I do so with pleasure because I regard it as setting the seal for the time being on the success of the policy which we decided a few years ago to pursue.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to make one or two observations on this fairly considerable Estimate. I notice that the increased sum required is approximately half a million pounds. One of the big things that we expected, when this policy was first commenced, was that, in the first place, we were going to provide a good deal of employment—that we were going to divert from our cities into the countryside quite a large number of workpeople. I should like to ask the Minister if any estimate has been obtained, in view of this increased production of sugar beet, of the increased number of rural workers that have been employed because of the development of the sugar beet industry. Yesterday, in reply to a question, the right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knew, not one acre of land had been brought into cultivation as a result of the development of the sugar beet scheme.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I think the hon. Member cannot have misunderstood my answer. He asked whether the arable acreage as a whole had increased, and I said I was pretty sure not. As a matter of fact, it
    960
    is well known that in certain counties, on rough land, a lot of gorse has been ploughed up, and has increased the arable acreage; but that is very different from the wider question that he asked yesterday.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman make that statement. It is some small consolation to those of us who felt that the expenditure of a very large sum of money had not in the aggregate increased the numbers in a very healthy and useful occupation. In view of the number of workers who have been displaced, however, there will be a balance on one side or the other, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, before this Vote is finally carried, what exactly, as far as he can estimate, has been the net result of the transference or diversion of labour from towns to cities, and what the net result is with regard to unemployment in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who has had such a lengthy and honourable record in the development of this new industry, told us that this Supplementary Estimate is exclusively due to the exceedingly large production of sugar beet per acre, and the sugar content of the beet produced. He told us that those who had been producing sugar beet had been in the habit of producing seven tons, or slightly more, per acre, whereas, during the last season, many producers were producing 14, 16 and 18 tons per acre. That does, of course, change the financial position of this scheme, and it changes the financial position of each farmer. Although the Government are called upon to meet a much larger bill with a production of 16 as compared with seven tons per acre, the farmer, obviously, must be increasing his own balance sheet to a very considerable extent, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if this increased production by the farmer has in any way reflected itself in the wages of the work-people in the particular areas where sugar beet has been, and is being, produced. If he will tell us that the workers are receiving some slight benefit as a result of this large expenditure of public money, it would be some consolation to us, first, to see a new industry developing and, secondly, to know that public money is finding its way into the pockets of the working people.

    961
    There is another question which one would be entitled to submit this afternoon. In seeking to settle, definitely once and for all, the sugar beet industry, one would like to know whether the Government have persuaded the manufacturers of machinery in this country to manufacture the type of machinery necessary for sugar beet factories. It has been felt, and I think quite rightly, that if the industry was going to be developed in rural areas, and it was going to have the effect of causing manufacturers of machinery to specialise on this particular kind of machinery instead of our having to purchase it from abroad, there would be another avenue opened out which would provide work for British working people. In looking at the question of the employment which has been found as a result of the development of the sugar beet industry, one would like to know to what extent, if any, have British manufacturers of machinery adapted themselves for the purpose of producing this particular machinery, and to what extent has that reflected itself in increasing the number of workpeople.
    The £450,600 mentioned in this Estimate is a considerable item. One hon. Member suggests that it reflects the success of a pertain policy. It certainly reflects this, that if the land which is now being used for the production of sugar beet had been used previously, without Government assistance, to the fullest extent., better results could have been obtained years ago by the people in charge of the land, and who were operating the land and did not do their best to secure the maximum value from its working. It seems peculiar that before the Government began to assist the producers of sugar beet, they were only producing seven tons per acre, but when the Government said, "We will give you a considerable sum to assist you and to stabilise your industry, then they are able to increase the produce from seven tons per acre to 14, 16 and 18 tons per acre. That is one of the things which makes some of us feel that the statements which we are constantly making that the best use has not been made of the land are justified. The best use is not made of the land when it remains for Government subsidies to persuade farmers to extract the utmost value and to provide the maximum quantity of labour. That is not a testi-
    962
    menial to those people who have been in charge of the land for so long. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the real effect of this new industry in the increased opportunities for labour on the land, in the increased production of machinery and the general effect upon British labour.
    Mr. HURD: There is one aspect of this Supplementary Estimate which, when-brought to their notice, will give some consolation to hon. Members opposite. I refer to the part which the smallholder has taken in the production of sugar beet, which is one of the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is, in general, a cheerful controversialist. I believe he is making a special effort just now in connection with the organisation with which he is associated, to bring it more closely into touch with agricultural interests. I am sure he will I not despise a movement which as represented in this Supplementary Estimate has saved from starvation many smallholders as well as many farmers during the past season. That aspect of the question is worthy of his attention, representing, as he does, one of the small parties in this House and outside opposed to the policy of the Supplementary Estimate. I hold in my hand a petition which has been sent to me by smallholders in my constituency.
    Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Shall we he allowed to discuss the policy of helping smallholders in this country?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on this Vote. I do not think the hon. Member is doing that; he is only referring to the increased production of sugar on small holdings.
    Mr. HURD: These smallholders, who have been growing sugar beet under the money contained in this Estimate, have sent me a petition expressing their extreme anxiety as to their future. They have been encouraged by this House, and the Committee to-day is going to implement that encouragement, to grow sugar beet. They want to know whether it is not possible for this House to complete this policy by insuring them a market for their sugar beet.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into that.
    Mr. HURD: This money has been partially applied to the encouragement of factories, and, if I am within your Ruling, I should like to point out that it would have been even more satisfactory had it been decided to apply it also to smaller units as well as the larger units of factory production. I do not want to trespass, but it is difficult to bring one's remarks exactly within the ruling. Here we have a substantial sum of money which is being voted by Parliament for the encouragement of sugar beet. I wish the Minister to consider whether, in the use of this money, he might not have been more wise to have remembered the small as well as the large unit of manufacture. We have just passed an Act directly to encourage the small man on the land to enable them to own a little bit of England, and this Supplementary Estimate has been of the greatest value in pursuit of that policy. I want the Minister to look at this question of sugar beet from the point of view of the smallholder, and to realise that by means of this Estimate we have helped a large number of these small men to become better established on the land, and that by pursuing that policy which is represented in the Estimate, we might go still further and do what this House and all parties of us desire to do, namely, to get more small men on to the land, thus enabling them to make a living for themselves and their families.
    There is a number of other points with which I would have liked to deal, but it is extremely difficult to bring them within the ruling. I am certain that the policy represented in this Supplementary Estimate is a policy of the highest value from the point of view of arable production in general, and especially from the point of view of smallholders.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: What do your petitioners ask?
    Mr. HURD: They ask me to use my influence with the National Farmers' Union, the Ministry of Agriculture and this House to induce this House to make the sugar beet subsidy based upon a smaller unit of production. There is the production of motor fuel.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must deal with that on some other Vote.
    Mr. HURD: The Minister has been good enough to look at some aspects of this question in regard to the smaller unit, but, unfortunately, he has looked at it from under the shadow of existing vested interests. He has not gone into the question of the smallholders' relation to sugar production from a detached and entirely dispassionate point of view. He has allowed himself, rather, to be influenced by those who are thinking of existing combines anal large vested interests. I am sure that is wrong. Sugar beet as affecting the smallholder is a question well worth consideration, quite apart from the existing interests, and to see whether we have not in this a means of increasing arable production by means of the small man on a farm, which would be of the highest value in pursuit of the policy to which this House has committed itself. I commend to my right hon. Friend a review of the whole question in a new light, so that we may, if we can, give the smallholder new hope in this country.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am very glad to say that, to a limited extent, I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I agree with him that, if there is any money to be given from the State, it should go to those who best deserve it, and if this system of subsidies is to be carried on, the money should go to the smaller units of production, and not to helping existing vested interests. With that principle I am in general agreement, and if the hon. Member desires to promote a Bill in order to bring in the smaller units of production, I should not be able to differ from him. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present. The Financial Secretary is the last person to defend Supplementary Estimates. It must add to his worries and troubles, and it must make the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is difficult enough at all times, more difficult and more tiresome to carry out. Under the ruling from the Chair, we are not able to criticise the principle of the policy underlying this Estimate, but to look at it merely from the point of view of a Supplementary Estimate.
    Here we are, at a time of great national crisis when the country is already overburdened with taxation; when we are threatened with increased taxes, when

    965
    the national Budget is not likely to balance, and we are coming down here to dole out money to a favoured interest. If any hon. Member opposite can defend that principle and policy, I shall be very much surprised. Of course, hon. Members from agricultural districts are going to get certain favoured interests developed, and consequently they will be in favour of the Estimate; but I do think the Minister of Agriculture will have to explain a good deal to the Treasury as to his bad estimating in this particular case. If he is going to come down and ask for a favoured section of the agricultural interests to have national money, lie ought to be able to calculate more closely what it will cost. We were only persuaded to vote this money on the understanding that it was only by giving this particular subsidy to the beet sugar industry in its early days that it could be made to pay. Now it is clear from the facts that the yield per acre is so much larger that it would have been possible to come to the House and ask for a very much smaller rate of subsidy. It would have been playing fairer with Parliament and the nation to ask Parliament to reduce the subsidy rather than to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate. The Government might very well say to the farmers, "We were misled. This is a paying proposition." We have been told by one hon. Member that sugar beet can be made to pay. The Minister of Agriculture explained this away by saying that, owing to a greater yield per acre and to the advantage of the experiments made in Holland and other countries, not so large a subsidy is necessary. In the interests of the taxpayers, it would be fairer, therefore, to reduce the subsidy rather than to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.
    The fact is, the whole system of subsidies is vicious, bad and unsatisfactory. No Minister can defend it in principle. Why sugar should be particularly singled out for favour, I do not know—the only explanation, I suppose, is because it is sweet—but this and other—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now embarking on the general question of subsidies.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am quite prepared to act within the limits of your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, but when I see the vicious
    966
    results of a subsidy it is very difficult not to make a protest. When we spoke against this subsidy, we anticipated this sort of thing. We said that, once you started on these lines, you would constantly have Ministers asking for Supplementary Estimates for more money from the already over-burdened taxpayers, including the people in the towns, who will not get any benefit from this. In my district many people are out of employment; they cannot get any subsidies from the Government, and they will have to pay.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I told the hon. Member just now that he was embarking on the question of the subsidies, and he is doing so again. I hope he will not go on with that.
    Mr. HARRIS: I quite see the difficulty. It really is rather difficult, when Parliament is asked to vote large sums of money, and we are not allowed to discuss the principle which has brought about these extra charges.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a proper occasion for everything. A separate occasion is set apart for discussing this very question which the hon. Member wants to debate now. The only point is that this is not the occasion on which to discuss it.
    Mr. HARRIS: If we are not allowed to discuss the general principle of subsidies, may I ask whether the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that next year there will not be a still further Supplementary Estimate; whether, owing to a greater yield and the extension of acreage, he will be able more closely to estimate the result of this subsidy, or whether it is going to be a mere gamble. Will he be able to go to his Finance Minister, as a result of his policy—
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Before the Minister of Agriculture answers that question, will the hon. Gentleman tell the Minister what the weather is going to be next year.
    Mr. HARRIS: I entirely agree that agriculture is a gamble. With good weather you make good prices and profits; but if the Minister is going to take up the line of baying to compensate farmers for bad weather, where are we going to end? If that be his policy and the policy of Members opposite in regard to agriculture, I am sorry for the Chan-

    967
    cellor of the Exchequer. This policy is bad, it is wrong in principle, and will sooner or later be a heavy charge on the Exchequer.
    Mr. KIDD: I intervene only in order to express the hope that we may get some information why sugar beet growing has not been taken up so enthusiastically in my part of Scotland as in other parts of the country. In regard to my own part of Scotland, I was encouraged to hope, from a remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope), who opened this discussion, that perhaps that period of caution might now be brought to a conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have very gratifying information which was a complete vindication of this system. He indicated that any reduction in the subsidy in England would be more than balanced by the increased value arising from the greater production per acre plus the increased yield per ton. I am not forgetting the weather, and I have no wish that the Minister of Agriculture should gamble in respect to that; but I wonder, having regard to the diminution in the amount of the subsidy, whether the data already supplied by his experts and the information coming from any other quarter, taken in conjunction with the results of our own experience, would justify more than a hope that sugar beet growing can now be regarded as a success; and that once we have become familiar with it, and have got greater knowledge through its cultivation, there will be every justification for the farmers of this country taking it up in good earnest.
    I could not follow one argument of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). He has had a very large experience, as representing in his daily life the greatest consumers of sugar in this country. The hon. Gentleman said that this year we had imported more sugar and we had raised more sugar at home. He discovered in those two facts, taken together, some explanation, which I could not follow, for some displacement of employment.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: My point was that you have got a larger percentage of imported refined sugar and that the gain
    968
    on home-grown sugar has been at the expense of British refined sugar.
    Mr. KIDD: I understand now that the hon. Gentleman was distinguishing between the quality of the sugar and not the volume of the sugar. I think he will agree with me that if a greater volume was imported and a larger volume was produced, it would be rather difficult to discover in those two facts any reason for displacing employment. I quite understand that everything appertaining to agriculture is, ultimately, a gamble, and I am not discussing that, but I ask the Minister—for the guidance of large areas where some new agricultural development will be of the greatest advantage to all engaged on the land, whether as farmers, smallholders or ploughmen, and for the guidance of those districts which had been ultra-careful and almost selfishly careful up to this point—if he can give an indication that from our experience plus the knowledge available from other sources to the Ministry, we may now regard ourselves as having arrived at the stage when sugar beet growing under normal conditions has been proved to be a new departure on which the agriculturist may embark with at least as large a measure of confidence as he would embark on the growing of wheat.
    Mr. J. JONES: I cannot pretend to speak with the same amount of authority on the production of sugar-beet as agricultural persons generally and eminent lawyers from Scotland; but I represent a constituency which happens to be the centre of the preduction of sugar in Great Britain. Messrs. Tate and Lyle happen to be the largest firm of this kind, not merely in this country but in the world, and they have built up their business without a subsidy. I am not an advocate of private enterprise, generally speaking. I believe that all these problems could be solved by the nation solving its own problems and taking control of its own possibilities. This particular section of industry has been subsidised at the expense of the State, the Government have advanced a large amount of money for the purpose of assisting sugar-beet. We do not object to the agricultural districts of this country being developed to their fullest possibilities; the land in this country has never been cultivated as it ought to have been done, and to that extent we are all

    969
    in favour of this. The only question is the method of doing it. We are told now that the Government are prepared to subsidise the beet sugar industry to a further extent to the amount of £450,000. That is a local charge and not a national one, in the real sense of the term. An hon. Member, speaking just now, spoke of the little man, but what about those who have established an industry representing millions of capital? They cannot get anything except competition, and within the next 20 years, for example, 10 factories paid for by the Government will be handed over to private enterprise. You are subsidising private enterprise in industries at the expense of industries already established.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member refer to the general question of subsidies, hut this is only the fulfilment of an obligation into which the House has already entered. The granting of this extra £450,000 has nothing to do with the principle of the subsidy; that the House has already agreed to.
    Mr. JONES: I beg your pardon if I dispute your ruling, to point out that this £450,000 is part of the money we have to pay for subsidies. It is only a development of the same case. I am pointing out to you that during what is called the off-season in the sugar-beet industry thousands of men in London, Liverpool, Greenock, and other parts of the country where the sugar-producing industry exists, live without subsidy and are thrown on the streets for six weeks at a time in order to pay for the subsidy to the sugar-beet industry. That is not fair play. If there is to be a subsidy, let there be one all round: but you simply subsidise one side and leave the other side to live on its own exertions.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again referring to a principle which the House has already accepted, that of subsidising the industry. He must deal with the £450,000 which is the result of the action of the House.
    Mr. JONES: I thank you. Captain FitzRoy, again, but I want to say that, as far as my own constituency is concerned, this has meant the shooting out of 800 workmen for six weeks periodically, because the factories cannot be kept
    970
    going owing to the competition of the subsidised factories. They are engaged in the production of sugar-beet from all parts of the Empire—"Buy British Goods"—
    Mr. HURD: Was that due to the coal stoppage?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. JONES: You know that the sugar-beet industry is a seasonal one, and that it is only at certain times of the year that the factories are able to operate. During that time they produced as much as ever they could. But then the workers in Silvertown and Liverpool and Greenock were thrown out of employment because of these subsidised factories. We have never asked for a subsidy. You are giving subsidies to these particular factories and in ten years from now 20 factories are going to be handed over to the subsidised companies. Twenty Government paid factories, and this £450,000 is simply a payment of the interest upon the capital they have invested in the subsidised factories. A subsidy was wrong in the mining industry. The Government denounced a subsidy to the mining industry up hill and down dale.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still touching on the general principle of a subsidy. That does not arise upon this Vote at all.
    Mr. JONES: Thank you very much. Having got in all I want to say, I thank you, Captain FitzRoy, for allowing me to say it. All I want to say is that those of us who represent constituencies in which the sugar industry has been built up, wish to protest as strongly as we can against this kind of subsidised competition. The men who have built up the sugar industry protest against being put on short time and stopped from working altogether. Knowing full well that the beet-sugar factories cannot be kept going without a Government subsidy they protest emphatically against being thrown out of work while other people are kept in work by Government money.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I hope the hon. Member will not expect me to follow him in his speech because I am afraid I should be ruled out of order if I did so. In fact, we find it rather harder to keep within the bounds of order this afternoon than a camel finds it to

    971
    go through the eye of a needle. But I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one or two questions in regard to the sugar beet industry. I understand that the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is because the quantitive results given by the sugar beet industry have been very much better than was estimated. I think all the Members of the Committee are very glad that that is the case, and it would seem also that this Estimate is due to the fact that the financial return given by the industry is also better than was expected, and, therefore, more and more firms are going into it and more and more land is coming under cultivation. Therefore, I think one is entitled to ask—and this backs up the question put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd)—the Minister of Agriculture if he can give us some details and some of the reasons that have increased the technical efficiency of this industry so that the Committee as a whole can make up their minds and ascertain whether or not, the experiment which the Government are making in giving this subsidy is likely to meet with success, because, in asking the Committee to pass this Vote, one has got to realise that this £450,000 is, of course, a part of a much bigger gamble. If that money is to be of value to the State, and we shall only be able to know whether or not it is of value to the State not this year but in some years to come, we must find out whether or not the industry is likely to be established upon an economic and self-supporting basis. It will help not only Members of this Committee but many agricultural interests outside to know what are the opinions of the Minister of Agriculture as to the technical improvement in the industry for the past year, and the possibility of that technical improvement being continued for the coming year. As I understand it at present, 40 per cent. of the sale price of the sugar is paid for by the subsidy—40 per cent. of the price received. Accordingly, therefore, before the industry can come on to a self-supporting basis without a subsidy the costs of production will have to be reduced by 40 per cent.
    Mr. BARNES: By half.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I under stand the average sale value of sugar is
    972
    some 30s. per cwt. and the subsidy is 19s. 6d. per cwt., and accordingly the figure one has to take is 49s. 6d., of which 19s. 6d. is about 40 per cent.
    Mr. BARNES: Then the duty must come off that.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is a matter which I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to clear up. As I understand it, 40 per cent. of the price received by the factories to-day is a grant-in-aid by way of a subsidy, and therefore, before the industry can be made really self-supporting without drawing upon the National Exchequer the costs of production will have to be reduced by 40 per cent.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I put it this way? The home-grown sugar is paying a duty. On the other hand, exactly the same preference is given to the factory, and the duty which is paid in the retail price of sugar at the factory is over 11s. as compared with the Excise Duty charged of something over 9s. The hon. Member wants to add another couple of shillings in order to get the actual ratio.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will have it worked out accurately, but it will be about 44 per cent, if what the hon. Member says is correct. We have heard this afternoon that the yield per acre has increased from 7 or 8 tons per acre up to 16 or 18 tons per acre in special cases. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture what is the average yield to-day over the whole country, what was the average yield over the whole country last year, and what is the average yield in Holland to-day? The second question which is of equal importance to the actual tonnage of beet per acre is the sucrose content of the beet, and I understand that has risen in this country to 17 per cent., whereas in Holland I understand it is something like 19 per cent There again I think I should be grateful if the Minister could say the average yield of the sucrose content over the whole country this year, and again what it is in Holland, because upon those two factors must depend the actual return which the farmer can get from growing his beet.

    973
    Then, again, it would be interesting to know whether there are any developments which are likely to give us in the near future a greater yield per acre of the sucrose content than has been obtained up to date in this country or abroad. The other question which seems to be of importance is the question of the factories themselves. As I understand it, the factories only run for four months in the year and, accordingly, therefore, the overhead charges of the factories are not only heavy—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going rather far from this Supplementary Estimate of £450,000. His argument seems to be more relevant to the main question than to this particular Supplementary Estimate.
    Lieutenant-Commander BURNEY: If I may be allowed to explain the matter, I was pointing out that the reason for the increase in the subsidy is because the industry has been more profitable and has, therefore, attracted more persons to work in the factories and more persons to grow sugar beet, and, therefore, I am asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he can indicate to the Committee whether it is the technical improvement which has given the industry this fillip and which has necessitated this Supplementary Estimate, and it was upon that basis that I asked for this information. If I am in order, I will proceed on those lines. I understand that there is a possibility of a considerable reduction in the cost of the extraction of sugar from the beet if a continuous process can be evolved and that would reduce the overhead charges at the factories to one-half of what they are now. I further understand that considerable experiments have been going on in that direction and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister can give us any information as to whether those experiments have been successful and what are the possibilities of obtaining a continuous process factory.
    Mr. GUINNESS: They are continuous process factories.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The Minister says that they are continuous process factories, but, as I understand it, they only operate four months of the year, because the beet has to be treated
    974
    within a few weeks of being gathered. There is a process which enables the beet to be cut and dried and then to be stored for a year or more, and a factory of one-third of the size only would be able to deal in those circumstances with the same output as an existing factory. That would necessarily reduce the capital cant of the factory, and the standing and running charges thereof, and it would get rid or the main difficulties of the labour situation. That is of great importance when we are dealing with the consideration of whether this £450,000 is likely to give useful results or not in putting the industry on a permanent economic basis and anything which can be done to throw light on that question must be of very considerable value not only to Members of this House but also to agricultural interests throughout the country. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to answer those questions, as I have put them with the idea of trying to assist the industry so far as is possible by letting persons know whether or not the establishment of beet growing gives indications becoming a permanent industry in the districts in which they live by pointing out what the yield per acre may be in the future.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: This Supplementary Estimate is for a very substantial sum of money, very nearly half a million, and I appreciate that it is only one of a number of such demands upon the taxpayer as we may expect from time to time under the Act of Parliament passed in 1925, because, if I understand rightly, Parliament has already been induced to agree, by the Statute of 1925, to a scheme under which it is contemplated that subsidies calculated on a particular basis will continue for no less than 10 years. Of course, I appreciate that in this Estimate to-day, the policy of that Statute is not open to discussion, but I am, I think, in order and it appears to me it is relevant to call attention to the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made when he presented this Supplementary Estimate to the Committee and recommended it to the Committee in his speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, in asking for this very large sum of money, said:
    "This money, which the Committee is asked to vote to-night, is evidence of the

    975
    success of a policy which was adopted with the general agreement of all parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1927; col. 844, Vol. 202.]
    It is true there were persons in all parts of the House who were in favour of the policy, but it is also true that there were critics to be found in more quarters of the House than one. But, I want to ask the Committee seriously to consider what this claim of the Minister of Agriculture really involves. He commends this demand on the British taxpayer to the Committee on the ground that it is a measure of the success of the policy of the Government in this matter. What an extraordinary thing at this time of the day to say to the British taxpayer "If I was only able to demand £5,000,000 my policy would be ten times more successful than if I only demanded £500,000." While it is true that Parliament in 1925 did pass the Act, at the same time it is entirely within the competence of the present Committee to decline to vote this very large additional sum.
    Parliament, no doubt, by passing the Act, must be taken to have expressed a policy which stretches into the future for ten years, but in the end the control of this matter rests with the House of Commons in Committee of Supply, and it is therefore by no means the case that this Committee is called upon to endorse the proposition that the more the Minister of Agriculture calls upon the House of Commons to make the taxpayers of the country raise in connection with beet sugar or any other subsidy the greater is the triumph of the Government's policy. I am quite unable to subscribe to that doctrine. It appears to me on the contrary that the prime consideration which shoal move Members of the House is to protect the British taxpayer against this additional demand which in the circumstances threatens to become larger and larger. I wonder very much whether in some future Committee' of Supply we shall have the Minister coming forward and saying he is now able to record a further triumph on the part of the Government and its policy, for he is now able not merely to demand £500,000 more than lie expected but £1,500,000. I am quite aware that as against this have to be set the proceeds of the Excise Duty on sugar and molasses
    976
    manufactured from beet grown in Great Britain, but I would ask the Committee to observe what the broad figures are as disclosed in the details of the present Estimate. If I follow it rightly, for the year 1926 we were originally presented with an Estimate for a subsidy of £2,750,000. The right hon. Gentleman now says "That is not enough and I want very nearly another £500,000, making £3,200,000." As against that apart, of course, from the undoubted effect of subsidising in this way certain beetroot factories, what the State is receiving under the head of Excise Duty is apparently just £500,000, so it appears that the Minister, when taking great. credit to himself and to the Government for being so successful, is, as a matter of fact taking up the position that we shall be able to judge how much more successful the policy of the Government is from period to period and from year to year in exact proportion to the additional amount of money the British taxpayer is asked to find.
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: if I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is that this business is a failure in proportion as it is expensive to the Brtish taxpayer. If that be so it is a success in proportion as it is the reverse, and not expensive to the British taxpayer. If that be so, you can measure the success of the scheme by the smallness of the amount of beetroot it produces. The right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity has surpassed itself. It appears to me taking things in a humble commonsense point of view, listening to the Minis the that his argument was that we might derive consolation from the fact that. our pockets were to be affected to the extent of another £500,000 by these successful results, that more acreage was under beetroot, that more beetroot was being produced per acre and that each little beetroot is containing more sugar than it used to. Anyone passing over the railway line in my part of the country and seeing the large trucks piled to the roof and over with this new product of our soil cannot but find that an encouraging sign. Since the Debate seems to be drawing towards a conclusion there are two observations that fall to be made on the form of the Estimate. In the first place this is the first Supplementary Estimate with which we arc dealing in which there has been an allocation from the Civil Contingencies

    977
    Fund. On such an occasion I think we have always to remind ourselves that this is the method by which the real limitations of a scheme of appropriation laid down by this House are relaxed in favour of a spending Department. It appears to me that in this case the allocations from the Civil Contingencies Fund were quite legitimate. There is no novelty in the purpose. It is only an increase in the amount for which the new funds are required. Nevertheless, it is a matter which requires the most careful examination on the part of the House, and I might perhaps ask the Minister what is the amount of these allocations, whether the whole amount is to be paid in the course of this year and whether the circumstance of the probable excess expenditure was taken into account in the preparation of the Supplementary Estimate at the earliest possible moment. There is another point to which attention should be called. This is another case in Which, owing to the manner in which we keep our accounts, the total of our Estimates is artificially swollen. We pay out a subsidy with one hand and collect the Excise Duty with the other. I think it right in this case to do so. It marks the temporary nature of the subsidy and keeps the machinery of the Excise in working order against the time when the subsidy will be discontinued. Nevertheless, the effect of this is to swell the Estimates this year by £1,000,000, though really that is set off by other amounts. The Committee will find encouragement there again, by realising that the net increase is not£450,000 but only £300,000.
    Mr. W. HIRST: I should like to ask what administrative oversight is exercised in the expenditure of this money. I look upon the figure of £500,000 as being a large one which will require more explanation than we had from the Minister yesterday. There was a statement in the Press two or three days ago regarding one of these sugar beet factories and the chairman, in presenting a statement to the meeting, furnished in glowing terms a report of the year's working of the factory. It seems to me the Minister would be well advised to take into account the prosperity of some of these places and I join with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in asking that if you are going to have a Supplementary Estimate you
    978
    should receive something with regard to Excise Duty on the sale of these two articles. It would be much better from a Departmental point of view to say that where a profit has been made you should ask for some contribution towards liquidating the amount of subsidy that is involved. I am definitely opposed to the spending of public money without having some proportionate amount of control over it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think this will involve an amendment of the Act of 1925 and it is therefore not in order.
    Mr. HIRST: If these firms get more prosperous as the years go on under the subsidy would it not be possible for the Minister to say to these people, "We came to your help in your time of need"? I am not complaining at all about that. I think we have a right to try to set up any department of agriculture which is going to be for the benefit and the well-being of the community as a whole, but when these firms get past the borderline of requiring the assistance of the State in their days of prosperity they might come to the aid of the Minister, not only the Agricultural Department, but the Treasury itself, which is perhaps equally important. A previous speaker suggested that the establishment of the sugar beet industry had put money into the pockets of the workers. Whether that is so or not we seem to be putting money into the pockets of those who are exercising administration over these Departments. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would help us in that direction, that when the time comes and prosperity is attained we shall get something from these people which will not only help to put the Minister of Agriculture in a really strong position in the country, but will place the Treasury in a healthy position also.
    Mr. GUINNESS: A great many questions have been asked. Some of them were ruled to be out of order, and I hope the Committee will understand that it is not altogether easy to answer a Debate which has caused so many breaches of the rules of the Chair. The Debate has, I think, taken a much wider scope than is really justified by the Estimate, because we are absolutely bound by legislation to honour the

