Sitting of 17 February 1927

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

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition to this House. The Petition recites the income that the Trustees have for carrying on the British Museum in both its sections, and concludes with a Prayer that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual produce of the above-mentioned sums, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the country, be carried an without the aid of Parliament.
"Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution, of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."
—(King's Recommendation signified).—Referred to the Committee of Supply.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),
Buxton Corporation Bill (by Order)—Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Covent Garden Market Bill (by Order)—Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order), Greenock Burgh Extension, &c., Bill (by Order),
Leeds Corporation Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Smethwick Corporation Bill (by Order),
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the advisability of amending the Regulations giving the pensioner suffering from a disability subsistence allowance if away from home for medical board for a period of four hours, as the 10 hours' minimum, as at present, acts hardly on those especially who have a wife and family to sustain solely on the pension?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The provision of subsistence allowance on the occasion of an officer or man summoned to a medical board is made on the principle of recompense for additional expenditure necessarily incurred in consequence of an absence from home substantially longer than would ordinarily have been involved in the course of employment. The present Regulations governing the matter have been in operation for the past eight years, and no general complaint has been made that they operate otherwise than fairly. In the circumstances, I regret that I do not see my way to recommend the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    AREA OFFICES, SCOTLAND,
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many established civil servants are in charge of area offices in Scotland; how many of

    1075
    the P Class and how many temporary civil servants; where the area offices are situated; and what is the grade and of each chief area officer?

    Rank.

    Area and Grade.

    Salary.

    Permanent Civil Servant.

    Acting Deputy Principal Clerk.

    South East Scotland (Edin- Class I. burgh).

    £550, plus cost of living bonus.

    "P" Class Salaried Officials.

    Aberdeen, Banff and Kincar- Class II. dine (Aberdeen).

    £480 per annum inclusive.

    Ayrshire, Dumfries and Class II. Galloway (Ayr).

    £480 per annum inclusive.

    Forfarshire, Perth and Kin- Class II. ross (Dundee).

    £480 per annum inclusive.

    Glasgow and District (Glas- Class I. gow).

    £624 per annum inclusive.

    Lanarkshire (Motherwell) Class II.

    £480 per annum inclusive.

    Temporary Officials

    Inverness and Northern Scot- Class III. land (Inverness).

    £384 per annum inclusive.

    Renfrew, Bute and Argyll Class II. (Greenock).

    £480 per annum inclusive.

  BRITISH TROOPS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).
  Brigadier - General BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on the occasion of a battalion of the Guards leaving London for China, Communist agents distributed literature advising seamen and dockers to prevent the transportation of men, munitions, and war materials to China; and whether the police authorities are taking any action in the matter?
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Home Secretary whether any action has been taken by the police against persons who attempted to distribute Communist leaflets among the troops as they marched through London prior to embarkation for the Far East, and, if so, what?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In answer to this question and also to No. 5, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the answer which I gave on the 15th instant to the hon. and gallant Members for Everton and for Clackmannan and Western.
  Mr. MOSLEY: Before taking any action on the subject will the right hon. Gentleman consult Mr. Sablin?
  Major TRYON: With, the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the reply in tabular form in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hardly think it should be necessary.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION EXPENSES.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Home Secretary whether, in framing a Measure for the lowering of the age for women voters, he will provide for the legal limit of election expenses per vote being reduced to avoid the multiplication of such costs resulting from the increased number of yotes?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The point to which my Noble Friend refers will not be overlooked.

  OMNIBUSES (SMOKING PROHIBITION).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that proprietors of omnibuses plying in the metropolitan district, unlike tramway companies, have no power to enforce a prohibition on smoking inside their vehicles; and whether, having regard to the delay which is caused owing to disputes between passengers and conductors with regard to this question, he will consider the desirability of placing the proprietors of such vehicles in a similar position to that of the tramway authorities?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, but it would require legislation to deal with this matter. It has been noted for consideration, in the event of an apportunity for legislation occurring.
  Mr. W. BAKER: Having regard to the admitted difficulty, would it not be a simple matter to introduce a very short Measure dealing with this subject?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member knows that the opportunities for small legislation are not very great, and this would need legislation. It might be brought in by a private Member with general assent.

  SHOPS ACT, 1912.
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the failure of some local authorities to enforce the Shops Act, 1912, particularly in regard to proceedings against persons who are alleged to have failed to observe its provisions; and whether he will consider the desirability of securing greater powers for his Department in such cases?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Complaints of this kind are received in my Department from time to time and when they appear to be substantial are taken up with the local authority. It is only in rare instances that there has been reason to think that the local authority was not making a proper exercise of its discretion, and there is certainly no evidence at present before me to justify me in seeking any special power of intervention. If the hon. Member has any special cases in mind and will furnish me with particulars, I should be glad to investigate them.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any powers to compel local authorities to carry out these Acts?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have power to call their attention to the Acts, and I find that the courteous calling of their attention is generally fairly effective.

  RUSSIA.

    ARCOS STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Mr. C LARRYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that
    1078
    Arcos steamships are engaged in a definite traffic of dumping anti-British agents in this country under the guise of legitimate seamen, utilising methods of intensive propaganda to pervert British seamen who are signed on in place of the agents left in British ports; and, if so, what steps he proposes taking to counteract these activities?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware that the ships of the Arcos Steamship Company or any other ships trading with Russia are engaged in such traffic, and I do not think, in view of the precautions which are taken, that it would be possible for these ships to be used for such a purpose. Under the provisions of the Aliens Order, the crews of all such ships are carefully scrutinised by the Immigration Officers, and no Soviet citizen who has been signed on at a foreign port is allowed to land for discharge at a port in this country, save very occasionally for the purpose of immediate transfer to an outgoing ship, in which case the condition is imposed that the alien concerned is to be discharged abroad. The Immigration Officers have the strictest instructions with regard to the crews of all ships trading with Russia, and I have no reason to doubt that these instructions are being followed in all cases.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether the hon. Member, in getting this question put on the Paper, declared that he was satisfied that the contents of the question were bonâ fide?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I take it for granted.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is there any law to prevent a foreign sailor corning ashore for a walk?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the walk is strictly limited, I am not quite sure that there is; but if he goes on shore and slips away he is immediately arrested by the police.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman had to make any representations to the Soviet authorities respecting any individuals engaged in propaganda coming into the country in this way?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Any such representation would be made by my right hon. colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is it Parliamentary language to use the word "skunk" to an hon. Member who is putting a supplementary question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is neither Parliamentary nor gentlemanly.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. THURTLE: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to assist me in discovering the identity of an hon. Member opposite who, earlier in the afternoon, called me a skunk?
    Mr. SPEAKER: My assistance will be given in another direction when the hon. Member desires.

    ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with his promise to afford an opportunity for a discussion of Anglo-Russian relations, he will make arrangements for the issue beforehand to Members of a White Paper, containing a collection of despatches and reports received from British representatives in Russia, China, Persia and other countries which bear upon the question of the observance by the Soviet authorities of the clauses in the trading agreement relating to abstention from hostile acts and propaganda?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The material which could be laid before the House consists in the main of reports of speeches, manifestoes and such like, which have received a great measure of publicity already in the Press. In the circumstances, it is not thought that there would be any advantage in laying a paper, but further consideration will be given to the question before the Prime Minister fixes a day for the discussion.
    Sir F. HALL: After a date has been fixed for the discussion, may I ask, owing to the widespread indignation at the manner in which the Russian Government have acted, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question, in order that Members of this House may have an opportunity of having the whole information before them in a concise form?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If there is widespread indignation, why is it necessary to publish any document?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members always want to make little speeches whenever the question of Russia is raised.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman also issue a White Paper containing an account of any conversations between the Home Secretary and the Tsarist Body?
    Mr. THURTLE—
    Mr. SPEAKER: So many hon. Members desire to make speeches. Hon. Members really must wait till the promised day arrives.

  POLICE.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with appeal tribunals for the police forces of England and Wales?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on this subject at an early date.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the draft proposals be placed before the Police Federation in order that the opinions of the federation may be obtained?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot promise that.
    Mr. HAYES: Have the proposals beers considered by the Police Council appointed under the Police Act?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I may go so far as to say that I have personally been in touch with all sorts of police with regard to this matter, and have given very careful consideration to it, and I hope that the proposals I make will not be unsatisfactory.

    NATIONAL FUND.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Home Secretary how much money is at the disposal of the trustees of the Police Fund; how much of this money is to be spent on police clubs in London and throughout the country; and how much money will be spent on objects of greater interest and benefit to the married men of the farce?
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if the trustees of the "Times" police fund have yet arrived at any decision as to the disposal of the money?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will answer these questions together. I am sure the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I do not think it would be proper for me to make any statement here with regard to the activities of the trustees of the National Police Fund. The trustees will, no doubt, take their own steps to make known as far as may be necessary the decisions at which they arrive. I understand that the fund now amounts to £241,225.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Has this House not a representative on this committee, and, if so, is it not a proper thing for us to address questions to him as to the administration of the fund?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have considered that point, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting it to me. But the body is not a body responsible to Parliament; it is a body of private trustees. It is true that the Secretary of State for the time being is chairman of that body, but he is not appointed in any sense by Parliament, and, as no public funds are allocated to that body, I do not think that I am responsible to the House in regard to it.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that the trustees consult the proper police authorities before arriving at a definite and final decision in the matter; and will he also urge on their consideration the position of the widows of those police pensioners who retired before 20th September, 1918?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There my hon. Friend is trying to lead me into deep water. I shall be glad to receive from my hon. Friend, or from any hon. Member of the House, suggestions or representations in regard to the fund, and I will undertake to bring them before the trustees. But I do not think I could officially say, as Minister responsible for the police, that I would guarantee that there would be consultation.
    Major Sir ARCHIIBALD SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
    1082
    there is some feeling among the married men that this proposal would not entirely meet their views and wishes; and will he see that the representatives of the married men in particular are consulted on this point?
    Sir W. J OYNSON-HICKS: That again is a question which should be addressed to me in my private capacity, and not as a Minister of this House.
    Mr. HAYES: When invitations to sit on this board of trustees were sent out by the Home Secretary, did he invite the Police Federation to nominate representatives on this board. If not, will he do so, and thus get the police point of view without bothering this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is all outside Parliamentary business.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order. Is it not the fact that the police force is under the control of the Home Secretary, and that it is quite unprecedented for private money to be spent on a force which is under public control in this way? If we cannot have an answer from the Home Secretary as to the manner in which this money which has been subscribed by the public is being spent on a public force, there is absolutely no control and no redress in ease of any abuse.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member prepare a question on that point, and let me see it?
    An HON. MEMBER: It is a case of bribery.
    Sir BASIL PETO—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow this to go any further.

  NYSTAGMUS.
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a compensation case in Yorkshire in which it was stated that nystagmus was improved by excessive drinking; and whether he possesses any reliable information as to the effect of stimulants on this malady?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no knowledge of the case mentioned by the hon. Member, but I would refer him to the findings of the Miners' Nystagmus Committee of the Medical Research

  1083
  Council, who deal with this subject, on page 50 of their First Report. It appears that, while large doses of alcohol may have a very transient effect in lessening for an hour or so, the oscillations of the eyes, the influence of alcohol, generally speaking, is markedly harmful and delays recovery.

  CHARITABLE OBJECTS (FUNDS).
  Mr. SCURRasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the growing practice of raising money for charitable objects by means of competitions and ballots; whether he is aware that many of these are conducted by advertisers who derive profits from the scheme and often issue misleading advertisements regarding the allocation of the funds; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the conduct of schemes of this character?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think a general inquiry of the kind suggested would be fruitful in its results. Any particular case in which irregularities amounting to a criminal offence are suspected would be a matter for investigation by the police, to whom the facts should be reported.
  Mr. SCURR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent case £42,000 was subscribed to a charity, and only £15,000 reached the charity?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, the hon. Gentleman must give details. I cannot carry all these figures in my head. If he is of opinion that any representations he has made to the police have not been properly dealt with, there is a remedy by communicating with me.
  Colonel DAY: What steps were taken with regard to the whist drive to which I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention, where over £00,000 was subscribed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of
    1084
    Education whether he is aware of the hardship caused to old teachers owing to the fact that pensioners in receipt of allowances under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, receive no benefit under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924; and whether he will introduce legislation to remove this hardship?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the question, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation amending the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, which apply to many other classes of pre-War pensioners beside teachers.

    ARMISTICE DAY AND EMPIRE DAY CELEBRATIONS.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has called the attention of the proper local authorities to the action of certain teachers who persuaded children under their care from attending village celebrations of Armistice Day and Empire Day, as described in his speech at Liverpool on 6th January; and whether the authorities concerned have taken ally steps in the matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think my public reference to this matter is sufficient for the present.

    TEACHERS' LABOUR LEAGUE.
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether his attention has been called to the activities of the Teachers' Labour League in promoting the spread of Socialism among children attending the elementary schools; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent party politics being taught to school children;
    (2) whether he intends to introduce legislation for the purpose of preventing the propagation of disloyal and seditious doctrines among school children, such as described in his speech at Liverpool on 6th January?
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the Teachers' Labour League; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that no teacher shall in school

    1085
    hours r on school premises teach or influence the scholars in favour of the policy of any political party?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the activities of the Teachers' Labour League, but it would be easy to exaggerate the importance of this particular body. Its membership is insignificant, and it includes a number of teachers who are not now teaching in any school under public control. I believe the House can confidently rely upon the strong opinion of the teaching profession as a whole to counteract such propaganda. The standards of the teaching profession itself are the only sure protection against evils of this kind; but I am, of course, prepared to deal effectively with any teacher who can be shown to have abused his position in this way. I do not think new legislation on the subject is required.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: How many cases have there been of teachers teaching politics in the. schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: One of the questions refers to "promoting the spread of Socialism among children," and asks what steps the Noble Lord proposes to take to prevent party politics being taught to school children. I ask how many cases have come to the Noble Lord's notice of any teachers teaching any kind of politics in the schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: The question on the Paper is whether the Teacher's Labour League exists in order to encourage such teaching being given in schools, and to enable such teaching to be given. In view of the declared objects of the Teachers' Labour League, and in view of the declarations at the last conference of the Labour party in regard to the use of the schools for that purpose, I think the question is fully justified.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I shall put down a question next week.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it a fact that prominent Members on the Front Opposition Bench are still members of this Teachers' Labour League?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with us.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Can the Noble Lord say if the general opinion and good sense of the teachers of the country can be depended on to deal with this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has said so!"] If that be so, will the Noble Lord give the House a guarantee that he will refrain from making speeches such as he made on 6th January?
    Sir B. PETO: Is it a fact that the ex-President of the Board of Education supports the policy of the Teachers' Labour League?
    Lord E. PERCY: In reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) I confidently rely on the teaching profession, as I said to-day, and as I said in the speech to which the hon. Member has referred, but I think public attention should be called to the activities of those who are trying to put pressure on the teaching profession.

    HEDLEY HILL SCHOOL (HEADMASTER).
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has completed his inquiry into the circumstances attending the recent conviction of the headmaster of Hedley Hill Council School for assaulting two children of a miner who had returned to work; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of this case, I have informed the teacher that the Board are unable to recognise him further as a teacher in any capacity in any school in respect of which grant is paid by the Board.
    Mr. BATEY: On what ground is the Noble Lord taking this extreme step of cancelling this schoolmaster's certificate?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have taken it on the round that I do not think I could take the responsibility of compelling children to attend the school, and to be placed under the care of a man who has acted as this man has done.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Noble Lord aware that all the parents of the children attending the school have sent a petition, which I have in my hand, protesting against this teacher's certificate being cancelled, and saying that they are prepared to stop the children from attending school if he be refused his position?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member has shown me that petition from a number of parents, but the responsibility for saying who teaches in the schools is mine, and I must take that responsibility.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the petition is not from "a number of parents," but is signed by all the parents who have children attending the school, including even the mother of the children who were caned?
    Lord E. PERCY: That is a new fact which the hon. Member did not tell me this morning. It seems to me such a curious fact that I should like to know something more about how the petition was got up.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: May the House take it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman will now use this action as a precedent against all teachers who take disciplinary action against their children for offences committed against the order of the teacher, and given by the teacher in the interests of the child? Is this procedure—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. BATEY: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the importance of this case of cancelling a certificate because a teacher merely caned two children, I give notice that on the adjournment to-night I will raise this question.

    SPECIAL SERVICES (CIRCULAR).
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he has asked local education authorities to reconsider their programmes under the head of special services, with a view to substituting proposals in regard to the school medical services in place of proposals involving additional special school accommodation?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant passage in the Circular to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that the Noble Lord asked the authorities to substitute proposals for medical services in place of special schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member wants to know what I have said, I am going to give him the actual passage.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the interest that has been aroused by this Circular, will the Noble Lord arrange for copies of it to be available in the Vote Office?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly.
    Mr. COVE: Is the Noble Lord holding up expenditure on special schools until a Committee reports?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member wants to know what I have said and what I am doing, he can read my actual words.
    Mr. COVE: Have we not a right to have an answer in this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the matter is not clear, another question can be put on the Paper.
    Mr. COVE: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put down any further questions on any point arising out of the first answer when he has received it.
    Following is the relevant passage in Circular 1388 of the 11 th February, 1927, referred to:
    "6. Special Services.—Under this head the Board feel that the first aim of national policy should be the completion of the School Medical Service. It will be understood that the Board do not underrate the value of Special Schools, but while no rule can be laid down which is universally applicable to all areas and to all types of physical defect, the completion of the School Medical Service would appear to be of primary importance, and the Board suggest that Authorities should concentrate on this definite aim. With regard to provision for mentally defective children, Authorities will be aware that this very difficult problem is now being explored by a special committee, and, save in exceptional circumstances, it would not seem prudent to incur heavy expenditure at the present moment on new schools for such children or on enlargements of existing schools.
    The adoption of such a policy may make it necessary for Authorities to reconsider their programmes under this head, and in some cases to substitute proposals in regard to the School Medical Service for proposals involving additional Special School accommodation."

    OPEN AIR SCHOOLS.
    Mr. BARKERasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that Sir George Newman in his last Report states that 57,395 children attending school in 1925 were suffering from latent

    1089
    tuberculosis, malnutrition, debility, and anæmia; and what steps have been taken to provide the necessary open-air recovery schools for such children?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it must not be assumed that additional accommodation is required in open-air schools for anything approaching the number of children mentioned, since most of these children would need to attend open-air schools for only a relatively short period. In the past eighteen months, the accommodation open-air schools has been increased by some 900 places, and proposals have been approved for over 1,500 further places, apart from proposals now under consideration. In addition, a number of local education authorities have included proposals for new open-air schools in their programmes.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are we to gather that the right hon. Gentleman will favour ably consider fresh applications for grants for more open air schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, in general, where open-air schools are needed, I will.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education on what estimate of the component items of expenditure the total of 45 shillings per head of average attendance is based in Circular 1388?
    Lord E. PERCY: The figure of 45 shillings net expenditure per head of average attendance is an inclusive figure, to comprise administration and "other" expenditure, that is to say, all expenditure on maintenance except teachers' salaries, loan charges, and special services. The Circular, though it is based on a careful examination of the detailed expenditure of a number of typical authorities, does not apply interior limiting standards to the very numerous items which fall under these headings, and this is, I think, in accordance with the wishes of local authorities. If the right hon. Member will refer to the Memorandum on the Board of Education Estimates, 1926, he will see that for the current year I have allowed for an expenditure by local authorities
    1090
    of £11,018,000 under these heads, which is £255,000 in excess of the actual expenditure in 1924–25 and is equivalent to somewhat less than 44 shillings per head of the estimated average attendance.
    Mr. COVE: Is this figure of 43 shillings an average figure for the country?
    Lord E. PERCY: No; it is not an average figure for the country. It is a figure which corresponds to the actual expenditure and actual prospective expenditure of the vast majority of authorities. There are very few authorities in regard to whom any question will arise as to the excess.

    ELEMENTALLY SCHOOLS (STAFF ESTABLSHMENT).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education if any memorandum or instruction has been issued to His Majesty's inspectors of elementary schools with respect to the basis upon which the approved establishment of school staff is to be computed; and, if so, will he publish the standards laid down in such memorandum?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have issued no instructions to inspectors as to the basis on which teaching establishments should be computed beyond asking them, in reporting on authorities' proposals, to have regard to the principles set out in Circular 1360 (a copy of which I am sending the right hon. Member), and to the particular circumstances of the area. Each proposed establishment is considered individually on its merits.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Noble Lord consider publishing in book form these various Circulars, so that we can keep pace with them?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will consider that. But I have issued so ninny fewer Circulars myself since I have been in office than my predecessors that I do not think it is necessary.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Mr. RILEYasked the President of the Board of Education when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Public Libraries, appointed in 1924, will be issued, and if the Report will be laid before Parliament?
  Lord E. PERCY: I understand that the Committee expect to be able to present their Report to me by the end of March. I have, of course, not yet seen the Report, but there is no reason to anticipate any difficulty as regards its presentation to Parliament.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many towns have begun any slum clearances under the Housing Act, 1919, and subsequent Acts?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The position in regard to the clearance of slum areas in England and Wales is as follows:
    Ninety-three schemes relating to 71 local authorities have been confirmed since 1919. On 1st January last tenders had been approved or loans sanctioned in respect of 74 schemes for the erections of new houses in order to provide accommodation for the displaced population, and to enable clearances of the areas to be commenced. In the case of 72 schemes the areas had been wholly or partially acquired, and clearance was in progress in the case of 56 schemes.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the small progress that is made with slum clearances, is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating any further steps in order to effect slum clearances?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Everything is relative, and compared with what has been going on in previous years, I do not think the progress can be called small.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have failed to promote housing schemes under the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of local authorities in England and Wales who have not promoted schemes for the provision of houses either by themselves or by private enterprise, under the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, is 158.
    1092
    Of these authorities, 58 carried out a housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Health what local housing authorities in England and Wales have under-haken housing schemes by direct labour; how many houses in all have been so built; and what was the average cost of parlour and non-parlour houses, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 83 local authorities have so far undertaken housing schemes by direct labour in England and Wales under the. Hot sing Acts of 1923 and 1924. I will send the hon. Member a list of these local authorities. 10,587 non-parlour and 4,002 parlour houses are included in these schemes. I have no information as to whether all these houses have been completed or as to their final cost, but the average estimated costs of the houses prior to commencement, excluding the cost of land, development, &c., were £422 for a non-parlour and £469 for a parlour house.

  POOR LAW.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health the number of persons receiving outdoor relief from the Poor Law in the County of Durham on 1st February, 1927, and the number for 1st February, 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total numbers of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief (excluding casuals and persons receiving medical relief only) in the "Union" County of Durham on the nearest dates to the 1st February, 1927 and 1926, for which figures are available, namely, the 20th January, 1927, and 30th January, 1926, were 101,750 and 117,390, respectively.

    GUARDIANS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the recent decision in the King's Bench Division, when it was decided that a guardian of the poor receiving treatment in the union hospital, but paying in full for such treatment, was not disqualified from holding her seat upon the board; and what steps have been

    1093
    taken by his Department with a view to this decision being brought to the notice of local boards of guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this case, which has already received wide notice in the ordinary newspapers and in those circulating especially among boards of guardians. I do not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the importance of this decision, will the Minister consider writing to the different boards of guardians in case it has escaped their notice?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not think that is necessary. But, in view of the public interest which is aroused by the number of the hon. Member's questions, I have no doubt that any boards of guardians who may have missed the statements in the Press will now take note of them.
    Mr. W. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department decided that this decision does not cover a similar incident at Bristol, and if so, does he not think that action is called for?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not know anything about the case in Bristol to which the hon. Member refers. But, in any ease, if there be some doubt, that appears to be a reason for not circularising boards of guardians.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department decided that these charges are legally made? Have the boards of guardians power to charge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put his question down?

    MENTAL PATIENTS (MAINTENANCE CHARGES).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health what was the cost to the local authorities for the maintenance of the mental patients chargeable to them, together with the amount granted by the Exchequer in relief of such cost, for the years 1913–14 and 1925–26, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply promised.
    The total expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales other than out of loans in connection with mental patients in county and borough asylums was £4,305,000 in 1913–14 and £8,087,000 in 1924–25. This expenditure was met out of the following sources:

    1913–14:

    £

    Repayments by relatives and others

    612,000

    Specific Government grants

    955,000

    Other sources, mainly rates

    2,738,000

    1924–25:

    Repayments by relatives and others

    1,668,000

    Specific Government grants

    1,040,000

    Other sources, mainly rates

    5,379,000

    The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, was not in force in 1913–14. The total expenditure of local authorities in 1924–25 on mental deficiency other than out of loans was £941,000 which was met as to £102,000 from receipts from relatives, etc., as to £392,000 from specific Government grants, and as to £447,000 from other sources, mainly rates.
    Figures for 1925–26 are not yet available.

    ABLE-BODIED MEN (LAMBETH).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that his atention has been called by the Lambeth Board of Guardians to the number of able-bodied men within their district who are drawing both unemployment pay and outdoor relief, and that the board have suggested that the administration of all forms of public assistance should be placed under the control of one body, he will state whether the Government propose to take up this matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Government contemplate the introduction of Poor Law proposals in the Autumn. I can only say that the representations of the Lambeth Guardians are receiving consideration with others which I have received.
    Mr. BECKETT: Are the Government considering any proposals for finding these men work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is another question altogether.
    HON. MEMBERS: An awkward question.

  LADY DOCTOR, LINDSEY.
  Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Lindsey County Council recently advertised for a lady doctor as an assistant to the medical officer of Lindsey at a salary of £400 per annum, plus travelling allowances; that 15 applications were received from properly qualified persons; that the approval of the Ministry of Health to such appointment has been withheld; and will he state on what grounds the appointment cannot be approved?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no official information as to the number of applicants for this post, nor as to their qualifications. As regards the last part, I should not be able to approve this appointment, as I am not satisfied that it would be possible to obtain for the salary proposed an officer with the necessary qualifications and experience of the important work attaching to this post, or one who would be likely to secure the co-operation of the medical practitioners in the county.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lindsey County Council have appointed a properly qualified person at the salary stated in my question, and that they consider that in doing that they are carrying out the instructions of the Department to exercise economy?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: is it not a fact that this kind of incident will not be able to arise if and when a system of block grants is instituted?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The last is a hypothetical question. In reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), I have no official information yet as to the appointment; but unofficially I have learned that the person whom it was proposed to appoint is not a person whose training and qualifications are such as I could approve.

  VACCINATION.
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Minister of Health whether the Committee appointed to deal with the preparation and testing of vaccine lymph, the methods of
  1096
  removing risks which may result from vaccination, and the co-ordination of the work of investigating these questions in this country has yet reported?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; this Committee has not yet reported.

  FACTORIES ACTS (INSPECTION OF OFFICES).
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health whether the test case indicated by him last summer as to the right of inspection of offices under the Factories Acts has been tried; and, if not, whether he will expedite the matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The arrangement of a test case is a matter for a local authority, and not for me. I am informed that it has not yet been possible to take action in the matter.
  Viscount SANDON: is not that much the same as the answer that I got about eight or nine months ago?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Very likely.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many persons, who were qualified on the ground of previous insurance or otherwise to become voluntary contributors under the combined health and pensions insurance scheme, have only recently become aware that the time within which they might exercise their right expired on 4th July last; and whether, seeing that a large number of these persons are desirous of joining the scheme, he can see his way to extend the period within which they may become voluntary contributors to 31st March next, or such other date as will give them a further opportunity of joining?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Wide publicity was given to the right of persons qualified by previous insurance or otherwise to become voluntary contributors under the combined health and pensions insurance scheme on electing so to do before 4th July, 1920; and, in order to meet the case of qualified persons who failed to exercise their right before that date, and could give a satisfactory ex-

    1097
    planation of their failure, a special extension of time until 2nd January, 1927, was allowed. In these circumstances, I regret that I cannot see my way to allow the further extension suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman no information that there is still a large number of people who, without any fault of their own, are ignorant of the fact that they were not qualified under the very complicated terms of this Act, and if information can be brought to a large number of these people by some of the approved societies, will he not reconsider the question of extending the time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question on the Paper.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain number of people who were misled by explanations purporting to be given of this Act in the public Press at the time, and will he consider that a satisfactory reason for investigating their cases?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will give me further particulars, I will look into the question.

    GUARDIANS' STAFFS (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians in control of the Forest Gate Sick Home, Forest Gate, E.7, have made an order which declares that when a member of the resident staff is sick he must make a claim for sickness benefit from his approved society, and that any sickness benefit thus receivable is to be deducted from his salary; and, seeing that the terms of such order conflict with the provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts, and that the guardians are not in a position to determine the rate or amount of State sickness benefit receivable, having regard to additional cash and other benefits, and in view of the complications which must arise regarding certification and sick visitation, will he take steps to rescind the order referred to?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the guardians have extended to the whole of their officers an arrangement which was already in operation for a, part of the staff: it may be assumed, there-
    1098
    fore, that the guardians are able to deal with the complications to which the hon. Member refers. The guardians' arrangements do not conflict with any provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts, and I do not think there is any ground for my intervention.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act state definitely that this benefit shall not be taken into account by any employer in calculating the amount of wages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the bon. Member is confusing wages and salaries in this case. Of course, if a man who is in receipt of wages is kept away from his work by illness, he does not then receive pay for the time he is away, but where a man is on a fixed salary, whether he is at work or not, it does not seem right that he should receive both salary and sickness benefit.
    Mr. DAVIES: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the National Health Insurance Act states definitely, irrespective of wages and salary, that remuneration shall not be taken into account in the calculation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is really mistaken. I shall be happy to explain afterwards, if he cares to see me about it, that there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does not that view of the right hon. Gentleman mean that a man pays contributions to National Health Insurance in that case and receives no benefit?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    ASSISTED MIGRATION (MEDICAL EXAMINATION FEE).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the recommendation made by the Interdepartmental Committee appointed to consider the effect on migration of schemes of social insurance that the 10s. 6d. fee for the medical examination of those seeking assisted passages should be paid from National Health Insurance funds; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have considered the recommendation to which the hon. Members refers. Legislation will be required to give effect to it, and I hope to include the necessary provision in the next Bill relating to National Health Insurance.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (OVERTIME).
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Health the amount of overtime worked in his Department by the permanent and temporary grades below the executive grade during the months of November, December, and January, together with the total cost involved?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of overtime worked in my Department by the permanent and temporary grades below the, executive grade during the months of November, December, and January was 10,096 hours, at a cost of £931.
    Mr. MONTAGU: May I ask if we can have the assurance that this practice is limited as far as possible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is so. I have taken particular pains not to have any more overtime than is necessary, and I may mention that in the course of the last 18 months no fewer than 400 temporary clerks have been engaged.

    GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the approximate amount of British Government securities held by the several Government Departments and other public offices on the 31st December, 1926, or as near a date as possible?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The total amount of British Government
    1100
    securities of all classes held by British Government Departments and public offices on 31st March, 1926, is estimated at about £940,000,000. This figure does not include holdings of members of the public in the Post Office Register of Government Stocks and in the Savings Bank Investment Account (together about £207,000,000); nor British Government securities held by the India Office, the Crown Agents for the Colonies and the Public Trustee.

  MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.
  Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that neither the Imported Milk Regulations nor the Milk and Dairies Order apply to Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, any inspection is made at the ports or elsewhere of milk and dairy produce coming from those places, or what is the procedure adopted to ensure clean imports of dairy produce?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the position to be that no milk is imported into this country from Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Dairy produce brought from them is subject, under the Imported Food Regulations, to the same inspection at the ports as dairy produce brought from other countries.

  CONTRIBUTOITY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health whether he has had his attention drawn to cases of hardship arising under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act to widows whose children, on reaching the age of 14, are incapacitated by illness from earning their living; and whether, when he is introducing amending legislation, he will consider the possibility of making provision for them?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to a certain number of cases of the kind mentioned, which, however, do not arise under the Act in question. As regards the second part, I would point out that an Amendment, to secure what is now proposed was

  1101
  negatived when the Bill was in Committee, and I remain of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to make specific provision for this exceptional class in the contributory pensions scheme

  OPEN SPACES, LONDON.
  Sir J. REMNANTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to consider how the squares and other open spaces in London can be preserved for the public use?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the question of the London squares is under the consideration of the London County Council, with whom I am in communication. At the moment I do not contemplate the establishment of any fresh body of the kind suggested, but the matter will continue to have my personal attention.

  OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health what action, legislative and administrative, he proposes to take on the subject of the Report of the Committee on Offences against Young Persons?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have Leon asked to reply. As regards administrative action, I have already commended the Report to the consideration of magistrates and the police. Whether any, and if so what, legislation should be proposed is a matter which will be bettor considered when the Committee on Youthful Offenders, which is now sitting, has made its report. Effect was proposed to be given to Recommendation 27 in the Mental Deficiency Bill of last Session.
  Viscount SANDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that new Committee is likely to report?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; I hope it will be within two months' time The Committee have been sitting for a long time, and the report will be long and comprehensive, dealing with the whole question.
  viscount SANDON: Does that include Scotland as well?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.

  OVERSEERS (TRANSFER OF POWERS).
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he will state the names of the members of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed under Section 62 (2) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to prepare the drafts of orders to be made under this Section 62, transferring the powers and duties of the overseers as to relief from Poor Rate in cases of sudden and urgent necessity and medical relief, under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, and by whom they were chosen?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The draft of the Order in Council for the transfer of the powers and duties of overseers was prepared by Mr. Joshua Scholefield, K.C., and Mr. H. J. Comyns, Assistant Solicitor to the Ministry of Health. These gentlemen were appointed by Lord Muir Mackenzie, Lord Blanesburgh and myself, acting as a Committee of the Privy Council to whom the appointment of persons to prepare the drafts of Orders under Section 62 of the Rating and Valuation Act was referred.
  Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether, before making his draft special order for transferring the duties and powers of the overseers as to cases of sudden urgent necessity and sudden dangerous illness to nobody except the relieving officers, he had consulted the medical societies or the heads of the medical profession or any of the societies for child welfare in the rural districts?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I did not consult the particular organisations referred to by the hon. Member, but, before the order was drafted I acquainted myself with the views of the body which has the widest experience of this question, namely, the Poor Law Unions Association.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY INSTITUTION (WESTWOOD, CLAYTON HEIGHTS).
  Mr. W. HIRSTasked the Minister of Health when the plans for the new

  1103
  mental deficiency institution at Westwood, Clayton Heights, which have been under consideration by the Board of Control for the past two and a-half years are likely to receive the approval of the Board?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the Board of Control are awaiting the submission by the local authority, for approval, of the completed plans, specification and estimate. The Board will deal with them at once on their receipt.

  DOCTORS (DISPENSING MEDICINES).
  Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Health whether any action is proposed in regard to the representations he has received from the Pharmaceutical Society against the practice of doctors in England and Wales dispensing medicines and supplying medical and surgical requisites?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Legislation would be required to preclude medical practitioners from dispensing and supplying medicines and surgical appliances. I am not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce legislation for this purpose.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation this year for the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the continuance of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, which continues in force in England and Wales till 25th December, 1927, and in Scotland till 28th May, 1928, is under consideration; but I am not at present able to make any announcement on the subject.
  Mr. MOSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an early pronouncement, in view of the widespread interest in the country concerning the lapse of this Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think so.

  WINES (CLEARANCE ORDER).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason for the recent
  1104
  Treasury Order restricting the amount of wines of Dominion importation that may be withdrawn from bond for home consumption during the period from the first week in February until May next?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Order referred to applies to all imported wine, whether from Empire or non-Empire sources. I gave the reason for issuing the Order in my reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division on the 10th February.
  Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the modified restrictions of the original Order that he mentioned the other day?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not without notice.

  IMPORTED FLOWER BULBS.
  Mr. DEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to assist an agricultural industry, and in view of the amount of labour employed therein, he will consider the advisability of placing a duty on imported flower bulbs?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. HARRIS: Are the Government going to put flower bulbs under the Merchandise Marks Act?
  Mr. DEAN: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do what we ask with regard to the root of the matter, will he give us what we ask for on the flowers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That deals with a hypothesis.

  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE AND PORTUGAL).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any reason to anticipate the early ratification of the Anglo-French debt agreement by France; and whether he has made, or proposes to make, any representations to the French Government in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been in constant touch with the French Ministry of Finance on this subject. I have now received a communication from Monsieur Poincaré, in which he states that, in view of the delay in obtaining the formal rati-

  1105
  fication of the Debt agreement by the French Parliament, the French Government undertake, without prejudice to the question of ratification, to pay the £6,000,000 due in the next financial year, half on the 15th September, 1927, and half on the 15th March, 1928. While I trust that the Debt agreement will soon be ratified, I welcome this communication as indicating that the French Government intends to meet its obligations in respect of its War Debt, pending ratification.
  Mr. BECKETT: Is it possible to make friendly representations to the French Government suggesting that they should settle this debt with us before financing military dictatorships in Poland?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not dream of making such representations.
  Mr. W. HIRSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the original total of the Portugal War Debt to this country and the capitalised present value of the annuities to be paid by Portugal under the recent Anglo-Portugal debt funding agreement?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The original total of the War Debt of Portugal to this country was £23,527,186, which was reduced to £20,133,589 in consideration of the supplies rendered by Portugal to this country during the War free of charge and in settlement of all outstanding claims in connection with the War Debt accounts. The present value on a 5 per cent. basis of the annuities to be paid under the Funding Agreement is £7,167,000.

  CONVERSION LOAN.
  Mr. DALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount by which the principal of the National Debt will be increased on account of the cash applications, as distinct from the conversion applications, of the recent issue of 4 per cent. Consols; and whether, in his estimate of the saving in the annual interest charge, any allowance was made for the prospective loss to the Treasury of Income Tax and Super-tax owing to the reduced income of the holders of public securities as a result of conversion?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have already informed the hon. Member on the
  1106
  8th February, the cash applications amounted to £81,300,525 stock and the cash proceeds will be £69,105,446. The answer to the second part is in the negative; but the explanation would be complicated and the amount if any—and this is arguable—would be small.
  Mr. DALTON: Does it not follow that the result of this conversion transaction is that the only saving to the taxpayer is less than £500,000 a year, and the National Debt has been increased by £32,000,000?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am always ready to debate such matters, but it is a complicated question to discuss—the relative values of time and money in regard to these long-dated obligations. I should be quite ready to discuss it at a suitable time, which is not Question Time.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what sum would be realised if co-operative societies were taxed in the same way as other businesses?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is taking the view that the margin derived from mutual transactions is a profit which may appropriately be charged to Income Tax. If this assumption be accepted, and if in other respects Co-operative Societies were taxed in the same way as other businesses, I am advised that the additional tax received would be in the neighbourhood of £100,000 per annum.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the view that it would be as well if the benefits derived from this tax went to his Government, instead of going in propaganda against the Government?

  SOCIETE GENERALE HELLENIQUE.
  Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if ratification by the Greek Government was given for the concession on the guaranteed bond issue of £2,000,000 to the Power and Traction Finance Company in Greece; and if interest is being paid by the company?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The validity of the concession granted to the Société Générale Hellénique has been recognised by the Greek Government, with the authority of the Assembly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Mr. G. HIRSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the National Debt as at the 31st December, 1926; the amount due per head of the population; and the interest charges on the National Debt per head of the population for the year 1926?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The nominal amount of the National Debt at the 31st December last was £7,729,982,000. For the last complete financial year, that ended the 31st March, 1926, the interest charge was £306,995,000. Divided by the number of the population these figures are £170 17s. 5d. and £6 15s. 9d. respectively.

  DEATH DUTIES.
  Mr. COUPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as a means of ensuring full payment of death duties, he has considered the proposal for introducing into England and Wales the system which prevails in Scotland of requiring the attachment of inventories of estates to grants of probate or confirmation of the estate of a deceased person, so that, in the event of estate subsequently transpiring, it will be incumbent upon the deceased's executor to lodge an inventory of the estate omitted in the original inventory upon which additional Estate Duty will become exigible?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggestion of my hon. Friend has not been overlooked, and will be considered in connection with any proposals which it may become necessary to introduce for improving the machinery of collection of Estate Duty.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, arising out of the promises made by him to the University of London last June,
  1108
  any plans for the additional accommodation required for the headquarters of the University at South Kensington have been submitted; and whether any land has been purchased from the Bedford Trustees for housing the Institute of Historical Research and the Students' Union at Bloomsbury?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  IRISH CLAIMS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many claims of Irish loyalists have been heard by the Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander Wood Renton, K.C.; and when it is anticipated the Report of this Committee will be published?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Irish Grants Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander Wood Renton, have so far dealt with 559 cases. I understand that the total number of applications received by the Committee is approximately 3,000. I am not in a position to say when the Committee will have completed their work or whether any Report will be made, apart from recommendations in individual cases.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Committee deals with the eases of ex-service men?
  Mr. AMERY: It deals with all eases of hardship in this connection.

  MUSEUM OF PRACTICAL GEOLOGY.
  Colonel DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of officials and attendants employed at the Museum of Practical Geology, Piccadilly, together with the yearly amount of salaries and wages paid to such employés; and the daily average number of visitors to the above museum?
  Lord E. PERCY: I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The Museum of Practical

  1109
  Geology in Jermyn Street serves also as the headquarters, office and library of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. The officers assigned to museum and library duties are three, namely, the curator, assistant curator and assistant librarian. Their salaries, inclusive of bonus, amount to £2,555. These officers also perform certain services for the Geological Survey. The Director of the Geological Survey and Museum, the petrographer and the palæontologist also take part in museum work but their principal duties are connected with the Survey. In the museum and library there are four technical and general assistants and eight warders, whose total salaries and wages amount to £2,387. In addition, there is a manual staff (e.g., labourers) whose wages amount to £1,573, but the work of most of these men is largely connected with the Survey offices. The average number of visitors daily in 1926, was 51. In 1913 the average number was 142 per day. In 1927 (to date) the average daily attendance is 60.
  Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what expenditure is incurred in carrying on this Museum because on some days there are not more than 25 people present?
  Lord E. PERCY: As the hon. Member will see, I could not give him an answer without reading it all.

  HENRY WYNATALEN AND COMPANY.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether Messrs. Henry Wynmalen and Company, constructional steel manufacturers, Chateau de Branchon, Boneffe, Belgium, are now or have at any time been contractors to any Department of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, have contracts been placed with this company and in what connection?
  Mr. McNEILL: I will make inquiry of the principal contracting departments, and let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.

  AGRICULTURE.

    PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been
    1110
    taken to find employment and/or land where necessary for those colonists at Patrington who will not find employment on farms taken over by the new tenants?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is rather long, I propose with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The reply is as follows:
    The general position is that out of 57 ex-service men who were regularly employed on the Patrington Farm Settlement at the beginning of September last, 14 have, already left and 43 are still on the Settlement. It is impossible to say how many men will continue to be employed on the farms into which the Estate will be divided by the Commissioners of Crown Lands after Lady Day next. At the request of the Ministry the Yorkshire branch of the British Legion made inquiries last October to ascertain how many of the settlers desired either to remain on the Estate and rent their cottages and some land direct from the Crown or to be assisted to obtain employment elsewhere. The result of the inquiries showed that eight men desired to become direct tenants of the Crown, and the Commissioners of Crown Lands have offered to each of these men cottages and an area of land. Five of them have signed agreements. One other man has purchased a small holding elsewhere, and has already removed; two other men will also be removing to take up holdings elsewhere. The British Legion forwarded to the Ministry the names of 11 men who desired to be assisted to obtain employment elsewhere. One of these has already left, one has accepted a cottage holding and one has other work in view shortly. The Ministry has made inquiries through its outdoor staff and has brought to the attention of the British Legion some suitable posts available in other districts. The Employment Exchanges have also offered assistance. As. however, about two-thirds of the settlers are natives of the Patrington district, some of them are reluctant to remove to other districts, and some offers of employment have accordingly been refused.

    HORSES (GELDING AND DOCKING).
    Mr. CADOGANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make com-

    1111
    pulsory use of local anæsthesia in the case of horses of all ages in the operations of gelding and docking?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Select Committee of the House of Lords which considered the Animals (Anæsthetics) Bill of 1919 examined expert witnesses of all kinds and decided that the use of an anæsthetic in the castration of animals, except dogs and cats over six months of age, was neither desirable nor practicable. I have considered this question in conjunction with my expert advisers, but I see no reason for departing from the decision reached in 1919. The Animals (Anæsthetics) Act already provides that a local anæsthetic shall be used in the docking of horses.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, CHESTER.
    Mr. TOWNENDasked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of small holdings have been provided in the County of Chester since 1st January, 1908; how many tenants are now in occupation; how many applications have been made to the county authority since 1st January, 1920; how many applications have been granted; and what is the number on the waiting list of unsatisfied applicants?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The acreage of small holdings provided by the Cheshire County Council from 1st January, 1908, to 31st December, 1924, was 10,093 acres, the number of smallholders in occupation on the last-mentioned date being 338. The number of applications received by the council during the six years to 31st March, 1926, was 476, and the number of men settled during the same period was 121. The number of applicants on the waiting list at the end of the period was 179, of whom, however, there were only nine whose applications had been definitely approved.

  AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION (ROYAL DOCKYARDS).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has given further consideration to the construction of aircraft in His Majesty's dockyards; and whether skilled personnel, of whom so many are now unemployed, will be engaged on such work?
  Major COPE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member has frequently been examined by the Air Ministry, who, however, remain of the opinion that the proper policy is to rely upon the aircraft industry for construction.

  SCHNEIDER CUP.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air why no British aeroplane or seaplane competed in the last race for the Schneider Cup; and what steps, if any, were taken by the Air Ministry to assist or encourage the entry of a British machine or machines?
  Major COPE: I have been asked to reply. Entries for the Schneider Cup are made by the Royal Aero Club, and at a meeting held at the Royal Aero Club on the 19th March, 1926, it was unanimously decided that it was inexpedient for the club to make a challenge for the Schneider Cup Race that year. In view of the above decision, the need for any steps on the part of the Air Ministry did not arise.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the Air Ministry consulted by the club or informed of this decision?
  Major COPE: I cannot add anything further to my answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now state the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): On Monday and on Tuesday and Wednesday up to 8.15, we shall further consider the Supplementary Estimates in Committee and on Report, and if time permit, we shall make progress with the Public Works Loans Bill and the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Bill. The business for Thursday will be announced later.
Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask when the Government proposes to introduce the Trade Union Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give a date yet, but obviously it cannot be until finance is disposed of.
Mr. MacDONALO: I understood that the Government were very anxious to introduce it, and only the Amendment to the Address on the King's Speech prevented them from doing so a week ago?
The PRIME MINISTER: No; it will not be possible to introduce any important Bill until after the Consolidated Fund Bill is through, because there is no time.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing President Coolidge's Naval Conference proposals before an answer is made by the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question now, but obviously the point can be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  BETTING OVERSEAS (PROHIBITION) BILL,
  "to prohibit the making with bookmakers of bets on events to be determined in Great Britain unless the bets are made in Great Britain," presented by Mr. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by Mr. McNeill; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL,
  "to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays," presented by Mr. JAMES STEWART; supported by Mr. Templeton, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. John Jones, Sir Samuel Chapman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, and Mr. Womersley; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

  POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to make provision as to poor relief to dependants of persons involved in a trade dispute in Scotland, to enable relief to be given by way of loan, and to extend further the duration of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent Acts," presented by Sir CHIN GILMOUR; supported by the Lord Advocate, the
  1114
  Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Major Elliot; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON repotted from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Ten Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order 47: Major Sir Richard Barnett, Mr. James Brown, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Samuel Roberts, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Short, and Sir Edmund Turton.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Short and Sir Edmund Turton from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES) (PANEL).
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Ten Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order 105: Mr. Cadogan, Mr. Cape, Sir Martin Conway, Captain Crookshank, Major Sir Bertram Falle, Sir James Grant, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Jenkins, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, and Mr. George Thorne.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899 (PANEL).
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the

1115
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty-two Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir George Berry, Major Broun-Lindsay, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Henry Craik, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Hardie, Sir Harry Hope, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen Mitchell, Mr. Skelton, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. James Stuart and Mr. M`Lean Watson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. WILLIAM NLCHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:
That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

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

    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."
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): After the Estimates that we discussed yesterday, which amounted to £50,000 and £450,000, I must really apologise for asking for so small a sum as £10. This £10 is merely a token Vote, in order to enable me to use Appropriations-in-Aid to meet excess expenditure. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that, the year before last, Lord Weir's Committee reported to the Government with regard to the electrical supplies of this country, and the Government, having considered that Report, after due deliberation brought in a Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, to regulate the electricity supplies of this country. Before bringing in that Bill, the Government considered, and I think the Committee will agree that it was a right course, that it would be well to have independent outside technical advice beyond the advice which was given by their legal technical advisers, the Electricity Commissioners.
    The Committee will appreciate that, in a scheme so large as that of the Elec-
    1140
    tricity Act, it was essential that the figures should be as accurately ascertained as human knowledge and skill could devise; and so, in the spring of 1925, a Supplementary Estimate was brought into the Horse and voted, which enabled the Government to use a sum of money in the financial year 1925–26 to get outside technical advice on the Weir Report and on the scheme generally. As a matter of fact, of the £15,000 voted, not more than £10,500 was actually expended, and so, early last year, a sum of £5,000 was inserted in the Estimates as a re-vote, in order that the work might go on. That £5,000 is not sufficient to meet the expenses which were incurred in the general scheme and in the technical scheme of investigation up to the 15th December last, when the Electricity Bill became an Act.
    It may be asked, why is the 15th December taken as the date, and not the 31st March, which is the end of the financial year? It is because, after the 15th December, when the Bill became an Act, any money for these investigations, according to the terms of the Act, became a charge on the fur d under the control of the Electricity Commissioners, afterwards to be recoyered from the Central Electricity Board. Up to the 15th December last, the money found by Parliament will be re7overed, with 5 per cent. interest, from the Central Electricity Board when it functions, but obviously it cannot he recover-d before the 31st March next, as the. Electricity Board will not come into being until the 1st March next. In effect, therefore, what I am asking the Committee to do, having, I hope, given them a fairly clear explanation, is simply to sanction, in this token Vote of £10—not to find money, but. to sanction—certain Appropriations-in-Aid, being utilised for the deficiency which now exists between the £5,000 which was put into my Estimate and the £19,000 which it has cost to carry on these investigations between the beginning of this financial year and the 15th December last.
    The £14,000, less £10, the amount of the token Vote, is found, as to one part, by savings on other Subheads of the Ministry of TransFort—offices not being filled up, and other economies—and, as to the other part, by the fact that we have received Appropriations-in-Aid

    1141
    greater than we anticipated, to the amount of some £7,000, savings having been made and recoveries, for example, in respect of the cost of the Railway Rates Tribunal having been greater than we anticipated. We have between 26,000 and £7,000 more than we anticipated, and now what we are asking the Committee to do is simply to allow us to allocate these excess Appropriations-in-Aid, which we have received, towards the liquidation of that £14,000, the balance being found by economies. The taxpayer will not he a penny out of pocket, because all the money which this investigation has cost, plus 5 per cent. interest, will be repaid from the Central Electricity Board after the 31st March next.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Vote can in fact be taken as a token Vote. I should like to point out at once that whether it can or not will in no way interfere with the operations of my right hon. Friend, or the conduct of the business of his Department. This Vote of £10 is really a token Vote dealing, not with the amount which has actually been voted—namely, £14,000, because it is entirely, if I understand it aright, under the Act of 1926, whereas a Supplementary Estimate can only be granted as a supplementary sum to the sums provided, as stated on the Paper, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Railways Act, 1921, and so on. We are thus, indeed, asked to vote a sum for a new service under the Act of 1926, and I think it is not competent for us to grant this as a token Vote under the Act of 1926, because it obviously cannot be a sum supplementary to any of those sums which were originally granted under the original Estimate.
    Colonel ASHLEY: On that point of Order. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is under a misapprehension. This is not under the Act of 1926. This is an ordinary Supplementary Estimate such as we had last year. The only way in which the Act of 1926 comes in is that the Act of 1926 visualised the fact that the money had been spent under Supplementary Estimates and under ordinary Estimates for this purpose, and said that it was only right and proper that the Central
    1142
    Electricity Board should repay to the taxpayer the money with 5 per cent. interest. That is the only way in which the Act of 1926 comes into it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: On that point, surely the very fact that this £14,000 is to be recovered under the terms of the Act of 1926 clearly shows that this £14,000 is in fact a new service, and should have been introduced later in the Vote on Account, and not brought in as a token Vote to appropriate sums which the House has already voted and which have been saved. It seems to me quite clear that the proper method of dealing with this matter would be by introducing it at the appropriate stage under different machinery, and explaining to the House that this £14,000 is required for a new service under the Act of 1926, and is repayable and chargeable under the terms of that Act.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am not quite sure whether I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), but I think we want information on this point. In the first place, is any of this money money which is expended under the authority of the Act of 1926, and, if it is, how does it come to be included in this Estimate, which is an Estimate in connection with the expenditure of various sums of money under various Acts of Parliament, but not under the Act of 1926? If the Leading of the Estimate is looked at, it will be seen that there is no reference whatever to the Act of 1926.
    Mr. HARDIE: I should like to ask whether it is in order for any token Vote to come before this House for sums of money that are loans? I understood that it was only on the question of Government payments that a token Vote could be taken at any time. This, however, is a sum of money, as we are told to-day, which is recoverable, though I do not know whether it will ever be recovered. Is it strictly in order, in such a case, to take a token Vote in this form?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is anything at all out of order in this particular Vote. The point raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), with regard to its not being complementary to the original Estimate, does not make any difference at all. This is not what I may call purely a token

    1143
    Vote which might be treated as a new service, but I do not think there is anything in the nature of a new service here It is simply to enable the Ministry to make use of a sum of money which has been saved.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT: I ask you to rule definitely whether expenditure under the Act of 1926 can be included under this particular Estimate, which does not refer to that Act?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, I do not think this comes under the Act of 1926 at all.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it possible through an Estimate to force the new Board to accept expenditure which they may not consider justifiable?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not seem to me to be a point of order, but a matter for argument.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can you give us any precedents where a token Vote has been taken for money which has been advanced? We are in the position of pawnbrokers in advancing this money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether there are or are not, but it certainly is not my business to find out.
    Mr. HARDIE: You, Sir, are in charge of the Committee and of its procedure, and I am asking you as the authority on these qeustions to give your ruling. If you cannot give a ruling and want time to get up your information, I am prepared to move, "That the Debate be adjourned."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling that this Vote is in order, and that is sufficient.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: May I raise an entirely different point of Order? The Minister, if I heard him correctly, stated that there had been a saving on the original Estimate of £7,700, and that that £7,700 was now going to be transferred to the purposes of the Central Electricity Board and would be recoverable at 5 per cent. The point I want to raise is whether we should be in order in discussing the savings which have been made by the various departments of the Ministry of Transport to realise the £7,700.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I see no objection to hon. Members discussing the reasons why this saving has been made so long as they do not go too much into detail.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
    My difficulty with regard to this Supplementary Estimate is that, despite the fact that the Minister of Transport said he was asking for a very small sum and despite the fact that he seemed to think he was giving a very full explanation, I did not hear a single word from him with regard to the details of the expenditure under Sub-head C. On page 12 we are given "details of the foregoing," and it is stated that the
    "fees and expenses of consulting engineers and expenses of the technical survey for a general schme of generation and transmission of electricity in Great Britain, including field surveys of the central England and Glasgow and Clyde alley areas"
    amounted £14,000. I would respectfully submit to the Committee and to the Minister that it is not giving adequate information to lump those services together and give a common total for the whole thing and I consider that a protest is called for. It has been the practice in the past, in presenting Supplementary Estimates, to give the most meagre information, which frequently has not been adequately supplemented when the discussion has taken place. There is one further point to which I wish to draw attention. The original Estimate was for a sum of £9,200, and the Supplementary Estimate is for a sum of £14,000, which is getting on towards being double. In view of the very inadequate information which has been placed before the Committee, I move to reduce the Vote by £5.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry I could not hear all that my right hon. and gallant Friend said in his opening remarks. I may have missed something, but I gathered that he apologised for asking the Committee to vote such a small sum as £10. I am quite sure that it is new to this Committee that a Minister should have to apologise or should think of apologising for asking for a small sum. I wish to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether the original Estimate of

    1145
    £9,200 was in fact over-expended by November of last year, and whether it is not a fact that this expenditure which is now asked for has been wholly incurred to meet the requirements and the provisions of the Act of 1926. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to say how much, if any, of that sum was used for the purposes of the survey which was made during the later stages a the Bill of 1926. I have not the slightest desire to embarrass my right hon. and gallant Friend in the progress of his work or in the investigations and the expenditure of necessary money, but I do say that, if he is fair, he will place the position before the Committee and the country in a straightforward Parliamentary manner. If he had come to the Committee and had said that owing to the passing of the 1926 Act and the investigations which were made in anticipation of that Act without the authority of Parliament, investigations undertaken to facilitate the proceedings under that Bill—
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I cannot allow to pass his statement that it was without the authority of Parliament. There has been a Supplementary Vote, and there was an item put into the Vote for the Ministry.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I at once accept the assurance of my right hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse the Ministry by implication of not acting in a straightforward way?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to express an opinion either way.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not complain.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I suggest that my right hon. and gallant Friend should explain why, after using those savings and further Appropriations-in-Aid, he is calling for a token Vote which in effect means, as he must know, that the bulk of this additional sum of £14,000 is needed because of our legislation of last year which produced the Electricity Act of 1926. That is the plain fact of the case. The bulk of it really is for the new service which was set up last year, and I am sure that none of us would have quarrelled if it had been taken at a later stage under the
    1146
    proper procedure and had been placed before the Committee so that we could have understood it and that people outside would have known that we were incurring the first necessary expenditure under the Act of 1926.
    Mr. HAFIRIS: Having followed the proceedings last year during the struggle over the Electricity Bill, I am not surprised that the Minister should have got a little impatient and have wanted to forestall the passing of his Bill. The Bill suffered so much from delay and from the obstruction of vested interests that I suppose he felt he could no longer hold his hand and was bound to get on and prepare the way for setting up the Board, and, from the point of view of users of electricity and industry, I am rather inclined to congratulate the Minister on his courage and enterprise in anticipating the work of the Board. On the other hand, as a good Parliamentarian, I do not like to see the Minister spending large sums of money without the direct authority of Parliament. I think it is right to assume that this considerable sum of £14,000 has largely gone in salaries and appointments. This Committee should be very suspicious of a Minister having power to make appointments of this kind uncontrolled by the House of Commons, and we ought to know something about the character of the appointments. We have no particulars or details of the establishment which the Minister has brought into existence to carry out his work. We do not know whether they were engineers or surveyors, what sort of salaries were paid, whether their appointments were permanent or temporary, whether they have been dismissed or whether their services have been handed over to the new Board. It seems to me that it is very unsound in principle. I might be prepared, under very exceptional circumstances, to whitewash the Minister, but I think we are entitled to more details as to how the money has been spent.
    The Vote speaks of a technical survey and of consulting engineers. Consulting engineers give advice. We have had a great deal of advice from a great number of engineers during the last two or three years, and no doubt we have paid heavily for it. Who are these consulting engineers? How many were appointed? What were their fees and on what terms were their engagements made? This new

    1147
    Ministry of Transport is not bound by the old precedents of some of the other Departments. They have new fangled methods. I am glad to see a new spirit of enterprise and energy—perhaps it is the electricity which charges them with that enterprise and energy—but some of these new officials have a habit of making speeches in the country, which is quite a new custom with officials. If we have these appointments made without the authority of Parliament and no details given, we may find the Ministry using this as a precedent, and in the future we may have a whole sheaf of new appointments because of the possibility of the passage of another Act of Parliament. I think therefore that we should have a full and frank detailed statement regarding the terms and conditions of the appointments of all these officials.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I think this Estimate has been put in a form which perhaps is rather slovenly and that it is really not the fault of the Committee if the Minister incurs a little more trouble and time in getting it through than would otherwise have been the case. I should like to be clear on one point, because I understood from what he said just now that none of the expenditure that is covered under this head was expenditure that came under the Act of 1926. May I ask whether anything under this Estimate is spent under the authority of the Act of 1926?
    Colonel ASHLEY: None whatever.
    Mr. HERBERT: Then are we going to have another Supplementary Estimate for the current year? If not, may I have some explanation as to how the necessary payments are to be made to certain gentlemen the activities of one of whom were referred to in the House and some complaint was made of the Department engaging a great consulting engineer to go round and make inquiries and make reports to the Board in anticipation of the passing of the Electricity Bill? The Electricity Act, 1926, is referred to in the footnote to this Estimate as being responsible for certain savings, but the Act of 1926 is not mentioned in the heading of Class II at all, and therefore I think one would be right in assuming that the Minister should know, as is the case, that no money covered by this Vote has been expended under the Act of 1926.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: It is recoverable.
    Mr. HERBERT: It is recoverable, according to this, under the Act of 1926, but it will not be recoverable until after March. What I mea at was that that is the only reference to the Act of 1926, but that under that Act certain sums are recoverable. My point is that this Estimate contains no reference whatever to any expenditure under the Act of 1926, and if the Minister is not asking for any money to be expended under that Act, I want him to tell us how he is paying for the gentleman who was sent round before that Act was on the. Statute Book to collect information arid give advice as to schemes which were being published in anticipation of the passing of the Act. I raise the point because I object very strongly indeed to the growing habit of Government Departments acting, when they have no authority whatever to act, on the assumption that, because the Government has a Bill before Parliament, it will become an Act.
    Colonel ASHLEY: We did nothing without Parliamentary sanction. We had a Supplementary Vote for 1925–1926, which was passed. Last year £5,000 was put into my Estimates for this very purpose, and not a penny was spent without Parliamentary sanction.
    Mr. HERBERT: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's explanation as far as it goes, but I still want to know this. He will not deny the fact, with regard to a letter I read when I raised a question of privilege on this very point. I am not quite sure of the gentleman's name, but there is no need to mention it. My right hon. Friend, I think, will not deny that he was sent round according to the terms of that letter which was written to the secretary of certain electricity undertakings. He visited them, and these in charge of the undertakings were requested to give him information to enable him to prepare certain schemes which would have, to be prepared under what was then the Bill of 1926, if it ever became an Act of Parliament.
    However my right hon. Friend may get out of the charge of having spent money without Parliamentary sanction, a charge which I, at any rate, never made, it does not alter the fact, and I am sure he will

    1149
    not dispute the fact I have just described, that this gentleman was sent round to do this work. I imagine no one in the Committee will dispute the fact that that gentleman did not go travelling round the country examining electricity undertakings for nothing, and if he has not been paid he has got to be paid somehow, and I should very much like to know how he has been or is going to be paid. But that does not interfere with what I was going to say about the growing practice of Government Departments acting without the authority of an Act of Parliament in a way which they themselves describe as acting in anticipation of the passing into law of a Bill which is then before Parliament, On the occasion in question Mr. Speaker decided that there was no breach of privilege and he said something to the effect that it was not an uncommon thing for Government Departments to prepare in anticipation of the passing of a Bill which was before Parliament. That may be a perfectly common thing but it is a wrong thing for a Government Department to do to incur considerable expense and to incur it in a way which involves asking the taxpayers of the country to assume that a Bill that is proposed by the Government will be passed into law without alteration. That is a protest I desire to make in any event, whatever may be the details in regard to the particular matter we have now been discussing. I could find the gentleman's name if need be, but I am sure thy right hon. Friend will not question it. He knows the incident to which I refer. I want to know definitely whether the expenses of this investigation have been, or are going to be, paid, whether they are in any way included under this Estimate, or whether, if they are not included, it will be necessary to come before us with a further Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I agree with the Minister that this Estimate is in a proper form. I cannot think how otherwise he could come to the House, and ask for this money. His position, at the moment, is extremely difficult. The electricity problem is in a very important transition stage and any Government would be guilty of very great unwisdom unless it took proper precautions to see to it that the problem of electricity shall be properly tackled in 1927 when the Act
    1150
    comes into operation. The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly plain that he has received Parliamentary sanction for all the expenditure his Ministry has undertaken, and I am content to accept his word.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Except, of course, the £14,000 for which I am now asking. That is the whole essence of a Supplementary Estimate. Having spent more than you had to spend, you have to ask the House to find the money.
    Mr. HERBERT: Under an Act of Parliament which is not mentioned in the heading of the Vote.
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is where I disagree with my hon. Friend—not under the Act of Parliament, but under the other Estimate which happens to have been exhausted. Now I am asking for sanction for £14,000.
    Mr. HERBERT: I understood my right hon. Friend to say this £14,000 had been expended.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Not under the Act.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is the point I was about to make. We admit the need for vigilance and economy, but the fact remains that this £14,000 is necessary for the proper development of the electricity scheme at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member is entitled to make the point he has made, but when you look at the general problem it would be great unwisdom on the part of any Government to delay taking action such as the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to take under this Vote. He asks for the sanction of the House to spend £14,000 upon what is, in my judgment, a very wise thing. We are to come under the ægis of the Electricity Act in a very short time, but, surely, the ground has to be prepared for the working of the Act at the earliest possible moment. It is a perfectly proper thing for the Minister of Transport to ask the sanction of the House for a sum to enable him to take immediate action when the Act comes into active operation. Why do we wish to get this £14,000? It is for the
    "fees and expenses of consulting engineers and expenses of the technical survey for a general scheme of generation and transmission of electricity in Great Britain, including field surveys of the Central England and Glasgow and Clyde Valley areas."