    979
    agreement which was come to the year before last, on the strength of which capital was found for the factories and farmers were induced to make contracts for the growth of sugar beet for two and three years. That, I think, is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) when they suggest that, instead of coming to the House for more money, we ought to bring forward proposals to reduce the subsidy. I do not suppose those hon. Members themselves, when they realise what is involved, would seriously propose that such a contract, entered into with the general consent of all parties, should be cancelled in an arbitrary way as has been suggested to-day. A great risk was taken by those who put up the money for the factories, and I think it would be most unjust to deprive them of that subsidy upon which they have counted.
    Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman says there was a great risk. Has it proved a risk? Is it not a very profitable transaction?
    Mr. GUINNESS: A factory in my own constituency last year made a loss of something over £60,000. But this is the period of high subsidy, and after the forthcoming season they will have to rearrange their system so as to carry on with 6s. 6d. less in the way of subsidy than they are now receiving.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Would it be possible for any new factories to have the subsidy altered or reduced?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It certainly would not under the existing Act, because the Act offers this subsidy to all corners. I think it would be very much against the interests of the industry that we are trying to establish at this time, when we are hoping for some result of these experiments, if we were to make any change in the system. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) asked about what he caled the continuous process, meaning a process which would go on all the year. Generally speaking, in this connection, the application of the term "continuous process" is to a factory where they start with the beet and end with the refined
    980
    sugar, and in that sense all but one of our factories are working on continuous process. But the hon. Gentleman was using the term in the sense of a process which will dry the sugar at one time of the year and enable manufacturing to go on through the 12 months. As he knows, experiments have been made in that direction. The Government built a factory which has now been sold to a company that is working it. I think it is very important, from the point of view of the permanent production of beet sugar in this country that these small factories should be made possible. I, have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) about the hard case of the smallholder who cannot get a factory to take his beet. If we are to get a satisfactory method on the lines of the factory established at Eynsham, which takes the tonnage of 2,000 acres against the 10,000 acres of the large factory, that would enable new industries to be started in many areas which so far are not -able to make the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. PALING: Is the small factory referred to actually proceeding on the scale suggested on the continuous process through the year?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to intervene. Would this development make a difference to the subsidy? If not, it cannot be pursued here.
    Mr. GUINNESS: This new factory is receiving some of the additional money which is being voted, but it is only just lately that it has beer sold to a company and has entered into production. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and another hon. Member considered that we ought to re-open the question of assistance to new factories. The hon. Member who spoke last said that, seeing the profits that are made by the factories, we ought to take control of the profits and ensure the public getting a share. The public is getting its share of the advantage of creating this new industry at private risk. It is fully evident that those who are asked to put their money into this industry are not very well satisfied, at the present time, as to the probable results when the subsidy comes off, because only a week or two ago a new issue, was made and about 90 per cent. of the capital was left on the underwriters' hands. Judging by that

    981
    kind of evidence the State has not offered higher terms than were necessary to get this industry, involving a very large risk, established in this country. The right hon. Member for Norwich was concerned at the breach in the form of our financial business which was involved by borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund, owing to the looseness of our Estimate. I explained yesterday why it was that we cannot get to a closer figure. As a matter of fact about £300,000 comes from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and this is the first opportunity we have had for laying a Supplementary Estimate which will make good that deficiency. We shall, of course, do our best to get, the closest possible figure next year, but from the nature of the thing it is impossible, with the greatest precautions, to make a very close estimate.
    Mr. H. YOUNG: Will the whole amount that is borrowed be repaid this year?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, the whole wilt be repaid out of these votes which we are now taking. The right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) asked what was the effect on wages of this increased subsidy. Of course, it is impossible to trace any direct result. The argument was developed yesterday that in return for this subsidy the farmer ought to be in, a position to pay a higher standard wage than previously. The answer to that argument is that most of the work in connection with sugar beet is done on a piecework basis, and, apart from that, only a very small proportion of the total arable area is under sugar beet at one time. I have had figures taken out for 10 administrative counties which grow the heaviest proportion of the crop, and even there sugar beet is now only representing 2·1 per cent. of the cultivated area. It would be quite impossible to base on only a 50th part of your cultivated area any general increase in the standard wage on account of sugar beet. But hon. Members opposite can feel satisfied that labour is getting its share, because its workers are earning in the county I represent, where there is a great deal of sugar beet grown, from 40s. to 50s. a week in this seasonal work, and, as they know, that is very much in advance of the ordinary standard agricultural wage.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I take it that that is confined to the two operations of thinning and lifting.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is thinning, singling, hoeing and lifting. It is not only the casual worker who is paid at these time rates, but also the man permanently employed on the farm who is looking after the labour, and naturally enjoys the same advantages.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How many hours are they working for the 40s. to 50s.?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I really could not tell the hon. Member. The total varies. This did not happen in my own county, but I know that in the early days of the sugar beet, when it was being grown in Norfolk, the local workers did not feel inclined to work the long hours that were being worked by the Dutch who had come over in order to show them how to carry on this new industry. The Englishmen knocked off earlier. When they came back they found that the foreign workers had been continuing at work throughout Sunday. The English workers said: "It is a. monstrous thing that you have gone on working like this. We do not think it right to work on Sundays." Their answer was: "Almighty God lets the weeds grow on Sundays." In other countries where sugar beet is grown there is every reason for great pressure of work during the season. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was very gloomy as to the future of this industry. He was convinced that it would not be possible for the industry to stand any decrease in the subsidy, and said that any reduction in the farmers' receipts would inevitably be reflected in the wages. That was a very interesting statement from him, because I understood him to make the valuable admission that the farmers are now paying as much as they can afford out of this high subsidy. I think there is no doubt that, unless we can improve the methods of cultivation and hence the yield and the sugar content, the industry will not be able to carry on with the same prosperity to the three parties concerned.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. What I did say was that if the argument of the hon. and gallant Member whom I followed held good, what became of the claim that the development of the industry would mean higher wages?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member said that any reduction would mean an inevitable decrease in wages. I think he used the word "inevitably," for I took a very careful note of it. Surely that must mean that the farmer is paying all that he can pay now; otherwise a. reduction would not compel him to pay less.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: You will see what I said in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I believe that the increase in yield in sugar content which has shown itself may well make up for the loss of the subsidy next year, and may enable high wages to be paid, even as they are paid now in Canada. In Canada, wages are much higher than in this country, and that is possible there because the yield of sugar beet has reached 11 tons per acre on the average against the 8·7 tons per acre which we estimate will be achieved this year in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) asked about the yield in various years. In 1925 we got a yield of 7·8 tons per acre, and the yield for 1926 is estimated at 8·7 tons per acre. The sugar content last year was 16·36; this year we hope it will work out at about 17. He also asked about the yield in Holland. Holland happens to have the highest yield of any country, and in the last year for which the figures have been published they achieved 13·4 tons per acre. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke of a yield of 17 tons per acre, but I think he must have been confusing yield with sugar content.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: No, I merely repeated a statement made by an hon. and gallant Member on the other side, who gave figures of 14, 16 and even 18 tons.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think there must be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Don Valley asked whether this industry was causing any increase of employment. There again we have no accurate means of measuring, hut we do find, in the returns which are made on 4th June every year, that on the 4th June, 1926, there was an increase of 14,000 regular workers compared with 1925, and I do not think it is unreasonable to attribute a good deal of that advance to the new suger beet industry. Of course, sugar beet is only one crop in
    984
    the rotation and it is impossible accurately to estimate the amount of labour which may be due to it; but I think the hon. Member would be quite safe in saying that in the Eastern Counties and in the purely arable areas, a good deal of land would have gone out of cultivation and there would have been a great loss of employment had it not been for this new possibility in agriculture.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do the 14,000 extra workers in rural areas include the workmen employed in the beet factories?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, the figure refers to purely agricultural workers and is taken from the returns which are furnished every year by farmers. I was just coming to the question of the factories. The figures there should also be credited by the hon. Member to this new industry. According to our latest returns, over and above those who are employed in producing the crops, there are 6,500 employed in the factories, and of these about 700 are employed all the year round. The hon. Member also asked a question about the employment which was given in the engineering trade in producing machinery, and he asked whether we had made any exemptions from the rule laid down in the Act that 75 per cent, of the machinery had to be produced in this country. We have made no more exemptions. When the Act was passed, the hon. Member will recall that two factories were already planned, and in connection with these, the contracts for machinery had been placed, partially abroad. Owing to these contracts, the total of British machinery was 77 per cent. of the whole, but if you exclude these two factories, you will find that in the 10 factories which have been erected under the subsidy, the amount of British-made machinery is 89 per cent. of the whole.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with engineering, and, I think, the figures are satisfactory, but how is it that Mr. Van Rossum and his friends are buying all their jute bags abroad?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have no control over them whatever.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: You give them the subsidy.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We do not give them the subsidy. Parliament entered into a contract that, under certain conditions, a subsidy would be paid. There was nothing in that contract about where any of the necessities of the industry, apart from the machinery, should be bought, and we have no control whatever over any of the commercial operations of the factories, other than the purchase of machinery.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not right to say also that firms making agricultural implements have developed a great deal of new work owing to this industry, and that there has been a certain increase of employment in that respect?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is no doubt that there has been an increased demand for agricultural implements owing to this new industry. I was asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley whether I could say how far research had been able to improve the crop, and how I could account for the very bad result of only seven tons per acre at the start as compared with eight tons per acre at the present time—not 17 tons as was suggested. I think the fact of that improvement having been possible on the first results, does not indicate that any blame should be placed on the farmers in regard to their first attempt. When you proceed to grow a new crop in this country you have to discover by experiment the right time to sow it, the method of drilling the crop, exactly when it should be singled, and when it should be lifted. You have to find out on what soils it is best to grow it, and what fertiliser is necessary. It would be absolutely unfair to blame the farmers for not knowing all this before they had an opportunity of trying the crop. Without a subsidy to help him, the farmer obviously was not in a position to grow this crop or make the necessary experiment.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk asked whether the education efforts associated with this subsidy were having satisfactory results. I think I have dealt with the question on the producing side, but I must say that, so far, I do not think the farmer is getting the full benefit which he might from the consumption of by-products. It takes
    986
    a little time to re-organise the economy of a farm, and there is no doubt that we have not, up to the present, been able to adapt agriculture to the sugar-beet industry in this country in quite the same way as it has been done abroad. In foreign countries, they bring the sugar-beet back to the land. They buy the pulp at a preferential rate, and feed it to their stock. In this country that system has not been fully established, and though the factories offer the pulp at a preferential rate, I am sorry to say a large amount has been exported, because the farmers have not yet been able to consume it on the farms, and, in the same way, I hope we shall get better results when the farmers realise its value as a foodstuff.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be getting away from the Estimate.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I was answering points which were raised in the course of the Debate, but I suppose I had better not stray further from the straight path. I am sure, in view of the sympathetic way in which the Committee have received this Estimate, that it is realised that we are establishing a valuable industry. We must all regret, especially at this time, any increased demand upon the British taxpayer, but I think in this case we are getting a valuable return for our money.
    Mr. AMMON: I should like to clear up the point as to the figures of production which were mentioned just now. The right hon. Gentleman said the figure should be eight tons instead of the 14 tons previously mentioned. Is that correct? An hon. and gallant Member on the other side specifically mentioned a figure of from 14 to 18 tons, and when challenged from this side, he said that was yield.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should also like to have this matter cleared up because the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) did make a statement that, whereas previously there was a yield of seven tons per acre, there were in some cases, he asserted, yields of 14, 16 and even 18 tons. It may well be, of course, that the average yield is 8 tons, and that he was referring to an isolated case here and there.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The average yield is eight tons. The average yield in Holland which is the highest known was 13·4 two years ago.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that yields of 14 or 16 tons have been produced in any part?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would not like to say what is the record yield. I think I may have, somewhere, figures as to the best yield reached this year.
    Mr. KELLY: The Minister in dealing with the factories did not give us any idea as to how much of this supplementary sum is being devoted to subsiding the factories and how much is being given to the farmers. I would also like to know why people who might be employed in the factories are excluded by reason of the fact that many of the workers in the factories are employed for 12 hours and more on end, without any break, and without any opportunity for a meal. They have to snatch occasional moments in order to get a bite to eat whilst engaged in these factories in this way. One cannot understand why an industry which is subsidised—I think that was a mistake, but I would not be allowed to proceed further on that point—is unable to provide better conditions of working. Why is it necessary to employ people for 12 hours on end when we have so many unemployed? Another question I should like to ask is, why these factories should operate under a system which refuses to take into employment people classed as agricultural workers Surely in connection with the subsidised industry the agricultural workers in the district should have the opportunity of entering the factories.
    6.0 p.m.
    The Minister made great play with a statement of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) to the effect that if the subsidy were reduced, the farmer would look towards wages in order to recoup himself. The Minister deduced from that statement that the farmer is paying the maximum at present out of his receipts. I do not think such a conclusion is justified. Employers, including farmers, always look to wages in order to recoup themselves if they think their profits are being interfered with, and the farmers are not paying the maxi-
    988
    mum at the present time. I would ask why it is that with all this assistance we are giving to this industry the conditions are so bad, und the Minister is not endeavouring to make them better.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I would like to ask the Minister a question on a point on which he gave partly an answer, but not, in my view, sufficient. He has given figures relating to the average tonnage of this beet crop, and he has also stated that the sugar content in the year 1926 shows a satisfactory increase over that of 1925. I want to ask him whether his advisers and reporters all over the country are satisfied that this increase is clue to better methods of cultivation and more knowledge of the technique, or whether it is rather due to the very much better climatic conditions that we have had during the past year. My recollection is that all the root crops have, on the whole, shown a very considerable increase. I know the climatic conditions have been favourable to the growth of all root crops, and I further know that during the autumn there has been a very great absence of frost, and very much less than we have usually had at that time of the year.
    I am an intense supporter of the Ministry and the Government in this experiment. I agree with what, I think. was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G Courthope), that it is in the growth of sugar beet that the arable farmer has one ray of hope in a very disastrous period put before him, but having regard to the large increase of the subsidy that is asked for I want to say a few words. I do not think it is any use disguising the figures from the Committee. I thought myself—I hope I am not right in this—that there was some fallacy in the deduction made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), in deducting Excise Duty from the sum that is being asked for as a subsidy, because it seems to me that if we did not produce sugar here, we should import it, and the State would get the Customs Duty in lieu of the Sugar Duty. Therefore, we have to face the fact—and there is no use in shutting our eyes to it—that we are voting a subsidy of £3,200,000 for the establishment of this industry, and I would thank the Ministry and the Committee for this great encouragement given to agriculture

    989
    in the establishment of this industry which, if successful, will have a permanent advantage to agricultural districts beyond the conception of the ordinary person amongst us.
    The only other question I should like to ask is this: In order to succeed in the establishment of this industry and to get the full value of this increased subsidy, is there any condition made on the factory owners that, while the subsidy is high in these early years, sufficient should be set aside for the reduction of their capital account, so that when the subsidy diminishes, and ultimately disappears, the factory owners shall be in a position to run their factories with practically no capital costs at all? If that be so, I, for one, see no objection to voting this increased subsidy, because I believe that by that means the industry has more than a fair chance of being successfully established, and I think the Committee may vote this increased subsidy with a light heart, knowing that the ultimate good is going to be so great.
    Mr. GUINNESS Mr. GUINNESS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. RILEY: In view of the large amount of this Supplementary Estimate, I think it would be more to the point if the Minister had given us a. little information as to the real reasons for his asking for this additional £450,000. It is quite true that in his statement yesterday he did give one or two general reasons as to why he is now asking for this extra money, hut I submit that in view of the fact that when we were entitled to discuss the policy upon which this Supplementary Estimate is based, we were only asked to consent to the payment of £2,750,000, and that we are not now entitled, in voting the £450,000, to call in question the main policy, we are entitled to a full explanation of the real reasons which have led to this enormous addition to the Estimate, which represents, as a matter of fact, an increase of 15 per cent. upon the original Estimate. In particular, we want to know the directions in which the additional money is required, In his statement yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Besides the difficulty of estimating the acreage, we have this year achieved a much
    990
    greater yield—about an extra ton per acre on 130,000 acres under beet cultivation as compared with last year."
    That accounts for some part of the increase. He went on to say:
    "In addition to that, the demand of the factories on the Vote has been increased by the better sugar content of the crop, which this year is estimated at about 17 per cent. as against 16.3 last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1927; col. 843, Vol. 202.]
    It is true there are two general directions there in which an account is given for the extra money, but it would be more interesting to the Committee if the Minister had told us what the acreage is and what was the amount of the increase due to the increased acreage and to the increased yield.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that, owing to the larger yield of the crop this year, next year we may presumably, with good weather, hope for a further increase. The present accommodation offered by the sugar beet factories for handling the sugar beets will not then be adequate, and we shall have to provide, and immediately, more new factories to deal with the increased crop which we may reasonably expect
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see what that has to do with the increase for the year ending on the 31st March next.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I was trying to show that the farmer is the man whom we are trying to benefit more than any other by this subsidy, and if he and the smallholder are in the position of having a large stock of roots on hand which are not able to be absorbed by the factories, it is going to he very serious from the arable farmers' point of view.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order on the main Vote, but not on a Supplementary Estimate.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: From the point of view of the £450,000 that we are asked to vote to-day, I, personally, feel that we ought to be very gratified at the results that have been achieved, and had it been more we should not have grudged it. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), in his remarks on the subject, seemed to me to show a complete disregard for the interests of the persons whom we are out to benefit, and if he was voicing the policy

    991
    of his party, who are putting forward an agricultural policy to help the farmer, I am sure there must have been some mistake in his remarks. At any rate, I feel that the farmers of the country are very grateful to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Government for the provision of this extra money during a very bad year for the other crops that the arable farmer produces. It has been the one good thing that the arable farmer has been able to handle this year, and the small price that he has been able to get for his other crops has been in some way compensated for by the provision of this extra money which we are asked to vote to-day.
    Mr. PALING: The Minister referred to the continuous process, but I think his answer was quite unsatisfactory. I think he said that a certain small factory had been sold to certain people, but if I gathered his answer aright, it was being run, not on the lines of the continuous process, but merely on the lines raised by an hon. Member opposite, of a small factory—
    Mr. GUINNESS: May I make that plain? The British rights in the de Vecchis process were presented to the Government. Experiments on this system have been carried out by Professor Owen at, the School of Agricultural Engineering at Oxford. The de Vecchis process was also tested at a small scale factory built by the Government at Eynsham, The experiments having been concluded, that factory has now been sold to a company formed to manufacture sugar by a new process. The Eynsham factory is not working on the original de Vecchis process but is using additional discoveries which Dr. Owen has recently made at Oxford. I understand they are worked by what is known as a lixiviation process, which is in some way to dissolve the sugar out from the dried beet in contrast to the ordinary diffusion process, which is to boil the sugar out of the wet roots. But both processes are, I believe, continuous in the ordinary sense of the term. They begin with the beetroot, and they produce fully refined sugar.
    Mr. PALING: I understand that better now, but I wanted to ask whether there was any research work going on in the direction indicated by the hon.
    992
    Member who put the point. He suggested that there was a possibility of a process being found for cutting and drying the beet, which would have enabled the factory to be carried on all the year round. It is understood at present that a beet factory works for only about four months out of the year. These factories are very costly, and everybody must know that a huge amount of capital is represented by one of these factories, so that for a factory to be standing idle for eight months out. of the year is a very costly process, and if anything could be devised which would make it a continuous process and keep the factory in operation all the year round, the overhead costs must come down tremendously, and that would he a great step forward towards making this business economically sound. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the people who are receiving the subsidy, or the farmers, or the Government, or anybody concerned, are making any efforts in this direction, and whether any research work is being carried on, so that in time we may achieve the possibility of factories working for 12 months, and so put them on an economic basis. At present, in spite of the success, the business does not. seem as if it will be economic when the subsidy is finished. The point raised this afternoon is very interesting and the idea of netting 12 months continuous work, would seem to he the best line to take.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the report that has been published of the researches carried out by Professor Owen. Obviously, it would not be right to express any opinion as to the prospect of the success of that process until it has been tried on a larger scale.
    Mr. HARDIE: I would like to put one or two questions with regard to the additional sum required of £450,000. I wonder how much of that sum is required to attain the necessary efficiency in this new industry. I am quite well aware that in a new industry much can be learned, but I want the Minister to tell me whether there has been included anything which we or other countries already know. The question of fertilisers came up to-day. Perhaps some of this £450,000 is due to the fact that we have not gone as a nation should go, when spending

    993
    money like this, into the scientific side of beet production. Have those in charge taken as the basis an analysis of the ground and atmospheric conditions. It is quite easy for the chemist to add extra moisture, and to make up for the extra sunshine needed, and so get down to a basis. Possibly a goad deal of this money could have been saved if we had gone into the question of fertilisers. I have been trying since the Session opened to find out what is the amount of fertilisers used in this country in a general way. I can get no information, and by that I mean I cannot get the slightest information as to what is the basis per acre of fertilisers, natural or artificial. There is no evidence given anywhere.
    If we are to have a scientific basis of industry, all these things should be tabulated, so that we could know exactly what we were doing. The analysis of a piece of ground does not cost very much. We have the figures from other countries, and it is the continuous laziness of the. British mind in this connection which prevents the application of these things. I would like the Minister to say whether any of these steps have been taken. Have you taken the moisture content over a year in British soil growing beet and compared it with that of other countries, and have you tried to find out whether the ratio of sunshine has anything to do with the growing of beet and the sugar content? It does not follow that when you grow a big beet you get more sugar. It is rather the quality of growth you want to see. The Government have got to go in for creative chemistry, because only in that way are you going to increase the production of any soil. I want to see the sugar subsidy used not merely for the purposes of sugar and molasses. Does this subsidy only go from the land where the beet is grown to molasses? I am quite clear in my mind that before this became an Act of Parliament we were told that the sugar refinery factory was not going to stop at molasses, and that from molasses we were going to take industrial alcohol and also a lower grade of sugar. Is any part of that subsidy, and any part of this £450,000, to go beyond the ground where the beet is grown and molasses?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The subsidy is paid either on sugar in varying degrees of
    994
    polarisation, or, if they choose, it can be paid on the molasses as an alternative.
    Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but will you answer my question as to whether there is anything paid by way of subsidy for anything beyond the molasses stager You say you pay on the lower grade sugar.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be outside the Vote. I imagine it would be the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to call attention to it if that were done. Under this Vote the money can only be spent on sugar and molasses.
    Mr. HARDIE: The point I wished to make was that there had been neglect in these other matters, and I wanted to see whether there had been neglect in this respect. I hope the Minister, if he cannot do it to-day, will be able to give us some information as to whether any of these things have been really done, because it is no use talking about smallholders doing this. What they are doing, they are doing absolutely in the dark. The smallholder gets a piece of land here and there, and it does not follow that that land will be suitable. You may have a man wasting his time, whereas, if you got all the information, it would be infinitely better, and would make for the successful growing of beet.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    FORESTRY COMMISSION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund."
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I think this is an occasion when the Committee might have some more lenient Rules as far as afforestation is concerned, because we cannot get a discussion upon afforestation in this House. If we are to be limited by the ordinary Rules in this Debate, then the whole policy of the Forestry Commission and the practical part of their work will escape criticism and the attention of this House. This Supplementary Vote we are asked to discuss to-day is under the control of eight nominated persons, but the expenditure is not to be accounted for in detail.
    The CHAIRMAN: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but I regret it is not possible to raise these questions now. He can raise them on the main Vote by inducing the proper authorities to get the main Vote put down on an allotted day. It is not permissible, however, to go over the whole ground on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not attempt to ask you to allow me to go over the whole operations of the Forestry Commission, but I was about to draw attention to the Note appended to the Supplementary Estimate. It says:
    "The expenditure out of this Grant will be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General."
    It is not to be accounted for in detail to this Committee as other accounts have been, and there is nobody in this House capable of answering for 'the Forestry Commission on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot answer. He knows nothing whatever about their operations. When their witnesses come before the Committee on Public Accounts, they intimate, quite rightly, that they are not responsible to anyone in this House. Desiring to abide by your ruling as closely as I can, I trust you will turn a blind eye if I stray in a minute degree beyond the Rules.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot make a precedent.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I support this Vote, and trust I am in order in giving reasons why I support it. I will not stray as far as to give reasons why I think, in the national interest, it ought to be very much larger, and why, in the national interest, the Government are not doing their duty in bringing pressure to bear upon the Forestry Commission to conduct forestry operations on a very much larger scale, and on a basis which can be criticised in this House. Let me quote, if I may, two sentences from the "Times" of the 11th January, which, I think, quite relevant to this discussion:
    "The need for a consistent and progressive policy of afforestation in Great Britain itself is particularly urgent, more urgent even than it was when the Acland Committee presented their Report in 1918. This once well-wooded land, which to-day draws something like nine-tenths of its
    996
    timber supply from abroad, has less forest land per head of its population than any other country in Europe except Portugal. On the Continent timber is grown on one-third of the total land area; in Great Britain the proportion is only about 4 per cent."
    The article proceeds to say that the operations of the Forestry Commission in this country are to all intents and purpose negligible. For these negligible operations, the country is being called upon to pay something like £500,000 a year.
    The CHAIRMAN: Again I sympathise with the hon. Member, but I would point out that the Committee is not being asked now for more than £50,000, which is for certain specified items, which are put down on the Paper, and the discussion must be confined to those items.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps you could enlighten me, Sir? Could you inform me where this £50,000 is specified? The details are not specified in the Supplementary Estimate, but it is specifically declared that these details are to be accounted for to the Controller and Auditor-General, and this House is deliberately precluded from getting information.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is not true. Perhaps the hen Member is being misled in his reading of the note in the middle of page 9. In this case, an unexpended balance can be carried over from the 31st of Match to the following financial year, but the items have to be specified precisely and have to be audited by the Controller at d Auditor-General. The particular items in this case are a sum of £7,825 for forestry operations and £6,000 for cottages and outbuildings for forest-workers' holdings. Those sums, added to the deficiency in prospective receipts, make £84,740 and the carry over from last year under this particular system was something over £15,000, which makes £50,000 The explanation is given on page 10.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I say that there is no one in this House who can answer questions upon these figures? The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has nothing whatever to do with it. There is no Minister of the Crown responsible to this House for the operations of the Forestry Commission. We can get no information, we can never raise a debate

    997
    upon it, and a great service, which in every other country in Europe except Portugal, and most other countries in the world, is a progressive service in face of a world famine of timber, and is employing large and ever larger quantities of labour, is threatened with being starved in this country. Leaving that alone, I will endeavour to ask some questions, though I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer them, because he has not got the machinery at his disposal to enable him to do so. All I can do to keep within the Rules of Order is to continue asking a series of questions which I know will never be answered. Seeing that an additional sum of £6,000 is required for cottages, outbuildings, etc., for forest-workers holdings, I should like to ask for how many extra persons this is going to provide forest holdings. Each holding last year cost about £529, including outbuildings, and as the total amount in the Appendix to the original Estimate is £67,000, may we take it that all that is done by this great scheme of the Forestry Commissioners for providing small holdings for men to work on part of the year while they are earning wages in the forest for the rest of the year is to provide for the magnificent number of 134? In India there are 6,000,000 human beings making a livelihood out of the timber forests etc.; in Germany there are over 1,000,000—in Bavaria alone 75,000—and in one Department of France over 30,000—not touching subsidiary industries at all. Here is a Supplementary Estimate asking for an additional £6,000 towards a total of £67,000 which is asked for to bring Great Britain up to the scratch. I do not know whether I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under heading "E," it is proposed to deal with peat lands. Will he tell us if the Forestry Commission have made any investigations as to the possible profits to be made from the afforestation of peat land? Is it the case, for example, that on 10,000 acres of peat land we could employ immediately 5,000 men, on draining, fencing, etc.?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to ask whether this Supplementary Estimate applies to peat lands, but he is not entitled to propose a scheme of afforestation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I take it I am entitled to ask if this heading "E" deals with afforestation of peat land,, and if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the House any indication of the numbers of extra men who are, or could be, employed in afforesting these peat lands; and, if so, what is the profit that the Forestry Commission expect to make at the end of 40 years when these soft woods will become available for sale? Can he tell us what wages are paid to foresters? Is it the case that it is 37s. a week? Is it the case that it kept so low as 37s. because the neighbouring landowners do not want it raised, seeing that if the wages paid by the Forestry Commission were raised the rate of wages on the estates of the private landowners would be driven up? Is it the case that foremen left in charge of important schemes involving thousands of pounds of public money are rewarded with the magnificent wage of 42s. a week, and is not that also due to the fact that private landowners are dominating the scheme? Is it not the case that out of the eight commissars six are private landlords, that they are all nominated, and that two of them are paid, one getting £1,650—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that that must be raised on the main Estimate; or it could be raised on the Forestry Bill, if it be brought forward.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: There is a great virtue in that "if." That Forestry Bill has been on the Order Paper for a year and a half, and some of us have sat patiently waiting night after night to get at it, but the Government have never yet dared to bring it forward for discussion in this House. I do not wish to go any further, but I know perfectly well that within the Regulations under which this discussion is conducted, must be conducted, we can get nothing done, that this is a farce, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer, and that nobody need ask questions because they will not get an answer, and that there will be no means by which this House can ever discuss afforestation until the Forestry Commission are brought directly under the Government of the day, as in the case of every other spending Department. I, for one, object to any Department which is spending public

    999
    money being a nominated body and out-with the control of this House, and I hope this is the last time an attempt will be made to bring forward an Estimate of this kind in this way.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am, of course, smarting under the strictures of the hon. Member, but it is a great consolation to me to hear from him that though he has put his questions to me he does not anticipate any answer on my part, and has indicated that there is no obligation upon me to answer. What the hon. Gentleman has really complained of is not a matter for which either I or the present Government are in any way responsible. What he has really been complaining of is the constitution of the Forestry Commission. I do not want to follow the hon. Member in getting out of order, but perhaps I may give this much explanation. Whether it is a bad or a good thing that the Forestry Commission should be as it is, the fact is that the deliberate work of Parliament made it so. I can remember the Debates at the time. I have no particular opinion on the subject myself, but I remember the view being put forward, I think with very general consent, that in establishing this new body of Forestry Commissioners to carry out afforestation it was a very desirable thing to keep them outside party politics. For that reason, the Parliament of that day deliberately decided that there should be no Minister in this House directly responsible for the Forestry Commission itself, but that it should be an extra-Parliamentary body. My only duty and, as the hon. Gentleman has said quite truly, my only power is to explain the finance, and I am restricted to a very much narrower field than the finance of the Commission, being limited strictly to the reasons for the additional money now asked for in this Supplementary Estimate.
    This Estimate has this much in common with the one we have just discussed about sugar beet, that in forestry operations it is extremely hard to forecast exactly the amount of money required from year to year. Take this £50,000. As you, Sir have already explained to the hon. Member, part of this sum arises from the fact that the unexpended balance at the end of the
    1000
    year is not surrendered but is carried on to the next year, and becomes part of the resources of the Commission for the following year. Every year a forecast has to be made of the amount of money which will be available after the beginning of the new financial year for the operations of the succeeding year. It is not always a very easy thing to forecast, because it happens occasionally, as it happened this year, that, after the Estimates are made up in the Autumn, favourable opportunities for purchasing suitable land for afforestation, which had not been anticipated, present themselves in the Winter following the framing of the Estimates. Then the Forestry Commission spent the money which was at their disposal but which they did not anticipate would be spent during those months, and the consequence of that was there was a smaller sum to carry forward into the following year and to reduce the amount that was anticipated by £15,260 or thereabouts. That has to be made good before the end of the present year, and forms part of this Supplementary Estimate. There is a further sum of £7,825 for forestry operations. The Committee may ask why those items come in now. One reason is that it is very difficult to forecast, because forestry operations, like agriculture, depend to a very great extent upon the weather. It so happens that this Estimate was formed with the intention of being as accurate as possible, and it may be that we cut the Estimate a little bit too fine and did not leave enough margin for contingencies. Bad weather supervened in the Autumn in the North of Scotland, and the favourable conditions which had been anticipated when the Estimate was formed were not realised, and consequently a larger sum is required for the current year.
    Another reason is that in regard to the estates which are purchased we had an estimate of the amount of land required for forestry purposes during the year. Of course, we had to anticipate the proportion of that land which would be required for afforestation, and that land had to be acquired so as to provide a certain proportion of cultivable land upon which houses and buildings could be erected for the convenience of those employed in the industry. The estates acquired during the year include a larger

    1001
    proportion of land suitable for workers' holdings than was anticipated, and such land is more expensive than land for afforestation. This means that a larger sum was required than was anticipated when the original Estimate was framed and put forward.
    In addition, there is a serious deficit in the receipts which were anticipated on the other side of the account and that, of course, goes to swell the amount which is required to make good the deficit of the present financial year. First of all, I should explain that in regard to large portions of this forest land it is the practice of the Commission to realise the livestock as soon as possible, and they have to make the best bargain they can. It so happened that there was a great slump in sheep prices, with the consequence that there was more than £8,000 less realised by the sale of sheep stock in Scotland than was anticipated. There is a still larger sum required for the sale of forest produce. This is one more illustration of the far-reaching consequences of the industrial disturbance of last autumn, because a very large portion of the forest produce is pit props; and in consequence of the temporary slump in the trade for pit props we had to make good some £10,000 that otherwise would have been realised by the sale of timber.
    There is one other item which is still more directly attributable to the same source, and it is the sum of £2,700 for rents to make good the deficiency in regard to the reduced receipts from mining royalties in the Dean Forest, which otherwise would have come into the coffers of the Forestry Commission, but under the unfortunate circumstances of last autumn they were deprived of them. In spite of the deplorable ignorance which has been alleged in regard to this Vote, I hope I have been able to give to the Committee in rough outline the reasons why we are asking for this £50,000. I believe hon. Members opposite have not the slightest desire to hamper the operations of the Forestry Commission, and I hope they will let me have this Vote without a prolonged discussion.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I am glad the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been able to answer some of the questions which are interesting not only to hon. Members on this side, but also to hon. Members opposite. I believe hon. Mem-
    1002
    bers who are supporters of the Government, and who are members of the Public Accounts Committee, will heartily reecho the remarks made by the first speaker on this side of the Committee, in regard to this subject, because it has come to be regarded as a very serious matter indeed that the Forestry Commission should be allowed to go on as it has done in past years. My first question is in regard to the £7,825, the detail., of Which appear on page 10 of the Supplementary Estimates. So far as I can understand that figure, it represents the total cost of growing timber. I do not want to criticise the figure, but I respectfully suggest to the Financial Secretary and his Department that it would be very much more convenient if it could be split up so that we could know exactly the cost of labour and other things, including material.
    I should like to reinforce what has been said with regard to the wages of the foresters. If the wage of 37s. per week is being paid to these men by the Commission, I submit that that is open to very serious criticism, and should he dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I understand from the statement of one of the Commissioners that the Forestry Commission are pursuing, what they term, "a policy on an expanding basis." I am not at all satisfied wait the explanation which has been given as to what appears likely to take place, and I shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to obtain figures to show how many forests have been commenced since the Estimate was prepared, and what acreage has been added to the existing forests since the same date. There is a further point with regard to Section L which I should like to raise, and it is as to the number of forest workers' holdings for which land has been acquired, and also the average cost per acre of the land obtained for those holdings as distinguished from land obtained for planting as forests.
    I hope, in regard to what I am going to say about the general management of the Commission, that I shall not be anticipating something which would come far more forcibly from those sitting on the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) has put some telling questions on this question to one or the Commissioners, and I

    1003
    gather from the replies he received that the Chief Commissioner is frequently away from the duties for which he is paid, for as much as two months at a time, and the Commissioner who was cross-examined suggested that, although he received a salary as a Commissioner, if he cared to absent himself for six months no one in this House had the slightest ground to criticise him. I do not want to make more out of this incident than can properly be made, but I say quite definitely that not only the hon. Member for Ilford, to whom I have referred, but colleagues of his who sit with him on the Public Accounts Committee, are dissatisfied with the state of affairs revealed in that cross-examination. I am glad this Estimate has given me the opportunity of ventilating this serious complaint.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite realise that this is not the proper opportunity to discuss the various points hinted at by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on both sides of the Committee. I am rather sorry for that, because I do not know any other subject which so directly affects the rural parts of this country as this question of afforestation. I am satisfied in my own mind that this Supplementary Estimate will be passed unanimously by this Committee. I do not agree with the statement that the Afforestation Department of this country is negligent or that its work is negligible. It is a new Department, and I think it is safe to say that no Department of this kind has done its work so well or so efficiently as this particular Department. My objection is that it is not large enough in its extent, and I cannot think of any Estimate we could pass that could be more useful than one to enable the Forestry Commission to carry on its work more extensively in the rural parts of this country. I listened to what the Financial Secretary said, and nobody could have performed his task with greater ease or eloquence or accuracy. He very properly said that he was not the person from whom we could expect to get the sort of information that we, who are keen on this afforestation problem, would like to be given. I should like to see, not only the Minister of Agriculture on the Front Bench, but also the Secretary of
    1004
    State for Scotland. There is not a single Member, representing a rural constituency, who is not keenly anxious to get first-hand information with regard to an Estimate of this kind. It is true there are very strict limits imposed upon us, but, within such limits we are, surely, entitled to get information which cannot possibly be in the possession of the Treasury. Therefore, I excuse my right hon. Friend because he was not able to give us such information as we should like.
    I should like to ask, for example, where are those workers' dwellings which are referred to on page 10 of the Estimates. How many of them are there? and what is their cost? What was the purchase price of the land upon which they are situated? I should also like to ask how much of this money is going to be allocated to Scotland and what proportion to England. I should like to ask a good many more questions of that kind, but I think it would be useless to ask my right hon. Friend, and I would suggest that on all occasions such as this of an Estimate of this kind, which directly affects the Departments concerned, the burden should not be borne, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but that he should have by his side representatives of the other Departments who can give to Members of the House the information which we desire.
    I should like to supplement the questions which were asked by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). We read of new forests being purchased. Are they purchasing any forests in the northern parts of Scotland, and, if so, are they working in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture, because we came to the conclusion long ago that it is no good expending money in the purchase of forests unless you can do it in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture, who are in charge of the agricultural districts. Take a man who is settled on the land in Scotland. I think I am quite within the limits of order in discussing this on account of one or two items mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates. There is little use in placing men on the land in parts of northern Scotland unless and until you provide them with a subsidiary occupation, and the experts, will tell you, and

    1005
    with truth, that there is no subsidiary occupation in the world so useful or so permanent or so durable in its value and extent as afforestation.
    There are times, as everybody familiar with the country districts knows, when the smallholder is not able to work because of climatic conditions, when the harvest and seed times are finished. What more suitable occupation is there in view of the climatic conditions and land conditions than the subsidiary occupation of afforestation? Consequently, I should like to have seen the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place. I see the Under-Secretary is there, and perhaps he will be able to give an answer to some of the questions which have been asked. I for one support this Estimate. It will be noticed, as it deserves to be, that almost half the money which is wanted was lost by the Forestry Commission through no fault of their own, but owing to the declining rents and sales due to the mining stoppage. Accordingly, though on an estimate of this kind we are not able to express to the full our views on a subject which is so engrossingly interesting to those of us who have knowledge of rural conditions in this country, I think that the Committee would do well to Jet the estimate pass.
    Mr. H. YOUNG: I do not want to take the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the mysteries of forestry, but to deal only with a matter which lies strictly within his own province, and which he alone can answer. Let me say, to avoid misconception, that I am a warm supporter of the general purpose of the Vote and would indeed gladly vote more money for forestry under proper control of Parliament. We know, however, that there is this question of the representation of the Forestry Commission in this House. I can say that without the least trace of disrespect to the most distinguished member of that Commission who has so often greatly assisted the House on former occasions. The presence of a member of the Commission is a different matter from the presence of a responsible Minister. I want to give an instance of the little difficulties which it causes, from a phrase in this Supplementary Estimate, which I may say causes me the deepest apprehension as to the misconception of proper Parliamentary control over this expenditure. If I may ask the Financial
    1006
    Secretary to turn to page 10, and to look at Paragraph 3—Forestry operations—he will find there this sentence, which apparently is intended to provide an adequate reason for the over-spending of the Estimate—
    "The provision in the original Estimate will prove insufficient to complete the planting programme."
    I ask the Committee to agree with me and I think I may ask the Financial Secretary to agree, that this implies a most extraordinary misconception of the nature of Parliamentary control over expenditure. I want him to agree to this proposition, that this House does not vote a planting programme but votes money. If he will look at the original Estimate, he will find no planting programme. There is a sum of money for specific purposes. I do not know where to find the planting programme of the Forestry Commissioners. I imagine, if one wanted to find it anywhere, it would be in their Report, but the House does not vote the Report of the Forestry Commissioners. The House votes specific sums, with instructions fixing strict limitations for the year upon the spending Department. If one may compare great things with small, and compare the Forestry Commission with the Admiralty, the Admiralty comes before this House, it is true, with a complete and detailed programme for the year, but this House does not vote it. It does not vote ships, but sums of money. What would the Committee have thought if the Admiralty came to the House for £20,000,000 extra and gave as an excuse: "Oh, we were unable to complete our programme within the sums you voted." It is no less a gross misconception of the nature of Parliamentary control, as it appears to me, that which is to be found in this phrase of the Forestry Commission. May we press the Financial Secretary to impress on the Forestry Commission that a programme of planting has no authority from this House, that the sole and sufficient authority from this House is the voting of sums of money, and that they are bound to keep within the limits of those sums.
    Major GLYN: There is one point in connection with the cottages and buildings to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Glentleman. I am acquainted with some of the opera-

    1007
    tions of the Forestry Commission in Scotland. There they have been importing Belgian tiles, and they have been putting them on the buildings at the same time as the Empire Marketing Board has been asking everybody to buy British goods. I do think that is a matter upon which, if the Commissioners were under the direct control of this House, we should have something to say and to insist. Not. only that, but there was a very severe gale only three weeks ago last Friday, and these Belgian tiles were stripped off the roofs wholesale, and the wretched people were left with nothing but the stars above. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for that, but the only occasion when one can draw attention to it seems to be this Vote of £6,000 which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has calculated will house 134 workers. It is to be hoped that the material used will as far as possible be local material, and that the construction of the houses will be more permanent than has been the ease in some instances, because everyone wants to establish people on these holdings, and one takes it for granted that the houses provided by the Commission are decent and proper houses.
    There is just one other point. Owing to the gale recently in Scotland there have been very severe losses of timber in certain districts. That will mean that the market will be flooded with timber, and I doubt whether this Estimate will not have to be corrected in view of the destruction recently wrought, and the extra amount of timber which will be thrown on to the market. The chances are that the whole of the planting programme may require complete revision because one of the cheapest ways of carrying out afforestation is taking over blown-down areas and replanting them and marketing the timber. I hope this point will be borne in mind and that the House of Commons will really take control over the Department' of Afforestation, which is a growing Department, and one which every Member wants to see flourishing. It is high time that this House took control. Many people think that the Department of Woods and Forests deals with woods and forests. It does nothing of the sort, and even this House
    1008
    of Commons has nothing to do with the Forestry Commission. If we can bring the Forestry Commissioners into this House every Member is ready to forward the entirely admirable work which the Commissioners have done, and to let them be assisted by the House of Commons to do even more.
    Mr. BARKER: My grievance is that the Estimate is not large enough, and I feel tempted to move a reduction of the Vote because of that grievance. I wish we had millions to be devoted to this purpose, instead of the paltry sum we are discussing. I want to make an appeal to the Government to spend this money in my own constituency, in the Abertillery division. We have there some admirable land for afforestation. We have some very fine hills which used to be covered with beautiful trees, but they have all been stripped, and they are simply doing nothing there now but grazing a few sheep. We have thousands of men unemployed in my area, and they are receiving unemployment benefit and rendering no service to the country. They have been drawing their unemployment benefit for years, and I think the Government would be very well advised if they spent this money and a great deal more in my constituency in employing the miners on planting trees so as to cover the hills and provide for the future. That is one of the reasons why I am able with great pleasure on this occasion to support the Government, and I am only sorry that they are so niggardly and miserly in their expenditure on this very useful, national service. I do strongly appeal to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir C. Forestier-Walker), wins is a Commissioner of Forestry, and knows my constituency well. He is a Monmouthshire man and ought to have sympathy with my people, and I hope I may touch a tender chord in his heart and get him to spend some of this money in the Abertillery division.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to express my regret at the contemptuous way in which the House has been treated in a matter of this kind. I do not blame the Financial Secretary in the slightest; I think he has carried out his duties completely, and has given as full an explanation of the actual figures as anyone might desire; but, surely, the question of afforestation is a very important one for the

    1009
    people of this country. The afforestation carried on in this country is of a microscopic character, and no information is given to the House about it. We are treated like a lot of school-boys or students who could not by any stretch of imagination be expected to take the slightest interest in a subject of this importance. All that we are asked to do is to set a side a certain amount of money in order that some degree—Heaven only knows how much—of afforestation may take place. I know to some small extent the work that has been done, and that work is very praiseworthy; but it seems to me monstrous that Members of the House of Commons should be kept in absolute ignorance as to the number of men employed, the amount of afforestation that has taken place, and the number of acres that are under afforestation now. Surely this information might be given to the Committee, in order that they might have that little added interest in The question, and might be treated as though they possessed some degree of intelligence. I thought it was only right that I should make some protest at the contemptuous manner in which Members of the House of Commons are treated on this question. I do not know whether we are under—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not use that particular phrase in referring to the action of Parliament. He may criticise it, but it is not in order to speak of the action of Parliament in that way.
    Mr. DUNCAN: That I quite understand, but I am only endeavouring to point out that it seems to me unfair and unreasonable that such a paucity of information should be given to the House when they are granting this money for afforestation. That is my complaint, and I hope the result of my complaint, and of complaints made by others, will at least indicate, to those who may have some influence in this matter, that in the future the House should be treated with a little more respect, and that information should be given to the House so that Members may at least be allowed to take some interest in this question, which is one of very great importance to thousands of people in this country.
    Major Sir ARCHIEIALD SINCLAIR: There are one or two points that I wanted to raise which I think have not been
    1010
    raised up to the present. There seems to me to be some inconsistency between this loss on sales of livestock and the expansion in the planting programme. The right hon. Gentleman explained that there had been a considerable drop in sheep prices, which, of course, is quite true, and I have no doubt that a certain amount of this loss is due to the fact that lower prices have been received, for such sheep as have been sold, than were anticipated. But it is explained in the Estimate that the greater part of the loss is due to larger stocks having been kept in hand, having been kept off' a bad market and not being sold. If that be so, surely it means that a great deal of land that would otherwise have been available for planting has been kept under sheep, and it seems very inconsistent that, while you are keeping that land under sheep for the purpose of selling them in a favourable market, more land should still be planted than was originally anticipated. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how those two things are possible.
    The next point that I wanted to mention was what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) said about the importance of financial control, and of seeing that money voted in one year was spent in that year and not in any other. I have rat at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with these matters of the control of finance by this House and by the Treasury, and there is no one who speaks on that subject with greater authority. I would suggest, however, that, in the peculiar circumstances of the Forestry Commission's activities, seeing that they are largely dependent upon climatic conditions, it is very important that an exception should be made—which should by no means constitute a precedent—having regard to the conditions of the particular problem which the Forestry Commissioners have to face; and that within certain limits, to be strictly laid down by the House, a certain amount of freedom should be allowed in their case. I would not even go so far as to call it an exception, but would say that they should be given some law, some latitude in the carrying out of their operations. From the point of view of public expenditure, if a certain amount of money is to be spent on planting a certain area, it is very much better, if conditions happen to be favourable in one year, that more money should be spent in

    1011
    that year in planting under the most favourable economic conditions, and that less should be spent in some less favourable year. If a limit is placed on the amount that may be spent in the favourable year, it may mean that more money may have to be voted next year to complete the operation, possibly under less favourable conditions. I hope, therefore, it will be borne in mind that, in regard to forestry, some latitude is necessary in order to adjust the operations to the conditions under which they have to be carried on.
    With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) about the responsibility of the Forestry Department to the House of Commons, I must say I strongly take the view, having regard to the experience we have had since the Forestry Commission was started, that it is essential to have in the House a Minister responsible for the operations of the Forestry Department, and responsible for its financial control, who will speak with authority on the subject here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), and several other hon. Members above the Gangway, have asked some very important questions on issues arising out of this Estimate, but there is no one, I am afraid, on the Government Bench who has the intimate knowledge of the work of the Commission which is necessary to give satisfactory replies to the House. My right hon. Friend observed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Scotland was sitting on the Front Bench, and expressed the hope that he might give us some information, but I am afraid that, even if he is willing, he will be unable to do so, because he and his Department are not in intimate touch with the work of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but I should like to point out that I do not in the least object to his excellent speech as long as he does not expect me to reply to it, but he is really quarrelling with an Act of Parliament, and, if he thinks it desir-
    1012
    able that that Act should be amended, the method would be to bring in a Bill for that purpose.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: What I am complaining about is that a number of hon. Members here have made speeches and asked for information on matters arising out of this Estimate. For instance, I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, and I u ant to hear information on the points he raised, which are of vital concern to me and to my constituents. If the right hon. Gentleman does intend to answer the points raised by my right hon. Friend and by other Members above the Gangway, I will sit clown in order to enable him to do so.
    Mr. McNEILL: What I wanted to point out to the hon. Baronet is that his proper course would be to bring in a Bill to put the Forestry Commission on such a footing as he thinks right. When he does that, we shall be able to get a responsibility in this House which does not exist at present. Parliament passed the Act some time ago, and, if the hon. Baronet would like to see it repealed, he can bring in a Bill to replace it by another Measure.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to point out, in the first place, that the opportunities of introducing legislation are very little, and, in the second place, that it is not for me to suggest, in a discussion on the Estimate, any action which requires legislation. was not suggesting at all that any particular Minister should be in control of the Department, or anything of that kind; I was merely indicating a difficulty that we have, and I think this is the only occasion on the Estimates where the situation arises that Members can get up in the House and make speeches which are completely in order, asking for information which is relevant to the Estimate, and yet there is no Minister on the Government Bench who can reply to the points that have been raised. It is quite true that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) can give us information, but he cannot give it with Ministerial responsibility.
    Before I sit down, I want to associate myself particularly with what my right hon. Friend said with regard to the development of rural areas. We must expect the Financial Secretary to the

    1013
    Treasury to look at this matter from purely financial point of view, and he would naturally wish the forests to be planted where they will give the greatest immediate economic return. There is no other aspect of the forestry problem that would appeal to him—I mean in his capacity as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But there has always been understood to be another aspect which is of great importance, and that is that the operations of the Forestry Commission should be used to develop the resources of different counties in the Kingdom. It may well be that there is, for example, an ample amount of suitable forestry ground which is more easily developed in England and South Scotland, but it is extremely important that, in counties where it is desired to keep the population on the land, like the Highlands of Scotland, where it is desired to stem the flow of depopulation, the operations of the Forestry Commission should go hand in hand with those of the Board, of Agriculture.
    Mr. TOWNEND: I would say, at the outset, that the question I desire to submit is one that I hope can be answered, and it is put forward in that spirit. I am not here to ask a question to which a reply cannot be given, and for that reason I hope that an attempt will he made to respond. The Minister in charge of this Estimate told us that the first item of £7,825 was due, as stated in page 10, to the fact that the amount was insufficient to complete the planting programme because of the weather.
    That was a point we particularly emphasised. I presume the maintenance charges include amongst other things the rate of pay to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). He stated that a labourer employed by the Forestry received 37s. a week and, on a farm, 42s. What I am anxious to know is if the weather prevented these men following their occupation, are these sparse wages continued? I should like a little further information on the question of the loss in receipts under Item C. The point made was that owing to the slump in the price of sheep this loss of £8,125 occurred. Is it not possible that in purchasing the estate and the stock upon it, it is the practice of the Forestry to maintain the sheep en the farm for a certain length of time,
    1014
    and that this might have been anticipated and the loss to some extent been reduced? There is a further point on the question of pit props. It is suggested that the receipts were reduced owing to the coal dispute. Is this an actual loss? Ought it to appear as a deficiency? I not the stock still there and will not the receipts subsequently appear on the account? In submitting it in this way, is it not suggesting that an actual loss' has occurred, while, actually, the assets are still in the hands of the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. McNEILL: This is a deficiency on the Estimate. We estimated for the year that a certain sum would be required. For the reasons I have given it fell short.
    Mr. GILLETT: I should like in the first place to support the plea that the Commissioners should be in some way represented by a Minister who is closely connected with their work. We quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no time to study the price of sheep while he is at the Exchequer and I do not wish in any way to criticise him. I am only criticising the system which compels him to answer these technical questions which it is obviously impossible for him to know anything about personally. I should like to point out to him. that it is the Government who are responsible for the proper ordering of business, and if he recognised the unsatisfactory position in which the House is placed when these Estimates come up he might have said he would draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the point, and at some convenient time possibly something might be done to remedy it. In the last year before the accounts we are now considering there was a very large Supplementary Estimate brought in dealing with this very question, running into six figures, and it showed how important it is that there should be a Minister who can answer—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Anything of that nature that the hon. Member suggests would need fresh legislation and he cannot pursue that subject on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. GILLETT: I was pointing out that we now have a Supplementary Estimate and that in a previous year we have also had Supplementary Estimates, and I submit that I should be in order in laying

    1015
    stress on the point because there is nothing new in this Department in having Supplementary Estimates. I hope the Treasury will bear that in mind, whatever it involves in the way of remedying the difficulty. In regard to the sheep, I should like to ask whether it is correct about it being a lost amount. The right hon. Gentleman stated that of course it meant that the Estimate in regard to the sale of sheep had not been realised, but we do not know how much profit they had expected to obtain on the sale of the sheep. It might not actually have been a loss but only a failure to realise the Estimate which had been put down originally. I should like to ask whether this Supplementary Estimate has anything to do with the school that is run in connection with the forestry industry and whether the number of pupils in that school are as many as they require. I think there is a sum for advances to the workers included under the Estimate, but I believe it will come under another heading. May I take it that there are no advances in this Estimate? I gather from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee that money is advanced free of interest for the workers to provide themselves with land or houses. I understand there is nothing involved in this Estimate for advances. I want to ask whether the reports the Minister has satisfy him that there are enough men coming forward to undertake this work. One of the things we are arranging for is the provision of a larger number of houses. In one of the reports presented to the Public Accounts Committee at their meeting last year we were told one of the chief difficulties of this branch of the work is to find efficient men. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information on that point and whether they are satisfied that they are getting the class of men they want which justifies them in spending this money.
    Mr. HARDIE: I want, first of all, to join in the protest against the system under which we cannot get into touch with those who are really responsible. Perhaps as the result of to-night's test we shall get into telepathic communication with them, and get a reply in the same way. One thing I was struck with not make any reference to a statement was that the right hon. Gentleman did
    1016
    from this side in regard to the defaulting attendances on the part of some of those who are Commissioners. It seems to me a very dangerous thing that we have no direct grip of this, and that we should have anyone taking advantage of that fact by staying away from the business. The Government ought to say, "Until we get to know, there is no more money," or, "You are no longer a Commissioner." We ought to get on some basis to deal with those who are in that position. With regard to cottages and outbuildings, have any efforts been made on the part of those conducting this business to use home-grown timber, especially from the local areas, or have they done anything in the way of finding out whether the timber grown locally is giving a good, comfortable house and standing the weather conditions that generally obtain? I wonder if the hon. Gentleman in charge realised, when the question of pit props came up, that you could not have any loss in regard to them. The stoppage only meant filling up the stocks. I suggest to the Commissioners that a tree without sap is a much more valuable thing than a tree with sap. I have seen thousands of pit props underground, and when we were in a dangerous place we always looked for one without sap. Since the stoppage, these props, which were not having a ready sale, have been stored in a propel place and you are ping to make more if you watch that market than you would in the ordinary way. I take it from the note that the stocks have been accumulated and there will be no actual loss. If that is not so, I should like to have the position explained.
    Mr. McNEILL: Of course, that may be so. I hope it is, but we have to get the money by 31st March.
    Mr. HARDIE: I know, and in view of the time I think we can manage that. I think what gave the impetus to the need for this extra money was not only the question of unemployment. This question came before the question of unemployment. The denuding of the world's timber is making it more and more important. I am not quarrelling with the sum of money. Take the American timber business. Take the average daily paper in New York. It takes 2,000 acres of timber every year to keep it going. There is going to be a

    1017
    competition between industry and paper as to who is going to get the timber. That brings us into a very hot place in this country because for our building we depend largely on timber coming from abroad. I wonder whether the sum asked for here has been based upon a consideration of that or whether they consider that the sum ought to have been 10 times bigger to go on planting in damp places where we might grow hard wood. I should like to know if before they brought this Estimate forward they had gone into the whole consideration of all these things in the hope that by giving us a full survey of the business and giving us an expert opinion in regard to the forests, we might at the same time have something basic on which to spend even 50 times the sum asked for now.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are one or two observations I would like to make. I particularly address myself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who looks after the interests of the forests. He must liken himself in this matter to Napoleon. Napoleon at the height of his power was famous for his military victories. Later, when the world was pacific again, he was famous for his code of law—the code Napoleon. To-day he is remembered in France with the most gratitude because of his forestry. He planted the great French provinces of Bayonne and Biscay.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather remote from the Estimate. I hope he will get to it sooner or later.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was on the point of reaching it. These forests now are one of the greatest assets the French people have and they are able, curiously enough, to undersell, in the way of pit props, the Scandinavian and Russian countries. You can get pit props in South Wales and Yorkshire, which were planted in these French forests a hundred years ago by Napoleon more cheaply than from Norway, Sweden or Russia. I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. I wish the £50,000 were £500,000. I believe these is no better investment at the present time than tree planting. The only blot that I see is that, as usual, excuses are made in regard to losses, which are said to be due to the
    1018
    stoppage in the coal mining industry. Hon. Members who have spoken have shown that that is fictitious and I hope the losses will prove to be fictitious.
    Mr. McNEILL: It is the Commissioners.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not understand the method of bookkeeping of the Forestry Commissioners. Of course there is no loss made if the accounting is correct. This is where I think a saving can be effected. I see that a certain amount of expenditure figures under Sub-head L—£6,000—for cottages and out-buildings, etc., for forest workers' holdings. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary, or the Forestry Commissioner whether wood is used for building these houses. If it is not, it ought to be. Timber houses. are very comfortable, beautiful and. hygienic, and would be the cheapest material for buildings for forest workers. All over the world where forestry is engaged in on a. great scale it is used. The most scientific forestry is seen in Germany; I have visited some of the German forests, which are models of efficiency. The houses there of the forest foremen, men who are in highly paid positions, are very often made of timber. They are excellent houses. I believe the use of wood. has been adopted on a small scale in this country and I hope it will become the general practice.
    There is undoubtedly a timber shortage coming on the world. The shortage of wood for pulping purposes and for paper-making is very large. Soon a time will come when there will not be enough paper to print the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Or the "Daily Herald."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, the "Daily Herald" always gets it from Russia. The hon. Gentleman will know that they have the good sense to, buy in a labour market and it is a very good thing that Russian timber comes. in. There is also a large increase in the. use of wood for textile industries and in the making of artificial silk. For all these reasons—and I am supported by expert advice on this matter—there is a possible shortage of timber in the world. Therefore, I say to the hon. and gallant: Member for Monmouth (Sir Leolin