    1151
    Surely, as I said, that is a perfectly proper thing for the Minister in a transition stage to undertake and I am convinced that no Member of the House would object to the wisdom of a Department taking a step of that kind.
    The question I rose to ask is in connection with the statement I have just made. I approve of the prevision of the Department in sending round highly skilled consulting engineers to give the Government Department proper advice but these engineers have only gone, as far as I can see, to Central England, Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. Far be it from me to disapprove of their visitations to these various parts, but I would like to ask whether the Minister of Transport proposes to send consulting engineers and experienced skilled men to the one part of the country where electricity can be of most use. I refer to the Highlands of Scotland. Anyone who has visited the Highlands of Scotland knows that the water power there is one of the most marvellous in the world. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) looks or, at any rate, he smiles approval of that remark. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, if we sanction this Vote, to send his skilled consultants to the Highlands of Scotland to consider the problem as a whole. A great deal has been done up there. I must confess that my right hon. Friend and his Department have benefited that part of the country to a very great extent, and I would like hill to assure me now that steps are to he immediately taken to send skilled consultant engineers up there to investigate the problem and see what can be done.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: The Supplementary Estimate says that the money is to be spent 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 I am sorry that the Minister has not set out the details of the expenditure more explicitly. The Severn Barrage has been the subject of many questions in this House asking why this money should be expended year after year. The inquiry has been going on for three or four years, and each year some estimate is made of the money required. This year
    1152
    in the Estimates £20,475 was the sum asked for. What we want to know with reference to the Severn Barrage is whether the Government are continuing these investigations, while at the same time they are allowing the city of Bristol to spend millions of pounds on electricity within a few miles of the very spot where they are making this experiment. The Estimate states that so much money is required for the technical survey. I should like to ask what is the Report so far on the subject of the Severn Barrage? Many people with practical knowledge of the Severn, which has almost the highest tide in the world, know that the whole scheme is impracticable and that it would jeopardise the many millions of pounds spent at the docks at Avonmouth, with which it would certainly interfere. Money is being spent year after year out of the estimates on this matter, and I would like the Minister of Transport to explain how much he proposes to spend this year, in addition to the £14,000?
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: On a point of Order. Does this matter arise on the Supplementary Estimate? Does not the Severn Barrage investigation refer entirely to a sum in the original Estimate?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has anticipated me. I was about to make the same remark.
    Mr. HARDY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) put a question on this matter, and asked for a ruling, which was given. The Committee took it that everything could come in under this Estimate, including the Severn Barrage and the Caledonian and Crinen Canals.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: I would point out that the explanatory note on "Special Service and Inquiries" mentions that the sum of £14,000 is required for field surveys of the Central England, Glasgow and Clyde Valley areas. Probably the Severn Barrage would some in under that heading.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must have been misunderstood if hon. Members think that everything can come in under this Estimate. It is a very narrow Estimate indeed.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: The question of the generation of electricity in the North of Scotland has been raised, and the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) has now referred to the Severn Barrage and, suddenly, we discover that all this is out of order. There are other districts which are equally important, to which one would like to refer. Do you rule out all these detailed districts?
    Mr. D. HERBERT: The Scottish District is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. HARRIS: The sum of £14,000 is to be paid for the cost of a technical survey. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton wishes to know whether the technical survey includes the Severn Barrage?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is evident that the money asked for is for a definite purpose. We cannot discuss as to whether allocations should be made for districts all over England, otherwise we should never get through. The only question is whether the Minister of Transport should devote this money for the particular purpose specified in the Estimate.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: May I point out that the Severn Barrage investigation is mentioned, and that overleaf, on page 12, under the heading "Special Service and Inquiries," mention is made of "Central England," which, I take it, includes the Severn Barrage. The Severn leads right into the Central England. I take it that as the Severn rims through the whole of Central England, that reference means the Severn Barrage. It is a matter of great importance that so much money is being wasted year after year by this investigation into a totally impracticable scheme. This is the only time we can raise it. Probably the Minister would like to hear us on the subject, and we should like to hear him.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned about that. It is out of order.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: I regret very much that I am precluded from dealing with the particular district which I should have liked to mention. I was much interested in the Minister's assurance that the whole of the £14,000 will be recovered
    1154
    ultimately from the general electricity scheme which is being arranged under the 1926 Electricity Act. I know that there is provision made in that Act for the recovery of such money, hut the recovery will only take place if it is quite certain that the scheme will be a success. I do not forget that the scheme was openly described in this House by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) as nothing short of rank and rotten Socialism. The Minister of Transport is so sure that this thing is going to work and that the money will be recovered, that he feels he can promise that there will be no difficulty. He assures us that the expenditure will not fall upon the nation or the taxpayers. That is an assumption that the general electricity scheme we are embarking upon is going to be the success that the Minister believes. I hope it will be a success. I am not quite so sure about it, speaking as a Socialist. I think that Socialism in any of its forms will have to work out its schemes much better in detail than this scheme has been worked out, if we are to be sure that the £14,000 we are now discussing will be recovered from the scheme.
    The sum of £14,000 is to be paid, justifiably, for skilled work and technical assistance. It is less, apparently, than the total sum that is to be paid in salaries alone to the new Board which has been set up in connection with the electricity scheme. If I understood the Minister correctly, this preliminary survey, which is to cost £14,000, and which, I think, has already cost £5,000 this year, and in last year's Estimate a further £10,000 was found, is practically the whole survey. I am wondering what justification there is for the heavy charges that are to he incurred in the salaries of gentlemen on the Electricity Board, some of whom have had no experience in electricity. I should like information about the exact technical detail of the work that has been done in connection with this matter, so that we may feel justified in the expenditure now proposed to be made.
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) in his remarks appeared to have two ideas that were firmly fixed in his mind, and which he repeated at great length. He rather reminded me of the gentleman in

    1155
    the poem which we knew as children, "The Hunting of the Snark," who said:
    "I have said it twice: I have said it thrice:
    What I tell you three times is true."
    Mr. HERBERT: I say it three times.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke with great ingenuity about the salaries included in the sum of £14,000, and he gave us a terrible picture of the precedent which the Minister was creating. Unfortunately for his argument, if he will look at the statement on page 12 of the Estimate he will see that it has no reference to appointments and salaries, but only to the fees and expenses of consulting engineers who have been chosen for this job. Finally, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has for years, and all the time that the Electricity Bill was under consideration, told us that the Act would never come into operation and that it would take years and years to get the survey completed. He naturally feels very chagrined that his prophecy has been falsified.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That is not the case. It was made clear in Committee that the survey would be taken in hand and they would be ready for action as soon as the Central Board was set up.
    Mr. HUDSON: That is the whole basis on which the House agreed to pass the Bill. The hon. Member kept on prophesying that the programme set out in the Bill was entirely wrong, and that it would take years to carry out the survey.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Member deal with my own words, and not- attempt to interpret what I say? My words are on record, and they stand. Leave it at that.
    Mr. HUDSON: This survey has been carried on very much quicker than was expected, and this House should rather congratulate the Minister and those responsible for advising him that he has been able to do it so much quicker and get the magnificent work of the Electricity Act into operation so much sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am surprised that any emphasis should be laid on the small sum of £10. That is the most misleading part
    1156
    of this Estimate. On page 12 we are asked to look at (c) in connection with fees and expenses. We are so particular in this House that some people seem to distinguish the value of money between a fee and a salary. What we are dealing with, after all, is hard cash. The one thing I would complain about is that the Government have not taken the valuable information contained in the Report as a whole, and made that the real basis of what they call the new scheme. It would have been a much more efficient scheme if that had been done. The Attorney-General, standing at the Box on 10th November, said, in reply to a direct question, that the success of this scheme was still purely hypothetical. When you get a statement like that from the Attorney-General who was in charge of the Bill, it gives you some doubt about the success of the scheme. The House never once dealt with the Report upon which the Bill is supposed to be based. If we had been dealing with a national scheme, which this is not, the whole of that Report would have come before the House, and to-day we should have been more familiar with Ibis Supplementary Estimate. The reason why Members have not seemed to follow the thing closely is because they are not familiar with the Report. That report was a costly business in the eyes of many people, but, when we take the work done, it was not really a very costly operation if we are to value the information that was obtained. It is a. great pity that in this demand to-day, we are going to grant this to pay for good information that has largely been put on the shelf.
    The Committee should ask itself why there should be any necessity for a Supplementary Estimate. I would have thought that those skilled in finance would have understood that when the Government, through the Treasury, passed £33,500,000 for a given purpose, this purpose of investigation ought to have been the first charge on that sum. It seems to make it more difficult for Members of this House to understand what it being done when we get questions like this, split up as this has been split up. There are few Members who seem to grasp that this is not a part of the electricity scheme at all. Although the scheme is supposed to be based on the expenditure here under (c), we are told that it is no part of the expenditure

    1157
    on the scheme, although we are told that we have got to recover the money from that scheme when it does work. It seems to be a very boggling way, and a way that is designed to mystify ordinary people like myself in regard to the finance of the scheme. The Deputy-Chairman, of course, says he did not say that we could discuss these things, but I think the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show that, in his reply to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) he ruled that these things could come in.
    Under the heading of "Special Services and Inquiries" you have three figures, and you do not do anything to show that only (c) on page 12 should he discussed. I consider that under "Special Services and Inquiries" we are quite entitled to deal with the original Estimate of £9,200, the revised Estimate of £23,000 and the additional sum of £14,000. If we are not to discuss these things, then we have to conclude that all these other items are simply outside the scope of the Estimate; and, if they are outside, why should they be printed there? The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke about the possible advantages from the point of view of ale users. This is a very bad beginning for a scehme that sets out to reduce the price of current. It begins by placing an initial debt upon it of £14,000 or more. Then we have in addition the annual accumulation of the salaries of the Board. Why did the Minister say nothing about the basis of the payment of the Board, and as to whether the recommendation came from the Weir Committee that such a thing should be appointed? Why did he not inform the House of all the conditions laid down in the Report, and give some indication as to what they asked for and suggested and gave as their reason for the basis of a real working scheme? So far as the working of the scheme is concerned, what you find is a difference of opinion. What is the use of the House of Commons going to the expense of employing highly technical men in order to get the very best evidence, and then, when we get that evidence, treat it from the commercialist point of view only and allow all the money that has been spent, and almost all the valuable information that has been obtained, to slip overboard?
    1158
    How can the House of Commons claim to be doing the business of the nation when it simply takes money like this, to get information supposed to be for a practical purpose, and then wipes it out by the commercialists on its own benches? I cannot see where we are going to have any Report from the Minister for the next two years. He talks about repayment after 31st March, 1927, but if it was possible to find £33,500,000, he might have explained to the House what was the difference between that Vote of £33,500,000 and this Vote. He might have explained why it was that the charges and fees for this scheme and Report were not paid in the same way as that was paid. Will he tell us how, until the scheme is paying, the salaries of the Board are to be found? Are they to come out of the £33,500,000 or are we to have another Supplementary Estimate until the scheme is paying? I want the House to understand exactly what we have been doing in Committee. The whole work of the Committee was so overshadowed by the coal stoppage that very little public interest was taken in it. I had hoped that the Minister of Transport, even on this small call for £10, would have been so proud of the scheme, and especially of the Report, that he would have given some details as to the great benefits that were going to be derived by the nation from this Report.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has gone far enough on this general line. He must not continue on that line.
    Mr. HARDIE: We were told by your ruling that we were to deal with page 12 under (c). I am dealing with that, and hold that I am strictly in order. If the Report had been explained to-day, the Committee would have understood why it was necessary to come here now for any number of pounds, whether 10 or 500 or 10,000. If the right hon. Gentleman had been proud of the Report, he would have let us know the great advantages that will accrue. The whole of this business about the money for this scheme has been so divided up that, so far as I can see, we are going to have a continuation of these things. Unless you have an immediate income, you are going to be compelled to come back to this House for more money, because £33,500,000 will not carry you far.
    Mr. GILLETT: I should like to ask the Minister some questions on those parts of the Estimate that have not yet been dealt with. I fully recognise that the sum of £14,000 has been spent, and it will not make much difference what we say at present. I should like to know how the Minister has managed to find the £14,000 which he now proposes to use, temporarily at any rate, in payment of these other services. I should like to ask him also where the savings have come. in that amount to £6,200. The only thing he mentioned, in a, casual way, was that they had something to do with staff and offices. I take it that the whole of the savings come under the first head.
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is right.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. GILLETT: When I come to the second one—£7,700—I should be interested to know how the Minister has managed to raise that money. I find it under (n). There is really only one large fund from which the money could have come, and that is the Road Fund. There are a number of other items. One is for £14,000, but that is repayment by the amalgamated railway companies in respect of expenses of the Rates Tribunal. It is hardly likely there could have been any increase there. There is also something from the Rates Tribunal, Holyhead Harbour dues and a number of similar items. None of these are likely to provide a sum of £7,000. Therefore I am compelled, unless the Minister tells me otherwise, to think that really this £7,000 is simply due to the fact that the Road Fund has been making larger grants towards the repayment of certain expenditure.
    Colonel ASHLEY: No.
    Mr. GILLETT: Then perhaps the Minister will tell me where this £7,000 does come from, because it seems to me, looking at the original estimate, that it is difficult to find where the Minister could have found a sum of £7,000 unless it came from the Road Fund.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps it would be convenient if I answered the various questions which have been put to me now. May I say, in the first place, in view of the discussions which took place in Committee last year. how much I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Mem-
    1160
    bers who sit behind me? If my recollection is correct, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) asked me what was the total amount that these surveys, general and special, have cost up to now. My answer is that in the financial year 1925–1926 they cost £10,500. In this financial year, and up to 15th December, 1920, when the Act came into force, £19,000; therefore, the total cost up to 15th December, 1926, was £29,500. There will probably be a little more expenditure incurred after 15th December. I do not think very much, but that will fall upon the funds of the Electricity Commissioners, who will recover from the Central Electricity Board, just as we are going to recover this money. The next point raised was, I think, by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).
    Mr. BALFOUR: Before the Minister leaves this, will he tell us how much of that £19,000 was spent after the issue of the circular which was sent out in 1926, saying that in anticipation of the passing of the 1926 Act representatives would be sent round to make that survey?
    Colonel ASHLEY: With the best will in the world I cannot tell my hon. Friend that, because I am not sure of the exact date. As I understand it, the gravamen of the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn was that most of the information which was gained by the technical surveys which we are discussing this afternoon had not been used, but had been pigeon-holed. I must really totally disagree with him. Surely, he must consider that a Government Department has a certain amount of ordinary common sense, and would not have spent money for which they have to account to the House of Commons, unless they were going to make use of the information obtained. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead and many other hon. Members know, the Electricity Commissioners gave their technical advice to the Government, on which the Bill was founded, before the Bill was brought in. The Government thought, and very rightly thought, that they ought to have confirmation from outside any Government source, as to the accuracy of the figures and calculations which had been made, and therefore these surveys were undertaken. They were done over the

    1161
    whole of Great Britain, and, in particular, over the two areas mentioned, and that information has been most useful. It has been used—
    Mr. HARDIE: My point is that it may have ben used, but it is not included in the Act.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The greater part of it is included, because it is used in the preparation of the scheme. The other part will he used by the Commissioners when they put up their schemes to the Board when it begins to function next month. In both ways that information has been used. It has been used in framing the Act and also in helping the Commissioners to devise a scheme under the Act which is now being put together and which will be put up to the new Board when it begins to function next month. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) if my recollection is correct, de sired more information as to what these surveys were—as to the engineers, and details of that sort. I do not think I can give them great details, because I do not think it really is the duty of the Minister to know all the details of an electrical survey. All I did was to instruct the Electricity Commissioners, if I may use a colloquial phrase, to get busy on a scheme as soon as possible, and to place the work of survey in the hands of consulting engineers in Victoria Street. Those eminent consulting engineers were to engage appropriate staffs to make this general survey of Great Britain, and when that general survey was finished they were to go in particular into much more detail in regard to the two areas which we propose to deal with, namely, Central England and the Glasgow area and Clyde area.
    Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the engineers?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes; they are Messrs. Merz and Kennedy, very eminent engineers, of Victoria Street.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the technical details are so far advanced that it would be true to say that the scheme is a working scheme to be handed over to the Board to carry forward?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Again, I cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to that. My submission is that, under your general scheme, you cannot deal with the whole country at once, obviously that would be undesirable even if it were possible. You have got to begin on certain areas, and, the technical men whom the Electricity Commissioners have engaged are at the present moment very nearly finishing, or have finished, their detailed examination of the two areas I have mentioned, so that the Electricity Commissioners, as soon as possible, and without delay, may be able to put up one or two schemes for the Board to consider. Therefore I submit that that meets the points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who wanted to know more of the details, and whether the very best people possible have been engaged in order to assist in the preparation of the scheme. It also meets the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson).
    Mr. HARRIS: I think it is rather important, in passing large sums of money like this, that we should know whether the £14,000 will mostly go in fees to Messrs. Merz and McLellan, or whether it will go to the large staffs of engineers going up and down the country.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Of course, the eminent consulting engineers will receive that reward due to their eminence and ability, and so will their assistants. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that if you are dealing with the technical scheme for the whole of the country, and not only for two particular areas, the amount spent is not excessive. I do not think there are any other points that I have not answered.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee when the consulting engineers propose to go to the other parts of England?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It will not be for the consulting engineers to deal with other parts of the country, nor will it be a matter for the Electricity Commissioners. It will be for the Board to decide what areas to take next. So as to save time, we have decided on certain areas. The scheme as regards those areas is now being put up to the Board

    1163
    or will be put up to the Board within the next fortnight or so, and it will be for the Board to decide where they will go next.
    Mr. GILLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us from where the £7,000 comes?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have not got full details with me, but the increase in Appropriations-in-Aid is accounted for by a number of miscellaneous items; for instance recovery in respect of Agency Services, recovery of expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and sale of minutes of evidence given before the London Traffic Advisory Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: As one of those who sat on the Committee upstairs considering this electricity scheme for three months, I am really rather interested this afternoon to hear that some of the hon. Members who thought that the scheme which has been brought forward by the Government was going to do away with all the ill effects and all the evils that exist at present. This afternon one hears that they are not quite so happy in their minds. I was always one of those who looked upon this scheme as a step towards Socialism.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not embark upon that subject on this Estimate.
    Sir F. HALL: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) was allowed to make his remarks on that point, and I was only endeavouring to reply to them.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order. My remarks had a very exact reference to the £14,000 in this Estimate, and I submit that the hon. and gallant Member who is now speaking has shown no connection whatever.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Huddersfield had his eye upon me and I think that he saw I was going to rise and stopped his remarks. I do not really think that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) are in order.
    Sir F. HALL: I will not pursue that any further. I have made my protest. It was not often that I was able to agree with some of the proposals put forward by the Government during the time of our three months' education on this matter, because we were educated by
    1164
    many Members who never had anything to do with it. This afternoon we hear what an enormous expenditure is going on in different parts of the country, and the money has to be found by Parliament to pay for salaries and so forth for these eminent gentlemen to go to various parts of the country. Surely that is what we could expect under a Government scheme. We should expect all these enormous sums of money to be spent, and I am not surprised at it. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) evidently does not recognise that the Severn is in the West of England, for he talks about it being in the centre of England. I can quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) if he was going to bring forward this very elaborate scheme would ask for this Estimate. He has stated that the Estimate in 1925–26 included a sum of £5,000.
    Colonel ASHLEY: £15,000.
    Sir F. HALL: It is now found that the money that was asked for is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman has been perfectly honest about it. Whether we do or do not agree with the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act the Government have taken a proper course in saying that they must make themselves thoroughly cognisant of the various requirements up and down the country. The scheme qua scheme having beer passed, we should agree to accord him a unanimous vote.
    Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CHARITY COMMISSION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,150, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during tie year ending on the 31st day of March. 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): This Supplementary Estimate does not lend itself to much exciting oratory, but nevertheless perhaps the Committee would like an explanation as to how the Estimate comes before them. Up to 1925 there were certain charitable deeds which, under older legislation, were enrolled at the Royal Courts of Justice, but

    1165
    by the Settled Land Act which was passed in 1925, a change was made with regard to this particular class of deeds, and it was enacted that they should be enrolled and recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners, and the arrangement was made that the fees which would be derived from that register should be accounted for as an Appropriation-in-Aid to the Charity Commission Vote. There were not the data available for a very close estimate of the amount of the fees. This was the first year of the change. Previously, when the deeds had been enrolled at the Royal Courts of Justice, they were not isolated from other deeds, and there was no means of knowing how much revenue was attributable to that particular class. The consequence was that the conjecture as to the amount has fallen short by £1,150, and it is to make good that deficiency that I bring forward this Supplementary Estimate. The same sort of deficiency is not likely to occur again, because from this time onwards we shall have certain statistics to go km, and we shall be able to give a closer Estimate.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I know how difficult it is to estimate fees that are coming to you. On what other grounds and under what other heads have the Estimates fallen short?
    Sir F. WISE: Will these fees be raised for next year?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot give a definite assurance on that point. Of course our object is to make the fees cover the cost, and no doubt they will be adjusted accordingly.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication as to what the anticipated savings under Subhead A are?
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: As a Charity Commissioner, I might explain that the number of deeds, the number of transactions, did not come up to expectations, probably owing to recent legislation, and the revenue anticipated was, therefore, not obtained. The estimate of revenue for the coming year will, I think, be reached, and I do not think it will be necessary to raise the fees.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIIES: I am sorry it is proposed to increase the fees.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: No, that is not so.
    Mr. DAVIES: There would be an objection to an increase of fee. This will he a charge on charity, and, in particular, it would be very hard indeed on Nonconformist chapels, because these fees are always payable whenever there is the grant of a lease to a Nonconformist body or a transfer of property belonging to a Nonconformist body. I strongly object to the raising of the fees. There was a surplus of fees on the Land Registry and that surplus has been used to reduce the debt on certain buildings. It is very un fair that the fees on the one side should be used in such a way and that, on the other side, there should be a suggestion to increase them.
    Mr. McNEILL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go away with the idea that I have said there will be a raising of the fees. I have not said so at all. There is every reason to hope that it will not be necessary. All I said was that in one way or other, by some adjustment, it ought not to be necessary for the Government to come to the House and ask for a vote in aid of these particular fees. Whether that can be done by a rearrangement of some of the sources of income is a matter for consideration.
    Mr. DAVIES: The question was put specifically by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) as to whether there was to be an increase of fees, and I certainly gathered that the question of an increase would be considered, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, 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 Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
    Mr. McNEILL: This Estimate for the Stationery Office arises entirely through an unexpected, and, as far as I can judge, an incalculable rise in the

    1167
    cost of paper. Hon. Members who recollect the Debate on the Estimate of last year will recall that I then said that we had not a very large supply of material, because we wanted to keep the Estimate as low as we could. There was, therefore, not a very large stock upon which we could draw during the present year. It is another example of the extraordinary complexity of our system, social and industrial, that here again in a. very unexpected quarter we have one of the results of the industrial disturbance of last year, because, according to my information, the only reason that can be given for a very considerable rise in the cost of paper was the scarcity of fuel. I will tell the Committee the method by which the calculation was made. Taking the pre-War figures of price as 100, and taking that as an index figure, the average price of paper for the year 1925–26 was 155, and acting on such information as was at the disposal of those purchasing for the Stationery Office it was estimated that a figure of 152·5 should be taken as the figure for 1926–27. But that was considerably under the mark, as it turned out, because I find that in the September quarter of 1926 the cost was 170·8 and in the December quarter 162·2. Therefore, having small reserves, and having to make purchases of paper for the Government Departments we had to do so at a greatly higher price than that which we had originally reckoned. I do not want the Committee to understand that I am attributing the whole of the rise to a difference in the cost of paper There are one or two other comparatively small matters, one of them being the introduction of the Betting Duty, which required a good deal of stationery and forms, and activities on the part of the Stationery Department which were not anticipated when the Estimate was framed. All those factors together have made it necessary now to come to Parliament for this comparatively small sum, and I hope the Estimate will commend itself to the Committee.
    Mr. NAYLOR: It seems to be the fashion to blame the general strike for all additional expenditure incurred by Government Departments and the Stationery Office is no exception to that rule. I listened with interest to the explanation of the Financial Secretary but
    1168
    I do not think he has given us all the information which we have a right to expect in regard to this Supplementary Estimate. He drew attention to the great increase in the cost of paper in 1925–26 and compared it with the pre-War price, but I fail to see that that comparison has anything to do with this Supplementary Estimate of £37,000. I was glad to note that he admitted that the increase was not entirely due to the cost of paper, but the only other explanation he gave was that there had been unexpected demands in connection with the Betting Duty, the operation of which had not been anticipated by the Stationery Office. I am afraid that must be regarded as a somewhat lame and impotent explanation of this increase. A comparatively small amount of paper would be required for the purposes of the Betting Duty in relation to the enormous quantity of paper required for Government purposes generally. In the original Estimate, over £500,000 was asked, for paper alone and in comparison with that requirement the quantity of paper necessary for the operation of the Betting Duty is a mere bagatelle and cannot be accepted as any sort of explanation of this very large increase in the Estimate.
    Mr. McNEILL: It represents £2,000.
    Mr. NAYLOR: That bears out what I say—a sum of £2,000 is not much compared with £37,000. We are, therefore, discussing a net increase of £35,000 and I am prepared to confine my criticism to the sum of £35,000. One would suppose that the purchase of paper was conducted only at certain periods of time but in the purchase of paper, as of all commodities, the buyers buy at the time when the paper is cheapest and most easily obtainable. We are told that the £35,000 is due to the increased price resulting from the shortage of fuel. Presumably that shortage was responsible for causing the paper makers to increase their prices, but one would suppose that expert buyers of paper, knowing that trouble was going on in the coalfields before the general strike, would have anticipated that difficulty and would have increased their purchase of paper considerably. The Financial Secretary says that unfortunately they were short of stock at a time when, owing to the difficulties of the market, there should have been a large addition to the stock in

    1169
    anticipation of rising prices. I would like to know what the authorities of the Stationery Office were about that they were caught napping in this way. One would suppose that in the enormous warehouses which they possess they would have had huge additional stocks, not in anticipation of a general strike, which could not have been anticipated, but in anticipation of trouble in the coal mining industry. I think it a great reflection on the right hon. Gentleman's Department that adequate provision was not made in this respect.
    The Financial Secretary did not tell us the actual value of the paper which was bought. How much paper was bought at a time when prices were inflated to this extent? Another consideration to which I draw the attention of the Committee is that the rise in price was not due to a decrease in the possibilities of supply, because, during the general strike, there was a great falling-off in the demand for paper. The daily papers were not brought out for a period of six or eight days which meant an enormous difference in the demand upon the paper manufacturers of this country. The ordinary demand of the daily Press, which is a huge one, was not being made. We in this House had our own experience of the shortage of printed matter in regard to the various documents supplied to Members. Paper was not being used, even by the Stationery Office, to anything like the normal extent. That makes it all the more difficult to understand this additional sum of £35,000. The Financial Secretary ought to give us a little more information. Before I vote for this additional sum I wish to be satisfied that it is actually due to the circumstances which he indicated but I am not as satisfied with the brief explanation given to us so far. Possibly when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply on the Debate he will have been able to obtain the additional information which I consider to be necessary before the Committee can vote this sum. I ask the Financial Secretary to be quite frank and honest in this matter as I am sure he will be. He knows from his experience that a sum of £35,000 takes a lot of building up. Are we to take it that it is due to the increased price of paper alone? The comparisons which he gave us, in his brief introduction of the
    1170
    Estimate, are hardly sufficient to account for £35,000. Taking the pre-War price as 100 he said that the year 1925–26 showed a rise to 155. That does not affect the additional Estimate before the Committee. What does affect it is the actual increase in the cost of paper arising out of the circumstances of the coal dispute. I hope the particulars which are at present missing, or which have not been supplied to us so far, will be forthcoming before we are asked to vote this additional sum.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I think it would be useful if we had a little more information as to the buying methods of the Treasury. In this case it is obvious that the big rise in the price of paper did not occur until September. It is obvious that before the beginning of the financial year the Treasury should have examined their stocks of paper with the object of finding out how much they had to tide them over the year. It is also obvious that if they buy in big quantities they get the paper cheaper. Having regard to the situation in the coal industry, it should have been obvious also that the proper policy was for them to place their big orders as soon as they found what stocks they had in hand. It seems that this £35,000 does not arise on the whole quantity of paper for the year because they must have had a fairly large stock in hand, and it looks as though they waited until the worst possible time—until September—before buying. I would like to know if they examined their stocks at the end of the financial year, and then placed their contracts ahead in large quantities? In this case it looks as if the buyers had been caught napping.
    Mr. HARRIS: This rise in the cost of paper is a mystery, but the coal stoppage is a very convenient excuse for the apparent discrepancy revealed by this Estimate. I propose to ask two questions which may assist in solving the mystery. There was a tax in the Finance Act of last year, a Safeguarding of Industries tax, dealing with wrapping paper. The purpose of that tax was to increase the price of the article so as to enable the British manufacturer to produce at a profit. Is it unreasonable to suppose that some part of this increased expenditure is due to the beneficent effect of the

    1171
    safeguarding of industries? I do not think it is an unreasonable question to ask how much of the paper concerned in this Estimate comes under the operation of that tax. I do not suppose that the Minister of the Department would buy wrapping paper from abroad.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Wrapping paper is included.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not that then some explanation of the increase? The Department has to pay like anybody else. Hon. Members opposite have an idea that the foreigner pays a tax of this description, but when the Stationery Office buys wrapping paper it is not the Swedes or the Germans who pay. It is the Stationery Office, and therefore the British taxpayer. I am sorry the hon. Member for Eastern Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) is not in his place. I am sure he and the other hon. Members opposite who approved enthusiastically of this tax would be delighted with this extra charge. They would possibly tell us that it means more employment, but it is the taxpayer who has to pay.
    It is not fair that all the responsibility for this Supplementary Estimate should be attached to the coal dispute. Is not the production of the "British Gazette" responsible for some part of this increased charge? The paper for that publication had to come from somewhere. The "Gazette" was published by the Stationery Department, but we ought to know whether the paper was bought in the open market or through the machinery of the Stationery Office. We understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the "British Gazette" was a great financial success—or that it would have been a great financial success. He sold a lot of copies, but the Financial Secretary, this evening, not having the advantage of the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seems to have forgotten the existence of the "British Gazette." Perhaps these two matters may help to explain this Estimate, rather than the coal stoppage. I ask if it does not result, first, from the Safeguarding of Industries Tax, which I regard as vicious, and which hon. Members opposite regard as beneficent, and, secondly, from the publication of the "British Gazette."
    Major SALMON: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the system by which the Printing Department purchase their paper. Is it purchased under a system of tendering in the early part of the year, because the Financial Secretary mentioned that the price has increased in three quarters? I should have thought the price in the early part of the year was given for the whole year, and it would be interesting to know how much has been charged in increased prices owing to the increased cost of coal. Have the contracts been made beforehand, and then have the contractors afterwards come to the Government and asked for an increase of price on their original contracts? The second question I would like to ask is this: Can the Financial Secretary say what is the value of the stock that was taken over in 1925–26, and was the amount of paper purchased during 1926–27 such as will carry a large surplus stock to the end of the current financial year, or did the officials in making their purchases take into account the fact that, the market being against them, they would do well to buy very closely? It seems to me that there should have been a large stock in hand, because with such a thing as paper, which is largely used. one would have thought the buyers would have taken advantage of the low price at a certain period and carried forward a big stock, but I observed that the Financial Secretary said the stock was small. Perhaps he will give us the amount of that stock, and then we shall better be able to see if it was beyond the power of the buyers in that Department to anticipate the difficulty. On the other hand, everyone was quite aware that it was possible that we should have trouble in the coal mines, and one would have thought that a sufficient quantity of paper would have been purchased in anticipation of requirements.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: This is the second year in which we have had a Supplementary Estimate from the Stationery Office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may remember that he made promise to the Committee last year that he would ask the Publications and Debates Committee to go into the whole question of the number of Returns rendered to this House, some of which

    1173
    appeared to have become unnecessary, such as the Returns of the number of times the Adjournment had been moved, the number of Divisions, the number of days on which the House had sat, and Returns of that kind. The Publications and Debates Committee issued a very valuable Report at the end of last year, but it did not deal with that question at all. It dealt with the question of the Returns and Publications of Government Departments, and there is no doubt that if that Report be acted upon, a considerable saving will take place in the future. But I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will again draw the attention of that Committee to the necessity of going into the question of the Returns rendered in this House. They are the only body which can deal with that question. It cannot be dealt with by the Estimates Committee or by the Public Accounts Committee, and it cannot be dealt with by the Stationery Office itself, because the Returns are rendered under the orders of this house. It, therefore, seems desirable that their attention should again be drawn to it and that, if possible, they should deal with the question during this Session. I would be very glad if my right hon. Friend would give that matter his attention.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I cannot hope to speak with the technical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), but I have been greatly mystified by the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when it is remembered that a Stationery Office official has stated in evidence during the present year that the enormous stock of paper in their own physical charge was of the value of £150,000, and that they usually have in the hands of the contractors as much as £80,000 worth, making a total of £230,000. I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with the present demand for a Supplementary Estimate, and with the increased cost in the light of that statement made by an official witness from the Stationery Office. I wish to draw attention to the resultant effects of this failure on the part of the Stationery Office to buy within the money which has already been granted by this House. To-night I was called to a meeting in this building to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Bill which the Government are to introduce, and which, if I understand it, is to be
    1174
    based upon the Blanesburgh Committee's Report. I applied immediately to the Vote Office for the Report, but it was not forthcoming, and I learn that, because of the economy that is held to be necessary as a result of this very Supplementary Estimate, hon. Members who desire papers for their immediate Parliamentary purposes must write to the Stationery Office in order to obtain them. Although I wrote to the Stationery Office many days ago—I cannot give the exact date, because I do not remember it—that Report has not yet reached my hands. I am not going to say that the delay is due to the Stationery Office, because it may have been in transit, but I submit that if Supplementary Estimates of this sort are to result in Members of this House being handicapped in their efforts to obtain the papers necessary to their deliberations, this economy is going to have a very important bearing upon the discussions in this Chamber.
    In common, I take it, with every other Member of this House, soon after we reassembled I received a communication from the Vote Office asking whether I was prepared to agree, in the interests of economy, again necessary because of this Supplementary Estimate, to forgo the right, which every Member has hitherto enjoyed, of receiving a bound volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates in this House. I do not know how many Members are not sufficiently interested in the House and its proceedings to comply with that request, but the point I want to make is that even if 50 per cent. of the Members took their duties so lightly that they did not want the bound record of the work in Parliament itself, the economy would be very small and paltry indeed. I earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to turn his attention from paltry economies which are detrimental to the efficiency of this Chamber, and to endeavour to secure the economies which are necessary by better business methods in the Departments.
    Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he can answer it, whether on page 14, Part III, the estimate of expenditure is a net one; whether in fact, as a result of the General Strike, there was not a very great saving on paper used ordinarily in the Votes and Proceedings

    1175
    of this House; and whether he can tell us the extent of that saving, and how much really the extra expenditure was on paper under Part III.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a very extraordinary thing. We had a great deal of talk last year about an economy axe. I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury here, because I know how wholehearted he is, especially as a Lord of the Treasury, in the desire to bring about economy in the public service. A great parade was made by the Government of which he is such an ornament, and we were told that great economies had been made. Looking at the main Estimates, I see that a nominal economy of £23,775 was made, of which £725 was transferred to Class 2, Vote 15. Roughly, £23,000 is supposed to have been saved, and no doubt somebody got a Decoration or Order in the New Year's Honours List for this saving. Now we see a Supplementary Estimate introduced asking for £37,000. This, therefore, has wiped out all the savings, and £14,000 more. There you see the working of the economy axe in action, and it is most unsatisfactory.
    Furthermore, I see also—and the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) also raised this question—that in the main Estimates this year apparently there was too much paper in stock, and £10,000 was put down as the value of paper withdrawn from stock in 1925. That brought the 1925 Estimates down from £558,000 to £548,000, and £10,000 worth of paper was apparently sold. There must have been some very bad calculating there, because now we are told, in the footnote to the Supplementary Estimate, that the expenditure on paper has exceeded the original Estimate. Therefore, we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Government, when paper is cheap, selling some surplus stock to the tune of £10,000, and then, when the coal stoppage has apparently, according to them, been largely responsible for raising the price of paper, they go into the market and buy it back. That is the way that the present Government carry on the nation's business. It is only one
    1176
    more example of their failure to do their duty, and it shows that it is time they went. Any hon. Members on the other side who agree with me have only to vote for the reduction of this Vote, and so help to reform the Government and obtain better business methods. If I have any influence with the next Prime Minister, I shall recommend the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow as an expert adviser, unpaid, to the Stationery Department, and I am sure he would save a great deal of money. It is no use the Government blaming the enhanced cost of fuel. It says "mainly,' and not solely, I admit, but if, to use a colloquialism, we allow the Government to get away with it, we are going to have examples of bad budgeting and overspending put down again and again to the effect of the coal stoppage, and we have got to show the Government that that excuse will not do, otherwise we shall never get down to close budgeting and to the necessary economy.
    I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) draw attention to wrapping paper, and I want to ask the Financial Secretary how much of the total of £293,000 for Departmental stationery, envelopes, wrapping and household paper, account books, etc., is represented by paper taxed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I rather suspect that it is a considerable item, and that a part at any rate of this increase is brought about by the Safeguarding of Industries Duty on wrapping paper. The Estimates Committee two or three years ago, I think, suggested a cheaper form of stationery for this House. We were to have thinner envelopes and cheaper paper, and I think that was a very wise suggestion. It is not a good thing for constituents to get letters from their Members written on expensive-looking paper, because they think we are wasting money at Westminster.
    6.0 p.m.
    It is a very good thing that we should use paper that is suitable but as cheap as possible for the writing of these letters. I should like to know what the saving has been on these envelopes and notepaper, and, furthermore, whether the Government offices have used them? The Foreign Office, for example, has a beautiful style of notepaper for writing notes to the War Office and so on. An