    1019
    Forestier-Walker), "Take courage." I regret that he is not in a position to answer authoritatively 'because of the curious constitution of the Forestry Commission; but he can go down to history, not because of the great military exploits which be has accomplished, but he will be remembered with gratitude because, like Napoleon, he planted the open spaces with trees.
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I can only assure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) that we are endeavouring to copy Napoleon as far as is possible. We are quite aware of the acute shortage of timber all over the world, but, if any complaints are made in this House as to why schemes are not larger, and no more money is spent on them, I can only assure hon. Members that they must blame themselves. Parliament laid it down, in the Forestry Act, 1919, that certain sums of money should be allocated for periods. The Forestry Act was the result of the Acland Report, which suggested that a Forestry Commission should plant 150,000 acres on an expanding programme over a period of 10 years. They provided £3,500,000 for that purpose, although it will be recognised that the pre-War price of planting is by no means equal to the present price. That is all Parliament has given us and, therefore, if any hon. Member is grumbling at the lack of money, Parliament is alone to blame.
    If hon. Members can get a little more out of the Treasury, the Forestry Commission will be deeply grateful. A lot of questions have been asked me, and perhaps I had better take some of the latest first. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull asked about timber houses. We are not building timber houses, as one who has had very considerable experience in timber houses, I can tell him that there is no economy whatever in timber house building. I have lived for many years in a timber house. Most people in this country do not like timber houses; they think they are full of fleas, and they generally are. An hon. Member of this House, who is chairman of the English Advisory Committee, sent in a suggestion that we should try to build houses with what is
    1020
    called rough timber, which however practically costs the same as a brick house, and I think, of the two, a brink house is the preferable.
    I have also been asked whether we were making experiments in planting peat land. An hon Member suggested that we should employ 10,000 men to plant all the peat bogs that we could. We are experimenting in several places in Scotland in planting peat land, but that experiment has really not yet given us sufficient knowledge. Until we have sufficient experience, we should be extremely foolish to launch out on any large expenditure or any large schemes. Another hon. Member asked about new forests in Scotland. We have no new forests in Scotland, as we have not, at the moment, obtained sufficient land for planting new forests there. He also asked whether we were in close communication with the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. I can assure hon. Members that we are in very close co-operation with the Boards of Agriculture, both in England and in Scotland. I am sorry to say that there has peen a remark made about the Chairman of the Commission, and also about the paid Commissioner. I can only bear testimony, as an unpaid Commissioner, to the excellent work which the Chairman has done and to the close attention he gives to his work.
    I can assure hon. Members that even if he is away for a short time he keeps in very close touch with the work, and anybody who knows the Noble Lord will know very well that he follows the business very closely. As to the paid Commissioner, he is most assiduous in his work and knows it from A to Z. With regard to the question about land for holdings for the workers; that land has cost us £14 an acre, The land for planting has cost us about £4 an acre. We have now 2,955 forest workers. I was asked if they were paid at wet times. When the men turn out, and it is too wet to work, we send them back and pay them for half a day. If they do not turn up, they do not get paid. We have a sufficient number of pupils, although our work does not give us many vacancies As we extend our work we shall be able to employ and teach more pupils. We were asked if we had sufficient good men. Hon. Members know that good men cannot be picked up

    1021
    on every blackberry bush. We have had some difficulty, because good men are very hard to get, but we endeavour to get the best we can and I do not know that we can complain more than anyone else. With regard to the amount of land under our control, we have acquired 488,000 acres, of which 285,000 are plants able. We have planted 78,000 acres, and we have 108 centres for planting, of which are in England and Wales and 51 in Scotland. Thus, it would appear that Scotland has a larger proportion than it is entitled to. We have completed 240 workers' holdings, 192 being in England and Wales, and 48 in Scotland. We are in process of erecting 108 in England and 54 in Scotland, which makes a total of 300 in England and 102 in Scotland—altogether, 402 holdings. So far as I can make out, those are all the questions which have been asked me and I hope hon. Members will now give the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the Vote for which he asks.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: The Committee is very grateful indeed for the information which the hon. Gentleman has given us. He has certainly added to the value of the Debate, because he is speaking with a great deal of knowledge of the actual matter we are discussing. I appreciate very much the difficulties which the Forestry Commission have to meet. We are limited very considerably, indeed, by the arrangements in the House to-day, as well as by the arrangements of the Treasury. I am very much concerned about the difference in price between the workmen's holdings and the land that is set aside for planting. That is the issue which emerges in this connection. I suspect—I may he wrong, but I should like the matter to be cleared up if that can be done—that the Forestry Commissioners will probably have discovered that some quite ordinary land, which is suitable only for planting purposes, in the process of the negotiations which have gone on has gradually changed its character and that the landowner has been able to get out of the Forestry Commissioners, if not the full high price, yet the £14 instead of the average £4 for ordinary planting land. Although I admit that the Commissioners always do their best to hold back these rapacious landowners, cases have occurred where too much has been paid because the land-
    1022
    lords have discovered what to-day is the general policy of the Forestry Commissioners.
    8.0 p.m.
    If afforestation is to be carried on successfully in this country, the land will have to be continuously divided, half and half, as between that which is purely under trees and that which is used by the workers to assist them in certain seasons through the processes of agriculture that they carry on upon the holdings allowed to them. Landlords are realising more and more that, although the mass of their land is probably only favourable for planting trees, by holding as tightly as possible to that land and pressing their claims upon the. Forestry Commissioners, based upon the needs of the workers, they are able to extract a good deal bigger prices than would otherwise be the case. If the whole truth were known, a part of this sum of £6,000 in Section I could be accounted for in the way I am suggesting. I would like to have more information regarding the estimates-for land for use for planting purposes. I should have imagined that, after the experience which the Forestry Commissioners have had, their estimates would not have been far out on account of seasonal difficulties. In some respects the Forestry Commissioners seem to have benefited very little by their experience. The hon. Member for Monmouth told us about the peat lands and the experiments carried on upon them. In 1924, when a discussion was going on in this House on this very question, I put a question to Mr. Acland, who is not now in this House, upon this very point, and his words were exactly the same as those of the hon. Gentleman, namely, that experiments were going on that, the qualities of the peat land were being carefully observed, and it was hoped, and so on and so on, that something might emerge from it. Apparently we have not got very much further in regard to this matter.
    It is, after all, an extremely urgent question. There are great, areas of Scotland, there are the whole of the Western Isles, there are the tops and sides of the Pennines, where great peat areas are to be found, and the experiments that have been made cannot have been anything like thorough enough. That is probably due to the very narrow limits which are placed upon the Commission, and pro-

    1023
    bably the hon. Gentleman who represents the Commission will not object to me raising this matter prominently in the debate so that the House may realise his difficulty. I hope that upon this question of laying out funds for planting and replanting the Forestry Commissioners will be able to be more exact in their estimates. We know that in the long run the work has to be done whether the rain comes or not; the work of draining, planting, laying out the land and laying out the nurseries, and so on, must go on whether the season is good or bad. Surely the fact that a bad season comes sometimes and prevents men taking the young plants and planting them does not prevent the Forestry Commission from arranging its work regularly so that year after year it knows exactly the estimate it can place before Parliament. I do not consider that the information which we have got from the lion. Gentleman has made us any wiser regarding this.
    The hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the number of centres in which the Forestry Commission is working and in connection with which, I suppose, this expenditure has been incurred. He classified the centres, I think, under the headings of England and Scotland. I think it would have been well if he had told us how that classification works out. There are great areas in the North -if England in which experimental expenditure should be incurred and which are largely neglected by the Forestry Commission. There are many stations around London in the home counties. It may seem an unjust charge to make, but I have a suspicion that the needs in regard to forestry, in so far as villadom round London is concerned, are carefully attended to. The growth of pine trees in the residential neighbourhoods round London are very much more carefully watched than the growth of trees, pines or others, on the sides of the Pennines. As I look at the Forestry's Commission's maps—and they are very valuable maps—on which the centres are marked, I am struck every time by the small provision that is made for the whole of that enormous Pennine area where so much valuable work could be done. As I have said before, in my own area, in particular in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where there are so many men who could work on
    1024
    afforestation if the discoveries were made that could be made by proper experimental stations, it is a great concern of ours that a better distribution of the centres has not been worked out by the Commissioners. I submit that for the consideration of the Commissioners, and I hope in the next few years to see more experimental stations in the North t England.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask the hon. Member who represents the Forestry Commissioners whether any draining has been necessary or any trouble has been given by the accumulation of water on adjoining lands?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: There has been no difficulty so far as I am aware.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell)The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell) rose—
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I understand the Financial Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will reply to the points which have been made.
    Mr. McNEILL: I think my hon. Friend who represents the Forestry Commission has replied to practically everything that has been said in the course of the Debate. I may say there is nothing unusual in the form in which this Estimate is presented. A certain sum of money was estimated and that s rim was found to be less than was required to do a certain amount of work—what is called the planting programme of the Forestry Commission. Owing to circumstances which I have described, it was impossible with that money to carry out all the work. One alternative was to go on with the work and come to the House and ask far the money with which to carry it on; and the only other alternative was to scrap that service altogether. So far as I have been able. to gather, that could not have commended itself to any part of the House. I think the House wants the work of forestry to be carried out as far as possible, but, owing to certain changes on matters to which I have referred in my earlier observations, we cannot always exactly forecast early in the year how much money will be required. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) seems to think that these operations should have been foreseen or that

    1025
    the cost should be averaged, but, if you suddenly get 20 degrees of frost lasting some weeks over a, year when you are preparing for planting, it throws the whole thing out of gear for several weeks and probably for enough weeks to get over to the 31st of March, which necessitates a supplementary sum with which to go on to the end of the financial year. I do not think there is anything else to reply to, because my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, who is a Forestry Commissioner himself and has a wide knowledge of the operations of the Forestry Commission, has answered all questions which have been put by hon. Members.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Can the hon. Gentleman make a reply regarding the peat experiments and the fact that exactly the same replies have been given us today as were given two years ago?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We will not be able to give the result properly for nearly 10 years. We want a long time for that experiment. Trees do not grow in a year or two, and we want to know whether they will grow on peat or not.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Technical Survey for a General Scheme of Generation and Transmission of Electricity in Great Britain, and with the Severn Barrage Investigation."
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Ashley.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.
Mr. SHORT: I beg to move,
"That this House welcomes the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent, and calls on the Government at once to take all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a universal system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by the Committee."
In submitting this Motion for the purpose of promoting the interests of and increasing the facilities for secondary education, I trust the House will consider that I have been wisely and happily inspired. No one will deny that the gravity of the problem of the education of adolescents increases in intensity and importance and calls for the attention and energies of legislators and administrators alike. In considering the promotion of this higher education we have to remember that the seriousness of the problem is accentuated by the presence in our midst of a large army of unemployed, and the inferior and low standard of living of the great masses of our working population. When we consider the desirability of promoting the interests of higher education we must also think of and seek concurrently to improve the standard of living of the workers, for the very good reason that those who defend the present educational system or our competitive system of industry must face the inevitable, vast, growing and insistent demand of an enlightened democracy that their children shall be freed quickly and in the future from the disabilities and the handicaps that are imposed upon their intellectual equipment by reason of poverty.
When we come to examine the conditions and the provisions existing for secondary education in this country, I must say that the picture is a very dark and dismal one and is a reflection upon our intelligence, and indicates in some measure our ineptitude in the past. We have between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 children attending our elementary schools, and over 450,000 per year reach the age of 14, leave school, and enter the industrial market, competing to the disadvantage of their parents and the adult population. That in itself is a serious matter and a handicap. During 1924–1925 we had 1,145 secondary schools on

1027
the grant list, and they provided for the education of 327,345 children. It is true that there existed at the same time 269 schools not on the grant list, which provided accommodation for 51,423 pupils.
While it is interesting and gratifying to know that 1,142 of these schools secured the full grant, having provided 25 per cent. of free places, it is also interesting to note that 149 schools were, allowed by the Board of Education to reduce their small percentage of 25 per cent. of free places. I suppose they had some special reason for that. It is to be hoped that they were good and sound reasons. Of our secondary school population there were only 142,523 children who are occupying free places on the 1st October, 1926. While the local authorities are permitted the opportunity of increasing free places from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., it would appear, having regard to the disabilities from which they suffer through the grave condition of necessitous areas, and the taxes that arise out of unemployment, that some inducements might reasonably have been offered. The President- of the Board of Education in the Labour Ministry did offer some inducement, but I understand the present President of the Board of Education has withdrawn the inducement in regard to the increased grant. It will be interesting to know upon what grounds he justifies that change in policy.
Of the large number of children who leave school at the age of 14, a very small proportion reach our secondary schools. It is estimated that 9.5 per cent. go to these schools, two-thirds of whom pay fees, while one-third occupy free places. Only one out of every thousand of our elementary school children pass into or have, an opportunity of attaining a university education. These are striking and important facts which should engage our attention, and they certainly justify us in placing considerable importance upon advanced education. Out of 2,800,000 adolescents, 80 per cent. are not attending full time at school. There is another serious factor in connection with our secondary school education. It is interesting to know from the class of occupations followed by the parents of the children from whom these pupils
1028
come, that in 1921—I cannot think there has been any great change in this matter since then, having regard to the poverty problem—when some inquiries were made, 26·9 per cent. of the pupils attending secondary schools came from the homes of wholesale and retail traders.
I do not mention that to cast any reflection upon their occupation. I welcome the interest hat such citizens take in providing this education for their children. But it is noteworthy that, whereas some 20·5 per cent. of the pupils came from the homes of skilled workers, only 3·2 per cent. came from the homes of unskilled workers. Those figures are a tragedy; they are a tragic commentary upon the inability of our working population to take advantage of this advanced education. We are told that where fee-paying has been abolished, it frequently occurs that the refusals of free places exceed the acceptances. I noticed that some time ago the Director of the Manchester Education Authority said that if all the schools were free, 60 per cent. of the children could not afford a full-time course of secondary education. These facts are an indication of our lack of interest, and, indeed, of the folly of Governments in the past, and in themselves I cannot help thinking that they are a warm condemnation of the policy of economy advocated and practised by the President of the Board of Education. It is clear that there is a shortage of free places, and there is a barrier, due to poverty, erected against the continued education of children of the working classes. We are spending some £250,000 upon maintenance, and I am sure we shall have to increase that considerably in the interests of the children of our working population.
I have said so much to indicate some of the difficulties from which children suffer, even if they wish to take advantage of this education. I turn now to make some reference to the Report itself. The Labour party stands for a systematic and continual process of education from the elementary schools to the university. We do not want higher education to be the privilege of a few on a selective basis, or upon some test or elimination. We want the opportunity to be provided for all. There are people who talk about the ladder. I have had some ex-

1029
perience of climbing ladders during my industrial occupation. It is a very painful process. I cannot see anything in a ladder to encourage a student. I should prefer to see the unfolding at every step of a wider plane with a bigger outlook, and universality of continued education. This Report seems to indicate a fuller appreciation of our responsibility in that direction. It tries to create that higher education somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 years of age. It will certainly save time if I summarise some of the recommendations of the Committee in this respect. They say:
Some form of post-primary education should be made available for all normal children between the ages of 11 and 14, and, as soon as possible, between the ages of 11 and 15. Primary education should end at about the age of 11+. There should then be a second stage, which would end for some pupils at the age of 16+, for some at 18 or 19, but for the majority at 14+ or 15+. This second stage should include a variety of types of education which would be determined by the aim of providing for the needs of children entering and passing through the stage of adolescence.
Education up to the age of 11+ should be called primary Education and, after that age, it should be termed Secondary. Many children should, of course, pass to the present "secondary" schools. It is suggested that the post-primary education should include the following types.

(a) Grammar Schools.—These would be schools of the present "secondary" type which pursue mainly a literary or scientific curriculum. The pupils would remain till the age of at least 16+. The school courses would be planned for a period of five or more years.

(b)Modern Schools.—These would include schools of the type of the existing selective Central Schools, which give at least a four years' course from the age of 11+ to 15+, with a "realistic" or practical trend in the last two years. Schools of the type of the present non-selective Central Schools, with the same general curriculum, would also be included; there would be due provision for differentiation between pupils of different capacities; the period covered would be from 11+ to 14+, but provision should be made for the needs of pupils who remain at school to the age of 15+. These Modern Schools would plan their courses for a period of three or four years, and, though similar to those of the Grammar Schools, they would be simpler and more limited in scope. While the courses of instruction in the last two years should not be vocational, the treatment of subjects should be practical in the broadest sense, and brought directly into relation with the facts of everyday life.

1030

(c) Senior Classes.—These would be Departments or classes within the public elementary schools, which provide post-primary education for children who do not go either to the Grammar or Modern School. These Senior Classes, like the Modern Schools, should aim at providing a humane and liberal education, by means of a curriculum containing large opportunities for practical work, and closely related to living interests.

Those paragraphs indicate what we consider should be the objective. It is true that the Committee made a recommendation in favour of increasing the school age to 15. They advanced some very interesting and convincing arguments in favour of their proposition, and they displayed some foresight. They realise that it could not be done in a moment. There was a lack of accommodation, a lack of staffing to cope with the added attendance that would naturally arise, and they foresaw the necessity of giving some notice. Consequently, they suggest a notice of five years, so that any increase in the school-leaving age should not be operative until 1932. I have summarised the attitude of the Committee upon that subject. Let me add that I represent a great industrial constituency. Ninety per cent. are industrial workers, and the majority are unskilled or semi-skilled workers, and are poor. They have a very low standard of life. Apparently our industrial system cannot give them a better living.
This Committee recognises, as I recognise from my personal experience, that parents are anxious for children to remain at school for a period beyond the age of 14, and no matter how bright or clever children may be they are undoubtedly handicapped by lack of means and by the poverty bar. It is a tragedy in itself and it will be useless to increase this age, even in 1932, unless the industrial system from within itself can improve the standard of living of the workers so as to remove the hardships and anxieties which now confront them. If that cannot be done, then the Government of the day must consider the making of generous and substantial grants in the form of maintenance. Something must be done if the education of these children is to be improved, and if they are to be allowed to take advantage of educational facilities. Something must be done to remove the possible hardships, so that poor parents may be able to view with

1031
equanimity the prospect of their children remaining at school beyond the age of 14. Of course, it may be said that we cannot afford it, and I know the President of the Board of Education is very anxious for economy, but I think we could raise sufficient wealth to put into operation the recommendations of this report. Professor Marshall in 1913 said the small wealthy class of this community spent £400,000,000 on luxuries, and I should estimate that the amount so spent is now £600,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who can give £42,000,000 to the Super-tax payers, might reasonably be expected to find £42,000,000 for advanced education.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): £42,000,000?
Mr. SHORT: Yes, I think it was £42,000,000 per annum. It will be interesting to see the attitude which the Noble Lord adopts towards this Motion, because in April, 1925, the House passed a Resolution far more drastic and far-reaching than the Motion on the Paper, and the Noble Lord allowed it to go through, as far as I know with his assent, and certainly without a Division. I shall watch with interest how he reconciles any opposition to my Motion with the course which he took on that occasion. We cannot over-estimate the value of secondary school education. It produces a something, a personality in the pupil which unhappily is absent from our elementary school children. Its effects are seen not only in intellectual and physical vigour but in the quality of leadership, in character, in sense of duty and citizenship. It fits young people for the great duties which lie ahead of them and, above all—and I attach more importance to this—it encourages a love of the good, the beautiful and the true. No society can be without it. We have severe struggles here for better materialistic conditions, but a millennium of high wages, short hours and a fine standard of living would be of no use if it were accompanied by ignorance, We want culture and refinement, and in higher education I see a stepping-stone in that direction.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.
1032
I confess I do so with some hope. I hope that the Minister is going to accept the Motion which, as the Mover has pointed out, is milder in its terms than the Resolution adopted. by this House on a former occasion. I have ever held the opinion that an efficient educational system is the greatest asset of a nation. Without it, you have ignorance and where there is ignorance, rest assured there is disturbance. There can be nothing good in keeping a people in a state of ignorance. I want to impress on the Minister that, if we have a proper system of education, we shall have good citizens. If we have good citizens we shall have a good country and good countries make a good world. All that comes from education. I have been for long connected with educational administration, and I have watched its development keenly. I have spent most of my spare time in doing my part to build up an educational system which would be a credit to this country. I hope sincerely that we shall have something as a result of this Motion and that the children of the workers will get their chance of education.
When I first went to the Durham County Education Authority we had places for about 2 per cent. of our school population. By dint of grants and our exertions, that number gradually increased until to-day it is in the region of 7 per cent. That. we did largely by our our exertions. We were kicked and buffeted by different Presidents of the Board of Education and were told there was no real demand among miners for education. That statement was soon disproved. The applicants so outnumbered the places that we have now at least 10 applicants for each seat we can offer in our county schools. We in the counties are in a different position from the authorities in the boroughs. In the counties the only schools that we had were the old schools of the Church and private schools to which we had no access. Consequently, the county authority had to face the matter bit by bit. Secondary schools were erected in the country but, to-day, despite all we have done, the demand is equally great. To do justice to the children we found we must adopt a system of entirely free secondary education. I am glad that ever we did it, because, after all. that free secondary education has given that child who has

1033
the brains a chance of getting into school without paying a fee. That has been a great boon, and I am sure that once the county has adopted that, if it is left alone it is going to continue free secondary education. I hope that all the counties will adopt the same course and free their secondary schools as the elementary schools have been freed. That to me would be one of the greatest steps forward that this country could take.
I know only too well that the Minister will say against me: "But you have not the places." I suggest to him that many of our schools that are used to-day as elementary schools could, with little expenditure, be converted into secondary schools for the time being until better buildings could be erected. To me the school and equipment do not count for so much. There are still other things that stand in the way and I, with my friends, deplore them. I think the Minister ought to take the advice given in this Report, and in other Reports that I have read, from other educationists, who in the same way point out that at 11 years of age there should be a distinct break and that all children who are fitted ought to pass forward to secondary education. In my own county we have taken the opportunity of trying to find out how many of our children were fitted to fake secondary education, and we find that in Durham if the right thing be done 75 per cent. of the pupils in our elementary schools at the age of 11 years could be passed on to secondary education. Even the Departmental Committee that was set up here, I think in the first year that I came to this place, 1919, and which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), after taking evidence from all kinds of people, from elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and university dons, come to this conclusion, that at least 66 per cent. of the children ought to be passed on. The Minister should, therefore, at least accept the very mild Report that we have before us, arid commence a system of education that will be a standing monument for further progress inside this country of ours.
I am sorry that the Minister is doing his best just now to compel the local education authorities to cut down their education expenditure, for to save money on education is absolutely the worst
1034
place at which he could start. Rather should he advise his colleagues in the Cabinet and in the other Departments to cut down expenditure on armaments. There is a saying which is worth repeating, that the nation of the future is not going to be the nation that we have had in the past, and that we have now, the one with the biggest fleet of ships on the sea, the biggest battalions on the land, and the biggest fleets of airships in the air. The nation of the future will be the nation that is best equipped mentally and morally, the nation that will be looked up to, and I am anxious that England shall be ready to take that position. We are allowing other people to take that honour from us. Other nations are going ahead vastly more quickly than England, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to look ahead and see what the world will be in the next 40 or 50 years. I feel sure that, if he does that, he will do his best to bring his Department up so as to meet the need of making and equipping this England of ours.
I want to mention another matter. Up to now we have had thousands of children attending the evening classes and doing their best in their own time, for they have had no allowance from employers of labour of time off from their employment. They have been doing their level best to make themselves fit citizens of this country, useful people to get into the fields of industry, of education, of the arts, and of other things, but in Durham now they can no longer in the mining areas get the time off for attending these classes. I know the Minister tells us it is not for him to get the children into our evening classes, but I suggest to him that it is his business. As President of the Board of Education, he is charged with the education of the youth of this country, and if an obstacle arises, it is his business to clear the road so that these children may have their opportunity. In the years that have gone by, taking, say, the last five years, young men and women have attended classes for two, three, four and five years, and to-day they are cut out, and all that money that has been spent by the local authority and the Board is simply going to be wasted if something is not done.
If the position is as the President says, and he cannot interfere, I suggest to him

1035
that- there is only one way out of it, and that is at once to raise the school-leaving age to 15 years, and as early as possible to make it 16 years. If that were done, the situation would be saved, but if it is allowed to go on as it is, ruin is coming so far as continued education is concerned. I hope the Noble Lord will tell these people in the meantime that they must not do as they are doing to-day, that they must give opportunities to release these-young people from their work so that they may attend their classes. If he does that, I feel sure that the people in Durham will be more than thankful. He knows as well as I can tell him that the classes are going to wreck and ruin and that many of them already have gone, because of the lack of time for attending them in the mining districts. It is only the children outside the mines who are keeping this thing going, and the terrible demand made upon the children by the colliery owners in the county of Durham is not only ruining their mothers, their younger brothers, and their sisters, but them also. It is a terrible score. Some day it may be told in better language than I can use, and I am hoping that it will be told. I want the President, therefore, to see to it that these children get their opportunities and to make representations to his colleague in the Department.
There is one other point I wish to make, and that is that it will be very much cheaper to keep the children at school until they are 16 years of age than to go on as we are doing to-day. The cost will be anywhere from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. All my colleagues agree that the child should be at school, and his father at work in the- mine, or factory, or wherever he is called upon to work. If that policy be adopted I can see a great diminution in the very near future of the number of men unemployed. Do what you will, someone -comes along and says there is far too much money spent on education. They want to spend it in another way. The Amendment on the Paper says nothing at all. It simply says that it regards the Report as being so good that it ought to be adopted, but not at the present time. I think we have never had such an opportunity as to-day, in consequence of the depression in our industry. If the right hon. Gentleman takes this opportunity to free the
1036
children from toil, and give the boys their chance in school, providing something for their maintenance, which you must have for miners' children, he will have done a great thing for the young life. of this country.
Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "welcomes" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"The fact that the general trend of the Report of the consultative committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government and with the programmes of the local education authorities, and hopes that the committee's recommendation will assist fie Board and the authorities in taking all practicable steps to develop a system of post-primary education for children over 11."
This Amendment, which stands in my name, and in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and the Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson), is in no sense a hostile one. Both the Motion and the Amendment welcome the Report with which the Motion deals, and, indeed, it would be very difficult for anyone who cares for education not to welcome that Report. It is the Report of men and women of knowledge and experience, and with real anxiety for educational advancement, and it is written with fervour for educational progress. The Motion and the Amendment, have much in common. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) might almost have been speaking for the Amendment, for he made very plain the enormous difficulties which lie in the way of carrying out the recommendations in the Report, and I can assure him that, Members on this side fully sympathise will the difficulties of which he speaks, which lie in the way of a great many of the children of the workers, and we can only hope that the industrial improvement of this country will now take place rapidly, so that far more of those children can take advantage of higher education.
9.0 p.m.
It must be a satisfaction to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion that his county has an honourable place in the Report. We all know the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for education, and the great work he has done in his own county for education. But I may be permitted to say that the speeches of the Mover and

1037
the Seconder were much more directed to castigating the Minister for his unrighteous economy than to dealing with the subject of their own Motion. Listening to those two speeches, one would have thought that in recent years nothing had been done by the taxpayer or the ratepayer for education. The fact is that in recent years both the taxpayer and the ratepayer have shouldered very heavy burdens in the cost of education. In the matter of pensions to teachers, the Pensions Acts in the years 1918 to 1925, and especially the Act of 1925, which was the work of this Conservative Government, have produced a system of superannuation for teachers which will compare favourably with that of any other country. The establishment of the Burnham scale, in conjunction with the superannuation system, has placed the teachers of this country in a secure position, and both the State and the ratepayers have shouldered a very heavy burden in carrying out those two reforms. There has been the development of central schools, which form the nucleus of that central reform which is advocated by the Report. There has been the development of the secondary system—a system which was established by a Conservative Government in 1902, and a system to which we may look forward with great hope for the future of this country. There has been the reconditioning, and rebuilding in some cases, of defective and insanitary schools. There has been the building of new schools, and in that connection may I read to the House a letter I received this morning from a. leading member of the Bucks Education Committee. He writes:
"It is stated in to-day's 'Times' that on Wednesday evening the question of secondary education will be before the House. I wonder if this will give you any chance of raising the question of the cost of building secondary schools."
I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should use their undoubted influence in rendering the cost of building schools cheaper. He goes on to say:
"The Minister said the other day that the secondary schools built in recent years have cost an average of £200 a place."
Mr. RICHARDSON: May I intervene for a moment? I know, and the Noble Lady will tell you, that a school we opened in September last in Durham County has the entire approval of the Education Departments, and was not at
1038
all a costly school. I refer to Houghton-le-Spring. It is now filled to overflowing. We did our best to keep down the cost, I can assure you.
Mr. SOMERVILLE: What was the cost?
Mr. RICHARDSON: The Noble Lady will probably give it.
Mr. SOMERVILLE: My correspondent goes on to say:
"If this is anything like true, I do not see how we are going to get tile new secondary schools that we want in South Bucks—"
In addition to that there is the question of reducing the size of classes. That process has gone on continuously, and we have recently heard from the Minister that there are now 2,400 more teachers in the schools than there were in 1924. In face of these facts, it is scarcely possible to say that the Minister is unduly economical and that he is doing nothing. What he is doing is that he is continually improving our educational system. Let us consider some of the proposals in the Report. The main proposal of that Report coincides largely with what is found in the Prime Minister's election address. In that address we find:
"The carrying out of agreed schemes as between the local education authorities and the Board of Education."
Here let me say that as between the Motion and the Amendment the differences are very small. The Motion says, "Carry out at once"; the Amendment says, "Consult with local education authorities and do all that is practicable." We must consult with local education authorities. Remember what they are. They are bodies which have been developed all through the country; they are becoming increasingly efficient; they include more and more men and women who take an eager interest in their duties. It goes on to say
"—which shall ensure amongst other matters a progressive reduction in the size of classes, the improvement or, when necessary, replacement of insanitary schools—"
And then comes what is the chief recommendation of the Report:—
"the development of Central Schools and other forms of education above the elementary school stage"—
If the recommendations of the Report be adopted, "elementary" will be

1039
divided into "primary" and "post-primary," and "post-primary" will then become "modern."
"—with an adequate supply in the number of secondary school places and a corresponding increase in the number of scholarships and free places."
That is the central proposal of the Report, that we should develop the post-primary system for children above the age of 11 to the age of 15. With regard to the age of 15, I would remark that the speech of the hon. Seconder was not very relevant to the Motion, if I may say so, but he made up for that by going one better than the Report Iv making the leaving age 16 instead of 15.
There is one recommendation in the Report which, I think, will create a great deal of opposition. It is the recommendation to abolish Part IIL authorities. Those authorities have done, and are doing, excellent work. I have received this letter from one of them the Windsor Education Committee.
"I am directed to bring to your notice the following resolution which was adopted by my committee on the 14th instant:
"'That the New Windsor Education Committee, who have had before them the Report of the Consultative Committee on the Education of the Adolescent, recommending among other proposals the abolition of Part III authorities and the transfer of their powers and duties to the authorities responsible for higher education, are strongly of opinion that in boroughs and urban districts an intimate knowledge of local Conditions is essential for the administration of the public elementary education service, and that the proposals of the Consultative Committee referred to, tending as they do towards centralisation and the consequent abrogation of local autonomy, are in every way inimical to the best interests of education.' "
It is very important that we should do nothing to lessen local interest and local effort in education. I have spoken of the central proposal of the Report, the development of this post-primary system. We have a secondary system which is being developed on sound lines and is flourishing; we have elementary schools and we have, after the age of 11, central schools, both selective central schools and non-selective; we have junior technical schools and we have departments and classes for the senior pupils in some of the elementary schools, known
1040
familiarly as "tops" or "higher tops." The Report proposes 70 provide schools to be called "modern schools" for all the children of the elementary schools, or the primary schools, from the age of 11 up to the age of 15. The reason why the age of 11 was selected is that up to the age of 11 the child mind is busy absorbing facts, picking up facts without connecting them. After 11—I am speaking of the average child—the child begins to connect those facts and to reason, and therefore you want a different type of education. As the hon. Opener said, the secondary schools have a literary or scientific direction of studies. The central schools, which are in future to be known as modern schools, will have, in the last two years of the course, a practical bias. We require in those schools a very efficient and special type of teacher, and there is a difficulty in getting that type of teacher. Let me quote the Minority Report, which was signed by three of the members of the Committee, one of them being the chairman of the London County Council Education Committee:
"The desirability of prolonging education must depend largely on the character of the education which is offered."
They also mention the fact that the provision of modern schools means providing for half a million additional children and obtaining from 15,000 to 20,000 additional teachers. It is very difficult in the time to provide the special type of teacher that would be necessary for those schools. Those teachers have a great problem to solve. They have, as every teacher has, to develop the mind and body and character of the child to the full, and they have also got to solve the problem of turning out those children as youths and girls content to carry on their work in life, which for the great majority of all people in all countries must be manual labour. That is a very great difficulty, and the Board of Education recognises it. In the last Report of the Board for 1924–25, the first 80 pages are devoted to accounts of the Progress of Technical Education, and we find there that it is very difficult to get teachers of the right kind. We all know that the efficiency of the school depends upon the teacher, and, therefore, you must have, the right type of teacher. The greatest work the teacher has to do is to develop the character of the children. In regard to character, the chief points are not

1041
the property of any country, but the best points are now the tradition of the British race. Some of those we find in the philosophy of Confucius. He taught that we should do to others as we would have them do to us. It is regrettable that the modern Chinese has forgotten this maxim. You will also find them in the oath taken by the youths of Greece, long ago, when they received their arms:
"I will not dishonour my sacred arms; I will not desert my fellow soldier by whose side I shall be set; I will do battle for my country whether aided or unaided; I will strive to leave her better than I found her; I will honour the Temples in which my fathers worshipped; of these things the Gods are my witnesses."
In that you will find loyalty, patriotism, progress and reverence, and it is those qualities we wish to preserve and develop in our young people. We see great difficulties in the way of carrying out the provisions of this Report at once. We know the difficulties in regard to the final year in many schools, which is not always useful owing to the lack of teaching power, the exigencies of the curriculum, or other difficulties. I ask whether it would be wise under these circumstances to make the leaving age compulsory at 15 until we are able to employ usefully the present final year of school life. In this matter, let us hasten slowly. Let us build on a secure foundation, and let us remember that the object of education is to make good citizens who will take a pride in their work in life, and who will have the power of enjoying their leisure time sensibly.
Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot refrain from saying that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) has stolen a march upon his opponents. I do not complain so much that we were kept in ignorance until yesterday of the precise terms of his Motion, but when I discovered the nature of those terms, I realised that it would be necessary for any of us on this side of the House who wanted to make any effective criticism that we should have to be well versed in what, for the sake of brevity I will refer to as the Hadow Report. Certainly, in the time available to prime oneself its contents would have proved to be a rather formidable task, and I should need some of that ingenuity and resource displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the
1042
Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), when not long ago they argued upon a Bill which they had never seen, and which in fact and indeed had never been drafted.
The shortness of notice is not my only cause of complaint. I have another grievance in that the precise terms of the Motion are so completely at variance with its original form that they induce the suspicion that the hon. Member who moved the Motion was perhaps not quite so well acquainted with the Report I have alluded to as some other hon. Members on this side of the House, and that there is some confusion in his mind as to the precise definition of the term secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gave the House a highly imaginary description the other day of a supposed controversy which had taken place in the Cabinet in regard to the King's Speech. I should like to retaliate by indulging in a similar speculation as to what happened between the tabling of the original Motion on this question, and the appearance of the revised version. When I saw the precise terms of the Motion and the terms of reference in the Report, which explicitly state that it should deal with schools other than secondary schools, I thought it was quite possible that the motion would be ruled out of order by the Chair, but I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, all the more readily because it suits our convenience on this side of the House. Had the hon. Member been allowed to retable his Motion he might have done so more adroitly and ingeniously, and then the Government would not have been in the impregnable position in which they now stand. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is all this about?"]
Let me say that I am in complete and cordial agreement with a very great deal of what has fallen from both the Mover and the Seconder of this -Motion. In theory and principle on this question, as on others, I often find myself in accord with the party opposite, and I could with a clear conscience cross the Floor of the House if it was only a question of theory and principle. When it comes to the application of theories and principles to practice, then T find the Floor of the House presents to me an impassable gulf. I agree as to what

1043
social evils it is necessary for us to address ourselves to and as to what grievances are crying out for redress, but as to the remedy, I am nearly always at variance with the party opposite or, if I agree with their remedy, I differ as to how or in what quantity that remedy should be applied.
Here is a case. The hon. Mover has suggested—I notice he slurred over the expression "at once" when he was moving the Motion—that the findings of the Hadow Report,, with which both he and I agree, should be implemented by the Government at once. May I point out that not only do I disagree, but the Report also disagrees with that suggestion. I should like the hon. Member to refer to page 172, where he will see at the bottom the last sentence reads:
"Progress must necessarily be tentative and experimental, but the objective—a universal system of post-primary education—should be held clearly in view."
There is a familiar ring about that sentence, "should be held clearly in view." Only a day or two ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pressing certain proposals, and in reply received a letter to the effect that he would hold my suggestions clearly in view. Whatever that expression may mean, it certainly does not mean at once. Then the sentence finishes:
"and the measures necessary to attain it should go steadily forward."
"Steadily forward "—the italics are mine. T have no doubt the word "steadily" was italicised, if I might use the expression, in the minds of those who signed the Report. "Progress must be necessarily tentative and experimental"—hut that admonition cuts bang across one of the first principles of Socialism and incidentally cuts bang across the Motion moved by the hon. Member.
I have always been careful to note at election time how Socialist Members answer the various questionnaires addressed to them. The framers of these questionnaires, I should imagine, are unsophisticated persons, because they seem to have a touching faith in those who promise all things to all men. What I notice about these questionnaires and particularly those on the subject of education is that they ask you to urge the Government, provided your Government takes
1044
office, to do everything at once, and I notice that the Socialist candidates always reply that they will, as soon as their Government gets into office and power, do everything at once in the first Session of their first Parliament. Personally, I always reply to my questioners that I will hold their suggestions clearly in view. The Socialist party did come into office pledged up to the hilt to do everything at once and they fell in a few months' time. But I would like seriously to warn hon. Members opposite that when they ever come into power with a mandate to run amok in all our national institutions, they should. realise it is neither feasible nor possible to effect great revolutions, be it in education or other spheres of administration, in the twinkling of an eye.
But the very fact that the Mover of the Motion has employed the expression. "at once" convinces me that he has not read the Report of the Consultative Committee with the diligence one expects of a lawyer. I would ask him to turn to. page 178 of the Report and there he will find at the end of paragraph 19 this sentence:
"At the same time we fully recognise that finance is a limiting factor and, as it is not feasible at once lo establish conditions such as we have described, we must be content to recommend the establishment of the best conditions obtainable in the circumstances."
The hon. Mover said he welcomed the Report. Does he welcome that sentence? It does not square with his Motion. I believe the Noble Lord regards this as an excellent report, but not for the reasons of the Mover of the Motion. It certainly does the Consultative Committee very great credit that it has reported, in my opinion, in such moderate and cautious terms, especially in view of the fact, which I believe is the case—and the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the Committee does not concern itself with finance. It is only right in my opinion that the Consultative Committee should have treated the Noble Lord with that consideration—I hope he thinks they have treated him with consideration—because they have borrowed his ideas.
There are few of those findings in this Report which were not anticipated by the Noble Lord from the very first moment he took office. Of all his

1045
utterances on education, none showed in my opinion the measure of his wisdom and foresight more than the speech he delivered on the Education Estimates in the first year he came into office. I confess I have not read all his speeches on education, and of those speeches which I have read I have not read them all from the opening sentence to the final peroration. But I did listen with the utmost admiration to the Noble Lord two years ago when he introduced his Estimates. I think that speech revealed him as a statesman of vision. I could quote paragraph after paragraph to show how much he realised the evil effects of making a hard and fast distinction and division between primary and secondary education and the imperfections of statutory divisions of that kind and the anomalies to which they give rise. He has proved himself absolutely sensible from the first of the necessity of evolving a type of senior school which would not divert pupils from their natural bent. Variety and flexibility has always been his slogan and the report has borrowed it from him. Whether the Committee deliberately or unconsciously adopted his views it must be a source of satisfaction to us that at last we are rejecting that stultifying notion which was entertained so long by hon. Members opposite regarding primary and secondary education as if they were in watertight compartments and the still more fallacious notion that the endless multiplication of places in secondary schools—using it in its obsolescent sense—was the panacea of all evils.
I should like to say one word on the subject of free places in secondary schools, but. before I do so I should like to clear myself of that accusation which has been levelled against this side of the House on the question of economy. I think I remember that. the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) referred to it as our stunt. Let. me assure him that I hold that true economy in national expenditure does not necessarily consist in the ruthless cutting down of expenditure all round, or of establishing, as it were, a flat rate of economy in all departments. I heard a right hon. Gentleman not very long ago in this House complain that he did not see why he should cut down his estimates unless other right hon. Gentlemen cut down their estimates, pari passu, with his own. That is a
1046
view with which we can sympathise, but, I do not think we can approve of it. There are three kinds of expenditure—that on luxuries which if there is any demand for them, those who demand them can surely pay for out of their own private exchequers. There were plenty of examples of that in the spacious days of the Coalition. There is the expenditure which we can regard as a form of insurance, of which the most conspicuous example is expenditure on the Fighting Services. Then there is, finally, that form of expenditure from which the State can reasonably expect a definite return, and in that category I should without hesitation place education. What we want is a statesmanship at the head of affairs which is capable of deciding where it is in the interest of the community to cut down unprofitable expenditure in order that we may maintain profitable expenditure in other departments, if not even increase it.
Those who complain of the £72,000,000 that we have been spending out of rates and taxes upon education are apt to forget the enormous bill which we should have to pay for the moral and physical invalids that a lack of education entails, and that it is only through the medium of education, as the Seconder of the Motion said, that we can possibly expect to compete in the great industrial world struggle. I am of one mind with hon. Members opposite on the subject of economy, but I beg them to join with me in being reasonable. On the subject of the school-leaving age, we have in this Report an allusion to what the raising of the school-leaving age would entail. They refer to the fact that provision would have to be made for half a million new scholars, which I should think is a very modest computation, and that 15,000 more teachers of a particular type would be required, to say nothing of accommodation in the form of school buildings. When we discuss this matter, moreover, we must remember that it is not only a question of money; it is a question of time. You cannot in a night produce 15,000 teachers of a particular type.
Let me tell the House why I consider the Report so much more in conformity with the realities of our situation than the suggestion of an indefinite multiplication of secondary school places. Throughout their deliberations, the

1047
motive which actuated the members of the Committee in forming the curricula for what are going to be called eventually modern and senior schools, was that due regard should be paid to the capacities of the pupils and to local environment, that the course of instruction should be brought into relation with the facts of everyday life, and that it should contain large opportunities for practical work.
Our efforts in secondary education have not been uniformly successful, for a reason which has not yet been touched upon. There is a sentence in the Report in which it is said that a humane or liberal education is not one given through books alone, and when I first read that sentence, I thought it was going to lead to a conclusion different from that to which it actually did lead. There is another form of training which is just as essential for the pupil who desires to benefit by secondary education, if he is not to be disillusioned and disappointed in the result, and it is just that form of training which the abominable conditions of the home life in which many of our best brains have to struggle in their early careers do not admit of. Many a young man from such a home has gained scholarships, and has had the character, the intellect, and all the necessary equipment to pursue those vocations to which secondary education leads, but has failed finally in his expectations. There are some, it is true, who surmount all difficulties, and succeed in shaking themselves free from the shackles forged in their early life, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. You may talk of equality of opportunity in education, but how on earth can you ever have equality of opportunity in education, however wide you throw open the doors of post-primary education, when a vast number of our young men who seek the advantages which these schools provide will carry upon them all their lives the marks of early neglect, the ineradicable and ineffacable evidences of their early environment? You will never make satisfactory progress towards your ideals until that problem is solved. The Minister of Health holds the key to its solution rather than the Minister of Education.
With this reservation, however, I would conclude by saying that, in the words of our Amendment,
1048
"The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government."
If we work on those lines, I believe we shall attain the great ideal of equal opportunities in education. It is education that is going to break down the barriers of class prejudice, class hatred and class war, far more effectively than any amount of pious platform resolutions. That is by no means the least of the reasons why I advocase a progressive programme of education. I envy those authorities whose business it will be in the fulness of time bring to fruition the recommendations of this Report, not only because the process will be fraught with a very lively and a very human interest, but because they will have the satisfaction of carrying out a scheme of reorganisation calculated to serve the very best interests of the rising generation.
Mr. COVE: I understand that a number of hon. Members want to say a word or two in this Debate, and, therefore, I shall confine myself to one main point. I hardly know whether I should congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on their ingenuity, on their innocence, or on their party loyalty, because I find that in the Amendment they say that
"The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government."
I want to say quite emphatically and definitely that the policy of His Majesty's Government as pronounced by the President of the Board of Education is not in accordance with the report of the consultative Committee. While the Seconder has quoted sentences from the Report, I observe that he was very careful not to quote the recommendations of the Report, and it is in the recommendations that we find the essentials of what they have to say as far as educational policy is concerned.
Mr. CADOGAN Mr. CADOGAN rose—
Mr. COVE: Wail, until I have finished my remarks.
Mr. CADOGAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member says I have not quoted a summary of the conclusions

1049
and recommendations. Surely I have a right on a point of Order to say that I have, chine so.
Mr. COVE: I will give way to that if the hon. Member desires it, and he can take some consolation from it. I will put it this way, if it will please him, and I ask him to contradict this, that he has not quoted the essential recommendation of the Committee's Report, the recommendation upon which the whole structure of its recommendations is built. The Minister knows it, because he has referred to it in a letter he issued to the Chairman of the consultative Committee. It is found on page 178, paragraph 21—
"It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory."
That is the essential recommendation of the Report, and unless you get legislation making it obligatory for children to attend school up to the age of 15, practically all the superstructure that the Report. recommends will be of no avail at all. [Interruption.] I have read quite fairly. The period of five years is given as the length of time in order that the required number of teachers may be obtained, and the buildings found, but the essential thing is that now authorities want to know that it is going to be obligatory upon them to raise the school age to 15. Now, says the Amendment, the policy of His Majesty's Government is in line with this Report. Is it? I turn to the letter issued by the President of the Board of Education. He took the very first opportunity to tell local education authorities that this policy of making it obligatory upon them to raise the school age was not going to be the policy of His Majesty's Government, and in that respect, therefore, the policy of the Government differs essentially, fundamentally and vitally from the recommendations of the consultative Committee. Let us see what the President of the Board says. I think this is the acid test of the Motion, the raising of the school age. That is why we have compromised on the age. We on this side believe the age should be 16. We believe there should be a whole sweep of secondary schools with the same conditions that now obtain, but we say, here is a Committee composed of all shades of opinion. There are friends of my own on that Committee of the same political
1050
colour as myself. There are members of the Committee who are of opposite political opinions to myself. They met together to consider this problem and as a joint Committee they said the essential thing is to raise the school age. Therefore we are being practical by saying, "Let us adopt this unanimous Report and put it into immediate legislative effect." What does the President of the Beard of Education say?
"The Board will not in present circumstances ask Parliament to add to their existing statutory duties in such a way as to disturb the progress of development, and this assurance is one that I feel T ought to give without delay."
There you have the policy of the Government. They are not going to make it obligatory. They are not going to bring legislation in to raise the school age They are going to leave it to the voluntary initiative of local authorities up and down the country to take advantage of the provision in the 1921 Act. That means that, as far as anyone can foresee, we shall not have the compulsory raising of the school age. Local authorities up and down the country say, "It is unfair in this town A that we should compel children to attend school till 15. when in the very immediate town of B children are able to leave school at the age of 14. That would be an unfair competition as between the children of one area and the children of another:' As a matter of fact, I think London Members will agree with me that it was the voluntary nature of the continuation schools, merely applied to the London area, that broke the continuation schools down. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is quite right! "]It is the voluntary operation, one authority here, and another there providing continuation schools and raising the school age which will cause a complete breakdown. You could only do this then in one way, and that is by a national obligation that children in all areas, under all authorities, should attend school till the age of 15. Therefore, anyone who votes for this Amendment votes against the vital principle of the consultative Committee. The seconder said that in theory and in principle he is with us. We invite him to be with us in practice. We invite hon. Members opposite to put the pious aspirations we have heard into practical effect. Let us have the raising of the

1051
school age, with maintenance grants. If hon. Members opposite will help us to raise wages, instead of a policy of lower wages and longer hours, that would help us to meet the economic situation.
My final ward is this. It is not the educationist's plea to raise the school age now. It has become something far bigger than that. It is not people like myself, who have been directly associated with education, who are making this plea now. It is not being urged merely for the sake of the individual child. It is not being urged merely for the development of the education system. It is being urged as an essential, social and economic policy that this country ought to adopt. As far back as 1909 the Royal Commission on the Poor Law said, "Raise the school age." I believe the Majority and the Minority Report said that. There were Committees during the War that considered this problem. They said, "Raise the school age." We have had two or three Committees sitting now on education and industry, and in every one of them you find a reference to the raising of the school age. I will quote one, because on this Committee I do not think there was a single practicing educationist. As a matter of fact, I believe the President of the Board of Education received some criticism from educationists because he did not put them on the Committee with his colleague the Minister of Labour. I believe he took the attitude, "Let us have a Committee of business men. Let us have a Committee of men directly associated with industry."
Do not let us have any suspicions that there are educationists on this body who are getting their own way with these people. What do they say:
"While, as a Committee, owing to the terms of reference, we are unable to express any opinion on the matter, we feel that we cannot afford to let this opportunity pass without emphasising our strong personal opinion that the extension of compulsory education, either whole time or part time, would be in the interests of the boys and girls themselves and of the country as a whole."
Why? Quite honestly, I cannot understand the madness of pouring into industry about 500,000 children every year when they cannot be absorbed in in-
1052
dustry. They are not absorbed, either as children or as adults, and in this enlightened State of ours, which exists mainly under Tory and Liberal Governments, we find children from 14 to 16 years with no provision for them of any kind whatever. Neither are they insured, nor is there any educational provision for them. They are left alone, as one hon. Member said, orphans of the industrial storm. Tens of thousands from 16 to 18 years—we cannot find their number—are being demoralised mentally and physically every day of their unemployed lives. Yet we do nothing for them. It is vitally essential, in the interests of the country from an economic point of view, that these children should be kept in school when industry cannot absorb them. Unless the President of the Board of Education can get up tonight and say, "We will adopt Recommendation 21 on page 178 to raise the school age compulsorily," he will not lead his party into the Lobby in favour of this consultative committee's report. That is the very essential of it. Merely to stick on a year haphazard, as the Report says, with children going on, somehow or another, for another year longer, is obviously a very different thing from the State saying that, at the age of 11 plus, there is a distinct break, and the psychology of the children, their physical and mental development, demand that we should begin at that age to investigate a new system of education. The Report says,
"Call that secondary; it does not mean a merely literary education."
It says that the problem is not elimination, at the age of 12, of those not fitted to receive further education. The problem is not one of selection. It is not one of finding out who are fitted. The Report says that all normal children are fitted to receive a further education at the age of 11 plus. The problem then, is not one of elimination or selection, it is one, the Report says, of variation.
How can you find a school that will develop the peculiar capacities of the particular child? Some children may not be able to write an essay or to turn out good literary work; but they may be able to work with their hands and fingers, and may have a practical bent. The Report says: "Let us develop these schools from the age of 11 plus under a. secondary system, co-ordinated with

1053
the elementary system, not a parallelism at all, but an organic, natural development, arising from 11 plus, with variety schools, so that a child who cannot succeed in a literary way will be able to succeed in a practical way." The Report says that one of the root causes of unemployment in this country is specialisation. Industry offers no variety of occupation. The Committeee on Education and Industry says, further, that we must cure this specialisation and give resilliancy of aptitude to our children so that they may be able to adapt themselves to new methods of industry, to meet new circumstances as they arise, and have the natural resilliency of mind to meet the new organisations necessary in industry. The only way you can do that is outside the factory walls, in the schools by developing in a practical way the variety of type, in order that the children may have such a training ground as will give them the best chance of rendering their little tribute of service to the nation as a whole.
10.0 p.m.
Viscountess ASTOR: I must say that I do not quite understand why our side of the House has brought in this Amendment. I want to know if the President is going to adopt the finding of this Committee. I do not ask him to put it in at once, but I want to know if he is going to put it in. We have had two Committees set up lately to deal with juveniles—the Hadow and the Malcolm Committees—both of which have advocated the raising of the school age. That is a thing that some people interested in children feel desperately keen about. Those reports have shown, not only from the educational but also from the industrial and moral points of view, that that is absolutely necessary. The Mover of the Amendment said that we must make haste slowly. You cannot make haste slowly with children. Time goes on in the child's life, and, when you have passed it over, it is gone for ever. I do not like that language about making haste slowly. We have made haste slowly too long in this matter, and I want a definite lead to-night from the President.
The Seconder of the Resolution spoke of the wonderful speeches which the President made two years ago. I agree as to that, but since then he has come up against the stern and vilely Chancellor
1054
of the Exchequer, who has not got the vision of the President. I am afraid that the President may be a little too easily pressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only for the good of his own soul but for the good of the children of the country. I am sorry to have to say this, but there have been so many circulars within the last year that, even if they were called in, they make many of us, who are desperately keen on education, very uneasy. The President knows, and we all know, that the Hadow Report is one of the most complete that has ever been published in the history of education in England. It is so complete that many of us, although we have tried to read and study it, have had to go through it two or three times to take it in. Even then, I could not take some of it in, as I have not had the advantage of a higher education.
Lord E. PERCY: Did you drop it altogether?
Viscountess ASTOR: I want to begin with it. We all know that the raising of the school age will take a long time, but we are going to do it. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan) would have liked to have raised the school age when he was in office. It was not practicable at the moment, but it should be made practicable in five years time, and if we want it we must begin now. When we had this question of juvenile unemployment before us in 1919, we set up juvenile unemployment centres. Then the economy axe came along and cut them down from 150 to three—just the same type of mind that wants to economise on education now. But they found that was not practical, and they have had to open them again at great expense and with much less efficiency. The only practical thing for this Government, or any Government to do is to face up to this question of juvenile unemployment, and when they do that, they will find that they have the Report of two Committees in favour of raising the school age. I am interested in the raising of the school age, not only from the educational point of view, but also from the moral point of view. When I hear hon. Members say, "It is all right, put them into industry at 14," it must be remembered that they cannot easily get into industry at 14, and even if they do, they are turned out at

1055
the age of 16 and go on the unemployment list. The Malcolm Report has shown the quick way in which children deteriorate between 14 and 16 if they have no work.
But the real point is on the moral side, and that is what alarms me. Even if you cannot get complete education, and you will not, do let us try within the next five years to keep the children under supervision, as it were, and to keep some hold over them until we can put the whole of the Report into operation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that 16 should be the compulsory school-leaving age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not 21?"] I think that even 21 would be a splendid age, and I should like to see 21 for everyone's sons. But that is not the matter we are discussing now. The Mover of the Amendment said that we were getting on very well with the reduction in the size of classes, but we have still 20,000 classes with more than 50 children in each class under one teacher, and yet we are economising on higher education. We have economised to the extent of £70,000 in regard to higher education.
Lord E. PERCY: That is not the case.
Viscountess ASTOR: I am very glad to hear it. I do not blame the President of the Board of Education in regard to economy, but I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is nobody more able than the Noble Lady, who works with the President of the Board of Education. I only wish she had the last say about. education. Some of us are really terrified. We have seen this economy tried before, and we have paid for it well when we have had to go to the country. You cannot economise on education, and no matter what the President of the Board of Education says, there is this feeling abroad. We arc up against the same class of mind that tried to economise in 1919. Unless I can get a reassurance that the Report will be adopted as soon as possible, and that the Government will go in for a policy of raising the school age in five years' time, much as I regret it, I shall have to vote with hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I think that would be a kindness to the Board of Education,
1056
because, if some of us do that, we shall show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are in desperate earnest about the education of the children of the country.
Lord E. PERCY: I think the first thing that the House will expect me to do will be to express my thanks to the Consultative Committee for its Report. It is a most valuable Report, and it is going to be of the utmost assistance to the Board and to local authorities. The second thing I think the House would wish me to do is to express my sympathy with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) in the position in which they have been put. I am sure that no one who has listened to them can have failed to see what has happened. The hon. Member for Wednesbury began his speech with a quarter of an hour of great fervour and evident sincerity, about the whole question of secondary schools properly so-called, about free places and the necessity for increased maintenance allowances and so on, and he ended up his speech with a peroration of the utmost sincerity on the same subject. But in between there was sandwiched a. rapid survey of this Report, of which he obviously knew so little and had never seen before, that he had to read every word very hurriedly, and then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring made another speech, the same sort of speech that we have beard before and that we are always glad to hear from him in this House, on the problem of secondary education in Durham and the problem of pert-time education in Durham, expressly excluded from the Report, and we heard practically no word of the Report of the Committee itself. We all know what has happened. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury wanted to move a Motion on secondary schools. He had this Motion drawn up and foisted on him by the leaders of his party or by hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove), who are out for propaganda.
Mr. COVE: Thank you, that is cheap.
Mr. PALING: Get on with your business.
Lord E. PERCY: There was foisted on him a Motion which those hon. Gentlemen knew nothing about and cared nothing about; a subject which they had never got up and the consequence is that the House has been deprived of what would have been a very interesting Debate on a real Private Member's Motion on the real subject which interested private members.
The Motion calls upon the Government to take at once all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by this Committee. Do the hon. Members who move that really mean what they say? The hon. Member for Wednesbury referred to a Motion in this House a year ago on the same general subject of secondary education. He said it was a more drastic Motion. Will he consult—and I appeal to him, as I can confidently appeal to him—the speech that I made on that occasion and the warning that I gave to hon. Members, not to lead people outside to believe that they said more than they really meant, and, having read my words, I would ask him to consider whether it would be honest of him to make any complaint with regard to my attitude on that occasion compared to my attitude to-night.
In the face of that warning, let us see what we are asked to pass. The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked us—blindly, I know—to pass a Motion whereby Wednesbury would be abolished as an independent local education authority. Does he mean that? Is that the policy of the party opposite? I call for a reply. It is not a question of what I have done, but what the Report says should be done. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.
Lord E. PERCY: As those questions have not been answered, I will assume that lion, Members did not mean it. Take the question of central schools. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring has told us over and over again in this House that he is opposed to central schools, that he does not like central schools, and that he wants secondary schools or, as they are called in the Report, grammar schools. I gather that he is still of that opinion.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I am.
Lord E. PERCY: How can the hon. Member reconcile that with this Report?
Mr. RICHARDSON: Because it is a big step forward.
Lord E. PERCY: It is a big step forward to be taken by the methods which I have always advocated, which we on this side have always advocated, and which many hon. Members opposite have advocated—it is not a party question—namely, the establishment of central schools as distinguished from grammar schools, as distinguished from those higher "tops" in which the hon. Member's own educational authority indulges. Does he mean that I am to take administrative action. [Interruption.] Really, hon. Members must allow me to put my point. Does the hon. Member mean that he is now prepared to see central schools set up in Durham and in similar areas? I will tell him why I ask that question; it is because, up to now, one of the great difficulties we have had in our educational advance has been that in mining areas especially, the mining villagers say, "We will have nothing to do with your central schools; we want secondary schools,"
Mr. RICHARDSON: The Noble Lord has asked me for a reply. He knows as well as I do that central schools in a county area are an absolute impossibility. We have been driven to our higher "tops" because of the present system. I admit that it has done good. I do not decry the education that has been given, but I want something more, and the only thing for a county area is a primary school, with secondary education to follow.
Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is mistaken. There are any number of central schools in any number of counties, and they are being set up every day. It is not a fact that they are impracticable in a county. If he will excuse me for saying so, he has not studied this Report.
Mr. COVE: I have.
Lord E. PERCY: I am coming to the hon. Member. There are, of course, other questions. There is the question of a universal system of leaving examination. Is that the policy of hon. Members opposite? Have they considered the whole question of leaving examinations for all children from 14 and over? Do