    1177
    hon. Member opposite says, Why not? He agreed with me when I said the House of Commons should economise on notepaper, and I say that every other Department of State should do the same. I would like to know whether the recommendation of our own Estimates Committee has been followed.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: It was the recommendation of the Publications and Debates Committee.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At any rate, I hope the Government acted upon it. It is time we got beyond these Supplementary Estimates. It is a very unfortunate legacy of the War that the Government can bring in these long lists of Supplementary Estimates year after year. I know the Patronage Secretary does not like it, because his time is very valuable. He is a strong man, and if he likes he can check this kind of Budgeting. This is not a party question at all. It is the taxpayers' interest, over which this House is supposed to watch, and so as to give that opportunity to my colleagues, I move to reduce this Vote by £100.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I would like to make one or two further reflections on a point that has already been raised, and that is the Circular issued by the Stationery Department to Members of the House asking them to place themselves in the invidious position of writing to the Department if they desire bound volumes of the Parliamentary Debates to be sent to them. The point of view I wish to put to the House is that that is a niggardly, mean sort of economy that amounts to a very small sum, is totally unnecessary, and extremely undignified for the Mother of Parliaments to adopt towards its Members. The value of those bound copies of the Parliamentary Debates, especially to those Members who have not the means of employing private secretaries, is that each one of these volumes is carefully and finely indexed, and the opportunity one has, especially during the Recess, of looking up important questions—not merely speeches of Members which, perhaps may not be as valuable as replies to questions if you are doing research work—
    Mr. MINEILL: I am afraid I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's point.
    1178
    What is his complaint with regard to the bound volumes?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have received, and I believe every other Member of the House has received a notice to the effect that if we wish, in future, bound volumes to be sent, we have to make a special application to the Department; otherwise they will not be sent. I think that is an unnecessary and a niggardly form of economy, and that militates against efficiency.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Was not this letter to which the hon. Member refers sent out to every Member by direction of Mr. Speaker? I think it started off: "I am directed by Mr. Speaker"—
    The CHAIRMAN: The fact that this letter was sent in Mr. Speaker's name does not exempt the subject-matter from criticism.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I believe the letter was sent by the direction of Mr. Speaker, but my point is that one has to write to the Department, and I submit it is a proper subject to be criticised under this Vote.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is not this in effect criticising the conduct of Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that any letter which Mr. Speaker sends out relating to expense is bound to go to the Treasury?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the expense of the stationery, as I understand, was paid for out of this excess Vote, I do not think the fact that the letter was sent by Mr. Speaker exempts the expense from criticism.
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not want to stop the hon. Member in the least, but I would like to point out—because I take personal responsibility—that an hon. Member is not in any way deprived of the right of getting these bound volumes as before if he wishes to have them. It may be, however, that a very considerable economy is involved. I have reason to believe that Members have continued to get these bound volumes as a matter of routine, because if an order had been given at the Vote Office by an hon. Member that he wished to get the bound volumes, it went on as a matter of course, and I have

    1179
    reason to believe that a great many Members, after, perhaps, a year or two, from one reason or another, ceased to have any real regard—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am now seized of the point, and must rule that the discussion on this point is not in order. This is an economy, and certainly no part of the £37,000 we are now asked to vote is involved. Therefore, the discussion cannot continue.
    Mr. McNEILL: I was perfectly aware that it was out of order, but I thought as it was out of order and the hon. Member had not been called to order, it was better to make the matter clear.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the better course would have been for the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to me on that ground.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does that mean that I cannot continue my remarks on the subject?
    The CHAIRMAN: Not at present.
    Mr. MOSLEY: There are some questions arising on this Vote which have not been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to ask him whether any part of this Estimate can be ascribed to the special sittings of the House of Commons in connection with the Emergency Powers Act? It is quite clear that extra expenditure must have been involved in those special sittings, probably very heavy expenditure. In fact, it would be difficult to account for the very large increase in this Estimate unless abnormal circumstances of that kind had played some part. If the special sittings of the House in connection with the Emergency Powers Act are involved in this Supplementary Estimate, surely we should be favoured with the presence of the Home Secretary, the author and architect of that Act, to explain to us whether all the advantages which he anticipated in that Measure have, in fact, been derived. We all know that as a result of this expenditure special orders were issued, and that a large number of members of the working class were imprisoned. We know that those powers were exercised to the full, but I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether other powers which he was
    1180
    given were exercised. He stated in one of his speeches, on the occasions of the special sittings—
    The CHAIRMAN: It the hon. Member were to pursue that line of argument, it would lead to an argument as to whether, for instance, we might sit a shorter time and not legislate so much. You cannot go into that.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I would nut pursue the consequences or seek to argue the merits of this Measure. I would merely like to ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the powers, the exercise of which he secured from this Douse, were in fact employed, and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman it is very difficult to get hat explanation.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is really impossible to allow that. You might extend it to every Act that was passed, giving powers to a Department, and then argue that if we had not had a sitting to pass that Act, expense might have been saved. It is only an item of £37,000 for stationery. You cannot go into the merits of the Acts which were passed, and which in some cases may have involved part of this increase.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I am sorry that, under your ruling, to which I at once bow, we cannot be favoured with the presence of the Home Secretary. But there is another Minister of almost equally engaging personality, whose presence we might require on this Vote, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, I understand that some part of this Supplementary Estimate is in connection with the paper supply of the "British Gazette."
    Mr. McNEILL: No.
    Mr. MOSLEY: It is, indeed, tragic that we are prevented from enlivening the proceedings of this Assembly by desiring the presence of those notable Ministers. There is another question which I would Ike to address to the right hon. Gentleman. Is this increase in the cost of Parliamentary paper due in any way to the increasing tendency of the Government of the day to use the powers of the Closure? I believe every Division in this House costs something like £12, and a great deal of that expenditure is in connection with the prepara-

    1181
    tion of Division lists, and for material in connection with the taking of a Division. It is evident that the frequent use of the Closure will consequently result—
    The CHAIRMAN: That can only be discussed on a Motion impugning the conduct of Mr. Speaker, or myself as Chairman of Committees, or the Deputy-Chairman. It is the act of the House, but the permission to give it is the act of the Chair, and it cannot be impugned except on a Motion censuring the Chair.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Far be it from me to seek to impugn the conduct of the Chair. I merely wanted to point out that, owing to the bad arrangement of Government business, and the overloading of their programme, they have to seek powers from the Chair, which the Chair, in its discretion, on occasion sees fit to grant, and I would put it to the Government that they might really so arrange their programme as to consider the rights of minorities and Private Members to a greater extent than is evident in this rise in the cost of Parliamentary Papers, owing to their reckless use of the Closure in this House. On these grounds, I certainly support the reduction in the Vote.
    Mr. NAYLOR: Are we to understand that there is to be no reply to the questions put to the Financial Secretary I think we have had certain pertinent and very vital questions put, concerning which both sides of the House, I am sure, want information. Is the right hon. Gentleman intending to reply?
    Mr. MeNEILL: Yes.
    Miss WILKINSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him a question which, perhaps, he will include in his reply? May I ask if it is becoming the policy of the Government to impede Members of this House in the necessary duties which they have to perform, by making it very difficult for them to get hold of certain Parliamentary Papers? May I give one example? A very important report—the Blanesborough Committee's Report—has been laid before this House. A Committee is being held in the House to-day to discuss the matter. It was of extreme importance that copies of that Report should be available. When Members apply at the Vote Office, they are told it is not possible to get that
    1182
    Report at the Vote Office, and that they have to apply to the Stationery Office. It has not been the only case.
    There have been several important Reports lately which are absolutely necessary to any Member who is taking an interest in his work. Probably Members sitting opposite do not feel it as keenly as we do on this side. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is absolutely necessary that these Papers should be readily available. If it be said that it is only a question of writing to the Stationery Office, I would point out that Members are already overburdened with correspondence, and many on this side are unable to afford secretaries to deal with quite necessary correspondence. We feel that this parsimonious attitude of the Government—
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Captain Hope, is not the hon. Lady developing exactly the same argument which you ruled out in another connection?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say the ascription of military rank to me is inaccurate. I think the hon. Lady is rather near the line. Some part of this £37,000 may have been spent on the Blanesburgh Report, and if so her argument is in order.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does not the same observation apply to my remark?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think in that case no part of the money can be said to be involved by Mr. Speaker having issued the letter.
    Mr. W. BAKER: May I point out that the matter is specifically referred to in the Supplementary Estimate and was paid for out of this sum of money, and the fact that an attempt was made to prevent free circulation does not prevent our discusing this on the Supplementary Estimate.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think not, because so many hon. Members do not get the bound volumes. I do not imagine that these were not covered by the original Estimate. Anyhow, I have given my ruling on one point. In this case I think the hon. Lady is justified.
    Miss WILKINSON: I feel I have made my point, and am merely putting before the right hon. Gentleman a very real grievance which Members of Parliament feel. I am sure that having brought this

    1183
    to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman he will accede to our request that these Papers should be readily available.
    Mr. McNEILL: Of course, speaking generally, I can say that nothing is further from the intention of the Government, and of the Treasury in particular, than to put any sort of obstacle in the way of hon. Members in any part of the House getting all necessary literature connected with the conduct of their Parliamentary business. We want to assist them in every way we can. We have tried to make this modest attempt at economy, but it does not appear to have given any satisfaction to hon. Members opposite. As a matter of fact, there is no difficulty in getting all the Papers which are printed by the Stationery Office. There is a slight change, however, as to method and machinery in connection with some Papers. It is quite true in the case of certain Papers—nonParliamentary Papers—that instead of being able to get them at the Vote Office at a moment's notice a few hours' notice has to be given. If hon. Members write to the Stationery Office, they can get those Papers just as easily and freely as they can get Papers at the Vote Office.
    Miss WILKINSON: Why not have them at the Vote Office?
    Mr. McNEILL: Because Parliamentary papers are free, and a large supply is put into the Vote Office. Non-Parliamentary papers are kept at the Stationery Office, and hon. Members can get them from there, but they have to give notice. I want to say one word about the Blanesburgh Report. I am not sure whether it comes strictly within the terms of this discussion, but the fact that it is not. a Parliamentary paper was not due to the initiative of the Treasury, but of the particular department with which it was specially concerned. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) said he had difficulty in getting this particular report from the Stationery Office. I very much regret the reason.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I would respectfully submit that the ends we are seeking to secure could be obtained by asking the Vote Office to receive a requisition for the papers instead of compelling us to
    1184
    write to the Stationery Office for them, and making it the duty of the Vote Office to get such copies as we ask for. It seems to be the difficulty which we experience—it may not be shared in all parts of the House—that instead of making a verbal request we are compelled to write a letter, which means one small task added to many others.
    Mr. McNEILL: I Am quite ready to consider any suggestion of this sort from any hon. Member, and if I can do anything to add to the convenience of hon. Members without making it a public charge I shall be only too pleased to do so.
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: May we not have a few more printed? I asked for the Blanesburgh Report and I was given an envelope.
    Mr. McNEILL: That is riot due to the Treasury, but I shall be glad to look into it. A certain number of rather mild criticisms have been put to me, but not very much in the way of actual questions. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member into the great question of Free Trade and Protection, but I may say that the Stationery Office are strictly British in this respect, that they do not buy foreign paper.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The specific question I asked was whether the price had gone up since the industrial dispute.
    Mr. McNEILL: I was not answering that question, but one put to me by an hon. Member below the Gangway. That particular question I cannot possibly reply to in detail, I can give only a general answer. Hon. Members have put to me a number of questions, but I do not know that I can add anything to what I said before. They can hardly expect me to keep myself fully informed of the commercial details of the purchases of all the vast supplies of materials bought from time to time by the Stationery Office. I doubt whether anybody, by the most precise analysis, could determine exactly the various causes, which may be many, of the particular rise in the price of paper to which I alluded in presenting this Estimate, and which is the main cause—I have not said it is the exclusive cause, but it is for all practical purposes

    1185
    the cause—why this Supplementary Estimate is necessary. The cause, as I said before, is attributable, partly it may be, to the industrial disturbance. Some hon. Members may not agree with that, and I may be wrong, and if hon. Members can attribute it to any other cause, I do not quarrel with them; but probably that was partly the cause. The Stationery Office had to go into the market and had to buy paper at a price very considerably above what they had estimated according to the best available data. As hon. Members may well believe, the Stationery Office have very skilful and knowledgeable people to go into the market to buy the material which the Department has to use.
    I wonder whether hon. Members who presume to think it is impossible that t his Supplementary Estimate can be accounted for by a comparatively small rise in the price of paper realise the quantities which the Stationery Office have to buy. The Stationery Office purchases about 45,000,000 lbs. in the year. On that quantity it does not require a very large rise in price to make a very large difference. Some hon. Members have complained to me that we had not foreseen the rise. I do not profess to have enough knowledge of the market to say whether it would have been possible to foresee it or not. All I can say is that if those who buy for the Stationery Office were unable to foresee this particular rise, that I think it is extremely unlikely that anybody else in the country would have foreseen it. Three-quarters of that enormous amount I have mentioned, about 34,000,000 lbs. was bought from June, 1926, onward, during the period of the disturbance. Some hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), asked whether the Stationery Office ought not to have bought a much larger quantity in the earlier part of last year, and so have avoided purchases later. The practice I5f the Stationery Office ordinarily is to buy supplies for a few months, which I think is a very' reasonable practice. If they were to go into the market to buy suddenly, a rise might occur in price. It has to be borne in mind that the effect of the Stationery Department going into the market and making such a large unac-
    1186
    customed purchase for six or nine months ahead would immediately cause a rapid rise in the price.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the. stocks were low.
    Mr. McNEILL: The stocks were low when we began the year but we bought three months in advance. The demands are so enormous that the Stationery Office must carefully estimate their stocks'. In former years the Stationery Office began the year with a fairly large stock but they had not such a large stock on this oocasion, and they had to buy more or less from hand to mouth. That is the practice, which has been followed in this case, and that, is really the reason for the necessity of coming to the House of Commons for this Supplementary Vote. That is the main reason, but it is not the only one. A question has been asked about the cost of the extra Parliamentary sittings. It is quite possible that there may have been a small extra cost in regard to paper on' that account, but a much more important reason for the extra cost was the amount of correspondence and forms of printing necessary to deal with the new schemes of pensions. I do not say that this could not have been foreseen to some extent, but it could not have been foreseen with accuracy what amount of paper would be required.
    Of course we had to buy the extra paper required at a considerably higher price than was anticipated, and therefore it is quite reasonable to bring forward this Vote. An hon. Member opposite said that we had the same thing in regard to the Supplementary Estimates last year-, and he said that was a proof of the prodigality of the Government. I am sure every Department wishes to avoid supplementary estimates as much as possible, because they cause a considerable amount of additional labour, but I disagree, with the hon. Member about the prodigality of the Government. We have had to have a Supplementary Estimate in this case because the original Estimate was cut as reasonably near as we could go then to the actual bed-rock necessity. It would have been very easy to have asked Parliament for a larger margin in the original Estimate. In this particular instance, supposing I

    1187
    had come to the House and asked for a large amount on the ground that we could not tell what the price of paper was going to be. The only result of that would have been that we should have had a very large amount to surrender at the end of the year. After all, I am not at all sure that the method we have adopted is not the more economical system, that is to cut your original Estimate very fine, and then come for a Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should be very sorry if hon. Members opposite thought that by our criticism of this Estimate we intended to make an. attack upon the Civil Service, because that is not the case. As a matter of fact we have shown on many occasions that many of the Departments have in fact effected very considerable economies for the State. I am afraid however that there has been a tendency on the part of the Government to ride off from their responsibility in regard to this particular matter. I agree with what has been said on these benches that there ought to have been better anticipation by the Government as to what their liabilities would be in respect of these reforms.
    It. is all very well to say that the cost could not have been foreseen, and when they put forward the coal stoppage as an excuse may I point out that the Government knew perfectly well that that dispute was coming. Wherever you look you will find that when the actual break in the industrial world took place the Government had prepared in every direction for that break by emergency provisions. If that is so— and the Government had some responsibility for trading Departments—it was only reasonable to assume that they would have instructed their trading Departments to take previsions. If that is so—and the Government themselves were taking in other directions. The real case against the Government is that they did not communicate to the spending Departments the necessity of taking similar steps to those which they were taking politically. After all it is exceedingly difficult for those who are engaged in the business of buying paper unless they have regular elasticity in the use of liquid capital. The hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) who spoke with a very wide
    1188
    knowledge of the business of buying paper from his own business connection, knows perfectly well that any firm would find it very difficult to deal with such A situation as that which arose during the last 12 months when the purchases made were strictly limited by the annual sum voted, and this is rendered more difficult when there is no reserve capital for dealing with the situation as it arose. I hope we shall have some explanation in regard to the trading operations of the Government, and that in this matter we shall not be confined to small departments like the printing works and the Stationery Department. I hope the Government will make other arrangements for financing those Departments, because this system of voting annual sums makes it very difficult to deal with capital purchases.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would involve legislation.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I know that is so, and I will not pursue that point further, but I thought it well just to mention it. In view of all the facts, I do not think we have any alternative and we must press for a Division on this question.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I thank the Financial Secretary for what he has said about obtaining extra Parliamentary papers to be made available for hon. Members at the Vote Office. I feel sure that we shall find very great convenience in consequence. I was very sorry after the right hon. Gentleman had done that graceful thing that he did not proceed to deal with what I regard as the very substantial criticism leveled against this Estimate by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). I thought the right hon. Gentleman gave us an excellent illustration of Parliamentary manners and prove quite clearly to me that a gracious manner will cover a very great deal of in-'efficiency. Of course we did not expect that he would be able to deal with all the details of these Supplementary Estimates. I submit that the purpose in submitting these Estimates to the House is in order that the Committee may direct its critical attention to details which cannot be adequately examined when the main Estimate is before tl-e Committee.
    Seeing that he can add to the number of his advisers to any extent that he cares to, I do regard it as unsatisfactory that substantial criticisms, not of too

    1189
    detailed a character, should not receive an answer. The right hon. Gentleman made a very excellent speech in reply to the discussion which has taken place, but it was entirely new matter, and had no relation whatever to the criticism which had already been urged. If I may, I would like to repeat one of the points which I submitted before, and which I regard as being of substance. It is, and has been, stated by the Stationery Office that they had a definite normal reserve of paper. The figure was quoted when I spoke before. The official figure from the Stationery Office was that their normal reserve, in their physical possession, was £150,000 in money value, and in the hands of the contractors they had roughly between £70,000 and £80,000 worth. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I do hope he will deal with the point, this question: If the normal reserve of paper under the control of the Stationery Office was of the money value of £230,000, will he tell the Committee what the reserve was at the time when this purchase had to be made at the higher price? Will he also tell us what change in policy took place, so far as the Stationery Office was concerned, when their reserve apparently fell below the normal figure?
    Mr. THURTLE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend, if he haw the

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES.

    [6.50 p.m.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Riley, Ben

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst. G. H.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bromley, J.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Scurr, John

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly. W. T.

    Sexton, James

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Connolly, M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Smillie, Robert

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lowth, T.

    Snell. Harry

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Stamford, T. W.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gibbins, Joseph

    March, S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gillett, George M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Sullivan, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Montague, Frederick

    Sutton, J. E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

    Thomas, Rt. Hen. James H. (Darby)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Grundy, T. W.

    Palin, John Henry

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P

    information asked for. I rise to ask him another question. He said just now that a large amount of this additional money was due to expenditure on some new pension scheme. I am curious to know what pension scheme he is referring to. Does he mean a new pension scheme in connection with the Civil Service, or is it a, pension scheme in connection with the Ministry of Pensions? Perhaps he would be kind enough to let me have a word of explanation on that point?
    Mr. McNEILL: I was referring to the Act which was recently passed.
    Mr. NAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer one question that I put to him. He was good enough to say that the total quantity of paper that was purchased during the period of high prices was, I think, 32,000,000 lbs. weight. What I asked him was as to the money value of the purchases made during that period of rising prices. Could he give that figure off-hand?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, I could not, of course, give that figure off-hand, but I think the weight of the paper really gives the fact just as well as the money value.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Nees, 235.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Windsor, Walter

    Wallhead, Richard C

    Whiteley, W.

    Wright, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon, Stephen

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Eden. Captain Anthony

    Margesson, Capt. D.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fanshawe. Commander G. D.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fielden, E. B.

    Murchison. Sir C. K.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Nerson, Sir. Frank

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Neville, R. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nuttall, Ells

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

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

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bennett, A. J.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Berry, Sir George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gates, Percy

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Brass, Captain w.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hanbury, C.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harland, A.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Ropner. Major L.

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

    Headlam, Lieut.Colonel C. M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Burman, J. B.

    Hohler. Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Campbell, E. T.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Sandon, Lord

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Homan, C. W, J.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

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

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

    Shaw. Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew.W)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sheffield. Sir Berkeley

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

    Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Christie, J. A.

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

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Spender-Clay. Colonel H.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

    Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Cope, Major William

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Couper, J. B.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Templeton. W. P.

    Courtauld. Major J. S.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Crookshank.Cpt.H. (Lindsey.Gainsbro)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Vaughan-Mornan. Col. K. P.

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

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Watts. Dr. T.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wells, S. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mae Robert, Alexander M.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    1192

    1193

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

    Withers, John James

    Wragg, Herbert

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    F. C. Thomson.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 103.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Wragg Herbert

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Wells, S. R.

    Withers, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

    Major Cope and Mr. P. C. Thomson

    NOES.

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shiels, Or. Drummond

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

    Hirst. G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednasbunry)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Baker, Walter

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barnes, A.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    Kirkwood. D.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stamford. T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M

    Sullivan, J.

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    Thurtle, Elnest

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, s.

    Townend. A. E.

    Dunnico, H.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Montague, Frederick

    Varley, Frank B.

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Wallhead Richard C.

    Gibbins. Joseph

    Mosley, Oswald

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth Pontypool)

    Potts. John S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Groves, T.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Wright, W.

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £3,924 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 House of Commons."
    Mr. McNEILL: An hon. Member on the last Supplementary Estimate was anxious to know whether the increase was not, to some extent caused by the emergency sittings of the House. I was tot able to trace a very close connection on that occasion. This Estimate is very closely connected with the emergency meetings of the House of Commons, though that is not the main cause. The main cause of this Supplementary Estimate is that the travelling facilities which are given to hon. Members have been taken advantage of during the last year to a very much greater extent. The Esti-
    1196
    mate was formed by the officers of the House of Commons on the experience of the last two or three years. As a matter of fact, it has worked out a good deal differently. I do not know whether the Committee wants the precise details, but I will give some to show the sort of way in which the larger amount of travelling has taken place. Comparing month by month, the year 1925–26 with 1926–27, I find that, in February the amount was £500 up, in March £300, and in April £500. In May, with the General Strike. the movement was the other way, and there was a considerable falling off, amounting to about £1,600. In June there was not much change. In August, September and October there was an increase of £600 for each month over the corresponding months of the previous year. In November there was a small increase of £150. In December the figures were about the same. In January the difference was about £300. So that it

    1197
    works out that the actual amount of travelling during the year has come to £33,541, as against £31,935 in the previous year. This difference, has of course to be accounted for, and I am under the necessity of coming to the House of Commons to make it good.
    There is another item which hon. Members will notice. At the very last moment we were obliged to put in a revised Supplementary- Estimate That is owing to a cause which I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will be ready to deplore. I am sorry to say the Taxing Officer and Examiner of Bills of the House of Commons—an officer whom everyone who has come in contact with him, holds in great respect—Mr. Gully, has unfortunately broken down completely. His medical advisers in the last week in January ordered his complete retirement, and in these circumstances he is entitled under the Superannuation Act to the pension and gratuity appropriate to his service. He has served for 32 years. He has a pension of £562 and a gratuity of £1,474. That was not known until after the Estimate was framed. Strictly speaking, it must be pa-id under the Statute during the present financial year, and we have been obliged to revise the Supplementary Estimate, and pat in £1,000.
    There are certain Appropriations-in-Aid which the Committee will find at the bottom of page 3 of the revised Estimate That is due to a failing off in revenue that we expected and estimated for regarding the expenses of the House of Commons. There, again, you can only estimate on a certain system of averages from the previous year, and it so happens—I do not know the reason—that there was an unexpected falling off in the number of Private Bills which were presented in the House which, had they gone on, would have earned fees according to a fixed scale; and also in the opposition to Private Bills.. That has brought about a deficiency in what was estimated originally. When the Appropriation-in-Aid, £1,424, is added to the other two items, of £1,500 in regard to travelling expenses, and the £1,000 for the retiring allowance, it makes the figure which I have to ask the Committee to Vote.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the second item, no hon.
    1198
    Member will think of questioning it, and we join with the right hon. Gentleman in deploring the cause of this additional sum which has made necessary the extra Supplementary Estimate. With regard to the third item on the revised Estimate, Appropriations-in-Aid, it seems very extraordinary indeed that when the opposition to Private Bills falls off, we have to provide more money. In other words, Private Bills go through with less opposition, and the House has to pay the difference.
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. It is owing to opposition to Bills being less.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly. The opposition to Bills which was anticipated, and therefore we have to find £1,400.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that if there is less opposition there are less fees, and consequently less revenue can come to us.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly, less fees for the gentleman with the long robe. There may he an explanation but I should very much like to have it. I have had some experience of these Supplementary Estimates and this is the first I have seen where this has happened. I think it is the first for some years. With regard to travelling expenses of Members, here we have one more result of the Emergency Power Regulations being kept on long after they were required. In view of the nine days comparative peace of the general strike, which was a most orderly occurrence, with fewer people injured or killed than in an ordinary riot—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hope): The hon. and gallant Gentleman really cannot anticipate that he can go on very long on this argument.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You surprise me, Sir. May I point out that this is one more proof of the nervousness of the Home Secretary. I will not pursue it except that hero is one more item in the bill which we have to hay. It is like people who have had a carousal overnight and in the morning they are presented with the Bill. They do not like the look or some of the items

    1199
    but they have to pay just the same, and so it is with us. The right hon. Gentleman, can, I think, congratulate himself on the fact that he has had such a small Estimate for the actual expenses. I should have thought it would be very much more. He can also congratulate himself that we do not remunerate Members of the House on a mileage basis, as for example in the United States. Every time the American Congress adjourns, even for six hours, the Members for San Francisco get full mileage allowance to San Francisco. Every week-end they get the same, whether they go back or not. Thank goodness in this Parliament we have been wise enough to make no lump sum allowance on that account and we only pay the voucher. Our present system works very well, indeed, and we can congratulate ourselves on our wisdom. We had all these extra Sittings and, apparently, owing to the very fact of the industrial stoppage Members went more to their constituencies, and that is an admirable feature, and in spite of the extra travelling the extra amount is only £1,500 for a House of over 600 Members. That is very good, indeed. The House met four times more than was anticipated, and, undoubtedly, Members have travelled much more to their constituencies. There is nothing to complain of there, and the right hon. Gentleman can congratulate himself on the system which enables him to bring forward such a comparatively modest supplementary Estimate.
    Dr. WATTS: The right hon. Gentleman ascribed this increase in travelling expenses to the extra sittings of the House in connection with the Emergency Regulations. If the Government, instead of issuing vouchers, which entail the payment of the full ordinary fare, purchased season tickets for Members—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that ought to have been raised on the main Estimate. We cannot discuss the policy of the main Estimate on a Supplementary Estimate.
    Dr. WATTS: There would have been no need for a Supplementary Estimate, because in many cases a saving—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not the system under which we are working.
    1200
    When the main Estimate comes on in the next financial year these observations will be in order. They are not in order now. The Regulations in regard to Sup plementary Estimates, as the Committee know, are very narrow indeed and they exclude this particular argument.
    Dr. WATTS: I accept your ruling, and when the main Estimate comes up I shall raise the question again.
    Major CRAWFURD: There is one remark I should like to make arising out of the interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I did not quite gather from his observations whether the Government are mostly to condemn themselves for this Supplementary Estimate, or to congratulate themselves that it is so small. I was more interested in the suggested disclosure he made as to the custom and practice in America. I hope between now and the similar occasion next year the Government will consider very carefully the hint he has given.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I understand the bulk of this charge arising from the special sittings of the House in connection with the Emergency Powers Act, and I have well in mind your r sling on a previous Supplementary Estimate. Since that occasion I have fortified myself by reference to the Debate, and I submit that practically none of the purposes for which these special sittings were called have in fact been carried out. The Home Secretary, speaking on the first occasion, said—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is quite clearly out of order. If we were to discuss on this Estimate whether this or that had been carried out or not, under any particular Act, and therefore whether it was necessary, there would he an endless vista on every subject involving Parliamentary expense.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Are we not entitled to suggest that if the House is called together, at great expense to the taxpayer, in order to provide certain powers, whether any or all of those powers have been exercised?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, certainly not. If I were to allow that hon. Members

    1201
    on the other side might say the whole fault was that the Emergency Powers were not made permanent.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I am not attempting to argue the merits of the Emergency Powers. I am only trying to ask for information whether in fact the bulk of those powers, or any of them, were exercised.
    The CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that if any Minister attempted to give that information I should request him to sit down.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS III.

    LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."
    Mr. McNEILL: I feel rather out of place in putting this question before the Committee. I see some Scottish Members opposite who share that view, therefore perhaps I may tell them the historical reasons for my presenting this Estimate. A few years ago when neither the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland was present, a protest was made by a Scotsman, Sir Donald Maclean, and a predecessor of mine said it was the duty of the Treasury and from time immemorial it had been presented by the Treasury. I do not want to incur the protests of hon. Members opposite in presenting this Estimate. It is entirely a question of a deficiency of fees. There is a deficiency of £3,000 in the fees that were estimated to come in—commissary fees and sheriff court fees. I am not going to attempt, in the presence of so many Scotsmen, to go into the mystery of sheriff court or commissary fees. I have the Solicitor-General for Scotland beside me who is quite capable of answering any technical questions that may arise on the Vote. I consider I have discharged my duty when I tell the Committee that there is
    1202
    the deficiency to which I have referred, and as it must be made good by the end of the financial year I hope the Committee will not object to vote the sum asked for.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to protest in the opposite sense to that in which Sir Donald Maclean protested. I think the Scottish Office should be quite capable of presenting its own Estimates without coming to the Treasury. I want the Solicitor-General for Scotland to explain the reason for this £3,000, because we Labour Members from Scotland have a notion that it has been brought about by the stupidity of the Government, and particularly of the Home Secretary. We believe that all this extra expenditure connected with administering the law in Scotland was due to applying the Emergency Powers Act—
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be that the hon. Member is in order, but I do not see, on the face of it, how action by the Home Secretary can have caused the fees in the sheriff clerks Court to fall off.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is our misfortune here as Scotsmen. That is the reason why some of my colleagues are so anxious to get Home Rule for Scotland, because Englishmen do not understand Scottish law. The reason for the shortage is because of the Emergency Powers Act. They brought them before the sheriffs instead of bringing them before the High Court, and therefore the lawyers did not get any fees. That is some information I have given you, and I am not like the lawyers, I am giving it without any charge. I think it is our duty as Socialists, as members of the working class representing the working class,, on every occasion here to protest, and I claim on your own ruling, Sir, that I am perfectly in order here in ridiculing the Home Secretary for the way he handled the Emergency Powers Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: Not whether he handled the Emergency Powers Act, but whether any action of his caused the fees of sheriff clerks to be less than they otherwise would have been.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have been trying to tell you, Mr. Hope, the reason why Scotland is in this unhappy position of

    1203
    requiring to come to England to ask for £3,000. Because the Courts were going on all the time, these men had to be maintained. Under the Emergency Powers Regulations the Courts were being utilised in another manner, and now we are asked to find £3,000. This is only another of the cases where we are called upon to foot the bill, no matter how stupid a Home Secretary there may be, and no matter how many thousand working men and working women he may send to gaol. At the moment, the Home Secretary has ever so many workmen in gaol. Although we were asked by our Front Bench not to interfere when they were negotiating with the Home Secretary—
    The CHAIRMAN: I should imagine that more business in Court would mean more fees. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland can explain.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): This deficit of £3,000 has nothing to do with the expenditure of money. The reason why the £3,000 is required is that there has been a falling off in the fees received in civil matters. It has nothing whatever to do with criminal matters. These fees are received by the Sheriff's Court on behalf of the Government. The fees are paid by litigants; but owing to the peaceful nature of the Scottish people last year there has been a falling off in the fees for litigation. To the extent of £1,500 there has been a falling off in regard to these fees. In the Small Debts Court, there has been a shortage this year, compared with the Estimate, of £700. In regard to the miscellaneous part of the Sheriff Court work, there has been a falling off of about RBOO. That makes up the £1,500. The remainder of the £3,000 deficiency is due to the fact that the Commissary Department have received fewer fees because, probably fewer people have died in the year or if fewer people have not died those who have died have left less money. The Commissary fees are paid ad valorem according to the amount that is left. If a person leaves only a small sum of money, course, the amount in fees is smaller. Therefore, the whole deficiency of £3,000 is due to the shortage of fees received in the Sheriff Court, and in the Commissary Department.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case —will you give a plain answer to a plain question—that the Courts were busy with criminal cases owing to the Emergency Powers Act, and that the civil cases had to stand over, and that they are still waiting to go on with the civil cases?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The Emergency Powers Regulations have nothing to do with this particular £3,000. The reason for the shortage is, first, that there has been a falling off of 1,500 in the estimated receipts coming from the fees paid in the Commissary Department, and the further 1,500 shortage is due to the fact that there have been fewer small debt and miscellaneous cases.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that those cases are waiting to be heard?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: No. Those cases have to come on at once. The fewer small debt cases account for £700 shortage, and the balance of the £1,500 in this Department is accounted for by fewer miscellaneous cases in the Sheriff Court, cases such as workmen's compensation. It has nothing to do with criminal matters.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Solicitor-General refers to the Sheriff Court. I assume that he means. the Sheriff Courts, and not one particular Sheriff Court, and that the £3,000 deficit is in respect of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland. In that case, how can he account for the fact that in Glasgow, according to the statistics that had been issued in Edinburgh, the fees have actually increased in the Sheriff Court because of the excess of litigation in small debt matters. Can he inform the Committee why this sum is needed, seeing that in Glasgow, for instance, the proportion of fees contributed by small debt litigation is higher?
    Miss WILKINSON: I cannot follow the explanation. How is it that as Scotsmen are improving in health and character, the British taxpayer has to pay a higher rate?
    Mr. D. HERBERT: In regard to the Small Debts Court, can the Solicitor-General say whether the decrease in proceedings is due to Scotsmen paying their debts or to creditors giving up trying to get them?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that in the industrial centres, Glasgow in particular, there has been a very large increase, especially in the last year or two, in small debt cases, not a decrease, and that the great proportion of fees are found from small debt cases?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I cannot give the figures for Glasgow. For all Scotland, the small debt fees for the calendar year 1925 were fifteen thousand and odd pounds, and for 1926 £14,400. That shows that for the whole of Scotland there was less small debt business. There may have been more in Glasgow.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Solicitor-General give us the figures for Glasgow?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERALfor SCOTLAND: I will make inquiries and let my hon. Friend know.
    Mr. HARDIE: Will the Solicitor-General explain that Scotland gets no money from England, and that it is the other way about. We are doing it in the interests of the education of English gentlemen.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS V.

    OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,000, 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 the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants-in-Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and the Free Passage Scheme for Ex-Service Men and Women."
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This Supplementary Estimate is complementary and is only under one heading of expediture under the Empire Settlement Act. The whole of this money relates to passages. There is no money in this Supplementary Estimate for any land settlement scheme or anything of that kind. The reason for the Supplementary Estimate is that the numbers applying for assisted passages during the current financial year has been steadily rising. It is a remarkable fact that the figures for assisted migration in 1925 were 39,000, and that they rose in 1926 to
    1206
    66,000. The allocation between the three Dominions concerned with this particular Vote, namely, Australia, New Zealand and Canada of migrants received in 1926 —that is, up to the 31st December last—was, Australia 32,700 against 22,000 the year before, Canada, 21,000 as against 8,700, and New Zealand 11,700 as against 8,100. The whole of this money is being asked for to pay our share of the contributions for the assisted passages scheme. We used always to pay 50 per cent., that is to say, one-half of these schemes in the case of Australia and Canada, but until recently we have paid less than 50 per cent. in the case of New Zealand, Some small amount of this £142,000 is required in order that we can pay the full 50 per cent. to New Zealand that we paid in the case of the other two Dominions. This is now operating and allowed under the Act.
    The average third-class fares for the ordinary passenger are £37 to Australia, £18 15s. to Canada, and New Zealand, £37 3s. 4d. That is the ordinary normal average third-class fare, but in the case of these assisted migrants, the shipping companies give a rebate of £4 per head irrespective of the Dominion. Therefore, in the case of migrants to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the shipping companies allow £4 per head off the, charges which they make for the passages. Then, the British Government and the respective Dominion Governments pay on the fifty-fifty basis, that is, half, of the assisted passages according to the various categories agreed upon with the Dominions. That has been running for some time. Whereas formerly most of these passage moneys were loaned to the settler or migrant, and were repaid, nowadays one of the principal ways in which we are assisting migrants, quite apart from the family scheme and the settlement scheme, which are outside this Vote, is by giving them so much of the, cost as a free grant on the passage to the particular Dominion. It will be seen from the Appropriation-in-Aid that we are receiving money back from the early days, when most of the passage money was advanced by way of loan. In every case, the Dominion Governments collect the amounts due on the loan—we do not do that—roughly according to the passages paid. The fact that the Appropriation-in-Aid has already exceeded the expectation of the Oversea Settlement Depart

    1207
    ment, when they budgeted as to how much of the money advanced away back to 1921, would be repaid, and is expected at the end of the year to be exceeded by £8,000, is a very good sign that the vast bulk of those people who have gone out under the assisted passage schemes, at any rate, are doing well and are able to repay the advances made on account of their passages.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much is outstanding under the head of "Payment of Assisted Passages"?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I cannot, offhand. It would mean a good deal of research. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will have the figures compiled. They go back to the beginning of the Empire Settlement Act, in 1922, and would have to be computed each year and set against what we have already received. But the amount is coming in now, and this is the first year when an appreciably large sum —as is here set out—has been received. I do not think there is anything I need add on the particulars. As I say, the bulk of the assisted passages is now being made by way of free grants. The experience of the Oversea Settlement Department—my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn), who knows a great deal more about it than I do, since the division of the Colonial and Dominions Offices, will bear me out when I say—is that it is more satisfactory on the whole that those assisted passages should, in the main, be by way of grant rather than of advances. It is a different matter when you come to land settlement schemes with a large grant-in-aid. But these small sums certainly make the whole difference to those who are anxious to settle in the Dominions. This is one of those useful ways in which assistance can be given under the Act. I think I have given all the explanations I can think of; I have given the figures for the increased rate of migration, which is the sole reason for the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gen tleman say whether, when these migrants whom you assist to go to the Dominions arrive there, situations are found for them?
    Mr. ORMSBY.GORE: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a whole host of schemes. Some of them are under what is called the nomination system; that is to say, an individual in Australia nominates somebody in this country to go out and undertakes that the man shall not be unemployed. The nominator gives an undertaking, or else the Australian Government will not allow the migrant out. In Canada there are various definite schemes; they say, "We want so many men for a particular work," and state the scheme for which they want them. There is a whole series of dovetailed schemes, dovetailed between the Dominion Governments and the British Government, which are shared in, 50–50 per cent. I should not be in order in going into any one of those schemes to-night, because there is no money here for them. This is merely passage money for the cost of transferring migrants in the ships from this country to the Dominions overseas.
    Mr. LUNN: Most of the Supplementary Estimates which we have considered up to now Lave been blamed on the coal lock-out, but I do not think that that lock-out enters so much into this one. This is doe to a new and, I hope, a better understanding between this country and the Dominions, and to the fact that the Imperial Conference has taken place, which has perhaps changed our ideas as to how we can assist the people who wish to go to various Dominions to take advantage of the Empire Settlement Act. This Supplementary Estimate, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, only relates to new passage arrangements. The numbers have gone up considerably and the facilities have also been considerably improved. The face that the assistance is now given as a grant and not as a loan, which means considerably more money to the taxpayer here and in the Dominions, is, I think, the reason largely for this increased Supplementary Estimate. This is more or less of an experiment. The question put by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) is an important one, and deals with a matter whit+ may arise in serious form in the future in regard to unemployment. We are, by this Vote, approving of cheap or free passages for people from this country who desire to go to

    1209
    the Dominions. It may be argued that that is not the best way and that we are in a measure shovelling our people away. I have heard that argument raised, but I do not think that is the idea. Many thousands of people want to go out, and it is necessary to find the best means of assisting them and of settling them overseas.
    When we are considering a Vote like this, however, which deals with cheap or free passages, we ought to have regard to what is to be the reception, the welfare and the well-being of those who land overseas. I am very much interested in the schemes which have been made—we cannot discuss them to-night—between Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and I should support any extension of those schemes in the direction of the families going out. If, however, the idea of cheap passages is going to mean that single men will be encouraged to go overseas, that they are going to flood the towns and cities of Canada and Australia, and bring back to us the knowledge that there is an unemployed army in those cities and towns—then we may have to revise our position with regard to the assistance that we will give. We must take care that that position does not arise. I suppose there is ever the difficulty of unemployment in Australia and in Canada, as well as in this country, and we may yet have to meet that. In our consideration of these schemes we should start with a better understanding and a clearer idea that work will be guaranteed for those who go out. I have helped to bring about this change—
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LUNN: It is in the nature of an experiment. We are endeavouring to come to an agreement with the Dominions on these matters, and if we can assist in that way, then I am in favour of the idea. At the same time, I issue this warning, that there is a danger that, by furthering this particular matter, we may carry people in increased numbers overseas, and yet, while satisfying some people who want to see the numbers continually rising, create a difficulty in the Dominions to which we must have regard. As one who keeps a watchful eye on that matter, I hope that difficulty
    1210
    will not be caused, and that, having given free passages, we shall endeavour further to cement the bonds between this country and the Dominions, so that there will not be over there an army of unemployed, but that employment will be guaranteed to those whom we have supported in their passage to various parts of the British Commonwealth.
    Sir NEWTON MOORE: We shall all agree with the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) that it is eminently desirable, where practicable, that every man who goes overseas shall be guaranteed employment. Undoubtedly, the nominative system is one which gives the greatest guarantee for that. The right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Estimate expressed gratification at the fact that the numbers have increased, but it is a very slight increase. I am—as I think many hon. Members are—rather disappointed at the operations of the Empire Settlement Act, when you realise that, before the War, over 250,000 people were leaving these shores and finding employment in different parts of the Dominions. They help to develop the Dominions and, as a result, give employment here; because every man who goes overseas and gets employment is a potential customer for the manufactured products of the workshops of this country. I do not; speak altogether without some knowledge on this matter. Some years ago, I was responsible for sending something like 35,000 people out to my own State of Western Australia in a period of three years and, I think, I could count on the fingers of both hands the number of people who complained. At that time, this system of passages was not at all a new one. People went out at much cheaper rates than at present. It was then possible to send an adult overseas at a cost to the State of £12, with a proportionate reduction for members of his family. In the case of girls, we paid practically the whole of the passage with the exception of £2. The cost is now very high, and the average fare to Australia is £37. I hope in the near future that some endeavour will be made to reduce the cost of the passages. With properly equipped ships it should be possible to reduce the cost, and it would be a very big contribution if the migrant could have half of that sum, say £18,

    1211
    when he landed. That would enable him to stand by until he could get work, and would be very much more satisfactory.
    8.0 p.m.
    The very nature of this Estimate precludes us from reviewing at any length the question of migration. As the last speaker said, we have had quite recently, as a result of the Overseas Conference, any number of speeches about Empire development and migration, but very little business is being done. When you realise that only 64,000 people left these shores last year to go to the Dominions overseas, you cannot regard the matter as at all satisfactory. I hope, as a result of the development that has taken place, there will be an improvement. I had an opportunity of visiting Canada quite recently, and the optimism there was certainly much more prevalent than I have seen it in the past. They have had two splendid seasons, which may be coupled with the development that is taking place in the mining districts and in the pulping industry, which has resulted in Canada now being the greatest producer of newspaper print. All that means of necessity the provision of more employment. It is necessary that, in addition to the assistance given for the passages, we must give some contribution to the schemes that are set up. It is impossible for any of the States, especially for the smaller States, to contribute something like £75,000 a year in order to settle 100 people. We hope Empire settlement will result in a better distribution of people in this Empire so that those who are unable to get ahead in this country may be able to go to a land where better chances are opened up to them.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I want particularly to direct attention to the character of the passages between this country and Canada, but, before doing so, I may be permitted to say a few words following what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In my view, one of the greatest difficulties with regard to this question is that throughout the world you have an increasing tendency to drift towards the towns, and that is very much due to a defect in cur educational ideas. I want to suggest to those who are responsible that, in considering successful immigration schemes, they should have particular regard to that
    1212
    aspect of the question. There is one further point to which I would like to call attention. I believe it is a tremendous mistake to send anyone overseas without training. I am assured by men who have had recent opportunities to observe the conditions, that it is those immigrants who have been trained ac places like Catterick before being sent overseas who are by far the most efficient, by far the most satisfied, and who, generally speaking, give the best results, both to themselves and the communities in which they are settled. I think that reinforces the argument that successful migration must be based upon training and education preceding the journey overseas.
    The particular point which I have reason to bring to the attention of the Under-Secretary is with regard to the conditions on the vessels which transport the emigrants between this country and Canada. In the Report issued by the Earl of Clarendon quite recently—I do not know the exact date—reference is made to the accommodation on the vessel in which his lordship travelled. He says, on page 43, that the third class accommodation is partly in the stern and partly in the bows of the ship. The foreigners were in the bows and the British third class immigrants and third class tourists in the stern. He says:
    "We talked with a number of British settlers and foreign immigrants. All with whom we spoke told us that they intended to work on the land in Canada."
    That, I take it, can be accepted as the considered opinion of the Earl of Clarendon, having regard to what he observed; but I regret to say that—I think it was about three wecks ago—I read a long article in a respoasible weekly journal, "The New Statesman," in which a description was given of the conditions under which immigrants had travelled with the writer, and which bears no relation whatever to the statement which I have just read by the Earl of Clarendon. I know nothing about the conditions; I have never had an opportunity of seeing what the steerage conditions are on these boats, but the point I am endeavouring to submit is that for a statement of this sort to be made in a responsible weekly journal of the character of "The New Statesman" without early official contradiction is a matter of very serious moment, not only with

    1213
    regard to the particular incident, but in relation to the general policy of the Government. The title of the article is "Third to Canada, please!" and I will read certain passages from it.
    "My own Section 'E' was two flights down; and my particular berth 'E.16' was immediately under those clattering brass-bound stairs.
    The berth was a foursome, its walls were nothing but flimsy bolted shutters, and the noise of the whole section was as clearly audible as if there had been no walls at all. There was a lavatory basin, but never during the voyage was the water laid on. The basin emptied below into a tin, used frequently for quite unintended purposes and but casually emptied.
    Floating in from the berths all around came the smell of human vomit. Nightly one sank as in a sea of stench, to lie drowned there until the rising-bell clanged along the alleys; then one rose to the surface again, with stuck lids and heavy head."
    Then there is a part to which I attach particular importance in view of what Lord Clarendon says about the separation of British and foreign passengers:
    "There was no segregation on our ship. We slept in the same berth with 'dagoes' and 'bohunks'—
    —on inquiry I found that "bohunk" was the equivalent of a particularly rough type of tramp on land—
    "fed together, used the same toilets. Indeed, for all us men there was one large toilet and two baths, and nowhere have I seen anything fouler than some of the misuses to which our toilet was put."
    I hope I have drawn attention to quite sufficient of that article to make the Under-Secretary feel that it is a matter for inquiry. I do not know whether these things can be clone officially, but I am quite certain that that statement should be rebutted if it can be rebutted. There is one further point from the. Earl of Clarendon's Report to which I want to call attention. On page 42, he refers to the work of the Salvation Army, and says:
    "The Salvation Army deals with larger numbers of migrants from the United Kingdom than any other philanthropic society operating in the Dominions. Its work is chiefly connected with single women, boys and children; the number of single women brought into Canada by the Salvation Army in 1925 was 541, the number of boys 306, and the number of children 149."
    Anyone would imagine, in reading the Report, which is signed by the Earl of Clarendon, that there was nothing more
    1214
    to be said, but, to my amazement, yesterday I saw a message transmitted by Reuter's which was not believable. I went to our good friends, the Empire Parliamentary Association, and I said: "I am told that the Canadian Government have made a very remarkable pronouncement in relation to immigration and the Salvation Army. Can you get it?" They said: "We have not heard of it." After a good deal of inquiry and search, the reference was found, and in substance it amounted to this. The Canadian Government deliberately charge the Salvation Army with having taken large sums of money in grants to assist migrants to go from this country to Canada, and they put the total in 20 years at 376,000 dollars. They say that the boys who have been taken out to Canada recently by the Salvation Army have not been aware that the Government were making it possible for boys to go to Canada at a cheap rate, and that the Salvation Army has been reaping the benefit of the financial assistance which the Canadian Government have been giving in furtherance of this policy.
    It goes on to say that the attention of the Salvation Army was called to this matter and that the Salvation Army changed their methods but maintained their policy, and that they called upon boys who were going out to Canada to sign an undertaking that they would agree to stoppages from their wages until the estimated amount of transporting them to Canada had been recovered by the Salvation Army. What is still more amazing is that, in this Report the Salvation Army attempted to justify their action, and I think the words of who justification are perhaps the most remarkable part of the whole thing. "The Salvation Army are understood to justify their action on the ground that persons who have enjoyed its ministrations must make repayment for them." I hope it may be possible to contradict these statements. I should be extraordinarily glad if it. were possible for the Under-Secretary to say that Reuter's has been badly misinformed, but, having regard to the circumstantial nature of the Canadian Government's pronouncement and to the public reply endeavouring to justify the attitude of the Salvation Army, I have little faith that that is possible. I hope sincrerely, now

    1215
    that an opportunity has occurred to place these facts before the Committee, that the Minister will be extremely careful that the whole of the work we are endeavouring to do for the well-being, not only of our own citizens, but of the Dominions, is not nullified by the policy of a voluntary agency, which is in no sense essential to the welfare of the immigrants. I hope I have not been misinformed, and I earnestly appeal to the Under-Secretary to see that the earliest possible information is given to the House on this matter.
    Mr. LUNN: May I just make one correction in regard to the last matter which was dealt with by my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Baker)? This matter with regard to the Canadian Government and the Salvation Army is still under consideration by the Oversea Settlement Committee. The Salvation Army is an important organisation in this country and in various parts of the British Empire and the world, and it is important that their case should be. heard here as well as the other side. As the matter is still under consideration, and a definite answer cannot be given now, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the subject be allowed to remain where it is for the moment, and if it should come out as has been suggested, the whole thing might be debated in this House at a time when fuller discussion is possible.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I agree entirely with the policy of the assisted passage. Indeed, I should agree with any policy which is able to distribute the population better throughout the Empire. An hon. Member has called attention to one grave danger, and that is the filling up of the cities on the far side of Canada. I want to call attention to one other danger in the matter of distribution of population, and that Ts that, as things are now, a very great push is being made by the emigration agencies to take from this country principally the most highly trained of our farm servants and farm workers. Of course we must have people to go on the land on the other side, but at the same time I hope that the Government are going to watch this problem very closely. The matter is causing a great deal of anxiety in some of our rural districts, where labour is by no means too
    1216
    plentiful. I hope that the Government will watch carefully, so that in any-attempt to redistribute the Anglo-Saxon populuation of the Empire more rainy, so far as the Dominions are concerned, we do not at the same time worsen the distribution of that poulation in this country by sending out an undue proportion of the one type which we can least afford to spare. I hope the Government will be able to take some steps which will ensure that a due proportion of town dwellers, as well as country people, are sent forward.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I would not have said anything, but for the remarks of my hon. Friend with regard to the condition under which people who travel third class go to the Dominions. This is a very important matter for the Under-Secretary to take cognisance of. A five-weeks voyage to Australia under good conditions might be bad enough, but under bad conditions it can be little worse than being in Hades. But I think it is only fair for those of us who have seen the other side to say that it is not always so, because, if there are disreputable steamship companies, there are also some reputable ones. I happen to have had an opportunity of inspecting thoroughly at least three steamships with third-class passengers, and I feel that if there are passengers to be carried, and the British and Dominion Governments are to help to carry them, the accommodation should be looked after, and we should not send any of our people to any of the Dominions under such conditions as have bee a described by the hon. Member who spoke on that matter. We have had the opportunity of seeing everything on some of the boats, and if there are other kinds, the Government should refuse to let our people go on those boats.
    In the last Report of the Parliamentary Association, there is a rather important speech by one of the Members of the New Zealand Parliament with regard to nominations. Rightly or wrongly, he makes the charge that certain people are nominating emigrants of whom they know nothing, whom they never see, even when they land, and that they are nominating them and assuming no responsibility for them when they arrive, and do so merely in order to get them into the country. I am not

    1217
    saying that that statement is true, but, if true, it is certainly worth considering. A properly nominated person is a person who has to be taken charge of, and as this statement was made in the New Zealand Parliament, it certainly is worth investigating. It is people of this kind who are making things difficult. A person who nominates a young single man to go out to the backwoods in the way that has been suggested is nothing less than a criminal. I suggest that the Under-Secretary might investigate these things. In no circumstances should any of our people be allowed to go abroad in any ships on which the conditions are such as were stated by an hon. Member earlier.
    Major GLYN: I wish to deal with the same point as the last speaker. There is in Canada to-day a traffic going on among the agents of steamship companies, because they can get tickets arranged for these assisted passages if they can get a nomination paper signed. I have had the opportunity of seeing many of the people who arrive, and some of them were more than upset to find that their nomination papers were indeed a fraud. The paper was of benefit only to the agent who, having had it filled in, applied for the passage and, I suppose, got his commission on it. The companies operating steamers of this sort across the Atlantic are naturally held responsible by the Government of Canada and the Home Government. It is necessary that we should see that the nomination system does not fall into disrepute through the action of these agents. When the House votes money for these assisted passages, it is essential to see that these gentlemen are put in their proper place and that the practice ceases. Mention has been made of the overcrowding in certain cities. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary on his elevation to the Privy Council, and I would ask him whether he could not consider that assisted passages should be, not only to the port on the eastern coast of Canada, but should carry certain emigrants to places right in the prairie provinces. There are large numbers of men who are entirely unaware of distances. They think, apparently, that from St. John's to Calgary is about the same distance as from London to Edinburgh. If they have not sufficient funds they find themselves stranded, and then
    1218
    they drift into the large towns, and that is one of the causes of unemployment.
    My hon. Friend has mentioned the training centres established by the Ministry of Labour. They have been admirable. I would like to call them testing centres, for you cannot train a man in this country for work in the Dominions. You can test a man's mentality, as to whether or not he will be of any good on the land. If the experiment of free passages is to be continued, it might, at any rate, be continued for men who have been to these testing stations. We might couple that with nomination, and a man could go straight on to a farm, where he would have the greatest chance that any human being can have. On the other hand, if he falls a victim to the sort of agent that has been mentioned, the whole system is brought into disrepute.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: Those of us who were permitted to visit Australia during the last few months are very much encouraged by the Supplementary Estimate which has come up for consideration to-night. We were a little concerned at the meagre numbers that were going out as migrants to the Dominions, and particularly to Australia, seeing that the group settlements seem for the present to have been suspended and there does not seem to have been a great number of requisitions coming forward for settlement in that particular Continent. I desired particularly to intervene in order to say that there is another side to the question of the accommodation provided for the third-class passengers. I have had experience of three ships, on three oceans carrying migrants to Australia, and I had the opportunity, together with others, of inspecting these quarters, and I did not see anything comparing with the statements made by an hon. Gentleman. As one who has spent years in the shipbuilding industry and who knows something about accommodation on ships, I think I can say we were gratified at the very good accommodation made for the third-class passengers in the ships in which we travelled. I should like to make this statement, because it is rather serious that it should go out to the country that the accommodation is inadequate. I think whilst conditions may obtain in one or two directions, such as

    1219
    we have heard of, that, generally speaking, the responsible steamship companies are providing the very best accommodation that can be provided for the money.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Like most of the Debates which we have had on this question the Debate of to-night has been a very useful one and the hon. Members who have, spoken have been quite right in raising these points at the earliest possible opportunity with a view to having them investigated by the Oversea Settlement Committee. Part of the duty of that Committee is to investigate complaints brought up from time to time and I only hope that the hon. Member who quoted instances in regard to travelling accommodation has informed the Oversea Settlement Department or the Dominions Office or some responsible authority of the name of the ship, the date of sailing and other details so that the circumstances may be properly investigated. I know something of this from my personal experience. On two occasions during the War I went by long sea route to Alexandria and I had the misfortune to strike a gale in the Bay of Biscay on each occasion. On one occasion I had to be adjutant of the ship and visited all parts of it frequently. The ship was crowded with troops, everybody was sick, we were packed like sardines, there was not much' light because the submarines were about, and the conditions were "hell." That is the word for it. I think the hon. Member may be assured that the Board of Trade and the people who supervise the work of migration do their utmost to prevent these conditions arising, but there are instances always, where rough seas prevail and where sea travelling is beastly, and sea travelling under crowded conditions is generally beastly, as I know too well. If the various points made by hon. Members are brought to the notice of the Oversea Settlement Committee I am sure they will be gone into very carefully. As to what another hon. Member has said about the Salvation Army that is being examined. I am sure the Committee will now agree that on the whole, the fact that there is a Supplementary Estimate this year in regard to assisted passages is not a cause for complaint against anybody, but
    1220
    rather a matter for gratification from the point of view of the interests of the Empire as a whole.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TREASURY CHEST FUND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,537, 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, to snake good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1925."
    Mr. McNEILL: This matter is rather technical, and I will shortly explain how is arises. As hon. Members are aware, the Treasury Chest Fund is an institution for supplying the necessary machinery for making payments to foreign stations for public services. It involves, among other things, questions of exchange as between this country and foreign countries. The arrangement is that there is a definite capital sum which is kept constant and is used for transmission to the various paymasters abroad for making these payments and then the costs and the differences in the exchanges, which vary from time to time and from place to place, are put into a profit and loss account which sometimes shows a balance one way and sometimes shows a balance the other way. For instance, last year there was no occasion to have this Supplementary Estimate because there was a gain on the transactions, but this year it is the other way. Of course, the accounts are made up every year and ale dealt with as to gains or losses in the following year. The accounts for 1925–26 could not be made up in time to be included in the main Estimates for the present year, because the present year's Estimates were framed before the end of that financial year. They resulted, as a matter of fact, in a loss, and there is a debit balance on these various transactions of £4,537, and that is the amount which I ask the Committee to vote in the circumstances I have described.
    Sir F. WISE: It is not often that the House of Commons has an opportunity of investigating the Treasury Chest Fund, and while I do not want to ask any invidious questions, I would like to know whether the United States debt is paid

    1221
    from this fund and if my right hon. Friend can state what is the capital of this fund and from where it comes. There is no mention in the Estimate as to the capital. I notice that the accounts in 1924 showed a gain of £1,912, but the Estimate before the Committee now indicates a loss of £4,537. I should like to know on what exchange was the loss occurred Was it in dollars or rupees; and can my right hon. Friend state whether it would not be possible to minimise that loss in the future?
    Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend may be quite sure that the loss is minimised as far as possible. We do not go out of our way to make a loss.
    Sir F. WISE: The exchanges may not always be very well bought.
    Mr. McNEILL: That, of course, is a matter of judgment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend feels that he is in a position to manage this fund more successfully or not—perhaps he would. At any rate we do it as well as we can. Of course the American. Debt has nothing whatever to do with it. It has no relation to this whatever. Then, as regards the question as to whether it is an exchange of dollars or some other currency, it is an exchange of a number of different currencies, dollars in some cases, yen in others.
    Sir F. WISE: On which does the loss come?
    Mr. McNEILL: It is a question of balance. Year by year there is a loss made on one and a gain on another. There are many different stations. I could get the information for my hon. Friend. I have not got it at this moment, but I hope he does not want me to go into the detailed accounts of small sums showing where there is a gain in one station and a loss in another. I think the majority of the Committee will think that the balance between them, as shown, is sufficiently detailed and accurate. My hon. Friend asked me what the capital of the fund was. It is £700,000.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: We wish to express our disappointment at the results, this year, compared with those of the year before.. Last year there was a gain of £1,900.
    Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member had listened to my speech, he would have heard me mention that.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I did, but the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the special fact to which I wish to call attention, namely, that there was a gain last year of £1,900, but that gain was due to the transactions of 1924, when a Labour Government was in power. All that I rise to do is to express, not surprise at the results this year, but disappointment that the gain of £1,900 under a Labour Government has been transformed into a loss of £4,500 under the financial administration of the Tory party.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VI.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £418,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not know whether my hon. Friend opposite will be able to find that the party to which he belongs derives any credit from this Vote. If so, I shall be as ready to make him a present of the credit as I am of that which he has just assumed. The necessity for this Supplementary Estimate of £418,000 arises in the same sort of way as some of the other Estimates which I have presented this evening, from a new state of things arising in relation to old age pensions, which made it particularly difficult this year to frame an accurate Estimate. As the Committee is aware, the Act of 1925 brought in an entirely new number and class of pensioners. It brought in the widows' and orphans' pensions, and it did away with the means limit, and that brought a very large and unknown element into the pensions that had to be provided. It was reckoned, on such data as the Government had to work upon, that there would be brought in by this Act some 87,000 pensioners to be provided for in the current year. In point of fact, instead of being about 87,000, there were approximately 100,000, a much larger number than those for which provision had in fact been made. In addition to

    1223
    that, in the same way, there was a very considerably larger number than was expected of those who, by virtue of that Act, became entitled to pensions at the higher rate. I cannot give the exact numbers there, as I have of the others, but the anticipation was that those who would claim the higher rate of pension would be considerably smaller than it actually turned out to be.
    Our Estimate now is that the cost of pensions under the Act of 1925, that is to say, of those who become pensioners under that. Act but who were not entitled to pensions under the earlier Acts, from 1908 to 1924, will be £2,143,000, and that sum, which now, as we are getting so near the end of the year, is as accurate as we can get it, is £415,000 over the original Estimate which was presented to the House. That is the figure, except for £3,000, which I will now explain, appearing in the present Estimate. The £3,000 is due to the additional and unexpected expenses in the same way caused to the local committees by a much larger rush of new pensioners under the Act of 1925 than they were prepared for or anticipating. That occasioned them a great deal of extra work, and a temporarily extra staff, and we now know that by the 31st March these additional expenses will have come to £3,000, which, added to the £415,000, makes the amount which appears in this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. PALING: It strikes me as curious that the Government should be asking for a Supplementary Estimate here, when one has regard to the great number of complaints that are coming in from people who cannot get their old age pensions when they have made application for them, or who are subject to very great delays in having their applications dealt with. I should like to know whether we can have any explanation of that. A good many cases have come to my knowledge in which weeks and sometimes months have elapsed since they made application, and they have heard nothing definite in reply. Only last week, or the week before, I had two similar cases of this character, and I wondered whether anything could be clone to speed up this business. There is another question that I want to mention. It appears to be a general thing that people may have stopped paying into the National Health
    1224
    Insurance Fund on account of their age, but, because they cannot produce a birth certificate or give sufficient evidence of their age, while they are ready and willing to stop paying into the Health Insurance Fund, yet, because they cannot produce the evidence of age, they are not able to receive their old age pension. There must be thousands of cases which are still waiting, and some of them have been waiting for weeks and months.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I cannot explain why it is. All I can say is that if the hon. Member or any hon. Member of this House brings to my notice any particular case, I will certainly make inquiry into it at once, and expedite the matter to the best of my ability. I do not think I can do more than that. With regard to the other points, I do not profess to be familiar with the local administration of these pensions I do not suppose any single man could be. But I should think it quite proper and right that there should be some precaution to make sure that a person who-claims a pension is, in point of fact, within the prescribed age, and I dare-say, throughout the length and breadth of the country, it is quite likely there may be a considerable number of cases where persons, perhaps not highly educated, are quite convinced in their own-minds that they are of a prescribed age. Perhaps they may not be able to bring any real proof of it, and I think the hon. Member will realise that the pensions administration must exercise some caution and care in those cases. It may be that before the necessary evidence is forthcoming, a length of time has elapsed which may be very exasperating to the individual, but I do not think that, in itself, gives rise to any just complaint as to the method of administration of the pensions.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Perhaps the right bon. Gentleman will tell us what proportion of this increase represents increased rent for buildings connected with the local administration. It seems rather strange that, in view of tie fact that the number of applications for widows' pensions and old age pensions is notoriously much less than the Estimate, we should so soon be asked for a Supplementary sum of this kind. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to assure the Committee-

    1225
    that there is no unnecessary waste in the hiring of expensive new offices in connection with the administration of this work, and if he could give us some idea of the proportion of the amount for that purpose, it would be helpful to us in coming to a decision.
    Mr. McNEILL: I have already pointed out that out of this zC418,000, only £3,000 is attributable at all to the extra cost of the Committees. I do not think there is any part of it due to buildings. I would not like to say for certain, but that is the sort of matter which, if the hon. member will put a question to me in the House, I will give him information. As far as I understand, I do not think it is possible that there should be any building which would be included in the £3,000. I do not know whether that answers what the hon. Gentleman asked. Some other points were put to me, but they have escaped me. As far as the building is concerned, however, I am quite confident in saying that no Department has to do with the building at all, but, as I say, if the hon. Gentleman likes to put down a question I will give him a precise answer.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by his very kind offer to deal with any difficulties that we may put before him? I am in very great difficulty over the Widows' Pensions Act, because I receive dozens of letters putting to me the most intricate conundrums about its technical administration, and I am beginning to feel that a Labour Member of Parliament has to be almost an expert on widows' pensions to deal with his correspondence. A great deal of extra money is being spent, and as the right hon. Gentleman has offered to be of assistance I would ask him whether that means that in future the letters sent to me on this subject can be passed on to him, or to his colleagues, and that answers will be provided for me?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not quite undertake that. What I said to the hon. Gentleman sitting behind the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), and what I am willing to say to the hon. Member himself, is that if a case comes before him where, apparently, there has been bad administration of the Act, for
    1226
    instance, very long delay in dealing with cases, for which delay there is no apparent explanation. I will endeavour to deal with the case as thoroughly as I can.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MISSION OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF YORK TO AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, 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, as a Grant-in-Aid of the mission of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to Australia and New Zealand."
    Mr. McNEILLI: I do not know whether I am too sanguine in hoping and believing that this is a proposal which will be accepted with unanimity by the Committee. I certainly hope it will be, and I expect it will be, and, more than that, I think that as the occasion has arisen for presenting this Vote the Committee might very well take the opportunity of expressing their very best wishes for the expedition which we are assisting by this Vote. The Committee will be very familiar with the occasion which calls for it. It is a great occasion in the history of the British Empire. This Royal Prince, at the invitation of the people and Government of one of our great Dominions, has gone out there to inaugurate the new capital which has been created by the Commonwealth of Australia as the expression of the new—it is still new—unity amongst the various States which previously have been quite separate and distinct. The inauguration of this new capital and Parliament House is a great occasion—as hon. Members know, that Parliament will be adorned by a Chair which is a. replica of the Speaker's Chair here—and His Royal Highness is going out, in the name of the Government, and as the representative of the British nation, to take a leading part in that great ceremony. Advantage is being taken of the occasion for the Prince to visit other lands. It is not quite such an extensive tour as that which the Heir to the Crown undertook a short time ago, but His Royal Highness will visit a number of lands where he is being received