1059
they desire that immediate administrative steps should be taken in that direction? Hon. Members opposite have no opinions on that subject, I fear, or on any subject mentioned in the Report. Naturally, they have not had an opportunity of making up their minds on these subjects. Let me refer to the words of this Report. This is a Report which proposes a general line of advance. It says that progress must be tentative and experimental. It proposes a line of advance in many directions. No one who reads the recommendations believes for one moment that all the recommendations are to be carried out at once. That is not the proposal of the Report. This Motion bears no relation whatever to the Report. It has been put down by hon. Members who really had not had time to study the Report. In the whole of this Debate hardly any part of the Report has been referred to. The only part that has been specifically mentioned has been the question of the raising of the school age. To that I am coming.
Before I do so, may I say to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, in regard to that portion of his speech in which he referred to matters in which he was really interested, that on those points I think we can satisfy him that very real advance is being made. He quoted a figure for the free places in secondary schools. That figure of 142,000 odd at any rate is an advance of 8,000 on the total of two years ago. We have made that progress. In a speech the other day I gave some figures, which perhaps the House will allow me to read, because I am not sure that they were published. The effect of our progress is this, that whereas in 1919 to 1920 one pupil in 23 of the appropriate age in our public elementary schools secured a free place, in 1930, with our present rate of progress, the figure will be one in 13. That indicates that we are making very substantial advance. So, with the remark of my Noble Friend the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) about the general policy of economy. I address myself to her and to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and all hon. Members opposite who are really anxious about educational progress, and who want to tell the people of this country what is actually being done. If they look at the figures they will know that there
1060
is no question of this Government having placed economy first and having restricted the development of education.
I have given over and over again in public figures which, of course, are not usually quoted in the periodical Press which hon. Gentleman opposite are accustomed to read, but still are available in other papers. They will know from those figures what the facts really are. Take, for instance, a most important indication of the subject we are discussing—how fast we are getting on with the developing of the schools to take these children. Look at the figures of capital expenditure in the last three years. In 1924–25, during half of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, the capital expenditure approved by the Board of Education was just over £4,500,000, and that was greatly above the year before. In 1925–26 it was £6,015,000. This year with six weeks of the year still to run, and in spite of the holding up of building and so on during our industrial troubles, it is already £4,825,000. These are expenditures before the three-year programme of the local education authorities has begun. You have in those programmes a greater rate of capital expenditure. You have provision in those programmes for 50,000 new secondary school places—a very considerable part in the provision of secondary education—and large and very important extensions in the accommodation in central schools, senior schools, and so on, dealing with the older children. You have in those programmes, I think I may say, provision for solving by 1930, generally speaking, the whole problem of defective school premises so far as provided schools are concerned.
There is no doubt about our programme and all the talk about these restrictions on expenditure which prevent development is really very far from the truth. That progress, of which there is no doubt, is quite a sufficient answer to any allegations about the Minister's policy of economy. I want to come to the question of the raising of the school age. We are all agreed that the great problem before us in education—our great task in education—is to increase school life and increase it as soon as possible. The deplorable thing at the present moment is that we have not been able hitherto to provide buildings for

1061
advanced instruction fast enough to meet the existing demand, the voluntary demand, of children to stay on beyond the age of 14. We are catching up with that demand. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) knows that perfectly well. Her authority at Plymouth wants to raise the age to 15 but the committee estimated that it would take eight years to deal with the whole of their elementary school problems in order to meet the needs of these children for advanced instruction. That is our problem, that is our task and that is our duty and on that, all the money which the country can spare should be concentrated. There are two things I will not do. I will not throw this question of the compulsory raising of the school age at the local authorities in such a way as would lead them to scrap the whole of the programmes which they have at present providing for these 50,000 new secondary school places. Do hon. Members think that an authority which has made up its mind to provide 500 new secondary school places by 1930 and which by 1930 or 1931 will be incurring the full expenditure consequent on that new provision, whatever it may be—
Mr. COVE: There is a great drop in the numbers attending the schools.
Lord E. PERCY: The secondary schools?
Mr. COVE: All schools.
Lord E. PERCY: No, there is not There is an increase in the number attending the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Wellingborough must have some sort of accuracy in his remarks. We have a net increase in the number attending the secondary schools in the country as a whole. Does anybody suppose that an authority which is willing to incur that expenditure to which I have referred will be encouraged to do so by being told, "In the very year when the full commitment accrues I am going to force you to look after 5,000 extra children between the ages of 14 and 15"? Of course, what the authorities would do would be to say: "If I am going to have to meet this, I will provide the additional elementary school accommodation and scrap the secondary school accommodation that I had planned." Having got your programmes up to this point, you must let
1062
the local authorities carry on with them, or you will never get any of the real work done. Any man on the other side who has had practical experience of administration will know that.
The second thing I will not do is this: I will not compel a lot of children to come into the schools before I have made proper provision for their education. Nothing has done more harm to education in the last five or six years, in the last 10 years, than the impression that parents got after the school age was raised to 14 plus that their children were marking time in the upper standards of the schools. It did more harm to education than anything else, and the worst harm you could do to education now would be to force parents to send their children to the schools for another year without having first made adequate preparation for their advanced education. This is not a new policy. It is the policy of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). I am really quoting from what he said in his Circular No. 1340, where he said:
"That issue (of the raising of the school age) involves on the one hand careful examination of the capacity of the schools.… to do justice to the older pupils, and of the time required to increase their capacity. On the other hand, special regard must be had to that element in public opinion which is represented by the views of the parents, and to the degree in which their willing co-operation can be obtained in rendering such an advance fruitful."
He goes on to say:
"The problem of universally raising the school leaving age must be considered in its educational, social, and economic aspects, and in dealing with it the Board naturally look to the Local Education Authorities for information and advice."
And he went on to say that the Board would be gratified if the authorities were able to encourage the Board to take a more optimistic view as to the practicability of advance.
Mr. TREVELYAN: What year was that?
Lord E. PERCY: This was 1924, the year in which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in the House of Commons a continuous policy for a decade, which I believe is ten years. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's opinions then, and I have no doubt they are his opinions now, that anything of this kind has to be done in consultation with the local autho-

1063
rities and taking into consideration the views of the parents and public opinion among the parents, and your capacity to meet the needs of the parents in your provision in the schools. My view is this, and I believe it is the view of the local authorities. We need to go ahead, and are going ahead, with the programmes. We need to go ahead in providing the necessary accommodation to deal with these four years from 11 to 15. We are doing that in the programmes, and when we have proceeded further with that, it will be time enough to decide whether we have reached the point where it is fair and just, having regard to the views of parents and to our provision for the children, to introduce compulsion.
Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May I ask, with the present development of policy, when the noble Lord expects that time will be reached when it will be practicable to say: "Five years hence compulsion will be introduced"?
Lord E. PERCY: I do not think it is possible to say at the present moment in each case when that time will be reached. Local authorities' programmes need to get very much further on than at the present moment before we can see our way to do that. My last word will be this. I have always said, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, that I believe that this country owes a great debt of gratitude to him for having swept away former paper restrictions. That was his great achievement. But, during the short time he was in office, he was naturally not able to agree with the local authorities generally on any scheme of advance. He often complained that he could not get local authorities to move. Since that time, largely by reason of the effiuxion of time, we have agreements with local authorities. We have got an organised programme. We have got each local authority with a definite programme. We must suit our expressions of opinion to that situation. Passing vague Motions of this kind, which are really not well considered, which every hon. Member opposite does not mean interpreted literally, when he does not know whether he wants to do this or that with these recommendations—passing vague Resolutions of this kind is enough to break the heart of any administrator who is trying
1064
to get on with his job. The meaning of this Amendment is that we intend trying to get on with our job, because we know the accomplishment of that job on the lines of that Report is an essential if we are ever going to get any increase of school life, and we prefer to get on with our job rather than pass vague Resolutions intending to say more than we really mean, and to mislead and to furnish subjects for propaganda, and not for progress.
Mr. TREVELYAN: Those of us who were here at the beginning of this Debate were, perhaps, a little puzzled at the attitude of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He was specially anxious to tell us he was not hostile to our attitude. He kept on saying that he agreed with us, and that this Report contained the Prime Minister's election address, but he observed that we did not propose in the Resolution moved from this side of the House to consult the local education authorities, and that lie preferred our hastening slowly to what, I suppose, he regarded as our hastening quickly. But everyone who was listening to him, or who was listening to the Seconder, whose chief objection was that we wanted to do things at once, instead of not doing things steadily, as he quoted from the Report—everyone listening to that felt that there was practically no difference between those hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Mo non, and anyone listening would have been rather puzzled to know why the Amendment should have been moved, and still more puzzled when the only other speech from the Conservative side was strongly in favour of the original Motion. The fact is, we all protest we arc in favour of this Report. Then why cannot we pass a Resolution saying we are in favour of it and that we wish the Government to put it into operation at once? I am afraid the author of the difficulty is the right hon. Gentleman. I was very anxious that my hon. Friends should, if possible, get agreement on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has a very strongly developed faculty for disintegrating political co-operation. Here is a new Report. It has the very high authority of a large number of educationalists of all political complexions

1065
behind it. It is practically a unanimous Report. It is not a violent Report, but a cautious one. It is everything a progressive party and a conservative party can support. Why should not we pass a Resolution in favour of it?
The right hon. Gentleman loftily tells my friends they have not had time to make up their minds, that they have not read the Report. Of all queer censures I think that is the queerest—after the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The truth is this Amendment has been put down because the right hon. Gentleman, when this Report came out, at once put himself into such a position that he could not accept it. He at once wrote a letter in which he said that he had not had time to study the report but in which he announced that the Conservative Government would not raise the school age to 15. I should not have been surprised had the Conservative Government said they were going to take time to consider the matter, but that at any rate they were going to read the Report; but by saying straight out, "We are not going to do one of the things which this Report recommends" he put himself in a false position, and it became Parliamentarily necessary for one of those Amendments, with the origin of which we are all familiar, to be moved from the Back Benches. It is very unfortunate, too, that at this juncture this question of raising the school age cannot be discussed in a favourable atmosphere. This Report is a cautious report. It does not propose to raise the school age at once. The right hon. Gentleman apparently wanted to rope me in as his supporter against raising the school age because I had said in 1924 that it was not a thing which could be considered at once for the whole country, but that it was a thing we had to consider. The proposal which we have before us is not that we should raise the school age next year. The Committee's proposal is:
"It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory after the lapse of five years from the date of this Report—"
that is to say, at the beginning of the school year 1932. That is the proposal. That is what the country is asked to con-
1066
sider. It is not asked to raise the school age at once, but after giving the local authorities plenty of time to consider it and build new schools, and, plenty of time to make preparations for its coming into operation. I think that disposes entirely of the main obstacle which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that they would not have time to prepare for this great change.
Ought not the House and the country to be considering this question seriously at the present time. There is a, very strong growing opinion in favour of raising the school age. We all know the difficulties conected with it. We all know than there is a large Conservative opinion represented by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), and she does not speak alone on this question, because there is a large Conservative opinion in favour of this proposal on the local education authorities of this country. Sir Percy Jackson, the Chairman of the County Councils' Association, is strongly in favour of it. The National Union of Teachers is also in favour of it, and public opinion is growing rapidly in that direction. Therefore I think it is a most unfortunate thing for the President of the Board of Education to take up a line directly contrary to the general trend of educational opinion.
But there is another reason which ought to be pressing upon our attention. At the present time we are going through a period of severe unemployment. There are 1,500,000 unemployed, and this state of things has existed for the last four years. During those four years we have put out into the labour market 500,000 children every year at 14 years of age. Do they not increase unemployment? It is perfectly true that a child coming into the labour market at 14 does not directly drive out the man who is unemployed at 40, but the child that gets work at 14 drives out some young people at the age of 16 or 18, and they in turn drive out the older adults. If we were to spend money during the next five years in preparing the schools and the teachers for this development, if we were to do what I and my friends are pressing more and more we ought to do, namely, to find maintenance grants on a liberal scale by the State to families who are keeping

1067
their children at school at 14 years of age; if we did all that and spent all the millions required for that purpose we should be saving some millions now spent in Poor Law Relief and unemployment benefit. The President of the Board of Education may think I am exaggerating, but I am prepared to say that the saving in poor relief and unemployment benefit—of course, I do not say it would amount to all that we might happen to spend—at the other end by getting those children into school would be very considerable. We should be making a great saving on poor relief and unemployment benefit—one of the least productive kinds of expenditure which this country bears and that we should be substituting for it, even if substituting a larger expenditure—an expenditure which would practically all be of real value to the country.
Lord E. PERCY: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment, I did not wish to be discourteous. What was in my mind was this. Does he ever compare the entry into industry and the total relief to industry by keeping boys and girls in schools from 14 to 15 years with the amount of the normal retirements from industry at the age of, say, 60?
Mr. TREVELYAN: Of course, the thing cannot be clearly or accurately estimated. I have said so. Who pretends that it can. But does anybody pretend that if the 300,000 children who actually get work when they leave school at 14 did not go into the labour market, there would be as much unemployment as there is? As a matter of fact this change of raising the school age is educationally, economically and socially one of the biggest things which we can contemplate in the near future and there is no reason why we should not contemplate it except one thing, that it is going to cost money, and nobody denies that. I am bound to say I am afraid that is the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in his opposition to this proposal.
These proposals if carried out mean a considerable increase in the expenditure on secondary education. I agree that any advance of that sort which implies any large number of new secondary schools or indeed of any other schools
1068
seems to be incompatible with the present policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and it would, I agree, be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal of ours at the very moment that he issues Circular 1388. It is too early to estimate the full effect of that Circular. We have not had time to study its likely effects, but it has a close relation to secondary education. It fixes the standard of increased secondary expenditure at £25 per pupil extra in the year 1927–28 over 1924–25, and as far as those of us who have studied that Circular can make out, it practically prevents the erection of new secondary schools in the near future.
I have got the figures from one county which I will give to the right hon. Gentleman and he can check them if he does not think they are correct. They come from the chairman of the responsible authority. They have taken out the figures in order to show what the effect on the secondary education budget will be, and they find that the increase, at £25 per place—the increase which they have arranged for this year, and which is actually taking place—the permitted increase will be 750 places at £25 per place, which would be £18,750 permitted to the local authority. They find, however, that, taking the actual number of fresh places which they are expecting to have this year, they would, under the right hon. Gentleman's new proposals, be £5,000 out of pocket. I have given him the figures, but the point is this: The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy of economy, issuing circular after circular in which he is inculcating economy, showing new methods by which economy is to be required of the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that policy is incompatible with the policy of the Hadow Report, because the Hadow Report implies an immediate and vigorous development of secondary and advanced education, and that is impossible without a change of the kind of policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman now.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 128.

Division No. 8.]

AYES.

[10.59 p.m.

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

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Rose, Frank H.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Groves, T.

Scrymgeour, E.

Ammon, Charles George

Grundy, T. W.

Scurr. John

Astor, Viscountess

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

Sexton James

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston

Hardie, George D.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Baker, Walter

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barnes, A.

Hayes, John Henry

Sitch, Charles H.

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Bondfield, Margaret

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Smillie, Robert

Broad, F. A.

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bromfield, William

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Rennie (Penisione)

Bromley, J.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Snell, Harry

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stephen, Campbell

Clowes, S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sullivan, J.

Compton, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Cove, W. G.

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawrence, Susan

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Lee, F.

Townend, A. E.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lindley, F. W.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dennison, R.

Lowth, T.

Varley, Frank B.

Duncan, C.

Lunn, William

Viant, S. P.

Dunnico, H.

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maxton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Montague, Frederick

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

England, Colonel A.

Morris, R. H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Fenby, T. D,

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Forrest, W.

Paling, W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Gardner, J. P.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

Gibbins, Joseph

Potts, John S.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Gillett, George M.

Purcell, A. A.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Riley, Ben

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

Greenall, T.

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

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fraser, Captain Ian

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Mason, Lieut.-Cot. Glyn K.

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

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

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Atholl, Duchess of

Goff, Sir Park

Nelson, Sir Frank

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gower, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Ellis

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Grant, Sir J. A.

Penny, Frederick George

Bethel, A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Blundell, F. N.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Pilcher, G.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

Raine, W.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Briscoe, Richard George

Harland, A.

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hartington, Marquess of

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hawke, John Anthony

Ropner, Major L.

Campbell, E. T.

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

Rye, F. G.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Salmon, Major I.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

Sandeman, A, Stewart

Clayton, G. C.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hume, Sir G. H.

Shepperson, E. W.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Cope, Major William

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Jacob, A. E.

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Storry-Deans, R.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lamb, J. Q.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lougher, L.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lumley, L. R.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lynn, Sir R, J.

Waddington, R.

Fielden, E. B.

Macintyre, Ian

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

1070

1071

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Wells, S. R.

Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Mr. Somerville and Mr. Cadogan.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Womersley, W. J.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Mr. JAMES HUDSON Mr. JAMES HUDSON rose—
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (CLERKS).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (CLERKS).
  SURPLUS WAR STOCK (SALE AND RE-PURCHASE).
  SURPLUS WAR STOCK (SALE AND RE-PURCHASE).
  GOVERNMENT FILMS.
  GOVERNMENT FILMS.
  CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF PROBATE.
  CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF PROBATE.
  BETTING DUTY.
  BETTING DUTY.
  NATIONAL DEBT AND TAXATION (REPORT).
  NATIONAL DEBT AND TAXATION (REPORT).
  OVERSEAS BETTING BILL.
  OVERSEAS BETTING BILL.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARRIED OFFECERS' PAY.
  MARRIED OFFECERS' PAY.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  STAG LANE AERODROME (ACCIDENT).
  STAG LANE AERODROME (ACCIDENT).
  METEOROLOGY (DR. J. BJERKNES' WORK).
  METEOROLOGY (DR. J. BJERKNES' WORK).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ELECTRICITY BOARD (AGRICULTURE).
  ELECTRICITY BOARD (AGRICULTURE).
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES.
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES.
  ERRIBOL ESTATE, SCOTLAND (SALE).
  ERRIBOL ESTATE, SCOTLAND (SALE).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (PLAYGROUNDS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (PLAYGROUNDS).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (SMOKE).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (SMOKE).
  CEYLON (STAMP SUPPLIES).
  CEYLON (STAMP SUPPLIES).
CHINA.
  BRITISH PROPERTY (DAMAGE).
  BRITISH PROPERTY (DAMAGE).
  ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT.
  ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT.
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (TRADE ACCOUNTS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (TRADE ACCOUNTS).
  POST OFFICE (OVERTIME).
  POST OFFICE (OVERTIME).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
LORD HAYTER.
Sir George Hayter Chubb, Bart., having been created Baron Hayter of Chislehurst in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1925, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of yesterday reported by the Earl of CROMER as follows:—
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address. I join most sincerely in your expression of deep regret at the melancholy tidings of the death of My illustrious friend His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and I shall without fail communicate to His Majesty the present Emperor your message of profound sympathy with the Imperial Family and the Government and people of Japan in the loss which they have sustained."

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
LORD MONKSWELLhad given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are yet able to form any conclusion as to the result of the amalgamation of the various railway companies in this country; whether the expectations of economy have been realised; and what steps the Ministry of Transport has taken

87
to urge the railway companies to introduce improvements tending to a better and safer service; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now more than five years since the Railways Act was passed into law. After the War the financial position of the railways was serious and economies were urgent, and the Ministry of Transport, under Sir Eric Geddes, was commissioned to deal with the situation. The exact reasons that led the Government to pass the Railways Act were no doubt complicated, but it was freely stated on their behalf that large economies were to be anticipated as a result of the Act passing. That certain economies were possible and that they have in fact been achieved I do not doubt. There was a certain amount of overlapping to be got rid of and something was to be gained by improved routing of the trains and by a few other obvious measures, all of them useful enough so far as they went but utterly incapable of producing any large result.
The source whence large economies were to be expected was stated to be the elimination of competition. That a man like Sir Eric Geddes, whose whole railway career was passed in stifling competition and who must have known perfectly well that no real competition in facilities has ever been allowed to exist on British railways, should put forward a plea of this kind is one more instance of the contempt for the intelligence of the public which characterises the railway hierarchy. In very early days there was, no doubt, keen competition for the country which each railway was to be allowed to serve, but since then so well have railway officials in quest of a quiet life contrived to arrange matters with one another to eschew competition that, except as a bogey to be produced for imposing upon the credulity of the public when necessary, such odds and ends of competition as survived at the time of the passing of the Railways Act were utterly insignificant. In these circumstances it is in no way surprising that the large economies promised should have failed to materialise.
But the position is much worse than that. While amalgamation has not, perhaps, had any serious effects upon the Great Western group, which was little affected, nor on the Southern group,
88
which was the smallest of all the groups, the situation on the London & North Eastern group and the London, Midland & Scottish group is, so far as I can make out, thoroughly bad. As regards the London & North Eastern, the Chairman of that group has lately issued his apologia and foreshadowed vaguely some improvement. He says that they are not allowing themselves to be hurried and are taking plenty of time. So I should imagine, to judge from the results so far achieved. The principal trouble appears to be on the old Great Eastern line. I hear the most deplorable tales of unpunctuality and indifference, which seem to have spread over the whole district. The Great Eastern was never a very fast or a very comfortable line, but at one time the punctuality of its trains was above the average and the working was quite smart. Now all this has changed; there is a feeling that those in authority take no interest in the line and hopelessness broods over every department. As regards the London, Midland & Scottish group, enough of its troubles have become public property to make it certain that it is at the present time passing through a very serious crisis.
When an enormous amalgamation of this kind takes place it is obviously of the greatest importance to get to work without delay to introduce and perfect the new organisation; and one of the essential conditions is that the men who are to carry out the work should be installed at once and given a firm tenure of office. In these circumstances it is rather odd that the noble Lord, the first Chairman of the group, held office for not more than two years. But this is nothing in comparison with what followed. The first General Manager also was got rid of within two years, receiving, I imagine, heavy compensation for the premature termination of his contract. I should particularly like to know what the facts were and whether, in the event of expense being incurred in this and similar ways, it is regarded by the Government as giving the railways power under the Act to raise their charges against the public.
The General Manager who succeeded, obviously as a provisional measure, was a gentleman who, I believe, was actually on the retired list, and while this Manager was temporarily carrying on a completely

89
new scheme of control was evolved, different from anything that had ever been heard of before in this country, in every way untried and experimental. The whole railway was put under the control of Sir Josiah Stamp, who was, I believe, originally a clerk in the Civil Service and afterwards went into the City, but who, so far as I know, had no previous experience of railways. Meanwhile it is not surprising to learn that the officials are not pulling very well together. One particularly unfortunate incident has lately occurred. At long last the London, Midland and Scottish group appointed a locomotive engineer who has grasped the obvious fact that locomotives of the latest Continental pattern are much superior to anything that we have in this country. He produced designs for new locomotives embodying the latest Continental ideas. But all to no purpose. As soon as preparations were being made to build to the new designs someone interposed his veto, and the proposal so far as I know, has now been crushed.
The fundamental trouble that now oppresses the railways of this country is that they are paying for their past misdeeds. When they sprang into being a hundred years ago they found themselves in possession of a machine so immensely superior to anything else at that time in existence that for a long period to come they were assured of handsome profits without the least trouble to themselves. They had any amount of time and any amount of money, which they might have used for the purpose of continuously improving their plant and equipment and so indefinitely retaining the lead that they held. Had they had any foresight they would have welcomed every improvement tending to a faster, more economical and more comfortable service. There is no question but that if this had been done Glasgow would at the present moment be within three hours of London and the immensely profitable long-distance traffic many times as great as it is. And so on in other directions. More and more perfect machinery might have given more efficient and more economical service and largely have replaced the great army of men whose relatively inefficient work and relatively, though by no means absolutely, excessive pay threaten the railways with disaster.
90
It is useless to shut one's eyes to the fact that the root of the present trouble is that at the present time the railway companies are forced to pay their men wages higher than the value of the men's work calculated on any reasonable scale. The railway companies have been made engines for extracting from the public a huge subsidy for their men. In the past the railways found themselves in a position to secure all the cheap labour they wanted and they went blindly on, assuming that a full supply of cheap labour would continue to be available indefinitely. They had every opportunity of expanding and increasing the efficiency of their business in such a way that the value of the work of each of their men might have been raised and there would have been no economic objection to raising the wages of each in proportion; but instead of doing everything they could to increase the efficiency of their property they became so lethargic that great pressure had to be put upon them to introduce even the most obvious measures of safety.
The absurd motto of the London & North Western Railway, "Forty miles per hour is the pace for a gentleman" and the equally ridiculous phrase, attributed to the Chairman of Beyer, Peacock & Co., "Anything will do for a locomotive," not inaccurately indicate the prevalent spirit. Unfortunately, with the passing of railway prosperity that spirit has not passed, but is still with us in all its old ineptitude. Only a few months ago the Chief General Manager of the London & North Eastern Railway is reported to have said:—
"Railways have the advantage of speed and need not exercise themselves to enhance-this advantage."
They still adhere doggedly to the policy which has brought them to distress. Amid the blackness of the storm may still be descried the figure of the railway official nailing his lunatic flag to the mast of his sinking ship.
Passing on now to the question of increased safety and improved services, I must first of all ask permission to say a few words as to how I approach these matters. I have all my life been much interested in railways, and thus have been led to study them deeply. The result of these studies, as I have already remarked, is that I have acquired a

91
settled conviction that all is not as it should be with the railways, and that they have in the past been in a high degree remiss in introducing developments calculated to benefit the public and shareholders. Although some of these defects have now been remedied, usually in the teeth of the most strenuous passive resistance on the part of the railways, there are a large number of further improvements that should at once be taken in hand.
May I say that I hold these views as the result of most careful study, continuously pursued for thirty years? They partake in no way of the nature of ill-digested enthusiasms. What I have said or written about railways has, so far as possible, been based upon facts known to myself from personal observation. Information received from other people has been checked and verified by me in every possible way, and estimates and suggestions which I have put forward are invariably based upon knowledge acquired in these ways. As an example of my methods I may say that for the last thirty years I have followed the running of most of the fastest trains, in which I have travelled often upon the footplate of the engine, with a stopwatch fitted with a split-second hand, which has enabled me to take a continuous record of the speed from one end of the run to the other, and I have checked the accuracy of the stop-watch with another watch. So I have behind me a considerable volume of knowledge acquired in these ways, and in every other branch of railway work on which I venture to speak I have done my best to take my stand upon knowledge not less carefully acquired.
There is about railways nothing to prevent any person of average intelligence from acquiring comprehensive knowledge. It is a simple question of taking enough trouble about it; but that is an absolutely essential condition. There are about railways so many different things to learn, and so many of these things are not in accordance with the first superficial impression, that it is not surprising to find that among the public there reigns profound ignorance on the whole subject, and such impression as the public acquires is in many cases very wide of the truth. A favourite line of criticism is to point out the obvious fact that
92
British railways on the whole are superior to foreign railways. My contentions have nothing to do with foreign railways, except to use them to illustrate certain points in my argument. I cannot see what the defects or otherwise of foreign railways have to do with the matter. I am endeavouring to point out certain serious defects in British railways, and to suggest means of putting them right, without regard to what foreign railways do or fail to do. To try to excuse the shortcomings of British railways, which, taken as a whole, area for area, enjoy by far the richest traffic in the world, by comparing them with less well-placed foreign railways, is a futile proceeding. I am aware that as regards the matter of advocating fresh developments the number of people in this country who have had the time and inclination to study railways from a detached point of view is insignificant, and that we have to fight against all the difficulties with which pioneers throughout recorded history have had to contend.
I should say that at the present time ninety-five per cent. of everything that is written about the railways comes directly or indirectly from the railways themselves and so the opportunity which the public enjoy of forming an independent judgment is slight and the difficulty of impressing them on the subject of deficiencies in the services of our railways is very great. Considering the extent of the evils under which the public are now groaning it would be useless to expect it to be otherwise, but when we come to the attitude of the railway managements themselves towards suggested improvements and reforms the matter is very different. Railways have been permitted to come into existence to serve the public, and the public has a right to expect a high degree of diligence on the part of the railways. Clearly it is the business of the men who manage the railways to study their work closely and to be able to give clear and convincing reasons for what they do and what they leave undone. This is precisely what railway officials do not and will not do.
I speak from personal experience again and again repeated. I have frequently put before railway officers precise proposals for improvements, showing exactly how I considered that these proposals would benefit the public, and exactly what