    1227
    with acclamation and welcomed very warmly as the representative of the Crown and people of this country.
    9.0 p.m.
    In these circumstances I am sure that we shall wish him well in his great undertaking, for it is a very heavy responsibility he has undertaken on our behalf; and with great confidence, and recognising it to be a privilege to submit this proposal, I ask the House of Commons to vote this Grant-in-Aid to enable the ceremonial arid entertainment part of this tour to be carried out in a manner and style befitting our representative on this great occasion. I would point out that the sum will be carefully audited, as is announced on the Paper, and that if any of the money is not required for the purpose it will be surrendered, in the ordinary course, to the Exchequer.
    Mr. AMMON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will not think, if we raise questions on this Vote and ask for some further explanation, that we are in any way criticising their Royal Highnesses, or in any way reflecting upon the work they are doing. We recognise that if our Dominions ask, as I understand they have asked, that a representative of the Crown should go out on this auspicious occasion, it is a claim they are entitled to make, and, therefore, it is not right that we should do anything to animadvert upon the visit. At the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman could give some explanation on one or two points, it would save some talk later. Does the £7,000 represent the whole amount to be spent? I see in the note on the Paper that there are certain expenses in connection with the visit which will be defrayed from the Navy Vote. The first question I wish to ask is whether they will be additional to the £7,000; and also whether the sum of £3,500 already advanced is additional to or is part of the £7,000.
    Mr. McNEILL: Part of.
    Mr. AMMON: There will be another £3,500 to bring it up to £7,000?
    Mr. McNEILL: £3,500 has come out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, but that only makes the advance temporarily. £7,000 is wanted, because we shall have to repay that £3,500.
    Mr. AMMON: That deals with the first question. Then I think it would help us on this side if the right hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance that there has been no undue measure of extravagance. There has been a period of considerable stress in this country, and people are apt to contrast, perhaps without a full knowledge of the facts, expenditure incurred in this way on what seems a pleasure trip, regardless of the duty which is being performed; and it will be a considerable relief and advantage, if we can have that assurance, with a little fuller detail as to what is involved, so that there may be an assurance that there will be no unnecessary expenditure beyond that incurred in the discharge of the duties they have been asked to undertake by the Dominions in opening the new Parliament House.
    Mr. McNEILL: I would like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's points at once. As to the Naval expenditure, that, of course, is additional, and is quite apart altogether from this; it is the whole of the expenses of the "Renown" during the tour, and the figure, I think, has been given already by the First Lord of the Admiralty in answer to a question. With regard to this particular sum, which is of a more intimate and personal nature, and has nothing to do with the running of the ship, I can give the hon. Member an assurance, in answer to his very reasonable request, that to the very best of my belief aid judgment, this is a very small sum for the purpose. There has been, up to the present, nothing in the nature of prodigality, or extravagance, or display, arid I am quite certain that strict economy will be observed in the expenditure of this money, though without mean parsimony.
    Mr. SCURR: I feel that I really must enter a protest at the way in which this Estimate is presented to us. If we take it that the visit of their Royal Highnesses is one which is necessary and essential to the betterment of the relations between the Dominions and this country, it is only fair and right that the people of this country, and this House as representing them, should know exactly what is the cost of the mission. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the cost of the "Renown" is borne on the Navy

    1229
    Vote. I suggest that it is not a naval charge at all. The "Renown" is not being used as a vessel of His Majesty's Navy, but has been taken from its ordinary work and set aside to transport their Royal Highnesses to various parts of the Empire. I contend that this Vote ought to have been presented as an Appropriation-in-Aid to the Navy for the expenses of the "Renown," giving the Navy the credit of that expenditure, and putting the whole cost in one Vote so that we may be able to know actually what it is. We are getting into the habit of presenting the Estimates too loosely. The other day I had to make a protest in a case in which we had an Estimate for £65,000 presented to us whet the expenditure was really £73,000; and a saving of £15,000 was not shown and we should have known nothing about it if it had not been disclosed to us by the Minister in his speech. That is a deceptive method of accountancy, because, of course, no one knows what the charge is.
    If there is an advantage in visits of this character, and that might possibly he a matter of dispute, I think this special setting apart of persons in a special ship is absolutely wrong. If there was advantage to he gained from this visit, their Royal Highnesses could have gone in the ordinary way in a passenger steamer to visit the various parts of the Empire. The advantage, if advantage is to be gained, would have been immense. They would have beeen in association with the persons on those ships, and they would have heard the opinion of people travelling backwards and forwards from various parts of the Empire. Under the present arrangement they are practically wrapped up in cotton wool. They are kept aside on the ship with naval officers all around them. Their Royal Highnesses may be of great importance to this country in the future, and it is absolutely necessary that they should know the varying opinions of people from different parts of the world. After all, I do not think that this is a time when this visit ought to have taken place, considering the distress existing in this country, where we have 1,500,000 people out of work, and a much larger number unemployed and unable to make a decent living. I think it is a great reflection on the Government that it has tended this advice to the Crown in favour of a
    1230
    pleasure trip of this kind, and I wish to enter my protest against it.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to urge again a most emphatic protest on behalf of the working classes of this country against this sum of money being voted to their Royal Highnesses. I listened to the speech made by the Financial Secretary, who is in charge of these Estimates, and ho told us that their Royal Highnesses had gone out at the invitation of Australia. That being the case, I should have thought that if any part of the Empire invites anyone else that part should pay the expenses. Here we have got to pay for the sending out of their Royal Highnesses on this excursion, which is simply a joy-ride. There is no doubt about that. I listened, more in sorrow than in anger, to the Financial Secretary when he said we had to realise the 'great responsibilities that were resting on; the shoulders of their Royal Highnesses. I think they carry those responsibilities very lightly, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that better than I do, because he knows them personally. I know the responsibilities that my own class are carrying at the present moment, and they are very heavy, and I also know that they have not the wherewithal to meet those responsibilities. Nevertheless, the Government come forward at this time, without a blush on their cheeks, and ask for £7,000 for their Royal Highnesses to send them out to various parts of the world, including Australia and New Zealand.
    The House will remember that on a former occasion I raised this question in regard to the Prince of Wales when he went on his joy-ride from Africa to South America, and we were told at that time from all parts of the House that the reason for him going was for the benefit of trade and for the cementing of the British Empire. Did it turn out that way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] He went to the Argentine, and now this Government has given the Argentine Republic the order for beef that formerly was bought by the Government from Australia. Is that cementing the British Empire? That is what this Government does. They do those things because they are not sincere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—neither about the welfare of the British Empire nor any other Empire but their own particular Empire, and that

    1231
    depends on the firm and the house of financiers which they happen to represent. The Duke of York and his wife are being voted this £7,000, and who has to pay it? The working class has to pay it, my class, my fellow-tradesmen the engineers —[HoN. MEMBERS: "NO"]—with their £2 15s. a week. The miners have to pay it, and they are the people in regard to whom the Leader of the Opposition said last week your Government acted as a sub-committee to the mineowners.
    Mr. BATEY: There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If that is the case it is our duty to watch very carefully and be suspicious in regard to every act of the Government, and not simply accept Estimates that are put forward like this for £7,000. Hon. Members might think that we were a well-off people living in comfort, and that all was well with the people who produced the wealth of this country. Evidently we are not well off, because when dealing with the working class another Lord comes forward with a Report on Unemployment Insurance which means hell for the unemployed of this country, and which means the cutting off of about 6,000 unemployed because the country cannot afford to keep them going. That is a statement which has just been made and yet the country can afford to vote -£7,000 to send out their Royal Highnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth, and it would not matter one iota to the welfare of the country supposing they never returned.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a remark of that kind about members of the Royal Family.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have taken the highest opinion on that, and I am informed that I can use the language I have used.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am the authority to deal with the hon. Member and to whom he is subject at the moment, and I say he must not speak disrespectfully of the Royal Family.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I bow to your ruling, Sir; I do not wish to fall foul of you. But the fact remains that here
    1232
    are their Royal Highnesses being sent out at the expense of the people of this country. Money is no obstacle where they are concerned. When they got married, I protested in this House[Interruption]—because, prior to his being married, he had £10,000 a year, but when he got married he got an increase of £15,000. That is what I protested against.
    Mr. STORRY DEANS: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether the question of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York has anything whatever to do with this Vote?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is sometimes rather difficult to connect some of the hon. Member's arguments with the particular Vote before the Committee, but I think he is coming to the point directly.
    Mr. BECKETT: On that point of Order. Surely, if we are discussing an amount of money which Parliament is asked to grant, the merit, be it good or bad, of the person to whom the money is to be granted, is a very legitimate argument?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I leave the whole matter with you, Sir, and with the Committee generally to deal with, but you will agree with me that this is the second time I have been interfered with since I started to make this speech, the reason being that there are certain persons in the House who are very much offended because I am making it, and those are the same persons who hold that this is the great free speech place, where everyone has a right to express his point of view, and they make it as difficult as possible for me to express my point of view. That is evidence of it—and King's Counsel at that. When I was interrupted, I was speaking about the Duke when he was married. I have a right to refer to that. He had 10,000 a year. It is not very much when you say it quickly enough. I protested here then because the then Prime Minister lectured us that we ha I to study economy. He was lecturing the working classes of the country. Study economy—the workers have always to study economy. That is why I protested at the time. I said to him that he should start at the

    1233
    top, and not lecture us; that here was a good opportunity to economise—to tell the young chap to go and get married, but that he was not getting any £15,000 of increase. Now he has 25,000 a year, and. again I am going to raise my voice here in an emphatic protest against our paying such huge wages—you can call them salaries. I am going to protest against anyone in this country getting thousands of pounds a year. I say here, as I say everywhere, that if the working classes of this country—the miners, the engineers, the working class in general—are not worthy of a comfortable living. if the best we can get is under £3 a week, there is no man in Britain worth over £1,000 a year, and that we are doing wrong, this House is doing a serious wrong, committing a crime before high Heaven—
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a, point of Order. May I ask if self-applause by means of the clapping of hands is a, usage in this House?
    Mr. STEPHEN Mr. STEPHEN rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I can dispose of that point of Order without the intervention of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I did not take it that the hon. Member was applauding himself, bat that he was only emphasising his remarks.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In reference to the point of Order, I may tell you, Sir, that you were in the Chair when the hon. Gentleman, who does not represent the working class, but who is in a favoured position, being supposed to represent the intelligentia of Great Britain—you were in the Chair when he raised that question before, and I told him, quoting from the good old Book, the Bible, that to clap hands was all right because you were making a joyful sound, and that is something that he knows nothing about. [Intirruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to carry it a little further, and I was going to give him every encouragement. I was busy protesting when he interfered with me, and I wish the working class were here just now. I wish they had their eyes on me protesting here on their behalf. I have come right from Plymouth to-day, where the women of Plymouth asked me on their behalf to protest as vigorously as I possibly could against this expenditure,
    1234
    because even they think that those Princes and Princesses have plenty of money of their own, and, according to the same Minister in a reply to Ease once, they do not pay any Income Tax. We really do not know how much of an income they have, or why they should be in a special compartment on a particular occasion that is away above ordinary mortals when taxation is on, but when expenditure—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN rose—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am coming to the expenditure. When expenditure is on, then they are in the place of beggars. This House, the Government,, places them in that position and comes to this House and begs of the House to give them £7,000. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"] You can put it in any phrase. ology you like, but a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. That is the language of the Tory Government when we appeal to them on behalf of the working class; that we are begging for them. Now you are begging for the Royal house. You are begging here of the working people of this country, who are right up against it at the moment. The workers of this country are watching what is going on here. They see the Tory Government crushing the workers and acting as a sub-committee for the employers when the employers are starving the workers into subjection. Then on the other hand they are coming forward and asking for grants to enable the Royal Family to go away to the uttermost parts of the earth. I protest most emphatically.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not one of those who believe that the cause of poverty and unemployment among the working people of this country is primarily Royal extravagance.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: There was never anybody said that.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I believe the causes are far deeper rooted than that, and that even if this particular Royal tour had not been undertaken the poverty of the people would not have been the less. At the same time I do think that we are justified on this side in drawing a parallel. We have been discussing in this House the question of economy. Yesterday when we had the question of education

    1235
    discussed, the President of the Board of Education, upon every detail of the subject under discussion, pressed upon the House the importance of looking with the most jealous eye possible upon expenditure upon the education of the children of the people. To-day we have some less important subjects under discussion, but we have had the same plea for economy. Those speeches exhibited a very mean and niggardly parsimony on the part of Departments of the Government in presenting certain Estimates to this House. The Government say that it is important that we should economise in every possible direction, small and large, upon the ground that the taxpayers cannot afford even the smallest extravagance without the fullest possible justification. When the last speaker was addressing the Committee a Member opposite questioned the statement he made that the cost of this tour would have to be paid by the working people of this country. I really cannot understand what economic ideas can possess a Member to question a statement of that kind. The whole of the taxation of the country, the whole of the expenditure of the country, is paid ultimately by the working people of this country. I should not imagine that Members opposite were sufficiently within the knowledge of the economics of the party that is represented on this side to know that when we speak of the working people we do not merely mean the man with the pick and the shovel. We mean all those people who give useful service in the manufacture and distribution of wealth.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley)!
    Mr. MONTAGUE: This is not the occasion to discuss the victor of Smethwick, but I can quite understand the jealously of hon. Members opposite at the victory that was obtained on behalf of Labour and Socialism at Smethwick. The cause of Socialism and Labour, I can assure Members opposite, is not a question of whether a man is well to do or poor, Socialism does not mean the equal distribution of wealth—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are getting away from the Estimate.
    Mr. MONTAGUE:I want to keep within your ruling. When an interruption is
    1236
    made one is tempted to answer it. I was dealing with something that was said by a Member opposite with regard to the remarks of the last speaker. We are being asked constantly in this House to keep our eye upon small economies, because we are told the nation cannot afford to educate the children of the people properly, or any rate to make those extensions in tae education of the people that all educationists admit to be necessary for the community. That was the burden of the arguments used by the President of the Board of Education yesterday. Upon every question we have been called upon to support the principle of economy. With regard to the matter immediately under discussion, the cost of the tour of their Royal Highnesses, it may be necessary that representatives of the Royal house shall visit the Colonies; it may be necessary that those visits should not be made in a manner which does not reflect credit on this country; but I am sure we are justified in asking the Government, and the Members opposite, that when they appeal to this House to do things generously on behalf of Royal tours in the interests of the Empire, that they should be more generous to the people to-day who want better education for their children and people who are suffering as a result of unemployment and because of the great burden of poverty that is upon the people. I do not mind Royal tours, I do not mind the extravagance and display; but I do want the same kind of generosity and openness of mind and hand expressed with regard to the people those on this side represent, more directly than any other representatives in this House, because we stand for the working people and we have the bulk of the working people behind the Labour party. We are justified in asking for a sense of proportion, when the question of economy has to be discussed in this House.
    Dr. WATTS: I should not have intervened in this Debate if it had not been for the speeches which have been made from the Benches opposite. We have heard this describe6 as a pleasure trip and a joy ride. Is it a pleasure trip or a joy ride for a devoted mother or father to leave a young child a few months old? It is a noble act of self denial in the service of the country. I deprecate

    1237
    most strongly the unfeeling remarks which have come from the Benches opposite. I know of my own personal knew-ledge of the extreme benefit which resulted from the Prince of Wales' visit to South Africa. I believe that visit had a great deal to do with the success of he Imperial Conference when General liertzog entirely recanted his views as to the future of South Africa. I firmly believe the visit of the Duke of York and his wife to Australia will be of equal benefit. I cannot sit here and hear the insulting and unfeeling remarks made from the Benches opposite.
    Mr. HARDIE: This being a democratic country and always proclaiming broad democratic principles, I should have thought on an occasion like this, so far away from us, the occasion would have been met in a much more representative way had we sent to that country from this Government some who were highly skilled in the art of government, some who represented art and some who represented education. In that way we should be paying the fullest tribute that a mother country could to any part of its Dominions. We should have been sending those most skilled in the things that the other country which is being visited are interested in. However, we sent those who have no knowledge of these things I have spoken of, and there is no essential representation in the visit because they are cut off, through no fault of their own, from all those ties that hind nations or parts of an Empire together. You cannot build up an Empire which is to last unless you do it upon democratic principles, and this display that is being made now is not characteristic not of democracy. I want to protest against this system, and I hope whatever Government comes in in future will see to it that when this nation is to be represented abroad at any functions such as this, it shall truly represent the nation in all its parts and not merely individuals who are mere figureheads in the community. That conveys nothing at all of what we are in this country to those abroad. A sensible deputation or representation could have been easily procured.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: We sent those for whom Australia asked.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am pointing out to you what is your duty. If someone asked the hon. Member to go and drown himself he would not do it. The democratic idea that we talk about must find its expression in big things such as this if we mean it at all. I want once more to protest against the whole business with its-naval display and large expenditure—and the £7,000 does not represent what is being spent. No matter who is paying it, it does not represent the money. We, read in the papers about the number of motor cars that are being taken. It does not matter where the money is coming from, that is not the kind of utility that brings in its course any increase in trade. I hope by the next time an occasion like this arises, the British people will see to it that the democrats principles that they rave so much about will be represented by the representatives that go abroad.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: My reason for intervening is that I had the good fortune 26 years ago to be in Australia at the time the then Duke of York, who now occupies the Throne here, visited Australia to inaugurate the first Federal Parliament. This is almost as historic an occasion as was that in 1901 when the present holder of the title goes to open the first Federal Capital, Canberra, which may well in the years to come he to Australia what Washington is to the United States of. America. I was witness myself 26 years ago of the extraordinary demonstration of loyalty not only to the Throne but also to the Motherland that was then made by the whole of the Australian Commonwealth. I need hardly say in passing that speeches such as we have just listened to I do not think will he made in the Australian House of Representatives. I feel that when, as has happened in the last few months, a large number of English Parliamentarians have been to Australia as the guests of the Australian Commonwealth without a single penny piece falling upon our Exchequer here, when they had a chance of seeing for themselves something of political conditions in Australia, of throwing into the pool, as happened at the Imperial Conference, these extraordinarily difficult questions which must arise and can only be settled by comparison of ideas, we here and they in Australia, if the Australian Parliament wishes that their Royal Highnesses should visit Australia, as they

    1239
    have done, we cannot have a better investment from an Imperial point of view than the £7,000 we are now asked to vote. It is a very simple sum. It is a 700th of a single penny of the Income Tax. We are spending £800,000,000 a year and this is £7,000. It is infinitesimal, and it seems a great pity to me that some hon. Members opposite should so misuse their position in this House as to raise these questions on every occasion which I am sure do not represent the views of the majority of their supporters.
    Mr. BECKETT: An hon. Member opposite complained of the immoderate and unfeeling speeches from this side of the Committee. I should like to assure him that as far as possible, considering that, although this is a small Estimate, it covers what is a fundamental clash of belief between Gentlemen on the opposite side and some of us on these benches, I shall endeavour to be as inoffensive as possible. I would remind hon. Members, however, that some of the speeches we listened to from them, and especially from their Front Breach, during the time when many of our constituents were locked out from their work and starving, though they may have appeared to hon. Members opposite to be kindly and proper speeches, appeared to us to be almost the most callous and inhuman opinions to which we had ever listened. Because of that we must try to face that point. My objection in this Vote is not on account of what percentage of a penny it is going to cost the people of the country, it is not on account of the slightest hostility to members of the Royal Family, but because I criticise the wisdom of the whole proceeding by which they are being sent and the expenditure—however large or however small it is does not affect the principle of the matter—being placed upon the shoulders of the taxpayers. Hon. Members on the other side cannot object to members of the Royal Family having their actions criticised. We remember that during the industrial trouble a very distinguished member of the Royal Family was kind enough to assist financially some of the men whom we represent in this House, and immediately we were told by the supporters of hon. Members opposite that princes or bishops should not stand in their way when they were engaged in what they
    1240
    believed to be right. We claim the same right of criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?"] Mr. Evan Williams.
    Mr. STORRY DEANS: He is not a member of this House.
    The CHAIRMAN: He is not a member of this House.
    Mr. BECKETT: I did not say that he was.
    Mr. DEANS: You did.
    Mr. BECKETT: What, I said was "supporters of members of this House."
    Mr. DEANS: It is a quibble.
    Mr. BECKETT: I cannot subscribe to the argument put forward that very young, inexperienced members of the Royal Family can adequately represent this nation, merely because they are in a position to which fate has seen fit to call them. The Duke of York may be the most intelligent and the cleverest young man in the country, or he may be the most foolish; I do not know, but I do know that there is no certain rule that because a man has been born into a distinguished family that he will be an adequate representative, or that the young lady he chooses to marry will be an adequate representative of the nation in other parts. We really try squarely to face the attraction and the fascination which, undoubtedly, members of the Royal Family exercise, not only over the superior social classes, but over very large sections of what are termed the working classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not denying that. You cannot argue by denying everything your opponent says—but I would say from what I have seen that this great spell or hold over a rapidly diminishing section of the working classes—[Interruption]—is because people, are living the kind of lives which the luxury and the greed of a large number of the supporters of the present system make necessary, and the lives of the working people are so prosaic and poverty-stricken and sordid that when they see these people in the centre of considerable pomp and luxury for a short time, it is a case of the Prince Charming and the Fairy Princess. Well, of course, that is all very nice, and if the Australian Government want it, they are entitled to have it, provided they pay for it. I not

    1241
    only doubt the wisdom of bringing up your working classes by attempting to encourage a foolish theory of that sort, but that your superior classes should encourage the snobbishness which is undoubtedly an outcome of this sort of thing.
    Hon. Members who have spoken from this side were right in the economic argument against the drawing of money from the worse-off section of our population in order to pay for this sort of thing. It is no good coming here and telling us pathetic tales about mothers having to leave their children, when we know how you have treated our women and children during the last dispute, and when we remember how the Minister of Health has treated English women.
    Mr. DEANS: You are not a miner. Mr. BECKETT: I represent them.
    Mr. DEANS: I represent them. [HON. MEMBERS: "So do we!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: The interests of the Debate will be best served by hon. Members maintaining silence.
    Mr. BECKETT: I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should raise their voices so much in their endeavour to contradict those with whom they do not agree. If they have an argument against what I am saying, I shall be prepared to listen to it. I do not see why hon. Members who have supported the actions of their Government for the last two years should expect to move our hearts with sob stuff about the misfortunes of this extremely fortunate couple, in the worldly sense, to whom we are now proposing to present this £7,000. I should not have felt that I was doing my duty to the people in the poverty-stricken towns if I allowed a party here which is too mean to do any thing whatever for the poorest people in the country, to splash away taxpayers' money for their own snobbish friends.
    Sir FRANK NELSON: I would not have intervened had I seen on the benches above the Gangway any Socialist Member who was on the recent delegation to Australia. I feel certain that had there been any one of those Gentlemen who joined with me in the hospitality which we received from the Australian Governments sitting on the Socialist
    1242
    benches to-night, he would have said in my stead, how much we all regret the singular lack of accuracy, reticence and good taste which has characterised the speeches by hon. Members. The whole of our delegation received hospitality from five Socialist Governments in five States, and we found expressed nothing but sincere welcome for the Duke and Duchess of York. Not only was there a note of welcome, but they made it perfectly clear that they asked for the Duke and Duchess, that they wanted them, and that they would have nobody else; and they would be the, first, and they will be the first, when they read this unfortunate interposition of the Socialist Members to-night, to deplore the singular lack of accuracy, courtesy, reticence and good taste which has been displayed.
    Mr. PALING: The hon. Member for the Withington Division (Dr. Watts) complained of the immoderate and inhuman speeches from this side. I do not see any justification for that. I do not think that anybody who naturally expected that this might be a rather heated Debate should complain that there has been immoderate or inhuman speeches. On the whole, I think the Debate has been very good-tempered. The hon. Member complained as if some hon. Members on this side had suggested that the Royal Lady who has gone out was not making a sacrifice in leaving her child. Everybody knows that when a mother has to leave her child—
    Dr. WATTS: It has been described as a joy ride and a pleasure trip.
    Mr. PALING: There is no reflection upon the Duchess of York as a mother. An hon. Member opposite suggested that, if this were spread over all the taxpayers of the country, it would only represent a very minute sum. We agree. But that, again, is not the point. I would like to suggest that the £7,000 is not quite all that is going to be spent. If my memory serves aright, a question was asked in this House last week of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who suggested that from that source an extra £66,000 would be spent, which I presume will be in addition to the £7,000 in this Supplementary Estimate. There might be some excuse for somebody talking about a joy trip for £73,000 for a visit to Australia! What

    1243
    I am most concerned about is the attitude of Members opposite to questions of this description, and their different attitude when any money is being spent which affects the majority of the working-class people in this country. That is my complaint.
    An hon. Member opposite made an interjection to-night that it was a relatively small sum. I remember him speaking last night. He seconded The Amendment to the education proposals that we put forward, and he was complaining that there was not the money to put into operation the raising of the school age to 15 years, and that we should have to wait awhile. Of course, he was in favour of it, but there is never the money to do it when it is something affecting working-class people. The Minister of Health to-day gave an answer to a question, and complaint was made about the slow progress made with slum clearances. The only excuse he could make was that these clearances were taking place at a quicker rate today than last year, but there is not sufficient money for that. I remember that last year, when we had the industrial dispute in this country, when the miners were asking to keep the miserably low wages that they had, we were told every day in this House, when the business was brought up, to face the economic facts of the situation. There is no question of facing economic facts when it is a question of spending £73,000 on a trip of this description. When Members have the audacity to complain about good taste, I think they would be showing more good taste if, in view of the poverty in this country, they spent less money on a trip of this description. I was reading to-day of a Debate that occurred in another place yesterday on the question of railways. One of the Noble Lords there was indicating that the railwaymen were getting too big wages, and that they would have to come down. When one looks at all these questions—slums, education, miners' wages, railwaymen's wages—and remembers the attacks constantly being made on working-class people by Members on the opposite benches, they must not complain if we get up and make comparisons of
    1244
    this description when they are so anxious to spend money on a Royal visit of this kind.
    Mr. CONNOLLY Mr. CONNOLLY rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: MacDonald!
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.
    10. p.m.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I am concerned in this matter purely from the financial standpoint, although, of course, I regard as of some importance the social side. As a Member of a Committee that is looking after the money affairs of this nation, I am not quit, satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Estimate. He assured the Committee that tie strictest economy was being practised sc far as the visit was concerned. We have in the Estimate a bare and bald statement of £7,000 expenses. What I want to know is this. When we come to the Navy Estimates and are dealing with. the alterations to this ship, its victualling, and the salaries and wages of the men, how are we going to know, from the bald statement here, whether there is any overlapping or whether there is any part of this £7,000 in these minor detail. Apart altogether from matters of taste, it is part of our business to know what are the details of this expenditure. I take an interest in the expenditure voted in this House, whether it appertains to royalty or anything else. I am net one of those who believe that the representatives of the commoners do it more cheaply than royalty, if it is done on the same scale. So far as the Navy Estimate is concerned, I think it is £56,000.
    The CHAIRMAN: That will appear in the Navy Estimates. The hon. Member cannot go beyond the £7,000.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I want to know what part of this £7,000, if any, will merge in the details that essentially come under the Navy Estimates. We should have some details here, instead of a bare, bald statement. I am surprised that some of the vigilant Members on the other side, who keep an eye on small matters of this kind, have not spoken, but have left us on this side of the House to demand that details should be given. I protest against

    1245
    the bald statement in the Estimate, and the meagre explanation given by the Minister.
    Mr. ROY WILSON: One of my hon. Friends has told the House that, when this Debate is read in Australia, it will cause amazement to our loyal brothers in that Dominion. I am equally certain that, when this Debate is read throughout this country, it will cause amazement and disgust among the people in our own land. An extraordinary thing about it is not only the extravagant statements which have been made on the subject of this voyage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York and his gracious Duchess, but the lamentable ignorance displayed in some quarters as to the value of these voyages which are undertaken by members of the Royal Family. I remember two years ago, in this House, listening to a Debate like this, on the subject of the expenses connected with the voyage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to West Africa; and I would like to assure the Committee, if any assurance be needed, that, from my own personal knowledge, the result of that trip to the West African Colonies has been of enormous advantage to our trade in that part of the world; that it resulted directly in very large increase of trade during the course of Life visit, and that it has undoubtedly stimulated the loyalty of our people in that part of the world in a way, probably, which people in this country hardly realise.
    One other point I would like to make, and that has reference to the statement to-night that, while this expense has been voted for this trip of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York, nothing has been done for the people of this country. It seems to me that is a most amazing statement to make. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have apparently forgotten that nearly £400,000,000 sterling every year is voted by this House for social services and for the people they profess to represent. I do resent most keenly as I am sure every Member of this House on the Conservative side resents, the criticism which has been levelled against their Royal Highnesses and we who take the opposite view believe firmly, in our hearts, as I believe the majority of the people of this country do, that, in undertaking the duties of Ambassadors of Empire, as their Royal
    1246
    Highnesses are doing, they are earning the gratitude, affection and esteem of all decent-minded people in Great Britain.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That means we are not decent-minded?
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I do not want to advertise differences of opinion on this side of the House, but I feel that I would be lacking in courage, after what has been said, if I did not indicate my disagreement with some of the speeches made by my colleagues. I think hon. Members opposite should realise, at the same time, that the conditions of poverty throughout the country and the familiarity with that poverty of so many hon. Members on this side explain why the contrast between the substantial figures in this Estimate and some of these conditions strikes them. At the same time, as one who had the privilege of taking part in the recent Empire Parliamentary tour to Australia, I can assure my colleagues on these benches that the people of Australia, including the many there belonging to the same movement as we do, are cordially looking forward to the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York. They do that for one very good reason. It is because they regard the Royal Family as the symbol of the unity of the Empire.
    That, I think, is how we ought to look at it. So long as this party accepts the Royal Family as the symbol of this Empire unity, I think we ought not to indulge in pettifogging criticisms as to the conditions under which the Royal Family travel. I am not saying that the expenditure involved may not be more than was necessary, or that it may not contrast badly with other restricted expenditure, but I am quite certain that the tour is very desirable, and that some such provision is necessary. We had the privilege of visiting Canberra and taking part in the first ceremony there, and I know that Labour members and Labour people all over Australia are looking forward to the visit with a view to inaugurating what they hope and believe will be, not only a historic Parliament but a Parliament which will make for the greater prosperity of Australia and for the greater development of sympathy and understanding with the Mother Country. While, therefore, I sympathise very much, and I ask hon. Members opposite to sympathise

    1247
    with the feelings which have prompted certain expressions of opinion on this side, I am sure I speak for the majority of this party when I express pleasure at this visit being undertaken, with results which will doubtless be for the benefit of ourselves as well as of our great Dominions overseas. I can say perfectly frankly also that I believe this tour involves a considerable amount of personal inconvenience to the Duke and Duchess of York. I support this Vote.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I rise to reinforce in a single sentence what has been said by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). I happened to be in New Zealand some time ago, and I think it is only right to say to the House, as New Zealand is one of the Dominions to be visited during the tour, that while I was there in October preparations were already being made all over the country to welcome their Royal Highnesses, and that it was at the invitation of the New Zealand Government that the tour in New Zealand was undertaken. They would have considered it a very considerable affront if His Majesty's Government had not come to this House and asked for authority for the expenditure involved.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to say frankly that I accept the fact that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) had courage to say what he said. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is expressing the views which many of his colleagues hold, but I hope this House will also accept the views which other Members hold. I am not to criticise the Estimate from the point of view of whether it is for a King or the son of a King. We are asked to vote £6,000 for two persons going abroad. We are assured by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that he knows the Duke of York so well that he has told him that this journey is a personal inconvenience, and, being so well informed, he knows that it is undertaken at considerable risk. No one believes that half of what is said about the tasks placed upon the Duke of York or the Prince of Wales is true. They are rather looked upon as a subject for joke. All the hon. Members on these benches may not oppose this Vote, but they know in their hearts that this is not
    1248
    justifiable expenditure, that if the same sum were proposed far the poor people this House, including hon. Members on the Conservative benches, would oppose it. I think it is unjustifiable, at a time like this, when we are proposing to take away money for unemployment and other social benefits from the people, to expend this money on a useless visit.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VII.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £220,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, &c., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (21st February).
    REPORT [15TH FEBRUARY].
    Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which win come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices Abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,473, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided

  1249
  for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  REPORT [16TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

  CLASS II.
  1. "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."
  2. "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 Gi.ant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Some of us were quite unaware until this moment that we were going to take the Report stage of this Vote to-night, and it is, therefore, rather' difficult for us to discuss the matter as we would have wished I am aware at the same time that it is difficult to debate on Report stage the very wide range of questions which arise, as this additional sum has been granted as a payment to an industry which is being established on the principle of a Measure already passed by this House. There are one or two points, however, which we were unable to cover during the Committee stage. One thing about which some of us are very concerned is. that while the House is being asked to vote an additional sure of 2460,000 in respect of the sugar-beet subsidy, we are faced at the same time with a rise in price of sugar. Since the time when the subsidy was first granted, the price of sugar has gone up from about 14e. a. cwt. to between 18s. and 19s., yet we are paying the same fiat rate of subsidy. I very much deprecate the fact that no arrangement was made under which, if the market price increased to a very large extent, there should be a corresponding advantage to the Treasury in the payment of the subsidy. It means that those
  1250
  to whom the subsidy is being paid are now enabled to get an increased market price and yet retain the same flat-rate subsidy from the Exchequer. That seems to be uneconomic, and I suggest to the: Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there should be some reconsideration of the position. If there is a flat-rate subsidy, it is unfair to the taxpayers that the people who are getting it should also be able to get the subsidy at the present rate. I do not suggest that they are doing anything unfair or wrong, but it enables them to benefit to the extent of the rise in price. Because of the arrangement which has been made, I cannot debate the matter at any greater length now, but I hope before the next stage in connection with this subsidy the Treasury will give the matter some attention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Resolution agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.
Ordered, That the Committee of Privileges do consist of ten Members:
The Prime Minister, Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Sir Robert Sanders, Sir John Simon, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay nominated members of the Committee:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee he appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates, and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally:
Sir Rowland Blades, Mr. Bowerman,. Mr. Burman, Mr. Gates, Mr. Hall Caine, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Looker, Mr. Naylor, Colonel Perkins, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Frederick Roberts nominated members of the Committee:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