93
they seemed likely to cost. It is only on the rarest occasions that I have received any answer at all, and I have never once received any answer which could not easily be shown to be fallacious. I have reason to suppose that the experience of other people is similar to my own. The railway companies simply take the line that the conduct of the railways of this country is no business of the public, or any member of it, that nothing shall ever induce them to consider any proposal for -any substantial reform reaching them from an outside source, and that the public, to serve whom railways have been allowed to come into existence, and who provide the whole of the revenues of the railways, are consistently to be treated with contempt. I need hardly say that I do not suggest that proposals for reform should be accepted without the closest scrutiny. I welcome discussion, the more of it the better, but for the invariable practice of the railways contemptuously to "turn down" every suggestion, without any attempt to give reasons for so doing, there is no excuse.
As an example of this practice may describe one of the most recent occasions when it happened to myself? I am sorry to talk so much about myself, but things that have happened to oneself are so much more convincing than hearsay. A short time ago Sir Ralph Wedgwood, Chief General Manager of the London & North-Eastern Railway, stated publicly in the course of a lecture which he was delivering that he disagreed with my views as to the desirability of accelerating express trains, and that he considered that no acceleration was required by the public, nor likely to be economical. I need not say that he gave no reasons for the views which he held. I immediately took up the challenge, and wrote several letters to the newspapers, and, so as to give Sir Ralph no excuse for saying that I was not definite and precise, I put to him this case.
If the dining car trains between King's Cross and Edinburgh and Edinburgh and King's Cross were accelerated to perform the journey in six and a half hours, instead of the present eight and a quarter hours, the extra expense over and above that incurred at the present time would certainly not be more than £10 per train. The fares for an average train-load of passengers amount to £750. Every passenger by these trains would economise
94
one hour and three-quarters. In the extremely improbable event, of the number of passengers showing no increase due to the acceleration, the railway company would still be sacrificing not more than one seventy-fifth part of its receipts. I also went into the technical questions involved in such an acceleration, and gave detailed reasons why no difficulties were to be anticipated on the technical side. I may here remark that if the London & North-Eastern Railway ran between London and Edinburgh at only the same speed as that at which the Great Western, with smaller engines, trains not less heavy, and quite as difficult a road, ham been running between London and Exeter any time these last twenty years, except for an interval during the War, the time occupied on the journey would be reduced approximately by one and a half hours—and the best Great Western trains could easily be run much faster than they are run.
My suggestions to Sir Ralph Wedgwood were in every way definite and precise, exact reasons being given for everything, and full figures. It was just the sort of statement that could be examined in every detail and, if inaccurate, shown to be inaccurate. The editor of one of the newspapers to which I wrote told me that with my letter he hoped to publish the comments of the railway company upon it, and I have no doubt that the comments of the railway company were invited, but, no comments were forthcoming. Sir Ralph Wedgwood, far from attempting to justify himself in a controversy which he had himself started, took refuge in precipitate flight. He refused to say a word, and evidently issued orders to him subordinates that their lips wore also to be sealed. Being obviously aware that he had no case, he endeavoured to hush the matter up by instituting the most rigid boycott. Further comment is, I think, needless. And this is the sort of thing that happens every time more or less. To say that there is no desire on the part of the railways to consider proposed improvements on their merits is a gross under-statement: there is the most determined resolve to boycott every one.
Another point which is obvious to anyone who has considerable experience on the subject of railway deficiencies is the extreme difficulty of getting any of the

95
more important daily newspapers to allow anything about them to be published. I am not, of course, speaking of well-worn subjects like the discomforts of the Channel crossing, or the unpunctuality and over-crowding of trains from Potter's Bar, which the railways appear to welcome as giving the public an opportunity of blowing off steam and distracting their attention from more fundamental matters. But it is most remarkable how, on the very rare occasions when a newspaper permits criticisms which are unpleasing to the railway officers to be published, some mysterious influence invariably intervenes and cuts short discussion before it has had time to focus public attention. This is in the most glaring contrast with the avidity with which newspapers publish items of news issued to them by the publicity departments of the railways.
Before the Ministry of Transport was set up such control as the Government exercised over the railways was exercised through the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade was never a very active or efficient upholder of the rights of the public, and its powers were limited. Still, it did force upon the railways some of the most obvious and necessary reforms, such as the adoption of block signals and continuous brakes. With the advent of the Ministry of Transport the position is really alarming. The speech delivered during the debate in November, 1925, by the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport in this House can mean nothing except the complete capitulation of the Ministry to the views of the railway officials. I have commented upon the unwillingness of railway officials to deal with facts and figures. In this respect the Ministry of Transport has fairly out-Heroded Herod. Faced with a number of proposals, supported by exact facts and figures, the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry did not attempt to examine one of them; he contented himself with a flat refusal to do anything, a refusal obviously dictated by the officials of the Ministry.
It is the professional staff of the Ministry that is responsible for the indifference shown by the Government to railway reform, and this is in no way remarkable when it is remembered that these gentlemen are merely an outpost
96
of the official railway hierarchy. The Ministry of Transport was created for Sir Eric Geddes, who was first and foremost a railway official, and he very carefully packed the Ministry with other railway officials exactly like himself. Some of these gentlemen have, I believe, been changed, but the tradition remains unaltered. The official railway hierarchy, who are the people responsible for the defects in the railways, are also the people who dictate the Ministry's replies to criticism. They are judges in their own cause, and so it is a foregone conclusion that the answers they return will not be sympathetic. Like their colleagues upon the railways, a quiet life for officialdom is their first care, and the public interest comes a very bad second.
I have called unfavourable attention to the habit of the railway officials and of their allies in the Ministry of Transport of either ignoring criticism altogether or else of returning vague and unsatisfactory replies. So as not to lay myself open to the same charge, I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I carry a stage further a rather close examination of some of the reforms which I have advocated in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. I will begin with the subject of the making up of lost time. The position is that British engine drivers, unlike their Continental colleagues, are entirely without any clear and definite instructions on the subject and by far the worst accident that has ever taken place in this country was demonstrably due to failure to make up lost time. Even in view of the community of interest existing between the officials who control the railways and those who control the Ministry of Transport it is astonishing that the latter should have committed themselves to the extraordinary proposition that the making up of lost time is a matter best left to the drivers and that they are unwilling to urge the issue of any instructions. The ghastly danger of this state of things is what must principally strike the general public.
But there is another side to the question which, if not so urgent, is of far wider import. If there is one particular principle which is absolutely essential for the successful conduct of the railways that principle is the attainment of the utmost possible measure of punctuality.

97
Unpunctuality, besides being dangerous, is extremely wasteful. In a complicated organization like a great railway not only the movement of every train but the work of every railway servant also has to be planned in advance. If a tram is late it not only delays other trains and they in turn yet others and so on, but the work of every man, every horse and every lorry detailed to carry out work in connection with those trains must be done at a time different to that foreseen. The inevitable result of this is that the railway company has to pay for a great deal of time during which the men are doing nothing, and then for a great deal of overtime when they are doing work which ought long ago to have been completed. To all this loss of time must be added the dislocation of the arrangements of the passengers, with the final result that unpunctuality may easily bring about a volume of waste so great as seriously to affect the finances of the railway and even of the country.
In those circumstances the making up of lost time, far from being a matter that can safely be left to the drivers, is the sheet anchor of successful management and the most vital responsibility of the General Manager and the board. I do not, of course, suggest that the man on the spot should not be given a certain discretion with regard to the carrying out of his instructions, but the point is that he has no instructions at all, no general principle is laid down for his guidance. What actually happens at the present time is that at least four drivers out of five, being left without clear instructions, never attempt to make up lost time at all, whereas it is of the first importance, alike from the point of view of safety and from that of economy, that every possible minute should be regained. It is difficult to find words to stigmatise severely enough the lack of moral courage that impels the high officials to attempt to shift on to the shoulders of subordinate railway servants like engine drivers a cardinal responsibility of this kind that clearly belongs to themselves. It is as if the War Office left to the discretion of private soldiers whether they should fight or run away.
When the railways complain of hard times they need expect little sympathy so long as they neglect so obvious and
98
so far-reaching an economy as the making up of lost time. In this connection it must be pointed out that there is a very clear divergence between the interests of the railway shareholders and the interests of the officials who manage the railways. The latter are quite properly discouraged from becoming shareholders so as to avoid any question of improper dealings on the Stock Exchange. Therefore they have absolutely no direct interests in the finances of the railways and they make a quiet life for themselves with the minimum of change and development their first interest, whereas the first interests of the shareholders are efficiency and economy, which are not usually achieved by officials in quest of a quiet life, averse from change and unwilling to accept responsibility.
Passing now to other matters, such as the improved rail joints, we are told this is a thing that is constantly being considered. The process of considering it has now gone on for eighty years and the prospect of anything being done is as remote as ever. With regard to third-class sleeping carriages, it would be indecent to expect the railway companies to abandon their first line of defence, so we are duly informed that they do not consider there is any demand for sleeping bunks of a simple type. After that we are told that third-class sleeping carriages would add too much to the weight of the trains and would be too expensive. My suggestion is that third-class sleeping carriages with three tiers of bunks of a simple construction exactly like those used in the ambulance trains during the War, should be introduced. The expense of building and maintaining carriages of this kind cannot differ appreciably from the expense of building and maintaining ordinary third-class carriages. They could be made to accommodate about three-quarters of the numbers of passengers which a third-class carriage of the same dimensions will accommodate and as the bunks would have to be reserved beforehand they could be better filled. There is no real difficulty in introducing them, and as for the absence of demand I do not believe a word of it.
Coming now to the subject of acceleration, there is a whole string of objections that are raised from time to time, but there is little or no substance in any of them. It is sometimes said that the

99
number of junctions which exist in this country are obstacles to high speed. The answer, of course, is that there are different kinds of junctions and that while at a few of them a sharp curve or an extremely large number of awkwardly arranged crossings may make a reduction of speed desirable or necessary, main lines pass through the vast majority of junctions on the straight and so long as the line is clear no reduction of speed is necessary. The places where speed must be reduced are well known and on main lines are not numerous. I have already pointed out that a careful computation of the time lost on account of special speed restrictions at danger points by a train travelling from Euston to Carlisle at an average running speed as high as 75 miles an hour works out at not more than ten minutes. Sometimes we hear that high speed is a terrific and intolerable strain upon the drivers. I have myself travelled upon the footplates of engines working the fastest trains in the world and I have never seen a sign of strain. To a man of good nerve, in good health, who knows every yard of the line he travels over, I believe that locomotive driving involves no particular strain even at the highest speed; in fact, I should think high speed driving on a main line is for a man of that type much easier than the irritating and exacting work of shunting in a goods yard. It must be remembered that a driver has nothing to do with guiding the train. The tremendous strain of guiding a high speed motor car or an aeroplane is entirely absent in the case of driving a locomotive on a line.
Then there is the question of loading gauge and the permissible weight per axle for the engine. The weight per axle is the same on most British railways as on the Chemin de Fer du Nord, the finest performances of whose locomotives I urge British railways to emulate. The British loading gauge, it is true, is smaller than in most other countries, but it is nevertheless big enough to take engines with loading boilers and cylinders of the same diameter as those of the French engines. The chimneys and steam domes would have to be a few inches lower and the side footplates not so wide, but these changes would not perceptibly affect the efficiency of the engine. It is sometimes urged that the best work of existing steam locomotives is in the
100
nature of a special effort and that it is unreasonable to expect such efforts to be made on ordinary occasions. No doubt as things are they are special efforts and are not often made, but there is no earthly reason why this should be so. An engine that can make one of these special efforts on one day can do the same, within a very little, on as many other days as necessary, and as many other engines as necessary of the same design can do the same as often as is necessary. It is merely a matter of providing sufficient power.
The whole of modern civilisation rests upon an abundant supply of cheap power. This can be provided on a railway just as it can be provided elsewhere. If a train is too heavy for an engine to work it at the required speed there are two courses open—to employ mere engines or to employ more powerful engines. It is ridiculous that a great and beneficial reform should be held up on the plea of insufficient power being available. The engines required on any given day to work the best expresses all over the country could hardly reach a total of 150 on an average throughout the year, and, as there can hardly be less than 15,000 engines in steam on any given day, the whole matter affects only 1 per cent. of the engines in use.
It is sometimes asserted that the difficulty of keeping the line clear is an obstacle to high speed. So long as trains do not all travel at the same speed arrangements have always to be made for faster trains to pass slower ones and it is not appreciably more difficult to fit in trains running at 70 miles an hour with trains running at 20 miles an hour than it is to fit in present-day expresses travelling at 50 or 55 miles an hour with the 20-mile-an-hour trains. The timetable would have to be re-cast—that, is all. People do not seem to realise that a line of railway is either "blocked," in which case the train must stop, or it is "clear," in which case the train can go ahead at full speed. Except on special occasions, like foggy weather, or at special places, where speed restrictions exist for all trains, there is no intermediate condition of the line where the train may go on, but only at a moderated speed.
Sometimes it is said that higher speed would entail enormous expense in

101
strengthening bridges. Well, it is true that a really large increase in the maximum speed, say, to 120 miles an hour, would make it necessary to strengthen many bridges, but there is a vast amount of acceleration to be done which does not involve any strengthening at all. Existing main line bridges are obviously strong enough for maximum speeds of 80 to 85 miles an hour because in many places, where gradients and curves are favourable, such speeds are often attained at the present time. Any gain in time that can be secured by increasing down-hill speeds to more than 85 miles an hour is utterly insignificant in amount in comparison with the gain that could be secured by raising speeds uphill and on the level to a point more nearly approximating to 85 miles an hour than is now done. It is up-hill and on the level that the best work of British locomotives compares so unfavourably with the best work of French locomotives.
There is no finality where speed is concerned. It is impossible to say that speed shall be raised to a certain point and no more. In the great majority of cases the journey is a means to an end and not an end in itself. It is only a small proportion of journeys that are an end in themselves. Holiday travellers passing through beautiful scenery may wish to go slowly. Travellers by night do not wish to leave later than midnight or to reach their destinations at an abnormally early hour in the morning. But after allowance has been made for these and a few other similar cases, the total of such journeys amounts to a very small proportion of the journeys of the public. In all the other cases the less time spent in travelling the better. In these circumstances the only restrictions to speed that are in the public interest desirable are financial and physical limitations. Acceleration is not worth while only when it involves too much expense and when it involves danger or discomfort. Except for these considerations there is absolutely no limit to the speed which is desirable.
To take the question of expense first, I have already pointed out that practically all the expense involved by speeds as high as 70 miles an hour has already been incurred and that existing rolling stock, signals and brakes are adequate to the purpose. Practically all the
102
new expenditure that would be called for would be in connection with the supply of the greater power required. I estimated at 3d. a mile the expense of raising the speed of a train, weighing 300 tons behind the tender, from 55 to 70 miles an hour, and of that sum 1½d. per mile is for coal and 1½d. for the increased maintenance cost of the boiler. As these figures have not so far been challenged they are presumably not far wrong. I may add that I have been officially informed that the whole amount of fuel consumed per mile by the large new engines of the Chemin, de Fer du Nord, working trains weighing 500 tons behind the tender between Paris and Calais at speeds in the neighbourhood of 60 miles an hour, is 54 lbs. which with coal at £1 a ton would be 6d. a mile.
With regard to the danger, the only danger that a large acceleration might render slightly more probable is that the drivers might be tempted not to reduce speed near sharp curves and other danger points. This happens occasionally as things are and several exceedingly bad accidents have been due to it. The number of these danger points is, on most main lines, very small and well proved mechanical devices already exist for automatically bringing to a standstill any train approaching a sharp curve at a speed higher than that authorised. There is absolutely nothing to prevent these appliances from being utilised except the reluctance of railway managements to give themselves the trouble of using the facilities which the onward march of invention puts at their disposal. If apparatus of this kind had been in use at Salisbury in 1906 the South Western Railway would probably have saved enough in avoiding the lamentable accident which then took place to pay for the equipment with these appliances of every danger point on its own line.
A great deal of misapprehension prevails on the discomfort that high speed is supposed to involve. During the debate on railway administration which took place in 1925 one noble Lord after another got up and said he did not desire high speed because of the discomfort of it. The assumption that high speed involves discomfort is a very natural one but it is utterly fallacious. I do not suppose any noble Lord who spoke to

103
that effect had ever done any train timing or had any more than the vaguest idea of the speeds at which the various expresses on which he had travelled had run on the different stages of their journeys. For the last thirty years, as I have explained, I have followed with a stop-watch marking fifths of a second the running of the fastest trains in which I have travelled and have also collected from other observers as much information on the subject as I could. I have no hestitation in saying that there is no necessary connection whatever between high speed and discomfort. The two causes that may make a railway vehicle run roughly are some defect in the road and some defect in the vehicle itself. A weak, badly kept road with loose rail joints and badly packed sleepers is quite unsuited for any but the lowest speeds. As an example of the effect upon the motion of a vehicle which such a road exerts I may mention a journey I once had from Edinburgh to St. Pancras. The vehicle in which I was travelling rocked and swayed and bumped in a most distressing manner so long as it was upon the North British Railway, but from Carlisle over the Midland Railway it travelled perfectly smoothly though the speed was higher than it had been over the North British Railway.
Most of the main lines in this country are laid with a heavy type of permanent way, properly packed in stone ballast and adequately maintained, and are quite suitable for speeds much higher than are now run. They are not, of course, perfect, rail joints being susceptible of great improvements, but this particular trouble is certainly less noticeable at high than at low speeds, apparently because at high speeds the wheels have a tendency to fly the joints. On first-class lines such as these rough and unsteady running is practically always due to some small defect in the running gear of the vehicle. On a journey between Salisbury and Exeter on the South Western Railway the dining car was so unsteady at speeds between 70 and 75 miles per hour that I had difficulty in conveying food to my mouth. After finishing my meal I left the dining car and occupied a seat in another vehicle the motion of which, at speeds between 75 and 80 miles an hour, was perfectly smooth.
104
Some of the most jerky and unpleasant motion I have ever experienced in a railway train occurred not long ago in one of the boat trains from Dover to London. Some minor defect in the running gear of the vehicle in which I was travelling produced, at speeds as low as 35 miles an hour, a succession of short, sharp jerks which made the journey one of the roughest and most irritating I ever made. In the same way the worst bumping I have ever received on an engine took place at a speed of about 35 miles an hour. It seemed to have something to do with the synchronisation of the periods of oscillation of the engine springs with the periods of passing over each rail joint. On the other hand, there is a mass of evidence that at really high speeds the travelling is exceptionally smooth. I will not trouble your Lordships with more than a few lines from the issue of the Great Western Magazine of last November regarding a run which took place in the course of last autumn, but there is plenty more evidence available. The extract is as follows:—
"At a point near Haddenham a speed of 92 miles per hour was attained. To the traveller it was curious to note that the greater the speed of the train the less indication was there of abnormal pace. Without the speedometer fixed in the coach it would have been difficult to realise what was happening."
That is what the Great Western people themselves say.
The general position with regard to acceleration is surely this: the saving of time is in itself a good thing and the more time that can be saved the better. From the earliest times one of the surest marks of civilisation was the construction of improved means of communication. The great nations were usually the nations who paid most attention to communication by sea and land. One hundred years ago the invention of railways opened a new chapter in land transport. They at once at least doubled the speed of land transport, and owing to a continuous stream of technical improvements and new inventions have been continuously in a position to supply more and more rapid communication. But at each stage vested interests, official obscurantism and mental inertia have endeavoured to hold up the progress which first the invention of railways and subsequently the technical improvements that followed rendered possible. In

105
early years so frantically did vested interests fight against the very introduction of railways that I believe survey parties had sometimes to carry arms to protect themselves from physical violence and at every subsequent stage railway officialdom, disliking the trouble of making any change, has usually interposed an almost insurmountable barrier of passive resistance not only to acceleration but to all sorts of other developments as well.
By slow stages and handicapped by the unreasonable reluctance of the railway managements to do anything, the speed of express trains has gradually risen to an average of about 55 miles an hour from start to stop with a maximum of 62 miles an hour. Though technical progress has been much slower than it should have been, on account of the absolute indifference of the managements to inventions of persons outside the railway service and the extremely lukewarm encouragement given to those of persons within the fold, it has at the present time reached a point where it is quite easy to add ten miles an hour to both these figures. But there is now the same old dull refusal on the part of the management to recognise facts and consider the interests of the public as there has been at every previous stage. There is nothing more remarkable in raising speed from 60 miles to 70 miles an hour than there was in raising it from 40 miles to 50 miles or 50 miles to 60 miles, or than there will be in future, of raising it from 70 to 80 miles or from 80 miles to 90 miles.
It is all simply a question of what facilities exist at any given period. That reasonable facilities for raising speed exist now is absolutely clear because all that I propose should at once be done has actually been done thousands of times in different parts of the world. What, with very slight exceptions, has actually happened during the whole time that different railways serving the same places have existed in this country, is that the speed of trains serving these places hag been carefully regulated by agreement between the railways owning the different routes. The comparative facilities for speed enjoyed by different routes have been carefully measured and a minimum time allotted to each in accordance with the results of the measurements. The railways, far from believing that the public cares little about speed, are so absolutely
106
convinced that speed is what the public values far above everything else that they always hold one another in the most rigid manner to the letter of these agreements and the history of railway speeds in this country has been the history of a long series of agreements between different railways covering in the minutest detail practically every route in the country where competition is possible.
If these agreements aimed at giving the public speeds reasonably near the maxima which could be achieved at any given period there would not be so much to be said against them. Actually they are used as a dodge for resisting as far as possible all acceleration and so saving the managements the trouble of thinking. An extract from a speech delivered to a general meeting of shareholders on February 15, 1901, by the Chairman of the London & North Western Railway Company will remove all doubt as to what I have just said. It is ancient history no doubt, but things are precisely the same now as they were a quarter of a century ago. It will be seen that the London & North Western Railway Company was so angry at being obliged to adopt a paltry acceleration that the Chairman so far forgot himself as to blurt out the truth in public.
This is the extract of what the Chairman is reported to have said—
"The acceleration of the down and up Scotch expresses was forced upon the Company last December at a time of the year of all others when it was absolutely unnecessary to accelerate their passenger trains in any way. The North Eastern Company, however, had an idea that the speed of trains in this country was less than that in other countries, and therefore, for the futile honour of increasing our own speed without coining up to the speed in other countries, they forced upon the North Western an acceleration of a quarter of an hour between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow. When the North Eastern Company gave them notice that this was going to be done, there were three courses open to them: to do nothing and remain as they were; to accelerate to exactly the same extent as the North Eastern did; or—which they were perfectly able to do—to make a far advanced acceleration and quicken their trains a good deal more than was proposed. After full consideration, however, they thought that the middle course was the best and, looking at the fact that the times of departure and arrival of these trains were the most convenient to passengers, he trusted that the North Eastern Company would not force upon them another serious competition in speed which could only be a detriment to all the railways concerned."

107
From this it appears that the whole matter is a question of negotiation and agreement.
When a railway proposes to accelerate its services it first of all gives notice to its rival, which then proceeds to accelerate to precisely the same extent. But on this occasion, instead of keeping quiet about it, as is the wiser course for people who have much to conceal, the London & North Western Railway all in one breath bitterly complained that it was unnecessary to do anything at all, pointed out that its own trains could quite easily be accelerated much more still, and begged the aggressor not to force it to fight. As the only reason that it could have for fighting was the fear of losing traffic, the pretence that there is no demand for high speed on the part of the public immediately falls to the ground; further we have the explicit admission that a large acceleration was possible, and finally not one single word as to any desire to do as the public wished and economise time. It was, indeed, stated that the times of arrival and departure were the most convenient to passengers, but no attempt was made to demonstrate in what way the passenger gained by starting at 10 a.m., which was the departure time of these trains, instead of, say, at 11 a.m., the time of arrival remaining unaltered.
I may remark that all this fuss was about an acceleration of 15 minutes between London and Edinburgh, which was offset by a reduction of 15 minutes in the time spent on the two routes at Preston and York, where, owing to the introduction of dining cars, it had become no longer necessary to give passengers time for luncheon. I will not trouble your Lordships with further details, but in the same way as the relative speed of trains on the East and West Coast routes was regulated, so has the relative speed of trains on all other competitive routes in this country always been regulated. If this is not a conspiracy to defeat the interests of the public, I do not know what is. In comclusion, let me say that I hope that we shall not hear that the long standing and deep-seated defects to which I have drawn attention are due to the purely temporary phenomenon of the coal strike, and that the Government spokesman will give us exact facts and figures and will
108
not, as on a previous occasion, merely state that the Government is perfectly satisfied with things as they are without making the least attempt to give the reasons on which this view is based. I beg to move.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Lord has given us the benefit, as he has told us, of something like thirty years' experience of the railways, and I think that we must congratulate him that he was able to condense so long an experience into the comparatively small period of an hour. I must condole, I think, with the noble Lord on the fact that many of the suggestions that he has made to the railways have not been accepted. That is a very unfortunate experience and I do not wonder—I should feel the same myself—that it has lowered his opinion of the intelligence and ability with which the railways in this country are conducted. I am bound to say that it must be a matter of profound regret to the railway directors and others connected with the railways in this country that after thirty years' experience he could come to such a melancholy conclusion about the ability and intelligence of all the persons who are engaged in the work of the railways as engineers and conductors.
The noble Lord seemed to think that there was a sort of quadruple conspiracy against any sort of reform on the railways. He first of all attacked the Press. I saw my noble friend Viscount Burnham here a moment ago, and I hoped that he would defend himself against the charge of suppressing letters, information and articles which were sent to him and to other papers pointing out the defects of our railways. I had some hope that the noble Lord might have a good word to say for the Ministry of Transport, but that hope was dashed to the ground altogether, because I found from his remarks that not only was the Ministry of Transport a most incapable body—it is a very great misfortune that I have to represent in this House so incapable a Department—but that from its foundation by Sir Eric Geddes it had been packed with railway officials and that there was a sort of conspiracy between the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies to suppress any kind of improvement on the railways. After all, if the guardians of the public are as

109
bad as he says they are it is very difficult to see what prospect there can be of any improvement.
Then, when we dismiss the newspapers, the Managers of the railways and the Ministry of Transport, we come to the public. Unfortunately we find that the public is also to blame, because, according to the noble Lord, the public is so grossly ignorant on all these subjects, so indifferent to safety and comfort on the railways and so lacking in the intelligence necessary to discern the defects of the railways. I confess that I felt that the noble Lord was really engaged in a most tremendous task in fighting the quadruple ranks of this phalanx, comprising the Ministry of Transport, the railways, the Press and the public. I found that the noble Lord seemed to be the only individual who was engaged in this struggle, and I confess that I hoped that he would recruit some members of your Lordships' House to support him in this Herculean effort to improve the railways.
There was one point on which I do not think that the noble Lord dwelt at very great length. He discussed speed, acceleration and other matters of that kind, concerning some of which, if he will allow me to remind him, I did give answers—no doubt he will consider them very obscurantist and ignorant, answers—three months ago when we were discussing the same subject, but I think he passed over rather lightly the Question that he has put down as the most important—I mean economy. Perhaps this was because he does not think that there have been any economies. At the beginning of his Question he asks the Government—
"whether they are able yet to form any conclusion as to the result of the amalgamation of the various railway companies in this country; whether the expectations of economy have been realised …"
To that point I think the noble Lord addressed rather a small portion of his interesting observations to your Lordships. It is really a very interesting Question, and one in which I know that many noble Lords in this House are very interested.
What has been the effect of the policy adopted five years ago of telescoping 120 different railway companies into four? I have heard, even in this House, some scepticism on the part of noble Lords not otherwise given to doubt as to the
110
improvements that may have taken place and the economies that may have been effected by the amalgamation of the railways. I should like to quote on this point—I hope the evidence will not be considered in any way tainted—the words of a General Manager, Sir Felix Pole, because he says—I am paraphrasing his statement to some extent—that by condensing 120 companies into four, the strong companies have been enabled to assist those whose resources were poor. Therefore, when you are considering what economics may or may not have been realised by the combining of all these companies into four, you have also to consider the other side of the picture. What would have happened if there had not been this amalgamation, and how would these 120 companies have faced the difficult industrial conditions of the last five years? If I may again quote Sir Felix Pole's evidence, he says the real test is what would have been the additional cost of working 120 lines as separate undertakings, with respect to present-day burdens, and he puts the extra cost in rough figures at about £10,000,000. Therefore I think that in considering economics you must give great weight to that point, as to what would have happened to the unamalgamated railway companies during the great stress of the last five years.
We have, of course, to treat as a fair discount to be made from any idea of what might have been the economies realised during the last five years, that there has been, as everybody knows, a great increase of working costs during those years. There has also been the prolonged trade depression of 1922 and 1923, and all the disturbed industrial conditions. I think I may say that, without doubt, if there had not been this amalgamation of the railways the railway services would have been in a far more unfortunate condition, and a far worse condition, than they are in to-day. I am told that it is a very difficult thing to put into exact figures the definite economies that may have been effected, but I must allude to the figure which I gave when discussing the matter in November of last year, when the noble Lord raised this question—namely, that the Railway Rates Tribunal itself, in dealing with the question of standard revenue and allowance for economies in expenses, definitely stated that economies