COAL WAGONS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Commander Eyres Monsell.)
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the Minister of Transport for arranging to take quite briefly into consideration to-night the question of the serious position which has arisen owing to the congestion of rail-delivered coal. In the Eastern Counties the position is far more acute than in other parts of the country, and I am particularly anxious that the Ministry of Transport should give immediate and sympathetic consideration to the needs of the traders, but more especially of the consumers, in that area. Let me take one or two cases by way of example. In the City of Ipswich we have a very large co-operative society, which requires a normal delivery of 51 wagons per week to supply the consumers in its membership, and during the last fortnight the society has received only 40 wagons, or 33 per cent. of its normal requirements, and although, as a matter of fact, they have paid for and have advices in regard to between 90 and 100 wagons, ready for delivery. The same thing applies to Newmarket, and to Sawston, where they have no stock and no arrivals. The same is the case at Witham, and the same thing was operating until a week or two ago at Colchester and Chelmsford, but owing to the extreme muddle in which the railways have got, Colchester and Chelmsford have train loads of coal consigned in such a state that the sidings are choked with them, and they cannot handle what they have got. It seems to me a great pity that after five or six years of the co-ordination and re-organisation of the railway systems of the country, we should now find ourselves placed in such a position as that.
The only other thing I want to say is this: We are being asked to reduce
1252
the price of coal, and the price of coal ought to be reduced. If the coalowners would give another reduction from the December prices, which they might well do now, and if the distributive trade—and I am speaking of the co-operative section of it to-night—so handicapped by lack of space and having to meet all overhead charges, were able to rely upon delivery of supplies, if delivery of supplies could come now with some regular certainty, there is no reason why, in a very few days, the price of coal should not be reduced. I want the Minister to bend his energies, as I am sure he will, to securing an improvement of the transport position at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. WRAGG: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has just asserted in regard to the general failure of the railway companies to deliver coal, and I should like to talk also on the ground of the lack of wages to the colliers in the mining industry of the country and the amount of short time which is being worked, entirely owing to the chaotic condition of the railways. There is hardly a colliery company in the country that is not working at least one day a week short, entirely due to this reason. I would like to appeal to the Minister of Transport to bring the utmost pressure to hear upon the railway companies to put their house in order as soon as possible, so that min at the pits may be able to work full time, seeing that there is a demand for coal, and so that the consumers may get their coal at a lower price, which they undoubtedly would if the delivery were more in order.
Major GLYN: Before the Minister replies, I would to mention one small point. The hon. Member opposite seems to forget that, owing to the coal stoppage, a great many wagons have been used for imported coal, and the result is that as these contracts are still running, a considerable number of these wagons are being used in that connection. There are, as a matter of fact, a large number of wagons standing in the sidings full of coal waiting for distributors to discharge them. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member behind me, I think it is only fair, from the companies' point of view, to say

1253
that every attempt has been made, and is being made to-day, to get back to normal conditions. Nothing would suit the railway companies more than that all collieries should be working full time, and as far as London and the Eastern Counties are concerned, coal is available in the trucks, but is not being discharged by the distributors.
Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I would like to bear out what has been said, not only about the disorganisation of railways in regard to coal, but, what is equally important, the disorganisation in regard to iron ore add pig iron. I know in my own constituency the risk run by the inability of the local blast furnaces to get adequate railway wagons to remove the pig iron. Quite possibly something may be said on behalf of the railways regarding the imports of foreign coal affecting coal trucks, but there surely cannot be any similar argument regarding the imports of foreign pig iron, and I venture to think that if the Minister would bring pressure to bear on the railways to remedy the present disorganisation, we should not only get better results, but we should improve employment, not only in the coal mines but in regard to coke ovens, blast furnaces and steelworks.
Mr. BENNETT: I do not know whether I shall be in order in drawing attention to the pithead price of coal. I know that the pits in Mansfield are working practically at normal, but I find—and. I have taken the trouble to look into it—that I am paying 10s. a ton more at the pithead than I was before the strike.
Mr. PALING: The miners are not getting it.
Mr. BENNETT: I do not think that is reasonable; in fact the pithead price of coal to-day is scandalous. It is important that we should try to get the railway companies to overcome their difficulty.
Colonel ASHLEY: The only grievance, if grievance there be, for which it is in my province to answer, is that of the transportation of coal. The question of price, though of vital importance, does not fall within my province, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A.. V. Alexander) who raised this question, did not expect me to deal with it. This subject has given me considerable anxiety, and has been under my close
1254
attention, not only since the resumption of work, but during the coal stoppage, and, in fairness to the railway companies, we must remember that the general strike and the coal stoppage imposed a heavy strain upon those companies. In the first place, they had to diminish their own consumption of coal very considerably, and that made it extremely difficult for them to carry on their normal operations, made it impossible, obliging them to leave scattered about their system a large number of wagons which otherwise would have been marshalled in their appropriate areas. At the same time, they had to reverse entirely their system of transporting coal. They had to bring imported coal, landed from overseas, from the ports to various inland centres, doing exactly the opposite of what all their plans are laid for, namely, to take coal from the centre of England to the ports. Then, when work was resumed, they had to try to send back to the private owners the hundreds of thousands of private wagons, while at the same time carrying on an imported coal traffic to which they were not used. Directly work was resumed, also, they had to rush large quantities of coal to coal merchants and to industries, which were crying out for it, and that put another strain upon their resources. Finally, when they had sent these extra supplies of household coal to coal merchants, this position arose, that the coal merchants—I need not go into the reason why it was so—found that this coal was not bought by the public to the extent which was expected, and thousands of wagons were left lying idle in the depots. It was through no fault of the railway companies that the wagons were not cleared, and that added congestion to the other difficulties of the situation.
Mr. ALEXANDER: That may be the statement made to my hon. Friend by the railway companies, but it is not in accordance with the statements of the large distributors.
Colonel ASHLEY: I will give a few statistics to prove that what I say is in accordance with the facts—at any rate in some cases. I think I may claim broadly that the four great railway companies, at any rate three of them, have coped with a difficult situation very suc-

1255
cessfully indeed, and that on three out of the four lines normal conditions are rapidly approaching. There are two areas—one was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. Alexander), the Eastern Counties, and the other is the London area, where I have received many complaints, though it has not been mentioned in debate this evening—where there have been great difficulties, in some cases, in people getting coal for industrial and for household purposes.
May I give some facts about the London area to show that though I admit, and the railway companies admit, that in some cases there has been a shortage of coal, yet broadly speaking, and over the London area, the railway companies concerned—the four lines come in here—have dealt very successfully with this extraordinarily difficult situation. Take the 10th February, the last date for which I have statistics, so far as London as a whole is concerned. On the 10th February there were 7,523 laden coal wagons on hand at London depots, and there were, further, 3,919 wagons waiting to enter the depots, waiting acceptance by the coal merchants, a total of 11,442 loaded coal wagons which had been sent to London by the four great systems for the use of the consumers of coal in the London area. On the 9th February there were 2,378 clearances, so that on this basis the railway companies had on the 10th February—seven days ago—provided five days' supplies of coal for the inhabitants of the metropolis. I know there were individual cases where the railway companies had failed in that respect to do their duty. Take the London and North Eastern Railway which was referred to by the hon. Member opposite. On 15th February there were standing under load 3,354 wagons, of which 1,116 were unloaded, and that was three days' supply. I admit that that is not as much as the average, but three days' supply does not indicate a universal or large coal shortage.
Now I come to the particular area which Las been referred to, namely, the Eastern counties, I have communicated with the London and North Eastern Railway Company to-day, and they say that two days ago, on the 15th February, at seven of
1256
the larger towns in the Eastern counties 807 wagons were standing under load while only 166 were unloaded. Broadly speaking, I think this shows that the London and North Eastern Railway, in regard to those larger towns, had not failed in their duty and two days ago were supplying five days' supply.
Mr. ALEXANDER: I was told at the head office at Liverpool Street that 14 loaded wagons were supplied to Ipswich, and I found that seven of them had been there over a week and had already been unloaded Therefore I do not think the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman are at all reliable.
Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think I can accept that statement, and I must assume that unless some direct evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, that the statistics which have been supplied to me are correct. I admit even after these figures that the Eastern counties are in an unsatisfactory state. The London and North Eastern Railway had a. difficult task when it took over several other lines which were not provided with rolling stock facilities like the other great lines, but the companies have informed me that they have decided to make sidings at March, near Peterborough, and they have undertaken to proceed with the work as soon as possible. This will cost the companies a large sum of money, but it will ease the situation. At the Ministry of Transport we have received a representative deputation of coalowners and coal merchants trading in the Eastern counties. They have laid all the facts before me, and some of them were very striking facts. They have promised that they will do everything in their power to ease the situation.
Mr. PALING: May I ask the Minister whether he will pay some attention to the statement made by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) about the price of coal at the pithead and will see whether that has anything to do with the high price of coal at the present time? As he may say he can do nothing, will he in any event urge the Prime Minister to take as much trouble in making these people disgorge some of their ill-gotten gains to the miners as he took to increase their hours and reduce their wages last week?

HEADLEY HILL SCHOOL (HEADMASTER).
Mr. BATEY: I want to raise the question of the action of the President of the Board of Education in cancelling the certificate of a schoolmaster. This afternoon I gave notice that I would raise that question to-night. I then found that these other questions were to come on, so I informed some of my friends that we should not be able to deal with this matter to-night, and they have gone away. I want to explain the reason why some of the Members on this side are not here when this question is being debated. I want to-night to make a special appeal to the President of the Board of Education to reconsider his decision in regard to his case. This afternoon, in answer to a question put by a, Member on the other side, he said lie had made up his mind to cancel the certificate of this teacher. The cancelling of the certificate of a school teacher is a very important thing. It simply means that this man has done teaching, and may have very great difficulty in finding other employment. I could understand the cancellation of a certificate if the offence had been a serious one, but I want to remind the Minister of what the offence was that this teacher committed.
His certificate is being cancelled because he caned two scholars. That is the only offence, and the whole offence. He caned two schoolboys who had gone to the canteen to get meals against his orders. I will not attempt to justify that, because I think he was foolish in caning the boys for going to the canteen to obtain their meals, but for that small offence he was taken to court, and there is not the slightest, doubt that the prosecution was not a prosecution by the children's father, but was a political prosecution. We know the names of the people who found the money—the names of Conservatives in that Division who found the money for that prosecution, to take this man to court and have him fined. He was taken to court, and was heavily fined. I want to submit that, for the offence of caning these two boys, that ought to have been a sufficient penalty, but instead that the President of the Board of Education comes along and says, "Oh, the decision of the court, the fine of the court, is not a sufficient penalty for a schoolmaster caning two
1258
boys, and, in order to punish him sufficiently, I have made up my mind to cancel his certificate."
I want to ask the President seriously to consider whether he is not going too far. There has been no other offence during the whole time this schoolmaster has been in the school; there is nothing else that could be said against him except the caning of these two boys, and I want to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is not going far too far in cancelling this teacher's certificate for that reason. I said this afternoon that, in the colliery village where this teacher was teaching, the people feel so Strongly that, with two exceptions, everyone else in the village who has children attending this school has signed a, petition in the teacher's favour. I said this afternoon, and I want to explain it now, that I understood that even the mother of the children had signed the petition. I am not quite sure, on reconsidering the matter, whether I was justified in making that statement, but they say to me that everyone in the village, except two people who are not the parents of the children, has signed a petition in favour of the schoolmaster.
Seeing that that was done, I want seriously to ask the President to reconsider this matter, because in my opinion the fine which the bench inflicted was far too heavy a one for the offence. What the President of the Board of Education is doing, in my opinion, is far too severe a penalty. Children have been caned in school before, and the teachers have not been taken to Court. No teacher, I am certain, for that offence, has had his certificate cancelled. The real offence, as the Minister of Education knows, is that this teacher, either fortunately or unfortunately, belongs to the Labour party, and because he belongs to the Labour party that is why the Minister has cancelled his certificate. Although he may belong to a different party from the President of the Board of Education, that is no reason for the Minister being so severe on this man. I want to ask the. right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and restore the man's certificate.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I recognise the right of this House to call me to account for any decision I have taken, and having said that I would ask

1259
the House to remember that in discussing a personal issue of—if I may use the phrase—a judicial character affecting the character of individuals in the public service, this House is not a very good tribunal. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) may put his case about the teacher concerned. I might put my case. There is no one to judge between us. The danger of that sort of discussion on the Floor of this House, of the character of an individual, is shown by the hon. Member for Spermymoor's speech. In reply to that speech, what have I got to do? The hon. Member's speech, instead of confining itself to the actual issue, has complicated the whole issue by a charge that I, in the exercise of my duty, have acted from partisan political considerations. I would ask him, is that a charge which it is very wise and judicious to make in a connection like this? May I remind the hon. Member for Spennymoor, as he has made that charge, of the history of the case in this House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley), who is not here this evening for the same reason that the hon. Member for Spennymoor explained some of his friends are not here, asked this question of me on the 18th November:
"Whether he is aware that the headmaster of Headley Hill Council School on various dates between 5th and 9th November refused to give food to four children aged 14, 11, 7 and 41, at the school canteen, their father, a coal hewer at the Headley Hill Colliery, having returned to work at the colliery on 1st November, although his first pay was not due until 13th November; that on the afternoon of 10th November, having discovered that the children had received meals that day, the headmaster thrashed the two elder children in school for having disobeyed his orders in attending the canteen; whether these facts have been communicated to the education authority; what action they have taken in the matter; and what action does he propose to take?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1926; col. 1937, Vol. 200.]
The hon. Member for Spennymoor in putting a, supplementary question said this:
"May I ask the President of the Board of Education if he will make inquiries into this allegation, as some of us know the schoolmaster and we are satisfied that the statement is an absolute lie."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1926; col. 1938, Vol. 199.]
1260
The hon. Member has brought the question up again this evening. He has made no apology and he has not withdrawn his assurance to the House that he was satisfied that it was an absolute lie, and yet he tells me that, in Lay decision, I have been actuated by partisan political. motives. I must point that out before proceeding to the consideration of the case.
I have considered this question very carefully. I need hardly tell hon. Members in any quarter of the House that there are no decisions that any Minister can take which are so grave as these decisions about the conduct of teachers in schools. They are grave because of the effect to the teacher. They are infinitely more grave because of the responsibility of the Board of Education to the children the Government compels to attend school. It is very difficult to reconcile those two responsibilities, but where there is any balance of consideration between what might be too harsh for the teacher and might be too risky for the children, one must decide in consideration of the risk to the child. I hope no hon. Member on either side of the House will think for a moment that the words used by the hon. Member describing what. I have done beat: any relation to the procedure of the Board of Education. We do not impose penalties on teachers when we cancel their certificates. If, as in this case, a teacher is judged by the competent tribunal to have committed an offence against the law, the offence is purged when he has paid the penalty. And the Board of Education is not a judge of law. Neither is the Board of Education a judge of morals. We do not judge. We do not inflict punishment on these men or women. We have to decide what men and what women we, in the discharge of our responsibilities to the children, can allow to teach in the schools. No moral stigma should necessarily attach to any teacher whose certificate we may decide to cancel.
Members may feel that this case is a very hard one. Have they the least idea of the hardship of some of the cases I have to decide, of women of long teaching service, for instance, who have committed offences for which they are probably not responsible at the time they committed them, and even may be unjustly accused; but who

1261
are adjudged by the Court to have committed those offences, nevertheless. The Board may feel fairly certain that a person is not guilty of an offence, or, if technically guilty, the offence can bear. as a matter of fact, no moral stigma at all, and yet, in view of the publicity of the incident, in view of public opinion in the district, the Board are obliged to cancel the certificate, in order that the service of education may go on and be above suspicion. Those are cases even harder than this.
Therefore, let no one think that this is a case of a penalty or the infliction of a moral stigma. Having said that, I am very reluctant to discuss the merits of this or any other case in public in this way. I am not going to pretend to lay before the House all the considerations which decided me to take this decision. Certain facts are admitted. It is admitted that this headmaster, acting in a mining village at a time of great public feeling, great party feeling, if you please, made the children of all the men who had returned to work hold up their hands publicly in the class room. Having done so, he then told the children to carry out certain formalities before they went to the canteen. They could go to the canteen for about another week, and after that time they must conform to certain formalities or, rather, their families must conform to certain formalities. Finding that the children did not conform to those formalities within a stated period, he called them out and questioned them in front of the whole school and told them that they must not go to the canteen for food any longer. Thereafter, he received representations from the employer explaining the whole conditions of employment and that wages were not going to be received for two or three days afterwards. He also received a letter from his superior on the canteen committee, the district clerk, advising him to allow these children to go to the canteen. Then, after that, knowing all the. circumstances, after having been instructed—I think it is right to say "instructed"—by his superior on the canteen committee to allow these children to have food, he publicly caned these children for having attended the canteen. I am not going to argue the case.
Mr. PALING: Did the public caning take place after the clerk has intimated his decision?
Lord E. PERCY: The caning took place after the clerk had instructed him to allow the children to attend.
Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: In what way was it a public caning?
Lord E. PERCY: In the presence of other children.
Mr. MARCH: Is it not always done?
HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
Lord E. PERCY: I am not going to say that the caning of a child in front of other children is in itself improper.
Mr. MARCH: You know that the caning is always done in the open school.
Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) will try to deal with this case with the seriousness with which I am trying to deal with it, he will realise that my argument, from first to last, is that this headmaster in a mining village, at a time of great, acute and bitter public feeling, dealt with these children throughout, stage by stage, in such a way as to make them marked children among the whole of their schoolfellows.
Mr. MARCH: Do not they always cane children who disobey an order, and are not children brought up to the headmaster for him to cane them?
Lord E. PERCY: I will leave the hon. Member to read to-morrow the report of what I say and then to think about it. I hope he will understand what I mean. His colleagues understand perfectly well what I am saying.
Mr. R. MORRISON: The Noble Lord stated that one of the charges against the headmaster was that of disobeying an order of the Clerk, whom he described as his superior on. the Canteen Committee. Could he say just what was the status of this individual and how he came to give orders to the headmaster, who was responsible for the school?
Lord E. PERCY: It was not a question of his responsibility as headmaster at all. In his voluntary capacity, the headmaster was acting as assistant secretary on the canteen committee, assisting the secretary, his superior, who was the

1263
district clerk. I am trying to be perfectly fair. I think the headmaster admits that his action throughout towards these children, so far as their receiving food was concerned, was taken in his capacity as assistant secretary of the canteen committee and not in his capacity as headmaster. Of course, there is a technical point there for consideration, as to the headmaster's justification for taking notice in school of offences that were committed while he was acting in a voluntary capacity outside, but I do not pay any heed to that.
Those are the admitted facts of the case, and in order to try to bring home to hon. Members my feelings about them, I would ask them to consider what they would have said if during the War—I do not think feeling was any more heated on the relevant subjects during the War than it was in the Durham mining villages at the time of the dispute—a Conservative head-teacher in an elementary school had told every child whose father was a conscientious objector to hold up his hand before the whole school, and then had proceeded thereafter to penalties of this kind.
Mr. SHEPHERD: I have known several cases.
Lord E. PERCY: If any such case had ever been brought before me, if I had been President of the Board at that time, I should have said, as I feel bound to say in this case, that I think a man who does that has committed what would professionally be regarded as the unpardonable offence of exposing children under his charge quite possibly to actual physical danger. Those, roughly, are the considerations which I have had to think of. I do not say that this man had those considerations in mind. I do not say that he did what he did deliberately. I do not attach any moral stigma, but I say that if he did it hotheadedly and ill-consideredly nevertheless he is a man whom I would not entrust with the care of children. Last year we passed through a time of bitterer feeling in this country, in many ways, than we ever passed through before—a kind of feeling when one might have expected that men of all classes, and women of all classes in the teaching service might have been carried away to do injudicious things, and to
1264
bring discredit on the teaching service. In the whole of that time, from the beginning of the general strike to the end of the coal stoppage, I think I am right in saying that no more than the cases of four school teachers only have been brought to my notice as having committed any irregularity at all. I think that is a tremendous tribute to the teaching profession. I admit that all those four cases I have dealt with, probably, in the judgment of hon. Members opposite, drastically.
Mr. R. MORRISON: Why did not the Noble Lord mention that this afternoon when his colleagues were bombarding him with questions suggesting that there was a large number of teachers doing the same thing?
Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will read the questions and answers he will see that no such suggestion was made.
Mr. MORRISON: What about the Liverpool speech?
Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading my Liverpool speech, it will show him that I have laid no charge against teachers whatever, though I have laid certain charges against politicians, local and central, in regard to their influence on the teaching profession. I admit that I have dealt with all those four cases drastically on their merits and according to my poor judgment. I think it is due to the teaching profession, whose standards are so high, that a very high standard should be applied to the infinitesimal few who fail to live up to the true standard. I honestly and sincerely believe that, in what I have done in this case, I have done no more—and that is the basis on which I have tried to decide this case and to decide every other case—I have done no more than a professional court of honour of the teaching profession would have done if the matter had been in their hands.
Mr. SHEPHERD: I find it extremely difficult to intervene because up to a certain point I thoroughly agree with the view that the Minister has taken, for a teacher who singles out children for any fault of their parents is committing an indefensible action. I also consider that a teacher who would punish children in

1265
the way these children were punished has committed an indefensible action. I speak feelingly because I do not believe in corporal punishment. I never used it for at least ten years. Agreeing with the Minister so far it is difficult to intervene but it seems to me that this teacher is being very unduly punished. The local Court has very heavily fined the man. I do not know whether the local education authority dismissed him from his job. I feel that he should have been dismissed from his job. If I had the judging of an affair of this sort I should certainly consider that he ought to be dismissed, but a final and irrevocable discussion to take away his certificate seems absolute ruin for him and his wife and children. I think he has been punished three times over and that is not fair. If I were dealing with him professionally, I should say, "Perfectly right, what is done up to that point," but from the point of view of common humanity you have to consider how this judgment will be interpreted locally.
We can say here that there is no political bias, or that there is political bias, and we know how it will be interpreted up there and all over the country. No matter what we think ourselves, it is bound to be. If the position were reversed, if it were a Labour Minister who was doing it, we know perfectly well how those opposed to us politically would interpret it. I would not defend a teacher for such an offence. Since coming to this House I have been asked many times to intervene on half of teachers who have been guilty of corporal punishment; but I would not raise a single finger to help them. I hope for the day when corporal punishment will be abolished absolutely. But from the point of view of common humanity, I feel that the Minister has very unduly punished this man and his wife and children in taking his certificate from him.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I want to put in a plea for this man.
"To err is human, to forgive divine."
That is an apt quotation for the occasion. Whatever this man has done, the punishment is not going to fall on him alone. You are going to punish others who have had no part or lot in his offence. I had 22 years' honourable experience with the Durham County Council Education
1266
Authority, and this is the first time I ever heard of a case of the kind. So much for the good conduct of our teachers. The education authority is anxious, because this man is one of the best teachers we have. No man for a first error is ever punished as the Minister proposes to punish this man. There is a First Offenders Act operating in our Courts, but here is a man who, for a first offence, is to be deprived of his livelihood, whose wife and children are to be deprived of bread. May I plead with the Minister for a reconsideration of this matter. Surely he can trust the local education authority and the director of education to deal WILLI this man in some other way rather than in the drastic manner proposed. He can be dealt with in many other ways, as the Minister knows, and made to feel the effects of his mistake without taking away his livelihood. I plead with the Minister in the name of justice.
Mr. J. HUDSON: Like the previous speaker, I desire to address a few words to the Minister as an old teacher. I cannot entirely take the same ground as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd), although, like him, for more than 10 years as a teacher I never once had recourse to corporal punishment. But I realise that it is expected of teachers that they should inflict corporal punishment. The educational system of to-day stresses corporal punishment as something that must be maintained in the schools, and for that reason I cannot make my strictures against the schoolmaster in question so strong as those of the hon. Member for Darlington. He was working according to the general system in the schools. I make no excuse for his singling out of these children. I think his judgment was utterly bad, and that he was deserving of the gravest censure and penalty. Let us not forget, however, that the whole country was in a ferment, feeling was unnatural, and irritation existed: and, although it would be a great thing that all teachers should be absolutely apart from the irritations which moved the rest of the community, is it not too much to expect that there should not be here and there teachers to break away from the general rule? The Prime Minister suggested a wiser course than the Minister himself has taken in this case. The Prime Minister knew in his heart that many

1267
things had been done which could not be justified at that time; but he asked for forgetfulness and that we should look to the future and not dwell too much upon the past.
I submit to the Minister that if he insists on standing by his decision the feeling will go abroad that he is not willing that this matter of the past, with all its irritations, should be forgotten, and he is not improving the pure, undefiled spirit of education. He will give a suspicion, although he may not. intend it, that he has been worked upon in his own mind—I do not want to say more than this—by feelings that his own Prime Minister desired should be forgotten. He will give the suspicion that the political influence was there, even if he desired it might not be there; and I hope before this thing becomes irrevocable that he will again consider that, although he says he intends no penalty or moral stigma, he has, in days of great unemployment, removed from this man every decent chance of earning a living. It is a terribly hard punishment for his wife and children, and I submit that as the teachers of the land come to think about this they will not be intimidated by it—I know them better than that— but will feel there is injustice abroad in our educational system. Instead of improving the educational system, I fear the Noble Lord will have considerably weakened it.
Mr. PALING: The Noble Lord said that this House was not a very good tribunal, and I think that back of his mind was the fact that we are all more or less affected by political bias, and that that being so we should not be an impartial body to give an impartial judgment.
Lord E. PERCY: I did not say political bias, at all.
Mr. PALING: I would remind the Noble Lord that ho is himself a Member of this House and that, apparently, he has given his judgment. What applies
1268
in a general sense to the House must also apply to him, individually, from the political point of view. I do not want to cast any reflection upon him, and I admit, since he has put it, that he has a very strong case. I admit that straight away, and I am not prepared to say anything nasty against him from that point of view. But is there not any board or any person or persons of any description to whom complaints of this description can be taken, and who might be expected to give an impartial judgment, without any reflection being cast upon them as to political bias?
If there is not any intermediate board of that description, and the Noble Lord is the one to do it, then I suggest the statement he has made is a reason for again looking into this matter, and coming to some other decision if he can. I think he said there is no moral stigma attaching to this business. There may not be, but I think there is a doubt. The economic weapon is the weapon that is being used. I have had occasion time after time, as an official in a colliery, when people have done wrong and, perhaps, been sent to gaol or fined, and had to leave their jobs, for the time being, and there has been a disposition on the part of some owners to punish them in a second sense by taking away their jobs, I have always argued, when they have been fined or sent to prison they had paid the penalty, and it was not our business or the business of the owners to inflict a second one The Noble Lord may look at it from that point of view. He has put a very strong point of view that he has the children to look after, and I do not want to lose sight of that, but I appeal to him, if possible, to enable this man to work at his job—to give him another chance, if not in his own county.
Mr. R. S. HUDSON: What about the children in the other counties?
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S DETENTION).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S DETENTION).
  BESSARABIA.
  BESSARABIA.
  MALTA (TRADE UNION COUNCIL).
  MALTA (TRADE UNION COUNCIL).
  DIABETES (INSULIN).
  DIABETES (INSULIN).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOAN REPAYMENT).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOAN REPAYMENT).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
HOUSING.
  TIMBER CONSTRUCTION, LONDON.
  TIMBER CONSTRUCTION, LONDON.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  OVERTIME.
  OVERTIME.
  SURPLUS STORES, ETC., LIQUIDATION DEPARTMENT.
  SURPLUS STORES, ETC., LIQUIDATION DEPARTMENT.
  MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS (OVERSEAS VISITS).
  MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS (OVERSEAS VISITS).
  CLERKS, WRITING ASSISTANTS, SHORTHAND TYPISTS AND TYPISTS.
  CLERKS, WRITING ASSISTANTS, SHORTHAND TYPISTS AND TYPISTS.
  CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF PROBATE.
  CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF PROBATE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGES (VACANCIES FILLED).
  EXCHANGES (VACANCIES FILLED).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  BLAINA, ABERTILLERY, CRUMLIN.
  BLAINA, ABERTILLERY, CRUMLIN.
  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH) EXCHANGE.
  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH) EXCHANGE.
  INDUSTRIES (LABOUR REQUIREMENTS).
  INDUSTRIES (LABOUR REQUIREMENTS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (AMPUTATION).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (AMPUTATION).
  FEMALE DEPENDANTS.
  FEMALE DEPENDANTS.
  BROADCASTING RECEIVING LICENCES.
  BROADCASTING RECEIVING LICENCES.
  POST OFFICE, COLCHESTER.
  POST OFFICE, COLCHESTER.
SCOTLAND.
  AFFORESTATION (PERSONS EMPLOYED)
  AFFORESTATION (PERSONS EMPLOYED)
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  FIRE, BO'NESS.
  FIRE, BO'NESS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TRAINING, SANDHURST (NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
  TRAINING, SANDHURST (NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
CHINA.
  IMPORTED ARMS.
  IMPORTED ARMS.
  BRITISH TROOPS (CHINESE TERRITORY).
  BRITISH TROOPS (CHINESE TERRITORY).
  INDIAN TROOPS.
  INDIAN TROOPS.
INDIA.
  OPIUM CONSUMPTION.
  OPIUM CONSUMPTION.
  SOUTH AFRICA (ASIATICS).
  SOUTH AFRICA (ASIATICS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYéS (PENSIONS).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYéS (PENSIONS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS.
  TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS.
  AIRSHIP R.100 (GAS CONTAINERS).
  AIRSHIP R.100 (GAS CONTAINERS).
EDUCATION.
  ULTRA-VIOLET GLASS.
  ULTRA-VIOLET GLASS.
  ROSSINGTON, ARMTIIORPE, AND THORNE (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  ROSSINGTON, ARMTIIORPE, AND THORNE (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS AND GOVERNORS (WOMEN).
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS AND GOVERNORS (WOMEN).
  SLATE CLUBS (COMPLAINTS).
  SLATE CLUBS (COMPLAINTS).
  BETTING DUTY (PROSEOUTIONS)
  BETTING DUTY (PROSEOUTIONS)
  EMPIRE PRODUCE (CUSTOMS DUTY REBATE).
  EMPIRE PRODUCE (CUSTOMS DUTY REBATE).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  KEY INDUSTRY PRODUCTS.
  KEY INDUSTRY PRODUCTS.
  LEATHERETTE.
  LEATHERETTE.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).
  RUSSIA (ARCOS STEAMSHIP COMPANY).
  RUSSIA (ARCOS STEAMSHIP COMPANY).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
  GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the Clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

KENYA.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to the demand made by Lord Delamere and others for an elected European majority over all Parties in the Legislative Council of Kenya Colony and Protectorate; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now nearly two years since the last debate took place in this House upon Kenya Colony. Since that time affairs in the Colony have, on the whole, been quiescent, and in particular it is a source of satisfaction that what I may call the Indian problem has not of late been the cause of any special anxiety. It is, therefore, I hold, all the more to be regretted that in recent months a demand should have been put forward by Lord Delamere, and others, for an elected European majority in the Legislative Council of Kenya. I need scarcely say that this change, if it were made, would be one of the highest constitutional importance. It would practically amount to handing over the control of the Colony to the white population.
A manifesto urging this proposal for an elected majority was reported in The Times on December 29 last, and also I have a report of a speech of Lord Delamere made recently in the same sense at Nakuru. It may be said that what is asked for falls short of responsible self-government, for although there may be an elected European majority in the Legislative Council yet that majority cannot necessarily carry its measures, because the Colonial Office here at home would have the power of disallowance. AS your Lordships are aware, that power enables the Secretary of State in London to veto measures of which he docs not approve, even although in a Colony like Kenya those measures may have been passed by a majority of the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, I do not think that the practice of constant disallowance
134
could be continued for an indefinite period, and I am sure that if there were an elected European majority in Kenya measures would be passed which would frequently call for disallowance.
It is true that without an elected European majority disallowance in the past has been by no means unknown in Kenya, as I will show in the course of my remarks, but there is no doubt that given an elected majority in the Colony the need for disallowance would arise much more often, and disallowance would, in future, have to be by what is, in effect, direct veto. I submit, indeed, that a position would be created which would lead to the grant of responsible self-government for Kenya. In short this grant of an elected majority would be going much more than half-way towards self-government. Of course, Lord Delamere knows that perfectly well, as will be seen from the passage which I will read from the speech which he delivered at Nakuru. I will quote from the report of his speech:—
"As to possible criticisms of Kenya's demands for representative government, Lord Delamere stated that Southern Rhodesia was promised an elected majority when the Census showed that the white population was 14,000. He also anticipated deadlocks between the exercise of financial control by the Legislature and the Colonial Office, but declared that such deadlocks were a necessary corollary to the interim period before complete self-government.
"While expecting in the first instance the control of native policy to be exercised by the High Commissioner and on behalf of the Colonial Office, Lord Delamere urged that nothing be done now which would prevent Kenya in future having full control of all its subjects."
I shall have occasion to refer to this passage in a few moments. Meanwhile I will only remark that the prospect indicated by the words about deadlocks is not encouraging.
Happily, the historic White Paper of 1923, which laid down the policy of the Conservative Government of that year, that is, Mr. Baldwin's first Government, rejected in most deliberate and emphatic terms the idea of granting any form of self-government to Kenya within any period of time which need be taken into consideration. In view of this pronouncement there ought to be no question of the demand made by Lord Delamere being acceded to or encouraged. I should like, if I may, to read to your Lordships a few