111
amounting to £1,200,000 had already been effected, and that other economies, according to their view, would be effected in due course. There is no doubt that the Railway Rates Tribunal would be on the safe side, and if they committed themselves to that figure of £1,200,000, the probabilities are that the economise have been far more considerable.
I need not remind your Lordships, with your great experience of affairs and business, of two propositions which are really almost platitudes. They are that large changes in great undertakings of this kind must require some time to effect, and that economies in the earlier years when the changes are made are, as a rule, set off by considerable necessary expenditure. There can be no doubt, I think, that economies have been effected in several broad directions—in overhead charges, in co-ordination with other services, in the use of alternative routes, in the centralisation of control and management, in the amalgamation of repair and renewal workshops, and in the standardisation of rolling stock, plant and equipment. Another reason why it is difficult to estimate economies in figures is that it is extremely difficult for the most competent person to say whether many of these results are due to amalgamation or to other causes which might have obtained without amalgamation. The problem, I am told, is very difficult indeed. Of course, if the years after amalgamation had been more normal than they have been, if we can use the word "normal" nowadays at all, it might have been possible to quicken the realisation of economies, but however favourable the circumstances it would have been difficult in four or five years to realise the benefits of economies in such vast undertakings.
The noble Lord raised certain specific points. Of two or three of them he was good enough to give me notice, and the others may be said to come under what steps the Ministry of Transport have taken to urge the railway companies to make improvements tending to better and safer services. A good many of the points raised by the noble Lord are points for which it cannot be said that the Ministry of Transport is responsible. Many of them are addressed to railway directors, managers and locomotive
112
engineers, who, no doubt, will benefit by the experience of the noble Lord and the suggestions which he has made, although I am bound to say that I think they would be more ready to accept those suggestions with open arms, if the noble Lord did not preface them with a general attack upon their intelligence and ability. As regards providing a better and safer service, it really is not the Ministry's duty to urge railway companies constantly in this direction, as the railways are presumably under competent control, but if any defects are brought to the notice of the Ministry inquiries are made and representations, if necessary, made to the railway companies.
The Ministry, of course, are constantly watching the question of safety on the railways, and in this connection, although I do not want to make those comparisons to which the noble Lord so much objects, I must point out that British railways are the safest in the world. The noble Lord raised two or three points with reference to changes in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway management. With reference to the change of General Manager, I think that all I can say about that is that it is a matter for the railway company. The Ministry have not officially any information on the subject, and the question of the expenditure properly to be charged or paid out of rates is a question not so much for the Ministry of Transport as for the Railway Rates Tribunal.
The noble Lord made a general charge against railway Managers. He described them, I think, as incompetent and also as evasive. I do not say the suggestion is one of dishonesty, but still it is of a method of evasion and procrastination. I may say on behalf of the Ministry that that is not their experience. They have found that any serious criticism or practical suggestion is given careful and full consideration in responsible quarters. I need not remind your Lordships that many of the suggestions that are made cannot be carried out without very serious practical difficulties, which are very likely unknown to the public, and very often unknown also to the gentlemen who suggest these improvements. I am afraid that I must give the same answer to the noble Lord as regards

113
the new locomotives on the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway. That, again, is the private concern of the railway company itself, and it is a matter on which the Ministry have not got, and cannot give, any official information.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I reply rather shortly to the point raised about the acceleration of express trains. I think I went into this matter at some length in November, and I really have not anything very new to say on the subject. The noble Lord, I think, laid great, stress upon it, and also on the great anxiety of the public to travel at considerably increased speeds. I dare say he is a better judge of what the public want than myself, but I can only say that his suggestion that you ought to be able to travel from here to Glasgow, about 430 miles, in three hours was a suggestion which filled me with dismay. Let me give one instance of what would happen. I understand that to keep up an average speed of 60 miles an hour you have at certain parts of the line to travel at a much accelerated speed—up to 80, 85 or possibly 90 miles an hour. If your Lordships were whisked from here to Glasgow at an average rate of 130 miles an hour you might find yourselves obliged to travel over parts of the road at 150 or 160 miles an hour. I do not know whether any of you contemplate such a prospect with any very great pleasure. I need hardly say that all these changes of speed have great resultant effects on tunnels and so on, which are very serious for the railways in these days when it is difficult for the railways to make both ends meet.
The noble Lord dwelt at some length on the question of giving instructions to railway drivers to make up time. That question also I went into rather fully three months ago, and I pointed out what the view of the Ministry was—namely, that considering the condition of the track, the alignment, the density of the traffic, and so on, it would be very imprudent to try to tie up the drivers with strict orders as to what they were to do in the matter of catching up time. I think the noble Lord referred to the Quintinshill collision, near Gretna, in 1915, and suggested that that was due to lack of good time-keeping on the part of the drivers. I am advised that it. Was
114
owing to a mistake due to two signalmen, and that it was a mistake of a kind that would now be guarded against by appropriate apparatus. Then there is the question of improvement of rail joints, which is continually being examined by the responsible engineers. Those were some of the points with which the noble Lord dealt in his varied and interesting address. I have spoken on the question of economy. I have shown that many of the points he raised are points for which I, speaking for the Ministry of Transport, cannot be responsible, and that a good many other of his points ought really to be addressed to railway Managers and others, and that the Ministry of Transport are always ready when any of these complaints are made, or defects are pointed out, to do what they can to press their advice upon the railways.
The last point, I wish to mention is this, and I think this is a matter that weighs very heavily indeed with the public. The noble Lord lamented the blindness and indifference of the public to railway improvements, but I do not think the public are really quite so simple or so foolish as the noble Lord thinks. I am inclined to think they are more interested in safety than in extreme speed, and if the figures are looked into it will be found that Great Britain has secured a degree of safety which is unequalled in the world, having regard to the general density of the traffic. The number of passengers killed in train accidents is very small, and the average tendency is steadily lower. For the years 1905–19 the yearly average was 33·5; the yearly average during the past seven years, up to and including 1926, has been 8·5. Considering the enormous mileage run by trains in this country, that cannot be considered as anything but a small figure.
The noble Lord moved for Papers but I am not really aware of any Papers that I could lay on the Table. It is possible that the noble Lord, following the usual course, made that Motion to give him the right of reply, and therefore perhaps he will excuse me if I do not lay any Papers on the Table. He has not referred to any, and I do not think there are any that I could lay.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think we ought all to be very much obliged to

115
the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for the extremely able and carefully prepared argument which he has addressed to your Lordships. I quite understand that the noble Viscount could not go into any matters of detail. There are one or two questions rather of principle on which I should like to ask whether he could afford the House a little further information. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, indicted the railway Managers and railway managements of this country in very strong terms, and he used an expression of which perhaps he hardly realised the strength—namely, that the managements of railways constituted a conspiracy against the public interest.
LORD MONKSWELL: I said that one definite thing that they did amounted to a conspiracy.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged for the correction, but even to say that one definite thing amounted to a conspiracy is a very strong statement. Many of us sympathise with the general purport of the noble Lord's speech, which was that there are many matters affecting our railways in which we should like to see alteration and improvement. I agree with the noble Lord that what we are interested in now is not so much the extension of railways as the Managers and managements. I should like to suggest that when you come to that state in the life of railway enterprise, and public interest is involved in good Managers and good management, the best way is to get those Managers appointed by the State, and to bring the management under State control. I do not want to go into the case of other countries. I dare say I have travelled over as many lines as a good many members of your Lordships' House and in Switzerland and Ceylon and other countries that I have been to I have never found that there was any want of good management or of regard for the public interest where you had the Manager appointed from the public point of view instead of by a particular body of railway directors.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What about Australia?
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord is very much more cognisant of railway matters than I am and perhaps he will tell us something about Australia. I am
116
only concerned with places that I know. It would appear to me, when it is a matter of getting the right Managers appointed to railway companies, that the principle should be that they should be appointed in the public interest. It is the public which should have a voice in their appointment and the public ought also to have a voice in the methods of management of the railways.
There are two other points that I want to say a word about. I think it is quite true, as the noble Viscount said, that the amalgamations have led to economics. I do not for a moment deal with the extent of those economies. If they had not led to economies there would have been a great failure in the amalgamation principle. I wish to say a word about the Railway Rates Tribunal, which I regard as a weak Tribunal from the public point of view. I wish it had not been constituted and that the work had been left to the old Railway Commission over which a Judge presided. Before the Railway Rates Tribunal it is not the object of the railway companies to show the possible extent of economics because the question before that Tribunal is a different one. What the railway companies desire from that Tribunal is the largest possible power of charging that the Tribunal will allow. The railways could not attain that result by showing a maximum of economy, but rather by showing that on the balance between economies and expenses amalgamation, so far as the financial position of railway companies was concerned, had not been of very great benefit. That, I think, is the moral of the cases which have been heard so far by the Rates Tribunal. Perhaps it is prejudice on my part in favour of the old Tribunal that I prefer it to the present Rates Tribunal. At any rate my view is that it is a very great mistake not to have maintained the powers of the much stronger old Tribunal instead of allowing these questions to go, as they now do, for decision to a specially constituted Tribunal.
I think the difficulties that have arisen in regard to certain matters to which the noble Lord referred have come largely from the Railways Act of 1921. I say that for this reason. That Act was passed to cover a very wide field of railways, and until that Act had been passed no railway companies in this country could amalgamate

117
without a special Act of Parliament. In other words it was held that they could not delegate their Parliamentary powers to any other body. Whenever a special Amalgamation Act came before a Committee of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons the one consideration was this—how far can we ask for a further safeguard of the public interests in return for the advantage of the amalgamation that we are going to permit? On every occasion there was a most careful inquiry in order to guard against the amalgamation being detrimental to the public interest and to see that special provisions were inserted in the Act in order that the public interests might be safeguarded. All that was pushed on one side in this big Amalgamation Act of 1921. Many of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred are just those matters which would have been considered by what I regard as the most competent body for dealing with matters of this kind.
A Committee of your Lordships' House would see that the advantages of amalgamation, which undoubtedly are great, should, so far as the public interests are concerned, be accompanied by proper safeguards and proper provisions. Such a thing is not to the disadvantage of the railways, but on the contrary an advantage to them, because these safeguards and provisions in the interests of the public induce the maximum of traffic. On the other hand, if without an inquiry of the kind which used to take place you have one large amalgamation scheme embracing 120 railway companies brought into four groups, you do not get the advantages of amalgamation really considered with a view to seeing that the railway companies do, in fact, introduce economical management in certain directions, nor have you any provision for seeing that public interest and public requirements are not unduly sacrificed.
Let me give one illustration of what happened under the old law. One of the most prominent complaints brought against the railway companies was that they did not, give sufficient public facilities. So far as I know the protection of the public in that respect, given by the old way of dealing with amalgamation, is gone. The Rates Tribunal has superseded the Railway Commission. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Rates Tribunal has a, power of the kind
118
to which I have been referring. I may point out to the noble Viscount that it was not the Board of Trade which saw that proper facilities were given, but it was the Railway Commission, before whom numerous cases were brought, which saw that proper provisions in the public interest were made. The era of competition has no doubt to a great extent gone, but the potential competition in the ante-1921 days was a very great thing in the public interest. For instance, would the Severn Tunnel ever have been constructed but for the potential competition of new railways started to connect South Wales with London? Going further back, I will take the case of the Hull and Barnsley Railway. That was a line promoted against what was thought to be a monopoly of the North Eastern Railway. What was the result? The result was not only an improved service to Hull, but that some millions of pounds in the aggregate were spent upon Hull docks so that you got the competition of the new docks as well as the new line with the old dock and the old North Eastern line, which was an enormous advantage in the public interest and to such a place as Hull.
We still undoubtedly want greater public facilities. Take the case of railway sidings for coal purposes. I do not want to go into this matter, but it is a railway facility. The railways are bound to provide sufficient facilities for dealing with and removing coal traffic. I do not say it was an easy matter to deal with, and it has become more difficult since you got these large amalgamated bodies. These are matters which have great weight particularly with noble Lords opposite. The noble Viscount knows that what is called personal effort based on competition has died out. You cannot use such a phrase about individual effort when you are referring to the management of these four great railway groups. Competition has gone, and while allowing that to go there has been left no proper provision in the public interests in other directions in which I think it was well known protection was required. I do not intend to say any more. It would be utterly impossible for an individual, however skilled, to go into the analysis of the noble Lord, but, I have always felt that—whether it was Sir Eric Geddes or anybody else does not matter—there was no proper protection whatever of the public

119
interest in the Act of 1921. It was because the competition was destroyed without the public interest being safeguarded that these difficulties, which do occur at the present time, are emphasised.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is fifteen months since we had an opportunity of discussing this subject and we owe a real debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who initiated the discussion. I hope that this debate will become an annual event and that we shall discuss in general terms the condition of the railways. I am sorry I do not think that we have had that satisfaction with regard to economy which I had certainly looked for on this occasion. The noble Viscount, who spoke from the Government Benches, told us indeed that he understood that the railways might have cost a great deal more and that we ought to be thankful they have managed to economise to the extent of about some £2,000,000. I cannot help thinking that a defence of that kind is just the defence which His Majesty's Government will put up when we discuss the general question of economy in this House, as I hope we shall have an opportunity of doing before Easter. I shall look forward to seeing if he then tries to persuade your Lordships' House that, although they might have spent a great deal more, they have been economical since they have spent only a little more while talking so much about economy.
The strike of last year would have been an opportunity of doing a great deal more in the way of amalgamation than has taken place. As an exmple, I take the fact that there are repair works at Crewe under the old London & North Western Railway and at Derby under the old Midland system. Both remain in existence. I should have thought that a great deal of economy could have been effected by combining the two into one. Again, an application was made by the railway companies asking if they might raise their rates by 10 per cent. on certain classes of goods. So far from that being an economy, it will be an additional burden on the community. Certainly the results we have seen from the working of the railways during the past year are very disappointing and show the urgent need that there is for economy.
The noble Viscount spoke to-day for the Ministry of Transport. I confess I
120
look upon the Ministry of Transport as one of those Departments with which we might very well dispense altogether. Not indeed that I would dispense with your Lordships' House from listening to the noble Viscount providing information and gaiety, but he might then speak on behalf of a Department of the Board of Trade rather than on behalf of an independent Ministry. I doubt very much whether since its institution the Ministry of Transport has really justified its existence and the money spent upon it.
On the last occasion I remember I ventured to put before your Lordships, as everybody in this House might well do, examples of improvements that might very well be effected in the railway system of this country. I shall not traverse the same ground again, but I shall confine myself to two general remarks. In the first place, now that New Street in Birmingham is altogether under the one system of the London, Midland and Scottish, instead of being under two companies, a great deal more might be done to assist travellers who go through the junction. At the present moment Birmingham, as a railway junction, is an obstacle to travelling instead of an assistance. The other matter I wish to comment upon is the great difficulty there is in getting to the Eastern Counties from the Midlands. Any of your Lordships who have had occasion to travel between those two districts must have realised that the Eastern Counties are very isolated from the rest of the country and that it is simpler in most cases to go up to London and to come back again than to take the cross-country journey. Something ought to be done to make Birmingham more easily accessible to Norwich and Norwich more easily accessible to Birmingham. I join with the criticism of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches as to the adverse effect of fog upon our railway services. The example of the last few days only lays emphasis on the advantage and benefit that we might derive from having a Channel Tunnel. I cannot understand why we should call ourselves a civilised country in these days and not have a Channel Tunnel when we see the Channel services suspended as they have been during the past few days.
We naturally congratulate ourselves upon the fact, which nobody would deny or wish to deny, that the safety of passengers

121
sengers in England is more marked as compared with the safety of passengers in other countries. That does not seem to me to exclude the possibility of far greater speed. I join issue with those who say that speed is not popular in this country; I believe speed is popular. The more time we can save the greater advantage it would be—certainly to the business people of this country. I am not frightened at travelling at 150 miles an hour. I look upon that as an ideal, not immediately attainable but certainly possible. I took an extreme figure of 150 miles an hour, but something faster than is done at present by the expresses is certainly possible. As has been pointed out, if the expresses to Scotland travelled at the same rate as the Great Western trains to Exeter they would save an hour over that journey. I believe that would be an example to everybody.
I must confess to having listened with peculiar interest to the speech just delivered. The noble Lord, having spent a lifetime in propagating the ideals of individualism, joined a Labour Government some time ago, and is now making a temporary effort in the direction of nationalisation. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us if he will initiate a discussion on the nationalisation of railways. We would be glad to hear what he had to say about it and also what the noble and learned Viscount next to him would have to say about it.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not like the word nationalisation, but I think the management should be in the public interest.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is very interesting though wholly disorderly. I hope he will give us an opportunity of examining his opinions on a later occasion. We would be glad to hear whether other members of that Bench agree with him in wishing for public management or nationalisation. I will ask him then to tell us whether they are in favour of compensation or confiscation and what is the attitude of their Party.
LORD PARMOOR: This is a personal matter. Such matters are always troublesome and I do not therefore indulge in them. If the noble Earl had gone for one moment into the views expressed, he would have realised that compensation was the central item.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I listened to him, but we did not hear one word about it on this occasion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It was assumed throughout.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There are large sections of the Party to which the noble Lords belong who are not always so keenly in favour of compensation as they are themselves. I hope we will have a separate discussion on this subject on another occasion when it will be more adequately dealt with than it has been this afternoon. Meanwhile, I repeat that I regret that we were unable to hear from His Majesty's Government that there has not been more economy in this direction, and I do hope that when on a subsequent, occasion this subject is brought up before your Lordships' House we shall be able to have a more satisfactory reply from His Majesty's Government.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has taken the opportunity on this question regarding speed on the railways and economic administration to administer a rebuke to my noble friend upon the question of Government economy and upon the question of whether or not certain Ministries ought not to be abolished. I am afraid that I rather agree with the noble Earl on those particular points. I have always been an advocate of economy and I think there are too many Ministries. But I do not quite see what that has got to do with the Question before your Lordships' House. The noble Earl seems to be very annoyed that railway companies have put up their rates by some small percentage. People forget that they gave reduced their rates since the amalgamation by a very large amount, and that in their desire to serve the public they reduced rates more than they should have done and have now had to increase them, but only by a very small amount.
The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, raised two questions, as I understood him. He first of all thought that railway Managers should be appointed by an office. I presume by that he means by a Government Department. Then he went on to deal with the question of the amalgamation a few years ago. I presume that if the Department the noble Earl wants to abolish,

123
the Ministry of Transport, were in existence, the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, would like that Department to appoint the General Managers of the various railways. To whom would those General Managers be responsible? To the directors or to my noble friend Viscount Peel? The directors, I suppose, would go out. There could be no advantage in having directors who had no control whatever over the Managers. The Managers, therefore, would be appointed and controlled by a Government Department.
The noble Lord then, apparently in order to justify that argument, cited the case of Switzerland, which is a very small country, where he says that State management has been successful. Let me point out to him what happened in France. There are in France two sorts of railways—some of them run by the State and some of them, like the Chemin de Fer du Nord, by a private company. Let me ask on which of them are the greatest number of accidents and the largest number of lives lost? The answer, undoubtedly, is on the State railways. That is a fact which does not admit of any argument. Then let him think of Australia. It is a well known fact that the Australian Government made such a horrible hash of their railway management that they had to have someone sent out to put them straight. Yet the noble Lord, in order to improve what, after all, has been admitted by everybody as one of the best systems of the world, suggests the appointment of General Managers by some Government Department. I agree with the noble Earl that the fewer Departments and the fewer Government officials we have the better and therefore I could not support that suggestion for a moment. Nor do I think it would be likely that the railways of England managed by officials appointed by a Government Department would be successful.
The noble Lord must remember that at the time the amalgamation took place a member of His Majesty's present Government made a statement—I forget where—that the railways were going to be nationalised. The noble Lord does not like that, but he would like to have the effect of it. However, that gentleman made that statement and the result was that the public, all the people who use the railways, were so upset that the
124
statement had to be explained away, and what happened was the amalgamation. The noble Lord does not like the amalgamation of 1922. Neither do I. But where was the noble Lord in 1922? I never remember him opposing it. I opposed it. I was the only one, I believe, or nearly the only one, who opposed it tooth and nail from beginning to end. But I got no support. I was Athanasius contra mundum, as the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said when I was speaking here sometime ago. I have not forgotten it. It turned out that I beat the noble Viscount on that particular occasion. I was alone in opposing amalgamation. Why did not the noble Lord then come forward and use his great influence to stop the amalgamation which he has now condemned? It is easy to be wise after the event, but now it is done we have to put up with it, and I do not think that you can say, in view of the very difficult times through which the railways have been passing, that they have not done their duty and done their work extremely well.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to deal with the observations of St. Athanasius. I do not think I have any particular comment to make on them. We do not grudge the noble Earl who sits above the gangway the gibe he is so fond of making at this Bench or the scolding he often gives us. It often seems to me that if anybody speaking from this Bench has the audacity to say anything which is fairly reasonable Earl Beauchamp feels a particular horror and feels bound to chide us. On these occasions there seems to fall upon him the mantle of the Duke of Northumberland and he finds it a shirt of Nessus. I hope he will leave us to explain our policy in our own way when we are dealing with it.
I listened, as I think all your Lordships did, with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord upon the Cross Benches—the lecture I might almost call it—and I am bound to say that to a large extent my sympathies were with him. He reminded me when he spoke, and I think not unjustly, of the forces arrayed against him, of the conflict of David and Goliath. David was not without plenty of pebbles in his pouch and was not without plenty of power in his sling, but apparently he was very much embarrassed by the nebulous

125
character of Goliath's head and was not certain where the pebble would strike. I think the noble Lord was right when he said that the influence of the railway companies and of those who manage the railway companies as against the interests of the public is, and has been, much too large. There was a time—I do not know whether it still is so—when their influence was certainly very great in the louse of Commons and I think they were fairly well represented in this House.
It is perfectly true that it is difficult to get the Press—although the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, is not here I am sure he would not disagree with me—to take a strong line against very large advertisers or to encourage agitations against the commodities which they advertise. It has been suggested that the public has no grievance because it does not voice it and does not come forward. The fact is that the public which uses the railways and which travels on the railways is a very silent public, a very amorphous public, without anybody to speak for it and with no particular place in which its complaints can be brought to a focus. No one can pretend that the railways of this country are what they ought to be. I am sure the noble Lord opposite does not say that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not admit that there is very much wrong with them.
EARL RUSSELL: I agree to this extent, that I do not quite share what was apparently the view of Lord Monks-well, that we should be ashamed of English railways. I am not ashamed of them, but I think they might be very much better. I am sure your Lordships who have travelled by them, and particularly on short distance trains, will sympathise with the public who feel that they are not particularly well treated, that fares are very high, that arrangements are often very inconvenient to the public, and that we do not get the service that we ought to expect from so large an institution. At this late hour I do not wish to go into any details, but, since other railways have been mentioned, may I just touch upon the Southern Railway? Those who have anything to do with the Southern Railway have a sort of feeling that when those three companies were
126
amalgamated all the worst vices of the worst of the three, the South Eastern and Chatham, passed on to those other railways, and that the London and South Western, which up to that time had been moderately good, took upon itself the complexion of the worst of the trio. Their trains are not always unpunctual, but they are very, very slow, and I think the noble Viscount himself probably knows that fact quite well. Probably we should hear more of this if most of your Lordships and those of the public who would otherwise travel first class did not in these days avoid the railways altogether for any reasonably short journey because the other mode of travel, the motor car, is so much more convenient and often much more expeditious.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And much more dangerous.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not sure whether the noble Lord is right about that. I have travelled something like two hundred thousand miles by motor car and have not yet suffered a scratch; and I do not think I have travelled so far by railway. There is an old story that your Lordships may remember of the late Lord Middleton, who was speaking of the then notorious unpunctuality of the London and South Western Railway. In the days before the present and more convenient mode of locomotion was available he had been speaking at a small village in Surrey and had said that he need not hurry to catch his train because the trains were always not less than seven minutes late. When he got to the station he found that on that particular evening the stationmaster had managed to get the train off to time. It was the last train, and the result was that he was unable to get home. You cannot count on a train being late, as the noble Lord pointed out. You have to be at the station at the time when the train is supposed to start, you have to lose that time at that end and all the people and all the activities that depend upon the arrival of that train are held up because the train is late.
There is another point about the Southern Railway. It has been mentioned frequently in the Press. I refer to their accommodation for foreign services. I do not know what the facts are

127
now, but I think I am right in saying that before the War on boat trains and foreign railway tickets the Southern Railway charged the maximum first-class fare of threepence a mile, which was unknown in any other part of the country. I am not sure that they do not still charge whatever corresponds to that fare now—4½d. a mile, or something of that sort. At any rate it is certain that on the one or two trains that they run that exceed 30 or 35 miles an hour they charge an enormous fare. Their attitude has not been misrepresented by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, and it is the attitude of all the railway companies. It is the attitude that what they are doing is all right, that they need not really consider the public because nothing will ever be done to them in Parliament, that they will always get their Bills passed and their powers granted and will always be able to charge these prices and that consequently they need not improve.
The time has now come when the railway companies will have to fight for their existence. They are being threatened both in passenger traffic and in goods traffic, and unless they do adopt modern methods it is very doubtful whether they will survive as an efficient system. I should be prepared to say that this would be a loss to the country and a misfortune. Whether it is true that the directors are really opposed to change in itself, whether they have really persuaded themselves that nothing more can be done or what may be the reason, I do not know, but the facts, I think, are not very different from those stated by the noble Lord. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect or ever heard another railway story told many years ago, a story regarding the Great Western Railway on an occasion when they were discussing at a board meeting the opening of a new station at Ealing, the Great Western having been from its inception a gentleman's line which ran long distance trains which first-class accommodation and did not in those days take very much account of other passengers. The story is that after a heated discussion the board decided by a majority to open a new station at Ealing; whereupon one of the old directors said: "Very well, gentlemen, have it your own way, but you will flood the line with traffic.' That, I think, is not an altogether unfair
128
representation of what is still the attitude of the railway companies. They seem to have to some extent the minds of Tariff Reformers—that is to say, they have the idea that that which hurts the passenger must benefit the railway. They do not realise that it is desirable that both parties to a bargain should be satisfied and happy.
The only other thing that I desire to say before I sit down concerns what was, I think, the real gist of the speech of the noble and learned Lord behind me. I do not want to repeat it, though I thoroughly agree with it. His point was that, in granting these advantages to private monopolies such as the railway companies by amalgamation and so on, the Party opposite were apt very often to lose sight of the public interest. That is a proposition with which I should hope that the noble Earl above the gangway would agree. I think it is so in this case, and I think it has happened and is happening in the case of electricity. I think that the public interest might have had a great deal more done for it than was done when the railway companies were granted this amalgamation, and I am afraid that, in spite of the excellent representation that it has in this House in the person of the noble Viscount opposite, I have not that complete confidence in the Ministry of Transport that I confess that I should like to have.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, such very small scratches have been inflicted upon the statements that I ventured to make by the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport that there is really hardly anything for me to say. Those of your Lordships who have spoken have dealt with most of these tiny scratches, and I think the only point worth commenting upon concerns the Gretna accident. The noble Viscount said that the Gretna accident was due to a mistake of the signalman. It was due to a mistake of the signalman in the first instance, but the overriding, predisposing cause was the fact that two trains coming from Euston failed to make up the time that they had lost before they reached Carlisle, with the result that a slow train which was timed to start after them actually started in front of them. It had to be shunted on to another line, a manœuvre which would not have been attempted at all if it had

129
started in its proper place. Actually the predisposing cause of the Gretna accident was undoubtedly the fact that the trains failed to make up time. That is really all that have to say. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name. I think it is unnecessary to make any speech on the subject of this Motion. I have the authority of the Lord Chancellor, whose absence we so much regret, for saying that he would have moved the Motion himself, the object being to carry out the completion of the consideration of the Poor Law Bill, a Consolidation Bill of which the Committee that was appointed last Session had got through about one half when Parliament was prorogued.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session; that the Lords following be named of the Committee—

E. Lucan,

L. Monkswell,

L. Gorell,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Askwith,

L. Warrington of Clyffe;

that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
House adourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed.
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

    BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    BURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    COVENTRY CORPORATION (BOUNDARY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
    CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    DERBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    GAINSBOROUGH BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
    GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
    HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIN (NEWCASTLE - UPONTYNE) BILL. [H.L.]
    LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR AND ARUN DRAINAGE OUTFALL BILL. [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MERSEY TUNNEL (BIRKENHEAD ENTRANCE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
    PETERBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    ST. CATHARINE'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE (CANONSHIP OF NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
    WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    Presented, and read 1a.
    ABERSOCH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    EAST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
    ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    MAIDSTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
    SCARBOROUGH GAS COMPANY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    THORNE COLLIERY RAILWAY AND WHARF BILL. [H.L.]
    YEADON WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.