135
words showing how clearly and unmistakably the position was laid down in 1923, not only in regard to self-government but also—and this is most important—in regard to such a demand as that for an elected majority, which is, of course, the demand now made.
What did the White Paper say? It said this:—
"His Majesty's Government cannot but regard the grant of responsible self-government as out of the question within any period of time which need now be taken into consideration. Nor, indeed, would they contemplate yet the possibility of substituting an unofficial majority in the Council for the Government official majority. Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the Constitution of the Colony can be entertained."
Those words, which gave the considered view of Mr. Baldwin's first Government, are most definite and they have been broadly confirmed by Mr. Baldwin's second Government, that is, the present Conservative Administration, because as recently as December 6 last Mr. Amery, in reply to a Question about Colonies not possessing responsible self-government, said among other things this:—
"… constitutional changes that have been made in the last few years have resulted in the grant of a considerable measure of representative institutions to several Colonies and it does not appear that at the moment there is any instance in which a further extension of such institutions is desirable."
These words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies are themselves an answer to this demand made by the Delamere Party in Kenya.
I think I have made it quite clear that the weighty pronouncement in the White Paper completely rejects for a very long time any idea of self-government, and it is scarcely less emphatic with regard to the possibility of substituting an unofficial majority in the Legislative Council for the Government official majority—and that, of course, is what the Delamere Party's proposal comes to. The most that the White Paper says in regard to that is this:—
"Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the Constitution of the Colony can be entertained."
136
It will be seen that the condition is that we must wait to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation. But what is the position about that? No step whatever has been taken regarding a native franchise for the Legislative Council and no African has been nominated for the Legislative Council, but even if some advance in these ways had been made the White Paper does not promise an unofficial majority; all it says is that it will be necessary to see how matters develop before proposals for so fundamental a change can be entertained.
And in addition to that, the paragraph begins with the words:—
"Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated …"
Yet within only three years of that ruling, and with no advance whatever towards a native franchise, we have this demand put forward by Lord Delamere and others supporting him in Kenya. I gather from the speech made by Lord Delamere at Nakuru, from which I read a quotation, that in part he bases his demand for Kenya upon what has happened in Southern Rhodesia. With your Lordships' permission I should like to look at that because it is a matter which I think merits careful consideration, and I will proceed to show that the two cases are not analogous. I will take first the populations. The number of whites in Kenya is put at about 12,500. I think that is probably placing it quite high enough. That includes, I believe, some hundreds of Government officials. It includes also any visitors who happened to be in the Colony on the day when the Census was taken, and a good many visitors are at times in the Colony. However, put it at 12,500. That has to go against a white population in Southern Rhodesia, according to the last figures which I have, the Census of 1921, of 33,621. Then take the number of Indians In Kenya, I believe, it is 26,750 and in Southern Rhodesia probably about 1,500. Then take the native population. The native population of Kenya is about 2,500,000, and the native population of Southern Rhodesia is about 800,000. Therefore it comes to this, that the number of whites in Kenya is only about one-third as many as in Southern Rhodesia, the number of Indians is about twenty times as many as in Southern Rhodesia, and the native population of Kenya is

137
about three times as large as the native population of Southern Rhodesia.
Judged, then, by all relevant population tests at the present time the position of Southern Rhodesia is widely different from that of Kenya. The proportion of whites to natives is much greater in Southern Rhodesia than in Kenya, and the number of Indians in Kenya is immensely larger than in Southern Rhodesia. Since 1923 Southern Rhodesia has had self-government, and in the speech which I quoted a few moments ago Lord Delamere said that when Southern Rhodesia was promised an elected majority the white population was 14,000. Let me look at that. In the first place, I should make it clear that Southern Rhodesia was under the British South Africa Company right up to 1923, I think, when self-government began to operate. Next, according to my researches, in order to find the period when the white population of Southern Rhodesia was only 14,000 it is necessary to go back as far as 1907. However, though Southern Rhodesia was under the British South Africa Company, it had a Legislative Council and it was, I think, in 1907 that the elected members of the Council were given a majority, but I believe it was 1911 before that was ratified by Order in Council. By the time 1911 was reached the white population in Southern Rhodesia was about 23,000. Moreover, as Southern Rhodesia was under the British South Africa Company, the case is not really analogous to that of Kenya.
Let me pursue for a moment the numerical comparisons. In 1907, when the white population of Southern Rhodesia was 14,000, the native population was about 700,000, whereas in Kenya to-day the white population of 12,500 has to be put against a native population of about 2,500,000. Even as long ago as 1907 the proportion of whites to natives was much higher in Southern Rhodesia than it is in Kenya to-day. It is also important to consider that our Colonial policy has changed since 1907. At that time the rights of the natives were not given nearly as much consideration as they are, I am glad to think, given to-day. In the intervening years the outlook has altered very greatly, the moral conscience is more aroused, conceptions of responsibility have advanced, and it does not in the least follow that what
138
was done in 1907 would be done now; in fact it would not be done now. In those far-off days there was no White Paper with its charter of trusteeship for the natives. All this is very relevant to the question at issue. I think it goes to invalidate Lord Delamere's suggested analogy.
Moreover, there is another important point of view. Let me look at the Indian problem. The number of Indians in Southern Rhodesia has always been less than in Kenya. In 1907 there were practically no Indians and even to-day, I think, there are only about 1,500 against 26,750 in Kenya. I submit that this demand of Lord Delamere's ought to be rejected on the ground of the Indian problem alone and quite apart from anything else. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that this question of Indians in Kenya has been one of great difficulty and anxiety in the past and that not so very long ago the problem seemed to be almost insoluble. Fortunately, however, owing to its wise and tactful handling, particularly by my right hon. friend Mr. J. H. Thomas when the Labour Government was in office, the various matters at issue were gradually composed. As a result the Indian problem has now for a year or two been quiescent, or relatively so, but if the various compromises which have been reached are to be departed from—and you can scarcely have a greater departure than that which is proposed in this demand of Lord Delamere's—I am afraid the effect so far as the Indian problem is concerned will be highly injurious. The good work which has been done would be undone; in fact, any kind of encouragement by the Colonial Office to the demand of the Delamere Party might easily have very harmful consequences. It Would be a wanton thing to upset the comparative peace as regards Indian matters in Kenya which has at last been reached after such arduous and persistent efforts.
I come next to a point of great importance, which is in itself, I think, sufficient and final. It has to do with the question of the franchise. In Southern Rhodesia there are equal franchise laws. There is no bar of race or colour. All the inhabitants of that country, whoever they are, British, Indians or natives, who can qualify for the franchise, are entitled to it by law. Do the Delamere Party propose that for

139
Kenya? Nothing of the kind. There is no equal franchise in Kenya, no Indian and no native can vote with or for Europeans for the Legislative Council. I do not think I am misrepresenting Lord Delamere and his friends when I say that they are absolutely opposed to anything of the kind. Yet in Kenya there are 26,750 Indians as against some 12,500 whites and 2,500,000 natives. I say the more this demand is examined the more extraordinary it becomes. There is to be no equal franchise and the demand of Lord Delamere really becomes one for handing over Kenya Colony to a small privileged class. That is what it comes to. I am myself unable to recall any case in our Colonial history in which an elected European majority has been granted in such circumstances.
There is another point of substance which differentiates Southern Rhodesia from Kenya. Southern Rhodesia is contiguous to the Union of South Africa and the Union of South Africa has complete Dominion self-government. Southern Rhodesia, therefore, is in an area where self-government is predominant; it is, in fact, the chief form of government. How absolutely different is the position of Kenya! So far from it being in an area where self-government is the chief form of government, where self-government is almost the rule, there is nothing of the sort to be found for thousands of miles, and to give Kenya self-government—and that is what really this demand for an elective European majority is intended to lead to and would soon lead to—would be to make an exception of Kenya amongst the vast territories of our African Dependencies. What are those Dependencies? Apart from Kenya; they are Uganda, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Zanzibar. To give Kenya self-government, or partial self-government, would be to create in one of our East African Dependencies a system of government not really capable of being extended to our other territories in that part of the world. I submit that on such grounds alone this demand of Lord Delamere's ought not to be acceded to. I think it becomes abundantly clear that the suggested analogy with Southern Rhodesia breaks down again here.
I pass now to another consideration and it is this—whether Kenya can, in
140
the usual sense of the word, be regarded as a white man's country. It is only in the highlands, speaking broadly, that the white population can live and the altitude of those districts is in many places so great that the effect upon the health and nerves, especially of the women, is such that it is by no means wholly good. But leaving aside health considerations, it would seem that the vast majority of white settlers in Kenya require a certain amount of money if they are to live there successfully. Therefore, taking everything into account, I submit it is the case that the conditions in Kenya are not such as to make it a white man's country in the sense in which our Dominions are. If that is so, and I do not think it can be denied, that it is an additional strong reason for not handing over the control of the country to a small white population which must always remain numerically insignificant in relation to the total inhabitants of the country.
Even if things were different from what they are, even if these considerations which I am advancing did not apply—and I think they do apply and abundantly—I say this demand ought to be rejected because of the past record of Lord Delamere and his friends in relation to the inhabitants of Kenya. That record is not such as to inspire confidence as to impartiality and fair-dealing between man and man. Attempts have again and again been made to pass legislation which would have been strongly resented by the Indians and by the natives. If it had not been that the Colonial Office has repeatedly stepped in to stop them being carried, measures would have been passed which it seems impossible to defend from the point of view of fair and equitable treatment for the Indians or the natives. In addition to that measures which would have been of benefit to the natives have been successfully obstructed.
Let me give some instances to illustrate what I have been saying. Clauses, allowing for segregation of races, in a Public Health Bill, were passed by the Kenya Legislative Council with two dissentients, but disallowed by the Secretary of State and deleted from the Bill by the use of the Government majority. Next, a Government Motion to segregate Indians in Nairobi was passed by the Legislative Council with one dissentient, but negatived by the Cabinet findings in the

141
Kenya White Paper of 1923. A clause in an Income Tax Bill gave Lord Delamere an opportunity to move an Amendment, which was carried, that all commercial accounts should be kept in English. What would have been the effect of that? It would have closed down all roadside trade by Indians with natives. This was disallowed by the Secretary of State and deleted by the official majority.
An act of administration, based on Motions in Council, for halving the value of the cental coins of the country was approved with one dissentient in the Legislative Council. This was first approved, but a few days later was disallowed by the Secretary of State. A Bill to raise the duty on imported wheat from 10 to 50 per cent. ad valorem and on wheat flour from 10 to 100 per cent. was disallowed by the Secretary of State—who was, at that time, Mr. Winston Churchill—but he did allow elevation to 30 per cent. and that was effected by the official majority. A Bill to allow the principal medical officer to license approved Indian sub-assistant surgeons of meritorious service to practice in the Colony after retirement from the Service was wrecked by an Amendment by Lord Delamere substituting the word "European" for the word "person." This was rectified by the official majority acting on the Secretary of State's orders. There are two further instances I would give. A Land Tax Bill, during its passage through the Legislative Council, appeared to discriminate in favour of old established settlers against new settlers and provided for assessment for tax by local boards, to all of which the Secretary of State objected. This was thrown out by his orders. Finally, a proposal by the Government for a measure of employers' liability was obstructed and withdrawn.
Leaving aside these instances—I have not time to develop them and all they imply—I submit that the Colonial Office ought not to hand over its responsibilities in connection with the fundamental problems of the land and the reserves and the general question of natives and the supply of labour. The past record of events regarding these various matters makes it most desirable that in the interests of the trusteeship of the natives, so clearly laid down in the
142
White Paper, control of the Colony should not be taken out of the hands of the Colonial Office. In view of certain words in the White Paper—they are very few—I do not see how the Colonial Office can contemplate doing that.
There are two passages on page 10 of the White Paper which make this quite clear. The first passage is this—
"But in the administration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races."
The second quotation is this:—
"As in the Uganda Protectorate, so in the Kenya Colony, the principle of trusteeship for the natives, no less than in the mandated territory of Tanganyika, is unassailable. This paramount duty of trusteeship will continue, as in the past, to be carried out under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the agents of the Imperial Government, and by them alone."
In view of these words I think there ought to be no question of the Colonial Office yielding up any of its responsibilities.
I have pointed out that Lord Delamere himself expects deadlocks in what he calls the interim period of this elected majority. Moreover, in view of all the circumstances and certain past happenings it seems clear that to yield to this demand for an elected majority would be simply to invite trouble. Certain events in the past give rise to grave doubts whether Lord Delamere and his friends would be prepared readily to acquiesce if their wishes were denied by the Colonial Office. I would like, on this point, to call attention to what happened in the Colony in 1922 and 1923. About that time there seemed to be certain indications of a probability that the Colonial Office might be giving favourable consideration to a scheme for granting the Indian community in Kenya some elected representation. At once the white settlers in Kenya, or many of them, were up in arms and meetings of protest were held in various parts of the country. At many of these meetings resolutions were passed indicating a hostile attitude.
At Nakuru, at a large district meeting at which Lord Delamere himself was present, resolutions were passed which I should like to read to your Lordships. The report of the meeting says they were

143
passed unanimously. These are the resolutions:—
"That in the event of the Government of this Colony acceding to the political claims made by the Indian community, the White community will take such action as they may consider proper and necessary to prevent any legislation with that object from taking practical effect.
"That any action to be taken shall be such as to solve decisively the Indian problem in this Colony, shall be complete in its nature and effect, and shall, by its thoroughness, indicate in the clearest manner, not only that the White Community declines to be made a pawn in the game of Indian politics, but that in their internal politics they refuse to be dictated to and over-ridden in their opinions by those at home, who are obviously ignorant of, or indifferent to, all local conditions.
"That such action as may be taken shall be of a persuasive character as far as possible, physical pressure only being resorted to in so far as it may be required, to show that the persuasion being exercised is intended to be acted upon.
"That for the effective carrying out of the intentions of the White community of this district as expressed in the preceding resolutions, a committee consisting of one representative from each sub-district be appointed to consider and formulate details of a programme designed to effect those intentions, and to co-operate with similar committees representing other districts of the Colony.
"That the White community of this district bind themselves to support the Central Committee in any steps that they may consider necessary, and to carry out or to assist in carrying out, any instructions issued by them with the object of effectively accomplishing any programme they may adopt."
The report of this meeting says that a resolution was also passed protesting against the appointment of the Hon. W. G. A. Ormsby-Gore as Under-Secretary for the Colonies. There is much that might be said about those remarkable resolutions and about the words "physical pressure," but I must pass on. I think I have said enough to show that the events of 1923 do not foreshadow a pleasant state of things if there came a real clash between the Colonial Office and some of the white settlers in Kenya.
In conclusion I should like to look at the matter a little more generally. Your Lordships may ask: How is it that this demand has been put forward, seeing that any extension of self-government was so definitely vetoed as recently as 1923? How is it that in these circumstances
144
the Delamere Party even makes an attempt to get that decision reversed? I will try to answer that question. In my view the explanation is to be found in two circumstances: first in the fact that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Amery, has already in his brief term of office given way to Lord Delamere and his friends in one or two vital matters, and they seem to think that there is no limit to what they can get if they press hard enough; and the second circumstance, as I regard it, is that one of the impelling motives behind this agitation is the expectation, held not only in this country but abroad, that before long the present Conservative Administration will be replaced by a Labour Government, and the Delamere Party know perfectly well that what they are now pressing for will not for a moment be sanctioned by a Labour Government and accordingly they say that they had better do all they can now, while there is still time.
I have pointed out that Mr. Amery has already given way to Lord Delamere and others on one or two vital matters, and in that connection I wish particularly to refer to the question of conscription in Kenya—the Bill for the Defence Force, as it is called. It is a Conscription Bill. This demand for conscription in Kenya has been made by Lord Delamere and others for a very long time, but, it has been left to the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Amery, to give the proposal, in effect, his sanction. It is true that the Bill has not yet passed, and I am glad to note that there has been a great deal of opposition to it amongst certain sections of the white population in Kenya. But Mr. Amery, in fact, sanctioned it in advance, and the proposal has also been supported by Sir Edward Grigg, the Governor of the Colony. I do not intend to discuss this question of conscription in Kenya, though there is a great deal that might be said about it, and, if I did, I should have no difficulty in showing that there is no necessity for such a measure, and further that there are weighty objections against anything of the kind. I will merely say that Mr. Amery has taken upon himself a grave responsibility in going as far as he has gone.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word regarding the Governor of the

145
Colony, Sir Edward Grigg, to whom I have already referred and who, I understand, is on his way home. I should like to ask the Government a few questions. What is the Governor's attitude in relation to this demand for an elected European majority? Is he coming home to support that demand? Nay, more, is he coming home to press that demand? I have a report of a speech made by the Governor, I think on November 30 last, in which he refers to a resolution that he had received from the Convention of Associations urging that the time had come for a further step to be taken towards self government in Kenya. He goes on to say that he understands that this view is widely shared and adds that it has his instinctive sympathy. I confess that I am surprised that the Governor should say this, having regard to all the circumstances and to the emphatic pronouncement in the White Paper of 1923. It is true that the Governor goes on in his speech, as well he may, to suggest that difficulties stand in the way, but that does not alter the fact that he used the words that I have quoted. This speech of Sir Edward Grigg is on record and no doubt they have it at the Colonial Office. I should like to know if he is coming to press this demand, made by the Delamere Party? I think that is a perfectly fair question, and I shall appreciate it if the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, can tell us quite definitely where Sir Edward Grigg does stand in this matter.
At the same time, although I ask for that information, let me put matters in their true perspective. I submit that the views of the Governor, whatever they may be, do not affect the fundamental facts of the situation. All the relevant facts and considerations are already known to the Colonial Office and have been known to the Colonial Office for a very long time. Accordingly, although the views of the Governor will no doubt be listened to with interest and with respect, they cannot really throw any new light of any importance upon the problem and they cannot provide any ground for altering the policy that has been laid down in the White Paper. There is nothing of any importance about Kenya which the Governor, who, after all, has been there only a short time, will be able, for instance, to tell Mr. Ormsby-Gore which Mr. Ormsby-Gore
146
does not know already. Mr. Ormsby-Gore has been to Kenya. He was there not long ago and, in conjunction with his colleagues on the East African Commission, he has written a long and exhaustive Report about East African matters, including Kenya. I do not say that I agree with all that is in that Report, but no one can deny that it shows great knowledge of the various problems. Having regard to all these considerations, it really will not do for anybody to suggest that the views of the Governor are of any vital import. However, with the object of elucidating the position, I should be glad—this is in respect of my Motion for Papers—if the noble Earl will be good enough to undertake to lay upon the Table any correspondence between Sir Edward Grigg and the Colonial Office regarding any change in the direction of self-government for Kenya. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, the demand that has been put forward by Lord Delamere and to which Lord Arnold has referred in the course of his remarks, is contained, as I think he is probably aware, in an Election manifesto. I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset of what I have to say in reply to the noble Lord that this manifesto of Lord Delamere is an absolutely unofficial document and that Lord Delamere in issuing it—as your Lordships are aware, Lord Delamere is a member not only of the Executive but also of the Legislative Assembly—has done so entirely upon his own responsibility and as a free agent. The Secretary of State, Mr. Amery, has no information whatever as to the support that Lord Delamere's proposals have met with, or are likely to meet with, in the Colony of Kenya, beyond, of course, the newspaper reports that have reached this country and have been seen by all concerned.
The Governor, Sir Edward Grigg, is at the present time in Europe. I believe that he is at this moment on his way to Switzerland for a very short holiday, and I am given to understand that he will reach this country in about ten days' or a fortnight's time, and when he does arrive there is very little doubt that he will have a certain amount to say to the Secretary of State for the Colomes in so far as political development in Kenya is concerned. The noble Lord asked me

147
a question just now, in the course of his remarks, as to what Sir Edward Grigg's attitude was in regard to Lord Delamere's proposals. I am afraid I cannot really answer that question because we have no information at the present moment officially from Sir Edward Grigg as to what his attitude is. When he comes here he will very likely put forward proposals which may or may not involve a change in the Constitution of Kenya. If he does put forward such proposals they will, of course, receive the most earnest and careful consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and his advisers.
Let me make this further point in regard to any proposals that Sir Edward Grigg may have to make in regard to any change in the Constitution of Kenya Colony. If he does put forward such proposals, they will naturally require not only earnest and careful consideration, but consideration which will probably extend over a fairly protracted period and, further, if these proposals do involve any change in the Constitution, it will, as Lord Arnold has rightly pointed out, affect the terms on which the whole Indian question was settled in 1923. If that position does arise it will be obviously a matter for a Cabinet decision. In the circumstances which I have explained to your Lordships the only statement which I can make at this moment on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that they adhere to the principles as laid down in the White Paper, to which the noble Lord has referred and which is known as the Kenya White Paper of 1923. In view of what I have said, and in view of the fact that Lord Arnold has made a Motion for Papers, I hope that, as there is no information at this moment to give him, he will not press that Motion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has drawn attention, in his very careful and lucid speech, is one of far-reaching interest, extending far beyond the mere question of Kenya and its life. It is not at all unnatural that he and many others should wish that subject to be again discussed at the present time. Nearly two years have elapsed since there was an important debate in this House upon the matter, and it is not unnatural that at this moment we should have a further discussion
148
about it. But it would be futile and foolish were we to ignore the fact that a discussion like this—if I may say so with respect—especially a speech like that of the noble Lord, must inevitably, whether it is justifiable or not, be fraught with an element of danger, if not of mischief, in Kenya itself. Kenya and its settlers have, as it has always seemed to me, in very difficult circumstances had rather more than their share of a kind of limelight exposure on all that they do and say and of criticism of action on their part without recognition on the part of the critics of the difficulties of their situation or their public spirit.
I would like to emphasise the public spirit, which many of the leaders have shown throughout, as patriotic citizens and as settlers and citizens in that region, together with a great desire for its welfare and at the same time an intention that the progress of the Colony should be profitable to themselves. That is perfectly right as they are developing their properties on a great scale. It has been done, we must, all admit, with a very great deal of public spirit. Further, there is a sense on the part of those in Kenya—of course it does not apply at all to the noble Lord—that many of those who criticise them are really incapable of weighing all these questions, owing to lack of that information for which we are all waiting, and which to some extent they have but which most of us in this country do not possess. Nobody desires more than I do that the administration in Kenya and the British population there should work in complete harmony. It would be a happy condition of things if for a time they were free from a criticism in England which, if not unfair, is often very ill-informed and therefore indirectly, though not intentionally, unfair. I admit of course, as the noble Lord has pointed out to-night, that some of those who are leaders among the settlers in Kenya have said and done things just now and before this which, however excellent their intentions may be, are certainly fraught with a very considerable risk of arousing suspicion here at home. Among these not least is the revival of a proposal, not made now for the first time but which has again received forcible expression from Lord Delamere, that the British population in Kenya should be granted

149
an unofficial majority in the Legislative Council.
I have noted how the noble Lord called attention to the exceedingly important fact that that speech of Lord Delamere was remarked and commented on by the Governor himself. If I may say so, I do not think the quotation we have heard is altogether a fair one because the noble Lord did not complete it. Sir Edward Grigg's speech to my mind mentions what has been put forward and then proceeds to show, in a very emphatic way, how great the difficulties would be. The noble Lord referred to it, but there are two ways of doing it. It was really to this effect: "It is not that I am not in sympathy with self-government, it is rather my instinctive sympathy with self-government that makes me realise how difficult it is." I will read his words:—
"I have recently received a resolution from the Convention of Associations urging that the time has come when a further step may be taken towards self-government in this Colony. I understand that that view is widely shared and that I may, in the near future, receive representations from other sources to the same effect. Well, gentlemen, that has my instinctive sympathy."
"Instinctive sympathy with self-government"—that is not an unnatural thing for anyone to say—
"But if I am to do my duty by you, if I am to do any true service to the Colony, I think I am bound to tell you that difficulties stand in the way, in order that all of you who hold those views may realise what you have to face. I am not helping you or doing you any service unless I present the facts to you without equivocation. You will realise that the difficulties are considerable. If you read the statement by the late Secretary of State (Mr. Thomas), which was printed in this morning's paper, that statement illustrates the suspicions regarding this Colony which are very widespread although entirely unfounded."
The tone and gist of that speech are very different from what I had gathered from the quotation given by the noble Lord.
I admit the importance of that having been said by him and I realise the difficulties of our situation. Any demand from men who occupy the position of leaders amongst the settlers in Kenya is of very great importance, and is entitled to consideration from all who realise what have been the efforts made, and
150
what has been the work done, by many of those settlers, on behalf of Kenya Colony. Of course that work has been profitable to the settlers themselves, but it is certainly profitable to the Colony too, and I think that while we give full attention to it we have to realise that the kind of statement which Lord Delamere is said to have put forward—I do not know the completeness of all he said—is fraught with immense danger if we are to take it as something now in process of being accomplished. Any premature advance from Crown Colony Government towards what may be called representative government is always fraught with a great deal of peril. Any student of Colonial history will remember, to take an extreme instance, what happened in Jamaica, what terrible troubles there were for years and years, owing to what now seems to us all to have been a premature endeavour to give representative government before the Colony was ready for it.
Undoubtedly in Kenya the difficulties are enormous, as Sir Edward Grigg says, and as no doubt he will be ready to say again to His Majesty's Government when he comes to England. In the first place, it is proposed to give a majority in the Council to settlers very many of whom have only been a very short time in the Colony. Much the larger proportion of them, I think I may say, have come into the Colony since the War, and they really are not people who have yet acquired a claim to be citizens of the country in the sense that it enables them to judge of the whole position and to be wise deciders of what its policy ought to be. In the next place it is possible to reflect that they do not speak without bias, because such problems as labour problems which may have to be faced by the Government are problems on which they cannot possibly be unbiased. Further, I would say, supporting what was said by the noble Lord, that the forecasting of such a change as this comes at a time which I venture to think is singularly inopportune. A plan has at all events been ventilated, if nothing yet has been done, for federating, or bringing into some union of action, all the various Colonies and States, mandated territories, Protectorates, and so forth in Africa. It would be quite impossible to take one of those Colonies and change its Constitution, and at the same time to go forward with the consideration

151
of how it is possible for them to work together. You might give one a Constitution quite inapplicable to some of the others, and, I think, possibly inapplicable to itself.
An important point which must be remembered is that this proposal synchronises rather unfortunately with the suggestions, if we call them no more, in favour of a conscripted force, additional to the King's African Rifles. It is not a very happy combination, to ask for an elected majority at the same time that they ask for a greater military force to be placed under their control. There is the further difficulty that we have the complications of the Indian question running across Kenya politics, and that is a question which cannot possibly be left out of consideration. The main importance of all is the fact to which the noble Lord has called perfectly clear and fair attention—namely, that any definite action for changing the Constitution in the way proposed would be running definitely counter to the Duke of Devonshire's Memorandum of 1923, which is as follows:—
"His Majesty's Government cannot but regard the grant of responsible self-government as out of the question within any period of time which need now be taken into consideration. Nor, indeed, would they contemplate yet the possibility of substituting an unofficial majority in the Council for the Government official majority. Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the Constitution of the Colony can be entertained."
That was said only a very few years ago, and it is important, for it seems to me that the proposals which are now made do directly contravene what we had taken to be an established principle, which had been laid down and which would be followed and acted upon.
But I think it would be a great pity, to say the least, if we were simply to try to bang the door and turn down a proposition made by men so responsible as some of those who have spoken on behalf of the settlers in East Africa. If we were merely to take a negative attitude, and to give merely a negative reply, I think we should be missing what we ought to be aiming at, and what we are entitled to look to. The real danger, I think, in East Africa at this moment, is not so much the conflict of ideals
152
between one section and another as a common lack of detailed and adequate knowledge of what are the facts; and I cannot forget that in the debate which took place two years ago the Lord President of the Council, the Earl of Balfour, made a speech in which he gave us all immense encouragement to believe that money was to be spent upon, and efforts devoted to, the development of completer knowledge of the facts in Kenya and the adjoining Provinces and Protectorates, far beyond anything which we possess at present.
If I am not mistaken it has been definitely settled that a portion of the £10,000,000 loan sanctioned for Kenya, although primarily intended for transport, may be devoted to the acquisition and development of more local knowledge than we now possess. I should find myself out of my depth if I tried to deal with financial problems, but the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, did promise that money should be found, if it were possible to find it, out of that £10,000,000 loan, for this kind of investigation. I believe at this moment we need it exceedingly, and that that kind of knowledge is lacking to a degree which is lamentable when we are trying to deal with such a subject. You cannot get accurate statistics. At this moment we have conflicting and even contradictory statements from those whom we should expect to be able to trust with regard to such questions as to the number of the native population in the reserves, as to the availableness of the native population, and how far they are being taken away from their own work if they are taken to work elsewhere, and so on. We want that information, not from the settler, or from the opponents of the settler, but from impartial, centrally organised inquiry, such as I think I may say we were definitely promised some little time ago.
When, a little later than that, what is known as the Schuster Committee made its Report it said:
"We further strongly recommend that a liberal contribution to research work affecting the development of such countries as the East African Dependencies should be approved as a suitable object for the application of some part of the funds [at the disposal of the Empire Marketing Committee]. The knowledge which will be gained from scientific research, properly directed, must inevitably be one of the most important factors on which the full realisation

153
of these potentialities will be dependent."
In his speech on the occasion I referred to the noble Earl behind me referred to the tsetse fly question. That is not a mere question of natural history, but it affects the whole question of policy that may be followed with regard to the development or non-development of particular areas. But the moment we endeavour to investigate that with any thoroughness we find that we lack local knowledge of an adequate sort, impartially acquired. I hope that we shall be told—as we have not been told to-night—that that inquiry is going to go on—an inquiry not merely of a general kind but carried out locally. Much depends upon it. The facts at present are hazy and even contradictory, and we want to know a great deal more than at present we know about it. If I understand it aright—but here I speak under correction—the allocation of that money is in the hands now of a Treasury Committee. What is happening? Is it being used for getting for us the sort of information which would make all the difference to our capacity for handling problems of extreme difficulty?
I am very largely in sympathy with much that the noble Lord said in introducing the subject. I ant very glad that it should be again debated, and I shall be intensely anxious, when the Governor comes home, that the opportunity should be taken of letting us all know what additional knowledge is being put in our hands from impartial or official sources, which will really tell us fairly what are the facts of the problem with which we have to deal, and whether money is adequately being expended in obtaining that information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I was not aware that the most rev. Primate was going to raise this aspect of the African question on the present occasion. I think it is not only an important aspect of it, I think it is the most important aspect of it, and, if I may speak for myself, I should say that the most rev. Primate has done us a great service this afternoon in indicating that the problem before our Colonies in Africa is not merely a constitutional problem, it is not merely a question of how you
154
shall distribute the powers of government as between the Home Government and the Colony itself, or between different sections of the population in that Colony. The constitutional question is undoubtedly of great importance, and I need say nothing about that, because it has been adequately dealt with, as far as it can be dealt with at the present moment, by my noble friend Lord Clarendon. But that was the only point touched on by the noble Lord who initiated this debate, and he was quite within his right limiting the point on which he wanted to ask for information. I should not have risen to speak had it not been for the appeal, the unexpected appeal, made to me by the most rev. Primate.
I do not think we can adequately discuss that this afternoon. I should be sorry to attempt, without notice, to deal with such aspects of it as may be supposed to fall within the limits of my office, but if either the most rev. Primate or any other noble Lord cares in the future to ask any Question about what has been done, or is being done, with regard to those aspects of the question which were not raised by the noble Lord, but which were raised by the most rev. Primate, I should be very glad to give an answer—not, of course, an answer covering the whole ground, because these investigations are in course of being pursued and it is impossible to say what the result will be; but if noble Lords desire to have information as to how far we have been using the machinery for civil research with regard to this most important group of questions I shall, of course, be glad to give them any information I can. I am not sure that it would not be desirable to put any such Question off for some time because work is now being done, and the longer the Question is put off the more full any answer that I can give would be.
I think that the most rev. Primate has done a great service to this debate in saying that you cannot deal with these African problems from the point of view of constitutional flowers alone, or, I would almost say, even chiefly. It is a most complex question, involving race problems, constitutional problems, agricultural problems, scientific problems, anthropological problems, the question of native population and native diseases,

155
and the whole complex of problems which do not meet us in the same form in Europe, and have never been really studied in previous times, probably because the position of science in these investigations has never been fully appreciated before. The position of science is gradually being appreciated. Scientific research unfortunately is necessarily slow in its operation. It is not the less important on that account. But I shall be very glad whenever any noble Lord chooses to ask me what has been attempted, and possibly, in a more modest degree, what we hope to attempt in the future. I only rose to say that the most rev. Primate has opened quite a new field untouched by the Question put by the noble Lord, a field which, I venture to suggest, had better be discussed on another occasion.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the most rev. Primate was a little critical of certain things which I said. I really had no intention whatever of misrepresenting the Governor. I thought I had made it clear that I had to inflict on your Lordships several quotations, and that I did not wish to make them too long. That is the only reason why I did not read the remainder of the passage. The most rev. Primate, while critical up to a point in two or three particulars, did give support to the view that the White Paper should not be departed from, and I think that expression of opinion, coming from him, is important.
The noble Earl who has just spoken has called attention to the fact that it is not very easy to discuss this question of constitutional change without reference to other subjects. I entirely agree, and there are many tempting by-paths down which I should very much like to have strayed, but I felt I was already making a sufficient demand on your Lordships' time and patience, and that it was better to confine myself, as far as I could, to the one point.
156
With regard to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, I did not find the earlier part of his reply very satisfactory, because he told us that the Government had no official news as to what the Governor's opinions were. I confess I am a little surprised by that, because this demand has not merely been made by Lord Delamere, as the noble Earl said, but I think the manifesto is signed by six other elected members of the Legislature Council, and therefore it becomes a very important political event. I admit that I am astonished to find that apparently the Governor has not in any way communicated with the Colonial Office about it, although this happened as long ago as December. We are also told that there is no correspondence to lay on the Table. If there is no correspondence to lay then it is quite useless for me to press the Motion that correspondence should be laid. When the noble Earl came to the concluding part of his speech I was very pleased to find something which gave to me personally great satisfaction. In his concluding words the noble Earl said that His Majesty's Government adhered to the principles laid down in the White Paper. That is satisfactory and I am glad indeed to have elicited that declaration, because its implications are sufficient and final. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COQUETDALE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER. 1927.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Rothbury and parts of the rural districts of Alnwick and Rothbury, in the County of Northumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.